Judy Taylor wrote:
To me it seems pretty logical that if God revealed his secrets to prophets in Bible times, he would continue doing so afterwards.....even unto this day. I have heard that some Christians believe the heavens are sealed though.....do you believe such?jt: No I don't and I'd like to point out that God is not bound by logic....
DAVEH: It almost seems as though you are suggesting God can be illogical....jt: Just because I make a statement doesn't mean that I am implying the opposite is true either.but you've still not come up with any incomprehensible mystery and what is revealed is for us and for our children
DAVEH: I'm still working on the easy one......viz., the thief going to paradise. :-) If you want to get into some deeper stuff, we can revisit the garden of eden.....jt: Nothing deeper about Eden, you either believe it as it is written or you don't.DAVEH: Hmmmmmm.......I thought my explanation of paradise qualifies as a 'mystery solved'. Or perhaps instead of it being a mystery, it was just a misunderstanding of how a specific passage of Scripture should be interpreted.
jt: You didn't ADD anything DaveH - the thief was still in Paradise with Jesus that same day dry as a bone, I don't recall anyone saying they had to ascend the same day or that Paradise and Heaven are the same.
... God still hides things from folk who think themselves wise and prudent and reveals them to babes...
DAVEH: I agree. I fully understand it, and can support my belief from the Bible alone. I'm am awaiting somebody with a contrasting understanding to explain it differently using the events recorded in Scripture.jt: the above is not true, you can't support your belief from the Bible alone because you don't understand it and for you scripture does not interpret scripture. You have added spurious material to your consciousness.
DAVEH: I don't view the thief/paradise deal was hidden by God. IMO.....He plainly revealed it in the Bible, but it became a mystery to those who made assumptions based on other passages that were mysteries.
jt: What are you talking about? Jesus went to Paradise before he ascended
DAVEH: Hmmmmm........then you agree.......paradise is not in heaven? Perhaps I misunderstood you before. (I thought you implied baptism was not a necessary component of salvation, and used the thief argument as evidence of your belief.)jt: We have no evidence that the thief was ever baptised no matter where Paradise is located....and when he did ascend he took all the ppl in Paradise with him - those in Abraham's bosom that is.
DAVEH: LDS theology teaches we were all created by God as spirit children in heaven, which includes you, me, Jesus and Lucifer. Lucifer rebelled and became our "personal adversarys". <snip>DAVEH: That's part of it......But not the whole story. The Bible teaches much more, but it has been suppressed to make a 'simpler' theology work for many more people.
jt: LDS theology is not part of anything I've ever read in all of the Bible and is not part of the story at all so far as I'm concerned. Adam was not created as a spirit child in heaven.
dh: While baptism in itself will not save anybody, I firmly believe without baptism, one cannot be saved. (Mk 16:16 and Jn 3:5)
jt: To begin with John 3:5 is not addressing water baptism and Jesus took a man to Paradise who had not been water baptised. In Mk 16 it accompanies the preaching of the gospel which should be the teaching of the cross. jt: Who has been doing the suppressing Dave? (suppressing theology to make things simpleras you claim). Regeneration by baptism is NOT a scriptural teaching.
DAVEH: We haven't yet discussed it, so IF you wish to do so, I'll oblige. But first, please explain what you mean by "Regeneration", as it is a term we (LDS) do not often use.
jt: I'm not surprised. It means being born of the spirit, passing from death to life, IOW being born again.
DAVEH: The Bible clearly explains that baptism is an essential part of salvation.
jt: Not so, you can read it into the clear Word of Truth but this would be your own perception. Salvation by baptism is taught by the RCC in error. jt: So you are in agreement with DavidM about regenerational baptism then?
DAVEH: Until I know what you and DavidM define it, I can't say one way or the other. All I can tell you is what I understand the Bible says......and that is that without baptism, one cannot be fully saved.
jt: Where do you read that without baptism one can not be fully saved in the Bible?
dh: That is why I believe some of the early Christians practiced baptism for the dead. Otherwise, it would have not been necessary (in their eyes.)
jt: It wasn't necessary and they didn't practice it ever. In the one verse you allude to Paul is using it as an object lesson to communicate something. If it was a regular practice there would be two or more witnesses and it would be practiced or at least alluded to in both OT and NT. The Corinthians were into many errors and heresies, this was only one of them and in 1 Cor 15:29 Paul uses the issue of baptism for the dead to show the inconsistency of false teachers at Corinth in denying the doctrine of the resurrection and yet accepting the fallacy of baptism for the dead.
