The Nicene Creed is not Christian

ewq1938 · Jul 28, 2015

The Barrd said:
Uh...how can water wash away sins? It's just water.

Then how can blood? How can verbal repentance? God forgives sins but he does it in various ways. One way is through a baptism, another through Christ's blood when we repent, two others here:

Jas_5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Here a person who converts someone to Christ has their sins "hidden" which is the same as being forgiven.
1Pe_4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Here someone who shows charity to others has their sins forgiven.

Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
Luk 7:38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
Luk 7:41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
Luk 7:43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
Luk 7:44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
Luk 7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

She not repent of her sins yet her sins were forgiven and Christ also declares her faith saved her!

zeke25 · Jul 28, 2015

Doug_E_Fresh said:
@Zeke25

Where did I say that? I said:

I never even mentioned water. What I believe about baptism has nothing to do with water. I think the problem is that you're assuming that all definitions of baptism include the use of water, specifically. Otherwise I don't think that you would call what i'm referring to as baptism. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Doug,

At the end of the last post you said that. Now if you want to change horses in mid-stream and talk about a baptism other than water baptism then please explain yourself. Explain what this other baptism is and tell us if you think it pertains to the Nicene Creed. Perhaps your icon shows a masked person because you like to play games - and now you're playing another one. You'll have to find someone else to play with, I've already given you the benefit of the doubt by answering you the first time. If your modus operandi doesn't change, there won't be another time

Zeke25

zeke25 · Jul 28, 2015

ewq1938 said:
Then how can blood? How can verbal repentance? God forgives sins but he does it in various ways. One way is through a baptism, another through Christ's blood when we repent, two others here:

Jas_5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Here a person who converts someone to Christ has their sins "hidden" which is the same as being forgiven.
1Pe_4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Here someone who shows charity to others has their sins forgiven.

Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
Luk 7:38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
Luk 7:41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
Luk 7:43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
Luk 7:44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
Luk 7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

She not repent of her sins yet her sins were forgiven and Christ also declares her faith saved her!

ewq1938,

The Barrd gives you a sincere, truthful, and accurate answer. So, what do you respond with? Proof of your biblical illiteracy. Your post is not even worthy of a response. If you want to get serious let me know. In the meantime I've lost all patience with you. I cannot type an entire - "here is what the full counsel of God explains on this subject". You will need to pick that up yourself after years of pressing in to the KIngdom of God, and you can't do that if you go in with your own pre-chosen ideas and pre-chosen agenda. Me thinks you think it is fun just to throw Scriptures up - that you don't even care about - to see if you can get a response from someone by pulling their chain. As LInus used to say, "Good grief".

Zeke25

ewq1938 · Jul 28, 2015

Proof of your biblical illiteracy. Your post is not even worthy of a response.

I added you to my ignore list. Goodbye.

Doug_E_Fresh · Jul 28, 2015

I'll try to make myself as clear as possible so you understand why I've been saying, what I've been saying. Rather than expecting you to give me enough grace to hear my opinion open mindedly. So, to be clear, I have never changed horses mid-stream. Here's why, and please try to follow along because you never know, you may end up agreeing by the end of it.

To understand what baptism means:

“baptize” is a transliteration of the original Greek word baptizw (baptizo). In turn, baptizo comes from the root word baptw (bapto), a term used in the first century for immersing a garment first into bleach and then into dye, both cleansing and changing the color of the cloth.

I think we can both agree, that this definitive symbology would reference Jesus cleansing us of our sins and washing us white as snow.*

*Ref. John 13:8 "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

That being said, I think it is important for one to ask, "At what point does 'baptism' really happen?". For me, the answer is when you place your faith in Jesus, which is also your salvation.

So how does my explanation line up with what I said?

I'll disclose that I am on the side that says being baptised into the family of God forgives my sins.

So why did I word it this way? It's actually quite ingenious if you're willing to work through it.

Just as you become clean in the eyes of God as a result of the sacrifice you believe that Jesus gave you, you were given two things according to Jesus: Cleanliness and Salvation. Remember: "... Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you [clean you], you have no part with me [salvation]."

These two are meant to be together. Not separate acts. Not one or the other. In the same way, baptism should happen (outwardly) upon salvation. How do we know this? Baptism with water is only a symbol of that which saves, and symbols don't save. It is meant to be a testament to the work in you done through Christ. Nothing more, nothing less. That is its importance, but it is not necessary for one to be saved.
Additionally, the only way to be a part of the family of God is to become washed by Jesus, as again, He says in that verse.

