When Did The Disciples (Peter, James, John And The Rest) Become Born-again?

Was it when Jesus called them, when he died, when he rose or when the Holy Spirit came on penticost? Or were they ever born again?

It is my desire that this topic will lead to better understanding of who we are as New Creations in Christ

Matt 9: 14Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
15And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

The disciples could not have "become born again" while Jesus was still with them i.e was yet to die for their sins. Being born again is symbolic for putting off the old man and taking on the new man, that suggests they had their experience on the day of pentecost, the day the Holy Ghost fell on them, earlier they had just been "believers", but the day they recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit, they were neer the same men again.

Fasting serves its purposes, but it does not necessarily make a person born again.

The moment the disciples trusted that Jesus was the Christ and Son of the living God, and confessed Him as such, the new birth was already evident in them.

The question then is: when did this happen?

I really don't know as yet when or how it happened for each of the disciples; but I know that before Jesus went to the Cross, the disciples had believed in Him as the Christ and Son of the Living God. That is what the Bible lays as the foundation for the New Birth:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God. . . He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
[John 1:12-13 & 3:18].

It is knowing and confessing the name of 'Jesus' as the Christ and Son of God that the new birth is given and believers become the children of God.

Before Peter's confession by divine revelation of Jesus as the Son of the Living God, they already had this confession and even recognized it in practical terms by worshipping Him:

"Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."
[Matt. 14:33]

And when some of the disciples grumbled no longer walked with Him, He asked His remaining disciples whether they also would not depart from Him. But they answered:

"Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."
[John 6:68-69]

By confessing Jesus as such, I believe that John 1:12 and 3:18 applied to them. And in that regard, I believe that the disciples were born again by believing in Jesus before even He went to the Cross. After the resurrection, the privileges of New Birth become more experiential and understandable to them when they received the Holy Spirit. From then on, everyone believing in the Gospel and confessing Jesus as "Lord" and Christ, and the Son of God, became born again.

@donnie

are you clear now?

yes i am. However, i agree with davidylan much more than i do with syrup.

The reason being that when Jesus said ye must be born-again, he actually meant every Word.

It is actually a new birth. It is recieving th divine life of almighty God.

It wasnt possible for anyone to have that life and circumcision of  heart with out the Holy Spirit.

The Holy spirit is the one who baptizes us into the body of Christ.

This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the born- again experience. This is salvation.

donnie:



yes i am. However, i agree with davidylan much more than i do with syrup.

The reason being that when Jesus said ye must be born-again, he actually mean every Word.

It is actually a new birth. It is recieving th divine life of almighty God.

It wasnt possible for anyone to have that life and circumcision of heart with out the Holy Spirit.

The Holy spirit is the one who baptizes us into the body of Christ.

This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the born- again experience. This is salvation.

NIce Jesus all the way!!!!!!

We are all born with Original Sin. Therefore, we become born-again when we are baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This much we know from the activities of John the Baptist. Activities which were cemented by Jesus' participation/endorsement. It is wrong to state that the apostles were not 'born-again' while Jesus was alive because I believe they would have taken the example set by Jesus and had a 'water baptism'; which in itself is the outward expression of a divine act. Baptism frees you from Original Sin, thus making you a new creature in God's eyes.

Hi all,
I so much agree with syrup because that is just it.Remember being born again has everything to do with Jesus Himself and He was there presently with them and they confessed Him on several Occasions(like syrup said/quoted in the verses above).
The receiving of the Holy Spirit was a fulfillment of Christ's promise to them and it absolutely was of great help(no doubt).
Please fellows Baptism does not wash away any sin,if it does,Jesus wouldn't have been baptized because He was/is sinless.
Baptism is just an outward confession per se of your (already existing) faith in Christ Jesus.It also signifies you being buried with Christ(when you are put in the water)and being raised with Him(when you are raised from the water).It does not make you or anybody born again.
Thanks.

Baptism does wash away sin. That’s why John the Baptist’s voice kept ringing: “Repent, Repent!” When you are ‘buried’ with Jesus and ‘raised’ also with Him through baptism, does that not make you a new creature? Baptism signifies the death of the old self and the birth of the new.

Jesus did not get baptised because he had sin(s) to cleanse. He did so to set an example for us. He did so to show us that what John was doing was right. That’s why John ‘protested’ on seeing Jesus and said words to the effect of “I shouldn’t be baptising you; you should be baptising me”. To which Jesus replied, “Let it be so for now”. In the same way, Jesus fasted for 40 days to set an example. He didn’t need to fast. He suffered temptation and agonized under the choices that were presented to Him to show us that He understood our difficulties. Again, He didn’t need to do this.

Jesus was, first and foremost, a teacher. His teaching has been particularly effective through the years because it was grounded in examples. His. It wasn’t a case of do as I say but one of do as I do/did. That’s why you would often hear the popular phrase when one is faced with a morally tricky position: What Would Jesus Do (WWJD)?

I am not trying to say that  being baptized  is bad or anything like that(how can i say that)i am only saying that receiving Christ in your life is the only thing that makes you a new creation(Born again).2nd Cor  5:17     

Of course Jesus is a perfect example He did some things He didn't have to do just like you said(nutter)"to set an example" and i strongly believe that Him being baptizes(even though He had no sin)was/is enough proof per se that it is not sinners that are to be baptized but people whose sins are already forgiven because they confessed Christ.

Nutter,could you say that  if a person gives his life to Christ and lets say  two days later(maybe he didn’t get the opportunity to be baptized)he dies he is going to hell?

In addition to all the above, let me share about water baptism.

Water baptism is symbolic and indicates the following things in Scripture:

#  it identifies the repentant believer with the Saviour in His death and resurrection:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:3-4; see also Col. 2:12).

# it points to the remission of sins when the repentant confesses them in faith:

"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4).
{John's ministry was simply called "the baptism of repentance" and it did not wash away
sins ("When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all
the people of Israel." - Acts 13:24 and 19:4.) }
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38).

'Remission' simply means forgiveness; it does not mean 'washing away'.

# it typifies the saving power of God in the believer's act of faith in obedience:

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Pet. 3:21). Notice this verse didn't say that baptism saves per se; it said baptism points to two things:
(a) it is figurative/symbolic - "the like figure whereunto. . ."
(b) it is the answer of a good conscience toward God.

I know that there are so many difficult texts to understand about this subject; but I offer that studying them in context with other verses dealing with the issue will help throw more light on it. I'll attempt some difficult questions raised about the same in my next post, but let me offer that faith in Jesus Christ is the one thing that saves. A person who might not have been baptized but believed in Jesus will not end up in hell. The thief on the cross who asked Jesus to remember him, could be an example (see Luke 23:39-43).

Some Difficult Texts About Baptism - My Opinion.

1. Jesus' Baptism
John's baptism was simply called a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (see Mark 1:4). Jesus had no sin and there was nothing for Him to repent of; but His baptism simply says what He meant it to say in Matt. 3:15 - ". . .for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." What righteousness was this? The answer is found in Matt. 21:25 when He asked the chief priests about John's baptism - was it from heaven or from men? The righteousness was to identify with John's baptism as recognizing that it was from heaven with God's authority, and not from man. Even though Jesus didn't need to do this, He would not reject God's authority in any matter; and by submitting to John's baptism, He showed perfect humility and obedience to the Father's will and authority. In doing so, two things were brought out:

(a) it was the perfect timing of His public appearance to Israel as the One of whom John had been preaching; and it would be the designated way by which John would recognize and thus bear record of Him as the Son of God (see John 1:33-34).

(b) it was the perfect timing of which God the Father would publicly anoint Him for His public ministry, confirming this by divine and open approbation, and by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him (Matt. 3:16-17).

In Jesus' case, therefore, the Perfect one did not need to be baptized for any sin or repentance; but His doing so was simply to honour God in recognizing that John had received his baptism from heaven, and not from man.

2. Cornelius' Baptism
In Acts 10, an amazing thing happened. As Peter preached to those gathered in Cornelius' house, the Holy Spirit fell upon them even before they were baptized with water. Since the Holy Spirit does not dwell in a person whose sins have not been washed away, Cornelius' case should tell us that water baptism does not wash away sins. God first purified their hearts by faith before He poured out the Spirit upon them: ["And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" - Acts 15:9]. Why did Peter then command them to be baptized after they had been purified by faith (Acts 10:48)? Simply because baptism does not purify or wash away sins; but rather points to identifying with the Lord Jesus whom they confess as Saviour. That is why it says there that they were "baptized in the name of the Lord."

