...although He doesn’t know how

[Unsettler]

Have you ever thought about the fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is self contradictory in that it is itself not biblical?


As John Sanders said...

"The openness model is an attempt to provide a more biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship.." - John Sanders "Is Open Theism Christian Theism?"


Only? Really?

Isn't your faith also sourced in God Himself, not only as the Author of scripture but in your own relationship with Him? Isn't your faith also confirmed by God's creation as well as natural law and the conviction of your own heart (i.e. mind)? Doesn't your every day experience confirm to you not only God's existence but His power and majesty?

Indeed, the bible tells us explicitly that all are without excuse, whether they have a copy of the scripture or not....

​

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.​

​

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:​

Totally true! 100%


Amen! The supremacy of God's word over any tradition of man or earthly authority is paramount and, I think, this is really what most regular people who use the term "Sola Scriptura" mean when they say it, and that's fine. I don't want to come off sounding like I have a big issue with it. It's just that I think it's easy to take such concepts too far and we should be careful about what we are implying, especially when we adopt the doctrinal terminology of those who are, as you say, "Platonists with Christian "window-dressing"". At bottom the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is based on the premise that God has exhaustive and absolute omniscience, which, in turn, is based on the premise of absolute divine immutability. Open Theism rejects both of those premises, by definition.

Clete

Clete, I have read many hundreds of your comments. I assure you that I am your brother from another mother. I agree with everything you say and have said. If I misspoke regarding sola scriptura, please know that I agree with the nuances you highlighted.

 

[Clete]

Clete, I have read many hundreds of your comments. I assure you that I am your brother from another mother. I agree with everything you say and have said. If I misspoke regarding sola scriptura, please know that I agree with the nuances you highlighted.

Somehow, I had a feeling that you would!

In addition to being an open theist, are you also a mid-Acts dispensationalist?

 

[Unsettler]

Somehow, I had a feeling that you would!

In addition to being an open theist, are you also a mid-Acts dispensationalist?

Great question. I don't know that much about it. I would say yes, (I think.) I recently watched a video by Chris Fisher and Doug McBurney which made a strong case that the dispensation changed from the 12 apostles to Paul. There might be another video that I am confusing with this one. https://www.youtube.com/live/cvnJDjsxgiw?feature=share

I read on "Got Questions," that mid-acts dispensationalists believe water baptism was not continued. Is there enough in scripture to make that claim? I haven't studied it, yet, with an eye open to that question. What do you think?

Also, I strongly believe that the dispensation to Israel is concluded. They were given 40 years (30 AD to 70 AD) to repent after the crucifixion, after which point their continued worship of God was rejected, and God destroyed Jerusalem. I believe most of the chapters of the Book of Revelation are a "current-events" metaphor (that the 7 churches in Asia Minor would have understood as current events) regarding the end of Jerusalem as well as the destruction of Pompeii. I'm interested in your take on this as well.

 

[Right Divider]

I read on "Got Questions," that mid-acts dispensationalists believe water baptism was not continued. Is there enough in scripture to make that claim? I haven't studied it, yet, with an eye open to that question. What do you think?

Absolutely! Paul says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ and it does not include any water.

Eph 4:4-6 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:4) [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (4:6) One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

Here is that one baptism:

1Cor 12:12-13 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:12) For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ. (12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 

[Unsettler]

Absolutely! Paul says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ and it does not include any water.

Eph 4:4-6 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:4) [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (4:6) One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

Here is that one baptism:

1Cor 12:12-13 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:12) For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ. (12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

I would say it is possible that you are right, but this scriptural support is not super duper clear. However, John said that he would baptize you with water but one would come to baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. At pentacost there were flames. I noticed in Acts 19 that the men were baptized by the "Baptism of John," but that was insufficient to receive the Holy Spirit, because it was a baptism for the washing away of sin.

>On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

"One" baptism, must be in the name of Lord Jesus in order to receive the Holy Spirit. But is it a dry baptism? If there is not fire, was it not effective?

Later, in Acts 22, Paul recounts how God told him: "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and wash your sins away, calling on His name.’"

This makes it seem like baptism is still a literal washing (a bath), but you must call on His name, which is the Lord Jesus. Any thoughts?

 

[Right Divider]

I would say it is possible that you are right, but this scriptural support is not super duper clear.

Actually, it's crystal clear. What part gives you a problem?

However, John said that he would baptize you with water but one would come to baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

There are THREE baptisms right there. Paul says that the body of Christ has only ONE.

At pentacost there were flames.

Nope.

Acts 2:3 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:3) And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Note the use of SIMILE (a figure of speech). There were no "flames".

The "baptism of fire" refers to Israel's great tribulation (the time of Jacob's trouble).

I noticed in Acts 19 that the men were baptized by the "Baptism of John," but that was insufficient to receive the Holy Spirit, because it was a baptism for the washing away of sin.

This has nothing to do with the body of Christ.

>On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

"One" baptism, must be in the name of Lord Jesus in order to receive the Holy Spirit. But is it a dry baptism? If there is not fire, was it not effective?

Later, in Acts 22, Paul recounts how God told him: "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and wash your sins away, calling on His name.’"

This makes it seem like baptism is still a literal washing (a bath), but you must call on His name, which is the Lord Jesus. Any thoughts?

WHO told Paul to be "baptized"?