I believe the Nicene Creed, and the counsel creating it not to be so ignorant as to claim that "water baptism" is to what they were referencing when they word it this way:

we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;

When so much of scripture already states that faith in Jesus alone is what will wash away sins.
With this understanding, I conclude and agree with the Nicene Creed in saying that salvation, and baptism, occur during the same "event"; and that you do not need to be "Saved"/"Baptised" twice for the remission of sins.

Hopefully this will be beneficial to the thread.

ewq1938 · Jul 28, 2015

Doug_E_Fresh said:
To understand what baptism means:

“baptize” is a transliteration of the original Greek word baptizw (baptizo). In turn, baptizo comes from the root word baptw (bapto), a term used in the first century for immersing a garment first into bleach and then into dye, both cleansing and changing the color of the cloth.

You skipped the important part:

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

zeke25 · Jul 28, 2015

ewq1938 said:
I added you to my ignore list. Goodbye.

Thank you for such a kind and gracious act.

zeke25 · Jul 28, 2015

Doug_E_Fresh said:
I'll try to make myself as clear as possible so you understand why I've been saying, what I've been saying. Rather than expecting you to give me enough grace to hear my opinion open mindedly. So, to be clear, I have never changed horses mid-stream. Here's why, and please try to follow along because you never know, you may end up agreeing by the end of it.

To understand what baptism means:

“baptize” is a transliteration of the original Greek word baptizw (baptizo). In turn, baptizo comes from the root word baptw (bapto), a term used in the first century for immersing a garment first into bleach and then into dye, both cleansing and changing the color of the cloth.

I think we can both agree, that this definitive symbology would reference Jesus cleansing us of our sins and washing us white as snow.*

*Ref. John 13:8 "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

That being said, I think it is important for one to ask, "At what point does 'baptism' really happen?". For me, the answer is when you place your faith in Jesus, which is also your salvation.

So how does my explanation line up with what I said?

So why did I word it this way? It's actually quite ingenious if you're willing to work through it.

Just as you become clean in the eyes of God as a result of the sacrifice you believe that Jesus gave you, you were given two things according to Jesus: Cleanliness and Salvation. Remember: "... Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you [clean you], you have no part with me [salvation]."

These two are meant to be together. Not separate acts. Not one or the other. In the same way, baptism should happen (outwardly) upon salvation. How do we know this? Baptism with water is only a symbol of that which saves, and symbols don't save. It is meant to be a testament to the work in you done through Christ. Nothing more, nothing less. That is its importance, but it is not necessary for one to be saved.
Additionally, the only way to be a part of the family of God is to become washed by Jesus, as again, He says in that verse.

I believe the Nicene Creed, and the counsel creating it not to be so ignorant as to claim that "water baptism" is to what they were referencing when they word it this way:

When so much of scripture already states that faith in Jesus alone is what will wash away sins.
With this understanding, I conclude and agree with the Nicene Creed in saying that salvation, and baptism, occur during the same "event"; and that you do not need to be "Saved"/"Baptised" twice for the remission of sins.

Hopefully this will be beneficial to the thread.

Doug,

Nice presentation and I think that it is beneficial to the thread. However, I do not believe that is what the makers of the Nicene Creed (381) meant at all when they wrote it. It would be nice if that is what they meant. But they did not explain it that way.

I’ve seen far too many councils, scholars, translators, and other interested parties fully trash the Scriptures in certain areas. So, I don’t believe that those who wrote the Nicene Creed had your insight or understanding. Let’s consider this. I pointed out earlier a Scripture in James 5:12 that we are not to take oaths. A creed is a form of oath taking. If the writers of this creed were squeaky clean they wouldn’t have turned it into a creed. A treatise to combat heresy is necessary, but to make it into a creed goes beyond that which is necessary.

Besides, many of the posters on this thread think and believe it is water baptism. They were not taught anything else. All of the explanations I’ve ever read and argued about, no one has ever understood it the way you presented it. So, for you it works. But using your explanation with the creed will only confuse others who do not understand it to be any thing other than water baptism.