3. Paul's Baptism
Many have supposed that Acts 22:16 teaches that baptism washes away one's sins: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." It all depends on the context in which one reads it; but it does not teach that water baptism washes away sins - read it in light of other texts quoted above as to what baptism is pointing to. Again, water baptism was symbolic of an inner work of God on the heart, confessed with the mouth, and manifested publicly by baptism. Unless one ignores the other texts of Scripture, it would be difficult to see what this verse is saying.

This is as symbolic as Pilate washing his hands with water in order to publicly declare that he was innocent of condeming Jesus the Just (see Matt. 27:24). Of course, the water did not purify or declare Pilate innocent; but that was the commonly understood practice of publicly declaring one's innocence before witnesses. It was just the same thing that Ananias put across to Paul in Acts 22:16, as if to say: "waste no time in declaring publicly your innocence by water baptism, doing this by calling on the name of the Lord." Later, Paul was to convey to our understanding the meaning of water baptism.

Let me share what the Bible says about washing away our sins:

# Sins are divinely washed away by the Blood of Christ -
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5).

# The Word Cleanses Us In Practical Obedience to Him -
"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15:3). "That he might sanctify and cleanse it [i.e., the Church] with the washing of water by the word" (Eph 5:26). "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently" (I Pet. 1:22).


Water baptism is important; but it is simply a symbolic response to an inward reality. It does not wash away sins, nor can it substitute for the Blood of Christ. It is the Blood that washes away and cleanses from sins; and our enjoyment of the same is by obedience to His Word.

wendytilda:

I am not trying to say that  being baptized  is bad or anything like that(how can i say that)i am only saying that receiving Christ in your life is the only thing that makes you a new creation(Born again).2nd Cor  5:17     

That is what baptism is - receiving Christ into your life.

wendytilda:

Of course Jesus is a perfect example He did some things He didn't have to do just like you said(nutter)"to set an example" and i strongly believe that Him being baptizes(even though He had no sin)was/is enough proof per se that it is not sinners that are to be baptized but people whose sins are already forgiven because they confessed Christ.

I don’t agree wendytilda. Your statement means that we, as humans, are at par with Jesus. We are all sinners – even with the benefit of baptism. Jesus was not – before or after His baptism. What baptism does is that it removes the Original Sin we were born with. If baptism was unnecessary for those with sin as you suggest, why did John encourage people to repent and turn from their old ways by submitting themselves for baptism?

wendytilda:

Nutter,could you say that  if a person gives his life to Christ and lets say  two days later(maybe he didn’t get the opportunity to be baptized)he dies he is going to hell?

I will not make any attempt to state whether one would go to hell when they die based on what they did or did not do. To do so would be to pass judgement on them. Only God knows the true state of the heart. Every case will be judged on its own merit. Above all, I believe in purgatory which is the ‘half-way house’ between Heaven and Hell. This is because, as Jesus Himself made clear, some sins are worse than others.


@mlks_baby

mlks_baby:

'Remission' simply means forgiveness; it does not mean 'washing away'.

C’mon now. Within the context of sin and sinning, where is the distinction between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘washing away’? Don’t get tied up in semantics.

mlks_baby:

This is as symbolic as Pilate washing his hands with water in order to publicly declare that he was innocent of condeming Jesus the Just (see Matt. 27:24). Of course, the water did not purify or declare Pilate innocent; but that was the commonly understood practice of publicly declaring one's innocence before witnesses.

Pilate washing his hands cannot be likened to a water baptism because baptism involves invoking the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Again, we are all born with Original Sin due to the disobedience of Adam and Eve. David tells us in Psalm 51:5 that “I have been evil from the day I was born; from the time I was conceived I have been sinful”. To counter this, as 1st Peter 3:20-21 states: …the few people in the boat – eight in all – were saved by the water, which is a symbol pointing to baptism, which now saves you.  Finally, as stated in Romans 6:3-4: “For surely you know that when we baptised into union with Christ Jesus, we were baptised into union with His death. By our baptism, then, we were buried with Him and shared his death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from death by the glorious power of the Father, so also we might live a new life”. You quoted this very passage in your post and then made attempts to explain it away. Why?

Mine is not a position that suggests that with baptism one is guaranteed a place in Heaven. No. My point was and remains that with baptism Original Sin is cleansed. You are yet to introduce references from the bible that directly refute this.

@Nutter,

First, there is nothing like purgatory in the Bible, and Jesus never taught anything remotely in semblance of that. There's no "half-way house" in the Bible - a person either believes in Christ and is saved, or they don't and are lost. If I'm mistaken, please show from the Bible where the half-way house is located.

Nutter:

C’mon now. Within the context of sin and sinning, where is the distinction between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘washing away’? Don’t get tied up in semantics.

Look well again, this is not about semantics. Even within that context, "remission" still means "forgiveness", not "washing away". Solve your problems by looking at the text and the dictionary to help you. And if you want to know the difference, check this:

The Blood Makes The Difference.

(a) Forgiveness of Sins - The Old Testament believers were often "forgiven" of their sins, but their sins were never "washed away" or "taken away" because it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to do so. "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb 10:3-4). If 'forgiveness' and 'washing away of sins' were the same, how come the people were still having a rememberance of sins again every year? "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." (Heb. 10:11; see verse 18).

(b) Washing Away Sins - this is the same thing as "taking away" the sin of people. Only the Blood of Jesus Christ could wash away the sins of people - ". . .Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5).

You cannot confuse either of them, unless you're looking away from what the Bible says about the issue. "Forgiveness of sins" is not the same thing as "washing away sins". The blood makes the difference, and sins were not washed/taken away before Jesus came (except in the case of Isaiah as pointing to a prophetic calling to announce the coming of the Messiah - Isa.6:7). It was when Christ came that the declaration could be made as to Jesus being the Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). You may not agree; that's ok. But please find me a verse that says "forgiveness" = "washing away" in the context of sin and sinning. They often follow each other closely, but nowhere have I come across a place where God equates them.

Nutter:

Pilate washing his hands cannot be likened to a water baptism because baptism involves invoking the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I did not liken Pilate's hand-washing to water baptism in that sense, and that should be clear from my post. It was an analogy to show that Pilate was following a well-known custom in washing his hands "in order to publicly declare that he was innocent of condeming Jesus the Just" (precisely my statement; not that Pilate was being "baptized".

The analogy of Pilate was simply to show that it was the custom of people to publicly demonstrate a personal decision symbolically before witnesses, and there are several examples in both the OT and NT about that. When Pilate washed his hands, he was demonstrating symbolically that he was clear of the charge of wrong doing or miscarriage of judgement in not condemning Jesus the Just One (Matt. 27:24). He was doing what every Jew knew in that day - by washing his hands publicly, they knew what he was about to say, even if he would not have said it.

Another example in the Old Testament about demonstrating decisions publicly is found in the book of Ruth: "Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel." (Ruth 4:7). In the NT also, when someone shook his garments against another, the first was clearly demonstrating in a public way that he was testifying against the second (see Acts 13:51).

My reference to Pilate was only analogous to what every Jew knew in that day: washing the hands was a public demonstration of a personal decision. I did not say that Pilate was engaging in water baptism. I drew that analogy to the effect that water baptism was a public demonstration of a personal confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Baptism is only an outward symbol of an inward personal decision; it does not wash sins away - for only the blood of Jesus washes away sins, as I showed previously.

Besides, wrt your second statement about invoking the divine Name: you should understand that John the Baptist did not baptize people in the name of the Trinity - his was only a baptism unto repentance, which was simply a public demonstration of repentance. John's baptism did not give the new birth or make someone born again, because he only came to prepare the way of the Lord that people may believe on Christ. That is why after the finished work of Christ, Paul still had to re-baptize the dozen Ephesian disciples who only knew the baptism of John but had not been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (see Acts 19:1-5). Notice there that two baptisms were spoken of - therefore, if baptism washed away their sins or Original Sin, why were these disciples re-baptized?

Nutter:

Mine is not a position that suggests that with baptism one is guaranteed a place in Heaven. No. My point was and remains that with baptism Original Sin is cleansed. You are yet to introduce references from the bible that directly refute this.