DAVEH: However, I believe some passages (that DavidM does not necessarily accept) even clarify the point further. Jesus says in Jn 3:5......".....Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." .........To me, Judy, that passage is pretty self explanatory, unless one is compelled to think 'born of water' really means birth. Well in a sense it does symbolize birth.....a rebirth that is known as baptism.
jt: Wrong - This is regeneration, a rebirth of the human spirit that is impossible for anyone other than God Himself to perform and it does not refer to or even happen at water baptism. John 3:5 speaks of being born of the Spirit or "Born Again." The water spoken of here is the water of God's Word which will also wash a person ...
DAVEH: I'm sorry you feel that way, Judy. Your explanation of vs 5 is not the same as I have heard from DavidM, who believes "born of water" refers to a vaginal birth. (I assume I've got that right, DavidM?) So Judy, you have added another (divergent) element. Personally, I prefer my interpretation.....jt: I have not added anything; being washed by the water of God's Word is good doctrine. Jesus told his disciples they were clean because of the Word he had spoken to them. Husbands are to cleanse their wives by the washing of water by the Word of God. You and DavidM are taking a spiritual precept and trying to make it natural or physical... but I don't believe you are interested in the Truth because you believe yourself to be so far ahead of most of us.
DAVEH: You have probably not been here long enough to know why I am here. You are right.....I am not in TT to learn "Truth". As I have previously stated numerous times, I am here to learn what Protestants believe, and why they believe it.
jt: Which is IMO an impossibility because (believe it or not) we do have an adversary who has been twisting and perverting things for more than 2000yrs; I would think it fair to say that all of us (the serious ones at least) are wading through much of this. I put what I don't understand on a big shelf and later as the Holy Spirit shows me either accept or discard it. If you think you have arrived then I wouldn't think you would have much in common with ppl on this list.
dh: Your interpretation of Jn 3:5 is a good example. I do not think your understanding represents "Truth". If I were to just accept what you believe about it, it would be in contradiction with what DavidM believes (I am presuming).
jt: DaveH, we are not to accept what other folks believe or think without checking it out for ourselves so I am not asking you to accept anything I say - check it out. Go to the Lord, ask Him. But then if you are going to get serious in your search for Truth you will have to be willing to lay aside mountains of stuff you have accepted for the past 48yrs.
dh: But that doesn't really matter either, because I believe he also does not understand the true meaning of vs 5.
jt: So DaveH, you believe that David and I are in error and you alone have the true meaning?
dh: So Judy.....in a sense, you are right about me believing my understanding of some of these Biblical passages "to be so far ahead of most of us". I hope that doesn't sound too arrogant, as I'm merely trying to honestly convey my thoughts and perspective in this exchange.
jt: It does sound very arrogant but I understand that you are deceived so I can overlook some things.
DAVEH: Once again I think you've made a false assumption, Judy. Unless you specifically ask for a quotation from other Latter-day revelation, I will base most all my comments I post to TT from the Bible. I use a KJV of the Bible, and accept is as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.
jt: ... and where it is not translated correctly I suppose is where it conflicts with your extra biblical revelation
DAVEH: In the nearly 4 years I have been on TT, I don't recall ever using that reason as an excuse.jt: You may not use it as an 'excuse' per se but I am sure this is where the conflict arises and this is where you are convinced that your understanding is superior.
jt:... God is not trying to make anything simpler for anybody. He says "I am the Lord, I change not" but we as believers are to love ppl and encourage them to repent and to seek Him with their whole heart. He deals with individuals. The thief who was forgiven on the cross went to Paradise without baptism.
DAVEH: As I indicated at the beginning of this post....... that is another false assumption I believe you have made. I'd love to hear your rebuttal to my explanation (in a couple parallel posts.)
jt: Your explanation doesn't change anything. The thief went to Paradise with Jesus that very day then he ascended with the rest of the ppl in Abraham's bosom with Jesus when he ascended but he was in Paradise with him THAT DAY. What is the big revelation?