As far as scholars and religious leaders trashing the Bible, I could give some examples - but this is quite a tangent.
Exodus 16:12 (not a translation rather an incorrect interpretation); Proverbs 7:9 (time markers are jumbled and not in proper order and it is translated incorrectly); Matthew 26:17 (this verse contradicts itself); Matthew 28:1 (incomplete translation that obscures the full meaning of the text); Mark 16:2 (they have no idea what “the sun rising” means); resurrected on Sunday - didn’t happen; crucified on Friday - didn’t happen; 3 days and 3 nights - they haven’t a clue; etc. I did not find these in a book, I haven’t written a book on them yet. But I do write treatises on them.

zeke25

Doug_E_Fresh · Jul 29, 2015

Just my personal opinions about some of what you said, but thank you for reading what I wrote.

I do not believe that is what the makers of the Nicene Creed (381) meant at all when they wrote it. It would be nice if that is what they meant.

I can see why you may not think that's what they meant, but personally I am willing to give the 150 people who came to the council the benefit of the doubt (to each their own).

From wikipedia about the 381 2nd-Ecumenical Council (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed):
The Council of Nicaea in 325 had not ended the Arian controversy which it had been called to clarify. Arius and his sympathizers, e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia were admitted back into the church after ostensibly accepting the Nicene creed. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the most vocal opponent of Arianism, was ultimately exiled through the machinations of Eusebius of Nicomedia. After the death of Constantine I in 337 and the accession of his Arian-leaning son Constantius II, open discussion of replacing Nicene creed itself began. Up until about 360, theological debates mainly dealt with the divinity of the Son, the second person of the Trinity. However, because the Council of Nicaea had not clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, it became a topic of debate. The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This was also known as Pneumatomachianism.

Another of my thoughts on this:

I pointed out earlier a Scripture in James 5:12 that we are not to take oaths. A creed is a form of oath taking. If the writers of this creed were squeaky clean they wouldn’t have turned it into a creed. A treatise to combat heresy is necessary, but to make it into a creed goes beyond that which is necessary.

Personally, I think its only fair to say that unless we were there, we can't be sure that it wasn't necessary. Even today in this thread we're debating about baptism. I think it comes down to the author's intention, and I'll expound on my view of that a little bit:

If it's true that these things were being debated:

After the death of Constantine I in 337 and the accession of his Arian-leaning son Constantius II, open discussion of replacing Nicene creed itself began. Up until about 360, theological debates mainly dealt with the divinity of the Son, the second person of the Trinity. However, because the Council of Nicaea had not clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, it became a topic of debate.

I think making the creed on some level may have done more harm than good, because "now we should define everything about Christianity". I think that this is one place where that problem originally began. We do this today, so much so that the church seems broken to the outside over the smallest ecumenical issues.

But what was it intended for? Unity. It was meant to provide a framework upon which it is safe, and scripturally rooted for you to base new beliefs on top of those foundational ones. Because of this, I don't think it's quite true to the definition of what a creed is, to equate it with an oath. I think sometimes, an oath is coupled with it, but at this point, since it had been changed from what it was in the 325 creed, which one would they "oath" to then? We can agree to disagree on these things, but I think we often find ourselves judging "who is right, or who is saved" by what they believe. In doing so, we have our own creeds about what it means to place faith in Christ. As an example, "no creed, but Christ." That's fine to say, but in saying that, part of the "creed" you believe in, requires you to pray. Otherwise, who would call someone a Christian if they have placed any importance on praying to the one worthy of being worshipped?

That's enough from me for now.

Have a good day zeke25,
- D

HammerStone · Jul 29, 2015

As is a vow Zeke, which the Apostle Paul took as documented in Acts 18:18. The Lord also made oaths (Hebrews 6:17, Hebrews 7:21, etc.)

Regardless, most organizations distinguish between an oath and creed. We ourselves tend to use creed in the sense of an outward expression of belief, while an oath would go a step further and often be a binding agreement or promise made to someone or some organization. For instance, in past times an oath was made towards a king, not a creed. So it's more complex than your explanation would yield, in fact I'd go as far to say your distinction is quite petty and not coherent. Nonetheless, you yourself have not proven what the Hebrew and Greek meant by oath, because knowing some of ancient cultures in the middle east, an oath would sound more like our modern phrase "I swear to..."

Unfortunately, you totally blew up the meaning of James 5:12. I realize that's probably not a nice way to say it, but it's just bad eisegesis.