First, in the case of 1 Pet. 3:20-21, indeed baptism "saves", but in what context? Did you miss the little word you quietly passed over before embolding "save"? Those verses point to the fact that baptism was symbolic of something - yes? And the saving of baptism, does that say that it is equal to being born again? Okay, admittedly, we may differ in our views about these verses, but perhaps when you study it in its Greek construct, you'll understand what I mean.

That aside, I did not attempt to explain away Rom. 6:3-4. Original Sin is NOT cleansed by water baptism. Again, you didn't leave us any verses to the point. But let me share some with you:

Original Sin is/produces a nature inherited from Adam during the Fall, and the Bible describes this in several ways: "our old man", "the body of sin" (Rom. 6:6), and "the flesh" (Gal.5:16). How does God deal with the problems of this sinful nature - through water baptism? No, not at all. God dealt with the sinful nature in a more drastic manner - crucifixion and circumcision. Check these references:

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom. 6:6).

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Gal. 5:24).

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." (Col. 2:11).

Baptism does not take care of "the old man" or "the body of sin" - rather, God deals with the problem of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. If I'm missing out something, please point out some verses to me to the effect that "with baptism Original Sin is cleansed" (your quote). I don't find it so in the Bible.

mlks_baby:

First, in the case of 1 Pet. 3:20-21, indeed baptism "saves", but in what context? Did you miss the little word you quietly passed over before embolding "save"?

My exact reproduction of the bible verse was: "the few people in the boat – eight in all – were saved by the water, which is a symbol pointing to baptism, which now saves you".

The word you refer to is ‘now’. So? Your point is? It is clear that the text compares two events: The deliverance of those in the ark, and baptism itself. In both cases, water is the central theme. Additionally, we were discussing the saving role of baptism and not time span.  Therefore, it is highly disingenuous of you to suggest (even remotely) that I glossed over a particular word (in the bible no less!) in order to present a stronger case. If anything, drawing attention to the word ‘now’ would have strengthened my argument within this context.

mlks_baby:

The blood makes the difference, and sins were not washed/taken away before Jesus came (except in the case of Isaiah as pointing to a prophetic calling to announce the coming of the Messiah - Isa.6:7). It was when Christ came that the declaration could be made as to Jesus being the Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). You may not agree; that's ok.

I told you not to get tied up in semantics but…. My question then becomes: ‘What is the state of the sinner who has his/her sins ‘forgiven’ as opposed to the sinner who has his/her sins ‘washed away’? As you have laboured to draw what you are convinced is a clear distinction between the two, I would appreciate a direct answer.

Furthermore, you state in your post that only the Blood of Christ can wash away sin. This is confusing to me especially since you highlight the example of Isaiah who, as far as the Christian public know, came before Christ. There is a slight problem of chronology here. Isaiah could not have benefited from blood that had not been shed. You make a ‘concession’ for Isaiah because of, as you say, 'his prophetic calling to announce the coming of the Messiah’. Just so you are clear, all biblical prophets in one way or the other were sent to prepare the way for the Messiah; none more so than John the Baptist who is wholly recognised as the precursor of Christ. You are glib about John’s baptismal activities even though Jesus Himself provided a resounding endorsement. Indeed, Mat 3:15 tells us that after John initially refused to baptise Jesus because he felt himself unworthy, Jesus said, “Let it be so for now. For in this way we shall do all that God requires”. Yet, you see a ‘concession’ for Isaiah and not for John.

mlks_baby:

Paul still had to re-baptize the dozen Ephesian disciples who only knew the baptism of John but had not been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (see Acts 19:1-5). Notice there that two baptisms were spoken of - therefore, if baptism washed away their sins or Original Sin, why were these disciples re-baptized?

If you had carefully read the last paragraph of my last post, you would have found your question unnecessary. I made it very clear that getting baptised cleanses Original Sin and does not guarantee one a place in Heaven (please refer). And, just for those in any doubt, the actual text (Acts 19:4) reads thus: “The baptism [of John] was for those who turned from their sins; and he told the people of Israel to believe in the one who was coming after him – that is, in Jesus”. Verse 6 tells us that the baptism of Jesus in this sense was spiritual because “Paul placed his hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them; they spoke in strange tongues and also proclaimed God’s message”. Therefore, the first baptism (of water) cleansed Original Sin while the second kind (of spirit) guarantees salvation – if we do not deviate from the teachings of Christ. This is further explained below in response to a request of yours.

mlks_baby:

Baptism does not take care of "the old man" or "the body of sin" - rather, God deals with the problem of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. If I'm missing out something, please point out some verses to me to the effect that "with baptism Original Sin is cleansed" (your quote). I don't find it so in the Bible.

I suggest you go to Ezekiel 36:25 where God says, “I will sprinkle clean water on you and make you clean from all your idols and everything else that has defiled you”. Okay?

mlks_baby:

First, there is nothing like purgatory in the Bible, and Jesus never taught anything remotely in semblance of that. There's no "half-way house" in the Bible - a person either believes in Christ and is saved, or they don't and are lost. If I'm mistaken, please show from the Bible where the half-way house is located.

To answer this, allow me to set the scene. I mentioned in a previous post that some sins are worse than others. Some are venial (do not lead to death/Hell) while others are mortal (these lead to death). Examples of distinctions between these two types of sin were made by Jesus Himself in passages such as:

1.Luke 12:10 – “Anyone who says a word against the Son of Man can be forgiven; but whoever says evil things against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven”.

2.Luke 12:47-48 – “The servant who knows what his master wants him to do, but does not get himself ready and do it, will be punished with a heavy whipping. But the servant who does not know what his master wants, and yet does something for which he deserves a whipping, will be punished with a light whipping”.

3.John 19:11 – “Jesus answered, ‘You have authority over me only because it was given to you by God. So the man who handed me over to you is guilty of a worse sin’”.

4.1st John 5:16-17 – “If you see your brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray to God, who will give him life. This applies to those whose sins do not lead to death. But there is sin which leads to death, and I do not say that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which does not lead to death”.

There are about half a dozen other direct bible quotations which I’d be happy to share with any expressing an interest.



Having established the different degrees of sin, we can now move on to the issue of purgatory on which you, with misplaced confidence, state, “Jesus never taught anything remotely in semblance of that”. The easiest way to do this is to highlight two key biblical references which complement those listed above on venial and mortal sins:


1.1st Peter 3:18-20 – “For Christ died for sins once and for all, a good man on behalf of sinners, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death physically, but made alive spiritually, and in his spiritual existence he went and preached to the imprisoned spirits. These were the spirits of those who had not obeyed God when he waited patiently during the days that Noah was building the boat….”

2.2nd Mac 12:44-45 – “If he had not believed that the dead would be raised, it would have been foolish and useless to pray for them. In his firm and devout conviction that all God’s faithful people would receive a wonderful reward, Judas [not the one cloaked in infamy] made provision for a sin-offering to set free from their sin those who had died.


The above references carry the same message. Do you now detect a remote (nay, direct) semblance? Since we know Heaven and Hell to be permanent abodes, these references point only to one thing: Purgatory. In the first reference, we are told that Jesus went to preach to imprisoned spirits. Those in Hell cannot be helped by preaching. Those in Heaven do not need preaching. Moreover, we know that these spirits are not in heaven because the text states that they disobeyed God while the ark was being built. They therefore died with these sins but the sins were not of a mortal nature.

The second reference talks about setting those who had died free from sin. Again, this can neither relate to those in Heaven nor can it help those in Hell.


In sum, the following points remain valid:

1.Baptism cleanses Original Sin but does not guarantee salvation.

2.The notion of Purgatory has biblical backing.

If baptism has power to cleanse original sin, then it surely should guarantee salvation.

The truth, is remission of sins can only be recieved through faith in the shed blood of Jesus on calvary.

However, baptism is a very important commandment of Jesus. It is a demonstration of our faith.

@donnie, thanks for seeing my point.

@Nutter,

Nutter:

The word you refer to is ‘now’. So? Your point is? It is clear that the text compares two events: The deliverance of those in the ark, and baptism itself. In both cases, water is the central theme. Additionally, we were discussing the saving role of baptism and not time span. Therefore, it is highly disingenuous of you to suggest (even remotely) that I glossed over a particular word (in the bible no less!) in order to present a stronger case. If anything, drawing attention to the word ‘now’ would have strengthened my argument within this context.

Highly disingenuous? I don't think there was any need for that, especially where you failed to see my point.