Acts 22:12-16 (AKJV/PCE)
(22:12) And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt [there], (22:13) Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. (22:14) And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. (22:15) For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. (22:16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

What else would a "devout man according to the law" say? Ananias knew nothing of the body of Christ. Since at that time, neither did Paul. God had not made it known yet.

 

[Unsettler]

Yes, you are quite right. My error. It was Ananias and not God who said that. But wasn't Ananias a Christian? Or is the body of Christ a later dispensation?

I did believe that fire was referring to speaking in tongues, but I hadn't heard it has something to do with tribulation. Is there a verse you could refer me to?

What does a dry baptism look like?

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, you are quite right. My error. It was Ananias and not God who said that. But wasn't Ananias a Christian? Or is the body of Christ a later dispensation?

Ananias was a devout Jew. The term "Christian" can be very misunderstood. The first ones called "Christians" were in Antioch in Syria.

Acts 11:26 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:26) And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

I did believe that fire was referring to speaking in tongues, but I hadn't heard it has something to do with tribulation. Is there a verse you could refer me to?

Zech 13:7-9 (AKJV/PCE)
(13:7) ¶ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. (13:8) And it shall come to pass, [that] in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off [and] die; but the third shall be left therein. (13:9) And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God.

What does a dry baptism look like?

It's doesn't look like anything. It is a baptism BY the Holy Spirit and is not visible like a Jewish water ceremony.

 

[Unsettler]

It's doesn't look like anything. It is a baptism BY the Holy Spirit and is not visible like a Jewish water ceremony.

So is the one baptism entirely figurative?

 

[Right Divider]

So is the one baptism entirely figurative?

Absolutely not. It is as real as real can be. Here it is again:

1Cor 12:12-13 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:12) For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ. (12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

You do know that baptize does not mean water, right?

 

[Unsettler]

...

...For by one Spirit are we all baptized...

When did this happen for me? When did it happen for you? Is it the moment we believe?

...

You do know that baptize does not mean water, right?

Baptize derives from Greek baptizein "immerse, dip in water." It has since taken other meanings, akin to initiation process or first experience. As you said, the Jews called it mikva. Is there another meaning?

Sorry I missed this earlier, but you said the Acts 19 incident where Paul lays hands on some men has nothing to do with the Body of Christ. Would you please explain why the incident has nothing to do with the Body of Christ?

 

[Right Divider]

...
When did this happen for me?

I cannot speak for you

When did it happen for you? Is it the moment we believe?

The moment that I trusted in Christs death for my sin.

...
Baptize derives from Greek baptizein "immerse, dip in water." It has since taken other meanings, akin to initiation process or first experience. As you said, the Jews called it mikva. Is there another meaning?

There are many baptisms in the Bible and only a few are water related. You already mentioned the baptism of fire... there is no water in the baptism of fire. Just like the baptism BY the Holy Spirit.... no water.

Sorry I missed this earlier, but you said the Acts 19 incident where Paul lays hands on some men has nothing to do with the Body of Christ. Would you please explain why the incident has nothing to do with the Body of Christ?

Because those twelve were not members of the body of Christ. They were believers during a previous dispensation.

Note that the number twelve is associated Israel. The Bible often makes these types of associations.

 

[Unsettler]

Because those twelve were not members of the body of Christ. They were believers during a previous dispensation.

Note that the number twelve is associated Israel. The Bible often makes these types of associations.

In which Book of Acts chapter(s) did the Body of Christ begin?

How much of an issue do you think God takes with modern day Christians who have been publicly baptized in water? (On a scale where 0 = slight annoyance and 10 = He's looking forward to sending the baptized to hell.)

By the way, thank you for all of your insights.

 

[Right Divider]

In which Book of Acts chapter(s) did the Body of Christ begin?

The body of Christ began with the calling of the apostle Paul. But a dispensation is not a period of time, even though it occurs during a period of time.

This means that for a short time, there were two dispensations active. This is the case because God does not change a persons calling.

How much of an issue do you think God takes with modern day Christians who have been publicly baptized in water? (On a scale where 0 = slight annoyance and 10 = He's looking forward to sending the baptized to hell.)

I don't know for sure, but I'd guess somewhere in 0-3 range.

By the way, thank you for all of your insights.

You're welcome.

 

[Unsettler]

The body of Christ began with the calling of the apostle Paul. But a dispensation is not a period of time, even though it occurs during a period of time.

This means that for a short time, there were two dispensations active. This is the case because God does not change a persons calling.

I think you have sold me.

I don't know for sure, but I'd guess somewhere in 0-3 range.

Ok, whew, because I have been newborn circumcised, infant sprinkled, teenage "confirmed," thirty-something full-immersion baptized.

 

[Derf]

I read on "Got Questions," that mid-acts dispensationalists believe water baptism was not continued. Is there enough in scripture to make that claim? I haven't studied it, yet, with an eye open to that question. What do you think?

You have to study it with one eye closed to believe that.

 

[Unsettler]

You have to study it with one eye closed to believe that.

Sorry, to believe what?

 

[Derf]

Sorry, to believe what?

To believe that water baptism for new christians was halted in the scriptures.

 

[Unsettler]

To believe that water baptism fir new christians was halted in the scriptures.

Are you a dispensationalist?

 

[Derf]

Are you a dispensationalist?

Probably--I'm not real fond of labels. But I disagree with the local MADs on some things, like cessation of water baptism.