This is how the HCSB renders it, without the unnecessary obfuscation of the KJV (I use a KJV for my night reading, btw.):

James 5:12 HCSB
Now above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. Your “yes” must be “yes,” and your “no” must be “no,” so that you won’t fall under judgment.

The point, is further related to the passage in Matthew 5 that you [partially] cited. In fact, you needed to cite Matthew 5:33-37:

Matthew 5:33-37 HCSB
“Again, you have heard that it was said to our ancestors, You must not break your oath, but you must keep your oaths to the Lord. But I tell you, don’t take an oath at all: either by heaven, because it is God’s throne; or by the earth, because it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. Neither should you swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black. But let your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes,’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no.’Anything more than this is from the evil one.

In other words, all of this nonsense that you're swearing on and cannot control one iota (contemporary translation: "I swear on my mother's grave, etc.") -- stop swearing on it. This is the message of the passage. Make your "yes" and "no" simply iron-clad meanings. When we somehow cite some large thing, as if we ever had the power to move that thing, is quite arrogant and pretentious. So, with all due respect, your theory about oath is bunk, both predicated upon a flawed definition at start, but also on flawed eisegesis as well.

lforrest · Jul 29, 2015

From the creed, "One baptism" must mean Jesus' baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire. John's baptism would be a second, anyone else's would be a third, etc.

zeke25 · Jul 29, 2015

HammerStone said:
As is a vow Zeke, which the Apostle Paul took as documented in Acts 18:18. The Lord also made oaths (Hebrews 6:17, Hebrews 7:21, etc.)

Regardless, most organizations distinguish between an oath and creed. We ourselves tend to use creed in the sense of an outward expression of belief, while an oath would go a step further and often be a binding agreement or promise made to someone or some organization. For instance, in past times an oath was made towards a king, not a creed. So it's more complex than your explanation would yield, in fact I'd go as far to say your distinction is quite petty and not coherent. Nonetheless, you yourself have not proven what the Hebrew and Greek meant by oath, because knowing some of ancient cultures in the middle east, an oath would sound more like our modern phrase "I swear to..."

Unfortunately, you totally blew up the meaning of James 5:12. I realize that's probably not a nice way to say it, but it's just bad eisegesis.

This is how the HCSB renders it, without the unnecessary obfuscation of the KJV (I use a KJV for my night reading, btw.):

James 5:12 HCSB
Now above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. Your “yes” must be “yes,” and your “no” must be “no,” so that you won’t fall under judgment.

The point, is further related to the passage in Matthew 5 that you [partially] cited. In fact, you needed to cite Matthew 5:33-37:

Matthew 5:33-37 HCSB
“Again, you have heard that it was said to our ancestors, You must not break your oath, but you must keep your oaths to the Lord. But I tell you, don’t take an oath at all: either by heaven, because it is God’s throne; or by the earth, because it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. Neither should you swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black. But let your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes,’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no.’Anything more than this is from the evil one.

In other words, all of this nonsense that you're swearing on and cannot control one iota (contemporary translation: "I swear on my mother's grave, etc.") -- stop swearing on it. This is the message of the passage. Make your "yes" and "no" simply iron-clad meanings. When we somehow cite some large thing, as if we ever had the power to move that thing, is quite arrogant and pretentious. So, with all due respect, your theory about oath is bunk, both predicated upon a flawed definition at start, but also on flawed eisegesis as well.

Hammerstone and Doug_E_Fresh,

Why is it that everytime someone writes something worth reading and responding to, that I'm in a great time pinch? Many good points on your part Hammerstone, points that I will seriously consider. However, there is way too much to be said that I cannot address at this time. I will get back to this post and forum. Meantime, I'm in the middle of a major household move and I will squeeze time in when and where I can.

zeke25

Barrd · Jul 29, 2015

ewq1938 said:
Then how can blood? How can verbal repentance? God forgives sins but he does it in various ways. One way is through a baptism, another through Christ's blood when we repent, two others here:

Jas_5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Here a person who converts someone to Christ has their sins "hidden" which is the same as being forgiven.
1Pe_4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Here someone who shows charity to others has their sins forgiven.

Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
Luk 7:38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
Luk 7:41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
Luk 7:43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
Luk 7:44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
Luk 7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

She not repent of her sins yet her sins were forgiven and Christ also declares her faith saved her!