The word I referred to was not "now" but rather symbolic, and I emboldened it for you so you wouldn't miss it. The apostle Peter was speaking figuratively, and even though he stated that the eight people/souls in the boat "were saved by the water," I'm sure you would agree he didn't use that word to mean that they were "born again" in that event by being "saved" in the deluge. Anyone would see the apostle was saying that, in just the same way that "eight souls were saved by water", so symbolically believers' baptism now "saves" them. He never supposed that water baptism produced the new birth, nor that it washed away the Original Sin, in as much as in Noah's day the eight souls saved by water were not necessarily born again thereby, nor had their original sins washed away. Those verses were symbolic, and the apostle clearly stated it so.

I also offered that we may see issues from different sides; but I don't see the need to accuse me of being "highly disingenuous" where you disagreed with my views.

Nutter:

I told you not to get tied up in semantics but…. My question then becomes: ‘What is the state of the sinner who has his/her sins ‘forgiven’ as opposed to the sinner who has his/her sins ‘washed away’? As you have laboured to draw what you are convinced is a clear distinction between the two, I would appreciate a direct answer.

Again, this is not semantics, for the Bible clearly states what I pointed out. I'm not pitting sinners the one against the other. "Forgiveness of sins" and "sins washed away" are never confused in Scripture, even though they are closely connected in many instances. There are many people whose sins were "forgiven" but not necessarily "washed/taken away". To the man taken with the palsy, Jesus said: "Man, thy sins are forgiven thee" (Luke 5:20); and to the woman who wept at His feet, He said: "Thy sins are forgiven" (Luke 7:48). In neither cases would "forgiveness" mean that their sins were "washed/taken away" (or Jesus would doubtless have said so); nor would it be correct to say that "the state of the sinner(s)" quoted above indicates that they had become "born again". In my previous rejoinder, I showed simply that only the Blood of Jesus washes/takes away sins - the sins of those in the Old Covenant, as well those since after His crucifixion and resurrection (see Rom. 3:25-26).

In the OT, when the congregation of Israel sinned through ignorance, they presented a young bullock for a "sin offering" to make an atonement for them. After the anointed priest had offered the bullock, it is said that their sin "shall be forgiven them." (Lev. 4:13-20). The same thing applies for the sin of an individual, and of the priest that is anointed (vs 2-12); as well more or less in the case of a ruler who had sinned (vs 22-26), and one of the common people (vs. 27-36). Now notice it says that their sins "shall be forgiven them/him"; but according to Heb. 10:4, it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could "take away sins". All they offered in the OT procured "forgiveness" for them; but the sacrifices did not "take away" their sins. Only the blood of Jesus washes/takes away sins.

Nutter:

There is a slight problem of chronology here. Isaiah could not have benefited from blood that had not been shed.

But, of course, he could - he prophesied this himself in Isaiah 53, and included himself among the people he described: "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (verses 4-5). Notice in these verses, the prophet included himself (with the words "we" and "our" as a beneficiary of Christ's sacrifice, even though it was to happen about seven centuries later. In the vicarious sacrifice of His Son, God included the sins of the whole world in just that one event at Golgotha when Jesus was crucified (John 19:17-18); and other texts bear this out: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19).

Nutter:

You make a ‘concession’ for Isaiah because of, as you say, 'his prophetic calling to announce the coming of the Messiah’. Just so you are clear, all biblical prophets in one way or the other were sent to prepare the way for the Messiah; none more so than John the Baptist who is wholly recognised as the precursor of Christ.

I did not make a concession for Isaiah but rather recognized the fact that his case was perculiar. Second, it was only John the baptist that was sent to "prepare the way" of the Messiah - no other prophet was "sent" to do that. All prophets prophesied about the coming of the Messiah, but none other than John was specifically "sent" to "prepare the way" for Him. This is clearly stated even in Isaiah 40:3 - "The voice of him [i.e., John the Baptist] that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." It was none other than John that was prophesied there, and the fulfillment is clearly stated in the NT (see Matt. 3:1-3 and John 1:6-. Only John the Baptist was "sent" to "prepare the way" - no other prophet was commissioned in that way.

Nutter:

You are glib about John’s baptismal activities even though Jesus Himself provided a resounding endorsement. Indeed, Mat 3:15 tells us that after John initially refused to baptise Jesus because he felt himself unworthy, Jesus said, “Let it be so for now. For in this way we shall do all that God requires”. Yet, you see a ‘concession’ for Isaiah and not for John.

I wasn't "glib" about anything in John's baptism, and I think you ought to slow down and read my posts in their contexts. Jesus' endorsement of John the Baptist was about the latter's ministry; not about his sins having been washed away, otherwise you would not have stated that John "felt himself unworthy". For the umpteenth time, the Bible states that John's baptism was simply called "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4), and nowhere did it say that John's baptism "washed/took away" anyone's sins. That's why I called attention to both Acts 10 and 19 - God purified the hearts of those gathered at Cornelius' house without even waiting for water baptism; and the dozen Ephesian disciples were re-baptized because Paul recognized that John's baptism did not "wash away" or "take away" their sins. I simply stated it as is in the Scriptures - nothing glib about that. If you think I committed a felony for that, please kindly tell us why Paul had to re-baptize the disciples in Acts 19 if their sins were already washed away by John's baptism.

In Isaiah's case, no other prophet depicted the Messiah as the "Mighty God" and the "Everlasting Father" as Isaiah was granted to so do; even though other prophets (like Micah and Zachariah) alluded to the deity of the Messiah. Correct me if I'm wrong. Reading chapter 6, one can't miss the sequence - he was granted to see the absolute holiness of the Lord who sat on the throne, attested to by the ceaseless cry of the seraphim: "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of host" (vs.1-3); consequently he saw his wretchedness and cried out (vs. 4-5); and one of the seraphim touched his lips with a hot coal to take away his iniquity and purge his sins (vs. 6-7). What followed next was his divine calling to declare a series of prophecies concerning the Person (chapter 9) and work (chapter 53) of the Messiah, as well as the judgement He metes out to the world (chapter 13, and various others). For a prophet to declare this, we understand why that episode took place in chapter 6.

Now the concession you supposed is not there. In John's baptism, sins were not "taken away" - and you even stated that John himself felt "unworthy" - why? Jesus never endorsed John's sinlessness; nor did He see the baptism of John as able to "take away" sin. It was John rather who pointed to Jesus as the One to "take away" the sin of the world (John 1:29). John and Isaiah didn't have the same experience concerning the hot coal, and I didn't state what the Bible doesn't teach.

Nutter:

Verse 6 tells us that the baptism of Jesus in this sense was spiritual because “Paul placed his hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them; they spoke in strange tongues and also proclaimed God’s message”. Therefore, the first baptism (of water) cleansed Original Sin while the second kind (of spirit) guarantees salvation – if we do not deviate from the teachings of Christ. This is further explained below in response to a request of yours.

Sorry, read the text again - there were two water baptisms in Acts 19: (a) John's baptism - verse 4; and (b) baptism in the name of Jesus - verse 5. The baptism "in the name of Jesus" was still water baptism - and that is what it always has been throughout Acts. In Acts 10, after the Spirit fell on those in Cornelius' house (vs. 44), Peter still commanded that water should not be forbidden them to be baptized "in the name of the Lord" (vs. 47-48). What happened in chapter 19 clearly says that the disciples were baptized (in water) in the name of the Lord Jesus (vs. 5) before Paul laid his hands on them. I quote the text:

                      ⁴Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they
                      should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. ⁵When they heard this, they
                      were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ⁶And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy
                      Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Verses 5 and 6 do not mean the same thing; water baptism in Jesus' name came first, before Paul laid hands on them afterwards. What you mean by Original Sin is yet to be seen, and in so far as those verses are concerned, I don't see it saying what you're trying to force it to say.

Nutter:

I suggest you go to Ezekiel 36:25 where God says, “I will sprinkle clean water on you and make you clean from all your idols and everything else that has defiled you”. Okay?

I saw that verse before my last rejoinder; even so it did not say that 'sprinkling clean water' was baptism that cleanses "Original Sin", unless you're saying that the defilements of idols is your meaning of 'Original Sin'. Idolatory is not the same thing as Original Sin, and my statements remain as is.

Nutter:

Having established the different degrees of sin, we can now move on to the issue of purgatory on which you, with misplaced confidence, state, “Jesus never taught anything remotely in semblance of that”. The easiest way to do this is to highlight two key biblical references which complement those listed above on venial and mortal sins:

Excuse me, 'misplaced confidence' says nothing about what I have stated from the Bible, and I see no reason for the unnecessary invectives. I knew those verses clearly even without having referenced them earlier; and what I stated in context was about Jesus' not having taught anything in remote semblance to purgatory [place of purification, place where one's sins are absolved]; not to 'degree of sins'.

Nutter:

In sum, the following points remain valid:
1.Baptism cleanses Original Sin but does not guarantee salvation.
2.The notion of Purgatory has biblical backing.

I'm sorry to diappoint you, but at the end of the day, you didn't give me a definition of what you meant by Original Sin; therefore my statement in reference to Ezek. 36:25 stands as is - that verse does not speak about Original Sin; and idolatory is not the same thing as Original Sin. What I understood by the term has already been given earlier ("the old man", "the body of sin" or "the flesh" - and I also provided texts to the point, as well as show clearly how God deals with that problem.

Second, in quoting 2nd Maccabees, you're referencing a document that has no bearing on Christian doctrine, which again has no bearing upon my assertion that Jesus did not teach anything in semblance to purgatory. 2nd Mac. sheds light on Jewish traditions rather than the teachings of Christ. It is interesting yet, that Moses and the other prophets of the OT did not at any one time pray for the dead or teach that others should do so.

The NT teaching that confirms the OT on the issue of the dead is that "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb. 9:27) - no purgatory. Again, Jesus showed that between heaven and hell, there's "a great gulf fixed" so that none can cross from one side to the other (Luke 16:26); but He never mentioned anything about a purgatory where people's (venial) sins are absolved. Furthermore, it didn't say in 1 Pet. 3:18-20 that the spirits in prison of those who were disobedient were "forgiven". Authorities on the Bible are agreed in light of other scriptures that Jesus' preaching to the spirits in prison was not about redemption or absolution of sins; and to suppose so would contradict His teaching of the consequences of people dying in their sins in other verses.

I think our problems are solved by trying not to read things into the Bible that are not there; but rather to state things are they are. There's one principle that has helped me in this issue - I've learnt to not think above what is written (I Cor. 4:6), and have found it safest to state things as simply as they are in their context.

Baptism does not wash away "Original Sin"; and 'purgatory' is a notion that was not taught by Jesus Christ.

My dear mlks_baby, I am becoming convinced that you are only interested in ‘being right’ at all cost rather than embracing biblical verses that contradict your stance. You also talk about invectives. If you cannot take it, then don’t dish it. I refer you to your last posts where you made several thinly-veiled attempts at incivility. If you contest this, I shall point them out. However, it was wrong of me to retaliate and so I apologise. I hope you can do the same.

Moving on, you left my direct question unanswered. For the purpose of fluidity in this discussion of ours, I suggest you immediately address the question or declare your inability to do so. I shall rephrase: If you have a sinner whose sins are forgiven and another whose sins are washed away, what is the difference between the two sinners in the eyes of God? Again I implore you to make your answer specific enough to be of direct bearing to the question. Your previous attempt was not.

mlks_baby:

I saw that verse before my last rejoinder; even so it did not say that 'sprinkling clean water' was baptism that cleanses "Original Sin", unless you're saying that the defilements of idols is your meaning of 'Original Sin'. Idolatory is not the same thing as Original Sin, and my statements remain as is.

Mlks_baby, was it only idolatry that the verse addressed? Was that all you saw? Ezekiel 36:25 states: “I will sprinkle clean water on you and make you clean from all your idols and everything else that has defiled you”. Since the Psalmist tells us that we were sinful from the time we were conceived, how does this not apply under the banner of ‘everything else’?

mlks_baby:

Second, in quoting 2nd Maccabees, you're referencing a document that has no bearing on Christian doctrine, which again has no bearing upon my assertion that Jesus did not teach anything in semblance to purgatory. 2nd Mac. sheds light on Jewish traditions rather than the teachings of Christ.

Firstly, you can say that of all the books in the OT. Secondly, the book of Maccabees has from the earliest ages of the Church been accepted as canonical and authentic. You may disagree. That is your prerogative. The race for salvation is an individual one.

mlks_baby:

Authorities on the Bible are agreed in light of other scriptures that Jesus' preaching to the spirits in prison was not about redemption or absolution of sins; and to suppose so would contradict His teaching of the consequences of people dying in their sins in other verses.

First, there is no contradiction as Jesus Himself makes a distinction between types of sin. I have addressed this. Second, who are these authorities? Choose your answer carefully. Third, if Jesus’ preaching to the imprisoned spirits was not ‘about redemption’, then what was it about? What was its purpose? What do your authorities say? Do take you time to explain this as your case hangs on it.

mlks_baby:

Baptism does not wash away "Original Sin"; and 'purgatory' is a notion that was not taught by Jesus Christ.

I have spoken extensively about Original Sin so there is no need to continue beating that drum. The biblical references have been provided for those who are in any doubt.

Concerning purgatory, what did Jesus mean when he said in Luke 12:47-48 – “The servant who knows what his master wants him to do, but does not get himself ready and do it, will be punished with a heavy whipping. But the servant who does not know what his master wants, and yet does something for which he deserves a whipping, will be punished with a light whipping”. Are there now different categories of Hell? The extra-hot chamber where heavy whipping is conducted, and the deliciously-warm one where the guarantee of a light whipping resides? Again, choose your answer carefully.

@Nutter,

I have not tried to be "right at all cost" - simply stating it as it is in the Bible: no more, no less. I do not use or interject a word that I don't find in any verse, so the Biblical verses referenced in my rejoinders have so far not contradicted anything I said. The verses you quoted in some of your lines are not addressing what you're stating, and that's what I've tried to draw your attention to. Besides, you still haven't left me any definition of what you mean by "Original Sin", even though I stated mine and showed verses that bear out my point.

Second, not only have I answered your question; I've also left an explanation about the same in reference to the difference between "forgiveness" and "washing/taking away" of sins; stating clearly that I do not pit one sinner against another. As far as I don't see the Bible misconstruing the terms, I could not do so. If I was wrong about the reference or the difference between Leviticus 4 and Hebrews 10, it would be great to see how. Since you haven't brought me the verses as yet to contradict my stance, I re-state it once more: "Baptism does not take away sins" - I don't find it stated anywhere that it does; and I went as far as showing that only the Blood of Jesus takes away sins, to which again you didn't show how the Bible contradicts my stance in that.

Ezek 36:25 does not speak of Original Sin. When once you define the term, this confusion will be minimised for me, at least. I haven't seen it in the Bible where idolatory or 'everything else' defines "Original Sin." If God hasn't said so in that verse, I'm sorry I can't state it otherwise.

In especially the Catholic tradition (and I'm not Roman Catholic), Maccabbees and other apocryphal books are regarded as canonical. The "Church" you're referring to does not speak on behalf on Protestants; and my views are informed by the fact that that the ideas of the apocryphal documents do not appear in Jesus teachings as found in the New Testament.

My case does not "hang on" my quoting authorities or not, and I don't see how this has turned into a legal proceeding. I've chosen my answers carefully in what I said previously, and nowhere did I disparage between degrees of sin. Second, the passage in 1 Pet. 3:18-20 says nothing of redemption for the spirits in prison, and I woulnd't force an idea into what is not there. At best, I'll reference just a few of the commentaries on this text:

    "The spirits of disobedient sinners, as soon as they are out of their bodies,
     are committed to the prison of hell, whence there is no redemption"
     [Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible].

    "I have quoted all these authorities from the most authentic and correct copies
     of the Vulgate, to show that from them there is no ground to believe that the
     text speaks of Christ’s going to hell to preach the Gospel to the damned, or of
     his going to some feigned place where the souls of the patriarchs were detained,
     to whom he preached, and whom he delivered from that place and took with him
     to paradise, which the Romish Church holds as an article of faith."
     [Adam Clark's Commentary on the Bible, 1 Peter 3].

Adam Clark on the same page further states:

    "Though the judicious Calmet holds with his Church this opinion, yet he cannot consider
     the text of St. Peter as a proof of it. I will set down his own words:
              “The opinion which states that Jesus Christ descended into hell, to announce
                his coming to the ancient patriarchs, and to deliver them from that species of
                prison, where they had so long waited for him, is incontrovertible;
                and we (the Catholics) consider it as an article of our faith: but we may doubt
                whether this be the meaning of St. Peter in this place.”
     [Adam Clark's Commentary on the Bible, 1 Peter 3].
{Just about the same position with Clark and Matthew Henry is shared by several others including Albert Barnes, and the notes in Robertson's Word Pictures.}

You can see that even when a Catholic authority supposes your interpretation of 1 Pet. 3:18-20, he has doubts as to if that is what the text says. As long as it does not say anything about purgatory, I wouldn't interject it there.

In Luke 12:47-48, I don't see Jesus referring to Hell or Purgatory there. There are other passages in the NT that speak of judgment in terms of reward to service, but none of them gives the idea of purgatory. First, if purgatory is a place of purification where one's venial sins are absolved (according to Catholic tradition), then Luke 12:47-48 was not speaking of such a place ("whipping" does not absolve the sins of anyone - sins are forgiven and taken away on the merit of Christ's blood and I've given the various references for that earlier).

The context of the passage in Luke 12 should be clear from verse 37 to 48 inclusive - it points to the rewards and judgements at Christ's second coming, not purgatory. It is at that time that the judgements will be given to the "servants" according to their faithfulness or carelessness. Other verses in the NT that bear upon the fact of the believer's reward at Christ's second coming include II Cor. 5:10 - "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

That passage in Luke was not at all speaking of purgatory, and when you compare scripture with scripture, the context is clear. I have chosen my answers carefully from the Bible itself, and my points still remain the same as far as you've not convinced me otherwise. Your references don't say what you said they do; and my statements have not contradicted the verses so far referenced in my rejoinders.

The verses you quoted in some of your lines are not addressing what you're stating, and that's what I've tried to draw your attention to.

Please list them.

Besides, you still haven't left me any definition of what you mean by "Original Sin", even though I stated mine and showed verses that bear out my point.

If you had read my posts carefully enough, you would have seen where I clearly stated that Original Sin is the sin handed down to all as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. I went further to quote the Psalmist David who spoke of one’s sin originating from the time of conception. This is a most rudimentary issue for Christians. Don’t cling to it. Help for your position cannot be found therein.

Second, not only have I answered your question; I've also left an explanation about the same in reference to the difference between "forgiveness" and "washing/taking away" of sins;

No you haven’t, actually. The question remains unanswered. I asked for a direct answer (since you see the direct distinction). Your boldness to assert that a distinction exists is not at all matched by what you call an answer. I’m still waiting. I believe my question (now asked twice and even re-phrased in case there was a problem with comprehension) was clear enough to educe a response equal in clarity. Unless of course you do not have an answer. Stating that you do not ‘pit one sinner against another’ simply will not cut it. You said that God’s forgiveness of sins differs from His washing away of sins. How then does God view the two categories of people who fall into either camp? What is your interpretation of the text? You either allow your boldness to transfer to your answer, or please refrain from making such categorical statements altogether.[/color][color=#990000]


Ezek 36:25 does not speak of Original Sin. When once you define the term, this confusion will be minimised for me, at least. I haven't seen it in the Bible where idolatory or 'everything else' defines "Original Sin." If God hasn't said so in that verse, I'm sorry I can't state it otherwise.

I’m happy you now ‘see’ the full verse and not were it speaks of idolatry alone. That’s a start. Now, just so I’m clear, because it doesn’t refer specifically to Original Sin you cannot state it does? Fair enough. How then can you definitively state that it doesn’t?


My case does not "hang on" my quoting authorities or not, and I don't see how this has turned into a legal proceeding. I've chosen my answers carefully in what I said previously, and nowhere did I disparage between degrees of sin.

You were the one who attempted to cement your case by introducing the opinions of ‘authorities’, not I. Having read what your ‘authorities’ stated on the passage, I remain underwhelmed by their argument – one you borrow heavily from. You still have not told us why Jesus preached to those imprisoned souls. If they were in Heaven, they wouldn’t have needed preaching; if they were in Hell, preaching wouldn’t have saved them. Your attempt to cloak your evasion of the central issues in verbosity is not lost on me.

You can see that even when a Catholic authority supposes your interpretation of 1 Pet. 3:18-20, he has doubts as to if that is what the text says.

Please, don’t get things and/or people mixed up. The ‘Catholic authority’ you refer to does not speak for the Church - absolutely not. As his take on that passage is diametrically-opposed to that of the Church, where then does his authority lie? In Catholicism? I think not. I told you to choose your answers carefully. Please try again.

If you do not see the notion of Purgatory for what it is – based on the teachings of Jesus as I have documented – then that is your right. How you can accept that there are degrees of sin and yet disagree that our just God (who will pay each according to what they did or did not do) will send all manner of sinners to the same place, regardless of offence, I will perhaps never understand. Another question I asked which you have not addressed concerns Hell. Are there different chambers of Hell then? One for those deserving of severe punishment, and another for those guilty of venial sins at the time of their death?

This time, please try not to be evasive or verbose. Address the questions by providing answers that are specific enough to be of direct bearing. That should clear things up really quickly.

@Nutter,

I've answered your questions quite clearly, and if you can't see that, I'm sorry I can't help the discussion beyond that. The issue is quite simple:

#Baptism does not wash away Original Sin, and if the meaning of the term to you is "the sin handed down to all as a
result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve", then I take it that the verses you quoted do not speak of Original Sin.
Ezek. 36:25 does not indicate that, as I'm persuaded it does not, and only speaks of idolatory and every other sin
that the Israelites committed in their departing from the commandments of God in the Mosaic Law. "All your filthiness"
(vs. 25, KJV) in that verse does not speak of "the sin handed down to all as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve"
(Original Sin), but rather to their own sins; and other verses in the chapter indicate what some of these 'filthiness'
are -
"the shame of the heathen" (vs. 6)
"their own way and by their doings" (vs. 17)
"the blood that they had shed upon the land" (vs. 18)
"they profaned my holy name" (vs 20)
"your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good" (vs. 31)
"your iniquities and for your abominations" (vs. 31).

God called attention to their own sins which they committed, and it was of these He would cleanse them, to the end that
they may walk in His statues and dwell in the land He gave to their fathers (vs. 30-31). The chapter was not speaking of
Original Sin, and I've shared as to that.

# The Blood of Christ alone takes away sins; and I've also shared on that. If I was being evasive, you said absolutely
nothing about this to point out my error in that. If the Bible does not teach what I've stated, I'll be glad to see how it is
otherwise so.

# Luke 12:47-48 does not mention or teach purgatory, neither was there a mention of "Hell" in there; and I also
dealt with that. If Christ was teaching about hell, I'll be glad for you to point it out, or highlight it for me. I also
referenced II Cor. 5:20 to indicate that the context of Luke 12:47-48 was about the reward of the Lord to each
one at His second coming. He made no mention of 'hell' or 'purgatory' in that passage of Luke 12.47-48, and it is
clear that He was referring to the rewards at His second coming when you take the context from verses 37-48
inclusive. Again, if I was wrong, I'd have been happy to see how; but you passed it over.

# {The verses you quoted in some of your lines are not addressing what you're stating, and that's what I've tried to
draw your attention to.

Please list them.}

Luke 12:47-48 - no purgatory or hell there
Ezekiel 36:25 - no Original Sin there
Acts 19:5 - the baptism was 'water baptism', not 'Spirit baptism' (the latter was in verse 6).

We may disagree on I Pet. 3:18-20; basically it was not pointing to Jesus' preaching redemption to disembodied spirits in
prison. For me, two things stand out in those verses:

(i) the result of Christ's having preached to them is not stated, and there's no need to read any notion into it that cannot
be supported by other texts of Scripture. In general terms, when the Bible speaks of disembodied spirits kept in prison
in connection with disobedience to God, the focus is always on pronouncement of judgement - as in the examples in
2 Pet. 2:4 - “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of
darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;” and in Jude 1:6, “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their
own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.”

In the latter texts, angels are in view; but the point is that where scripture speaks of spirits being held in prison (or chains
of darkness), it quite often points to judgement rather than to redemption.

(ii) Second, those to whom the texts point to are said to have been disobedient to God - clearly strong language that
indicate judgement was assigned them: "sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the
days of Noah" (vs. 20). From the whole tenor of Scripture, what do you suppose is the fate of those who put God's patience
to the test by disobedience? Under the Old Covenant, "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three
witnesses" (Heb. 10:28). In the New, those who have despised the Spirit of grace are warned in very strong language that
a sorer punishment await them (Heb. 10:29).

I see it simply this way: in the light of other texts bearing on the issue, I Pet. 3:18-20 would simply mean that Christ went
to the disobedient spirits held in prison and proclaimed His victory and their judgement. You may disagree - I acknowledged
your right from onset to do so; however, the text does not indicate that Christ went to offer them absolution of venial sins -
they were disobedient to God when once His longsuffering/patience waited: and that speaks of nothing less of judgement.


Stating that you do not ‘pit one sinner against another’ simply will not cut it.

I think I reserve the right to my opinions and to state whatever I do as I so wish; though you may consider that insufficient.
Earlier you had no problem exercising the same right to be 'evasive' as you take the liberty of accusing me:

Nutter:

I will not make any attempt to state whether one would go to hell when they die based on what they did or did not do.
To do so would be to pass judgement on them.

In any case, if my distinguishing between 'forgiveness' and 'washing away' sins is not Biblical, why not show me how?
What I see in the Bible is that forgiveness secures divine pardon and has its limitations, one of which is that the worshipper
may still not have a purged conscience before God; consequently he could not draw near unto God in the holy of holies -
(Heb. 10:1-4). Whereas, the taking away of sins makes a person wholly sanctified with a purged conscience by the
offering of Jesus in the vicarious sacrifice (Heb. 10:9-10, 14). Forgiveness does not purge a person's conscience, because
it is clear from Leviticus 4 that people could be forgiven, but their consciences not made perfect. The perfection comes
only by the Blood of Christ purging our consciences of sins (Heb. 9:14). There - that is the difference between the someone
whose sins are 'forgiven' and another whose sins are taken away. If you don't agree and cannot see that this answers
your questions, please let me know why and how; or better still, show me how I am wrong in this regard.

Another question I asked which you have not addressed concerns Hell. Are there different chambers of Hell then? One for those deserving of severe punishment, and another for those guilty of venial sins at the time of their death?

You quoted Luke 12:47-48 and hinted at Hell in those verses - I've addressed this above by stating that it does not mention that.

This time, please try not to be evasive or verbose. Address the questions by providing answers that are specific enough to be of direct bearing. That should clear things up really quickly.

I don't see how I've been evasive - by answering in detail and providing Biblical texts to the effect? I've done it again here and helped for better understanding by providing the relevant scriptures again. If you can't see the distinctions between forgiveness and the washing/taking away of sins in my rejoinders, or any other issues, I've done so yet again. If you feel I'm not saying it as the Bible does, could you kindly provide verses to counter what you disagree with?

[color=#000099][/color]


NEWS UPDATE>>>>>>>>





[b][/b] OBASANJO IN THE BIBLE



CHECK OUT ECLESIASTICS 4:13 $14

[color=#000099][/color]


NEWS UPDATE>>>>>>>>





[b][/b]  OBASANJO IN THE BIBLE



CHECK OUT ECLESIASTICS 4:13 $14

@mlks_baby

I see it simply this way: in the light of other texts bearing on the issue, I Pet. 3:18-20 would simply mean that Christ went to the disobedient spirits held in prison and proclaimed His victory and their judgement. You may disagree - I acknowledged your right from onset to do so; however, the text does not indicate that Christ went to offer them absolution of venial sins -  they were disobedient to God when once His longsuffering/patience waited: and that speaks of nothing less of judgement.

You say I may disagree because you know you have not addressed the issue in the slightest. Again, you replied in a verbose manner. What do the Fall of the angels have to do with that verse.  I mean, really! Do try to stick to the issue. We are talking about a particular group that Jesus preached to after they died. That’s all. Try not to confuse yourself deliberately or otherwise. How do you get from that verse that Jesus went to declare His victory and their judgement? How exactly? Please humour me. The verse is very clear. Jesus went to preach to them. The operative word remains preach. That’s why I asked you what the purpose of this preaching could mean. If it was about judgement, the verse would have included the word 'condemnation' or one of its many synonyms. It didn’t. Bear in mind that you refused to accept verses I provided on ‘Original Sin’ and ‘Purgatory’ because these were not specifically mentioned in the verses. How then can you accept this one in the context you propose? Especially since there is no mystery as to what Jesus was doing? You cannot have it both ways.

Similarly, the result of the preaching is not an issue. Whether those imprisoned souls chose to turn a new leaf or not is completely irrelevant. The issue is quite simple. Why was preaching necessary in the first place. Like I said, those in Heaven do not need it; those in Hell cannot be helped by it. It’s very simple for those who really want to see and not those who choose to hold doggedly to a viewpoint – for to accept the verse as is, is to facilitate the implosion of all arguments to the contrary. Jesus went to preach my dear. He went to preach. WHY?


I think I reserve the right to my opinions and to state whatever I do as I so wish; though you may consider that insufficient. Earlier you had no problem exercising the same right to be 'evasive' as you take the liberty of accusing me:

Quote from: Nutter on Yesterday at 07:51:34 PM
I will not make any attempt to state whether one would go to hell when they die based on what they did or did not do. To do so would be to pass judgement on them.

         
Oh dear. Please don’t deliberately misrepresent what I have written.  It signals desperation. Remember, this is a discourse about the teachings of the Bible. It should not become, as it obviously has for you, a do-or-die affair. Thankfully, the post (my post) and the context in which it was written is still available for all to see. There was no evasion whatsoever. I’d sooner admit I am wrong than waffle - that is neither my way nor my nature.


Now, let’s get things in their proper perspective. I wrote in response to a direct question from wendytilda. She asked: “Nutter,could you say that  if a person gives his life to Christ and lets say two days later(maybe he didn’t get the opportunity to be baptized)he dies he is going to hell?” Now, in formulating a response to wendytilda, I deeply considered that Jesus teaches us that we should not judge else we be judged (Mat 7: 1-6; Luke 6:37-42). It is thus not the place of any to make such a bold statement as to the destination of any soul. That right is reserved for God alone. Why didn’t you submit my full response? The remainder of my response was: “Only God knows the true state of the heart. Every case will be judged on its own merit. Above all, I believe in purgatory which is the ‘half-way house’ between Heaven and Hell. This is because, as Jesus Himself made clear, some sins are worse than others.” Therefore I addressed her question directly by stating my inability to provide an answer – due to biblical directives. Did you miss my point about only God knowing the true state of the heart or did that bit not suit your purpose?

As if that was not bad enough, you go on to compare my reservation on making a definitive statement on the eternal abode of a particular soul (as we have been instructed by the Jesus to do) to your inability to tell us how God views the sinners he ‘forgives’ and those whose sins He ‘washes away’. Distinctions which YOU made. Stop comparing apples and oranges my dear.

         
What I see in the Bible is that forgiveness secures divine pardon and has its limitations, one of which is that the worshipper may still not have a purged conscience before God;

Really? Is that what YOU see? I haven’t until now come across anybody who can confidently state that when we are forgiven of our sins, that forgiveness still has what you term ‘limitations’. Hmmm. Silly me. There I was thinking that having a ‘purged conscience’ was imperative before God (who knows our innermost thoughts) would be willing to extend forgiveness. There I was thinking that remorse came before forgiveness. You are putting the cart before the horse here; all because you made an initial error in drawing a distinction. Now it’s snowballing on you, you are making such ludicrous statements which have no place in Christian teaching.

Okay then, what about the numerous examples that scripture provides of Jesus Himself extending forgiveness to those who did wrong? Still had limitations? A key example can be drawn from Luke 7. In verses 44-50, Jesus extends forgiveness to the woman who washed his feet with perfume and her tears, and dried them with her hair. His exact words to her were: “Your sins are forgiven” (verse 48). Jesus looked into her heart and saw that she was penitent and in search of forgiveness from Him and graciously extended that forgiveness to her. Further, in Mat 26: 13, Jesus states of the woman: “Now, I assure you that wherever this gospel is preached all over the world, what she has done [that is, her actions which were driven by remorse for her sins] will be told in memory of her”. Would He have said this of her if she didn't have a 'purged conscience' before God? Where then is the limitation that forgiveness tows?

I encouraged you on more than one occasion not to get tied up in semantics but you refused. You are now being confounded by the very distinctions you attempted to draw. When you find yourself in a hole, it’s always a good idea to stop digging.

You quoted Luke 12:47-48 and hinted at Hell in those verses - I've addressed this above by stating that it does not mention that.

The verse implies ‘punishment’; symbolized by its reference to ‘whipping’. Therefore my question still stands and your inability to directly address it remains obvious. Two kinds of punishment are spoken about – light and heavy whipping. Will they both be exacted in Hell?

I see you have chosen to discontinue a defence of the position held by your ‘authorities’. Good. A continued defence would most certainly have led to a dead-end. I’m still awaiting answers to my questions. You have done precious little so far to address them with specificity. If you cannot see that, then that’s a shame.


@andy4wisdom

Ecclesiastes 4: 13-14

“A man may rise from poverty to become king of his country, or go from prison to the throne, but if in his old age he is too foolish to take advice, he is not as well off as a young man who is poor but intelligent”.

Well spotted; very well spotted!

@Nutter,

While mlks_baby is waiting to reply yours, please answer these questions for me, if you care:

            ¤ where in Luke 12:47-48 that you referenced earlier did the Lord Jesus mention Hell or purgatory
               or half-way house?

            ¤ where in Ezekiel 36:25 did God speak of Original Sin?

            ¤ where in the Bible does Jesus or the apostles teach that baptism washes away Original Sin?

            ¤ since 'forgiveness' and 'washing away' sins are mere semantics to you, how does Leviticus 4:20
               and Hebrews 10:4 say the same thing?

            ¤ why is the result of the preaching in 1 Peter 3:18-20 not an issue?

            ¤ What have you said about your assertion that Acts 19:5 was not water-baptism but Spirit-baptism?

            ¤ where in the Bible does it say that all prophets were sent to prepare the way of the Messiah - as you earlier asserted? -

Nutter:

You make a ‘concession’ for Isaiah because of, as you say, 'his prophetic calling to announce the coming of the Messiah’. Just so you are clear, all biblical prophets in one way or the other were sent to prepare the way for the Messiah; none more so than John the Baptist who is wholly recognised as the precursor of Christ.

             ¤ And in your own view, let me ask you your own question: "What is the state of the sinner who has
                his/her sins ‘forgiven’ as opposed to the sinner who has his/her sins ‘washed away’?

Waiting.

I'm waiting as well.

I've searched in vain for the doctrine of purgatory that Roman Catholics tell us is in the Bible.
It's simply not there. Those who are quoting verses for that notion are trying ever so hard
to put words in Jesus' mouth.

Questions for Nutter:

1. Since Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison in 1 Pet. 3:18-20, and mlks_baby's
    answers and explanations are "evasive" to you, what in your own view is the result
    of Jesus' preaching to those disobedient spirits described there?

2. And I ask again, why is the result of the preaching not an issue?

3. What did Jesus preach to the spirits in prison, since they died in their disobedience?

4. If you suppose that 1 Pet. 3:18-20 is the key texts for 'purgatory', what kind of venial
    sins constitute disobedience to God? Is disobedience to God a venial sin?

5. Why is it that Jesus went and preached to only those people in Noah's day mentioned
as the 'spirits in prison' - were there no other "disobedient" spirits who died in their
    sins?

And. . .

6. What is purgatory in your own view?


Waiting as well.

@welborn and Gwaine,

Welcome to the party chaps! The more, the merrier.

Surely you read my previous posts? All the questions you have asked of me have been previously addressed in great depth. Except perhaps:

From welborn:
¤ And in your own view, let me ask you your own question: "What is the state of the sinner who has his/her sins ‘forgiven’ as opposed to the sinner who has his/her sins ‘washed away’?

Not so fast, mate. What is YOUR view? As you lot have insisted that there is a difference, why don’t you let us know what it is. Does an answer fail you? I'm not surprised.


why is the result of the preaching in 1 Peter 3:18-20 not an issue

Simple. The same reason that the ‘result’ of preaching to those alive is not an issue per se. It would be preferable if all accepted the teachings of Christ; but even if none do, that would not detract from the fact that an opportunity for salvation was provided.


From Gwaine:
Since Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison in 1 Pet. 3:18-20, and mlks_baby's answers and explanations are "evasive" to you, what in your own view is the result of Jesus' preaching to those disobedient spirits described there?

I have neither made presumptions as to what the result was nor have I requested same from mlks_baby. My focus has always been on the purpose of Jesus preaching to the dead and nothing more. What was the purpose my dear Gwaine? What was the purpose? Was it a pointless exercise?


What did Jesus preach to the spirits in prison, since they died in their disobedience?

At least you accept that Jesus preached. That is sufficient. Focus on the purpose if you can.


Why is it that Jesus went and preached to only those people in Noah's day mentioned as the 'spirits in prison' - were there no other "disobedient" spirits who died in their sins?

That’s a very interesting question. I wish I knew why it was this particular group and if there were any others. I am yet to find any reason for this in the bible. Have you?


As you guys have decided to join our little party, I forward, without hesitation, the very same questions I have asked of mlks_baby -questions which have remained unanswered in a specific manner. I hope you guys do a better job.


Now, I’m the one waiting.

@Nutter,

I'm sorry to disappoint you - you've been as evasive (and craftily so) as you accused mlks_baby; and my questions have not been addressed. Please answer them forthwith and try not beating round the issues.

Thank you.

Nutter:

From Gwaine:
Since Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison in 1 Pet. 3:18-20, and mlks_baby's answers and explanations are "evasive" to you, what in your own view is the result of Jesus' preaching to those disobedient spirits described there?

I have neither made presumptions as to what the result was nor have I requested same from mlks_baby. My focus has always been on the purpose of Jesus preaching to the dead and nothing more. What was the purpose my dear Gwaine? What was the purpose? Was it a pointless exercise?

I asked you the question, my dear Nutter; and i'm asking it one more time:
"what in your own view is the result of Jesus' preaching to those disobedient
spirits described there?"

And if "result" is somewhat stressful for you, let me put it this way to
simplify the question for you: "Since your focus has always been on the
purpose to the dead and nothing more, please tell me: what then is the
purpose?"

I don't know if for you it has been a pointless exercise - but that sounds
like you're becoming desperate and can't calm down to discuss issues
with people on the forum. I'll just iggy your hilarity and ask simply that
you address my questions without dribbling round issues. Glad to know
that I'm not the only one concerned about your crafty art of dodging and
conveniently going round issues. Please answer my questions - I'm seeking
answers from you. . . answers, and nothing more or less.

And yes, I do hope that you do a better job than your weathered attempts
at gleefully accusing others. You can keep up with that if it makes the sun
shine brighter over you - just simply answer my questions.

@welborn and Gwaine

You blokes are really funny. I thought you joined this discussion with the aim of taking part. My questions too tough? Did they hit too close to home? Can’t answer them without compromising your stand? Perhaps next time you’d think deeply about the accusations you randomly level at Catholics. The party has just begun folks.

I have answered your questions either in direct response to your posts or in response to mlks_baby. Try to read the entire thread if you are truly interested in taking part in this fun discourse of ours. That is the logical starting point. Additionally, I was civil in my response to the pair of you so why the harsh words? You who claim to be more Christian than Catholics, is that the Christian way to address issues? Think about that for a while if you will.

My questions preceded your entry to this thread. Since you have taken the position that mlks_baby flies with pride, it becomes necessary for you, if you are indeed sure of the infallibility of your position, to provide answers. If you had answers, you’d have been falling all over yourselves to provide them by now. Throwing my questions back at me is not only laughable, it’s infantile. Where do you think you are? Sesame Street?

If I am crafty because I asked questions you are unable to answer, then I’m proud to be crafty. It speaks volumes to me that in two attempts (and counting) you haven’t approached anything remotely resembling an answer. At least mlks_baby made attempts to address the issues – insufficient though those attempts were. What have you done? Gone round in circles. Well done. You can now go off thinking you contributed to the thread. Hilarious.

Please answer my questions if you can. Saying, ‘I don’t know’, is also an answer. Defend your positions. Find your courage. Else I bid you Shalom!

@Nutter,

Fascinating, and this is the best joke you've yet pulled - scurrying off
at your own games. Uhm, did you read me harsh? Where - on the same
Sesame Street you pandered? Sorry, I'm not going there with you, so
I'll beg again (yes, civilly 'beg') that you address my questions. It matters
very little whose views I find interesting - I want answers from you.

'Accusations at Catholics' - making you desperate and uncomfy already?
Please. I only asked questions - and that translates into accusations?

I see you're proud at being crafty, and I respect whatever else you might
want to add to the list - it's personally yours. Are you able to answer
my questions or not? Please, don't dribble this with fancy words: if you
missed them, scroll up and provide direct answers.

Shalom to you too.