Where do you get that she did not repent of her sins?
She came to Christ weeping, and knelt at His feet to wash them with her tears and dry them with her hair...how much humility do you need to see before you will accept that the woman was repentant? If she had no faith, why would she come to Him at all? Your assessment makes no sense.
Evidently she had shown enough for Jesus, because He forgave her.
One thing I did notice in this story is that the lady was not baptized, at least not at this time...yet Jesus forgave her.
Now, how could He do that?
Something else that jumps out at me..."Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much"...
Evidently, as far as Jesus was concerned, it was her love that touched Him. How 'bout that?
Fortunately for her...and for all of us...we do not need to depend on you...

ewq1938 · Jul 29, 2015

The Barrd said:
Where do you get that she did not repent of her sins?

Context. She was forgiven because of the love/charity she showed to Christ.

She came to Christ weeping, and knelt at His feet to wash them with her tears and dry them with her hair...how much humility do you need to see before you will accept that the woman was repentant?

That would be missing the entire point of that event.

If she had no faith, why would she come to Him at all?

I never said she had no faith. Perhaps you are confusing me for someone else?

Your assessment makes no sense.

Of course it does. It matches perfectly what other scriptures tell us about how sins can be forgiven. There is not only one way.

One thing I did notice in this story is that the lady was not baptized, at least not at this time...yet Jesus forgave her.
Now, how could He do that?

Because he is God. He forgave sins before dying on the cross and without regard to baptism. Baptism is simply one of many ways to have sins forgiven. That's my whole point.

Something else that jumps out at me..."Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much"...
Evidently, as far as Jesus was concerned, it was her love that touched Him. How 'bout that?

lol...that is exactly what I was highlighting about that! Don't you recall me posting this verse?

1Pe_4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Here someone who shows charity to others has their sins forgiven.

Fortunately for her...and for all of us...we do not need to depend on you...

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Stop making anything personally about me. I posted that sin can be forgiven in multiple ways and I proved it using scripture. If you disagree you are not accepting what scripture says.

Butch5 · Jul 29, 2015

zeke25 said:
The NIcene Creed (381) states: "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Baptism has never forgiven sins. The Blood of Christ washes sins away, not baptismal water. Therefore the Nicene Creed is not Christian.

A few years back I attended a Calvinist bible study at the invitation of a friend who held the Bible study. I did not know it was Calvinist until after I got there. They circulated the Nicene Creed for discussion and also had it posted on their church's website. I confronted them with "baptism forgiving sins". They tried to defend it, but could not. So they decided it wasn't really the Nicene Creed, rather it was the Apostle's Creed. Then they removed the entire creed from their website. Then they emailed me and told me to never attend another Bible study nor their church. A great group of guys, but I wasn't feeling the love.

Zeke25

Baptism is the method that God has given to acquire the for forgiveness of sins

Butch5 · Jul 29, 2015

lforrest said:
From the creed, "One baptism" must mean Jesus' baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire. John's baptism would be a second, anyone else's would be a third, etc.

The creed refers to water baptism

Doug_E_Fresh · Jul 29, 2015

ewq, You're quoting 1 peter 4:8 out of context. Use the verses around it to get the full picture. Otherwise you're saying good people can go to heaven, simply by charity because their sin is forgiven.

1Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. 2As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. 5But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
7The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray. 8Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. 9Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. 10Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. 11If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

Your verse is saying that if you love people, you will be fleeing from sin. Love, in a figurative sense, "deals with" most sins. Translation: If you love, you will not commit most sins. There's nothing in there about forgiveness of sins.

Doug_E_Fresh · Jul 29, 2015

@butch5

Prove that it refers to water baptism. Otherwise, read my previous post. #45

ewq1938 · Jul 29, 2015

Doug_E_Fresh said:
ewq, You're quoting 1 peter 4:8 out of context. Use the verses around it to get the full picture. Otherwise you're saying good people can go to heaven, simply by charity because their sin is forgiven.

No, I never said anything of the sort. I only quoted the scripture, in context, regarding the various ways sin can be forgiven. Do you disagree with the verses?

Doug_E_Fresh · Jul 29, 2015

No, I disagree with your interpretation of the verse. You claim that loving people/ or charity by your version, forgives sins. that's not what this is saying. Sin can be forgiven one way: a perfect sacrifice. That was Jesus. Nothing else can clean you of your sins. I don't know why you think that anything else can.

Here's the biggest problem with your logic:

If sin can be forgiven through charity, then why do you need Jesus? Jesus forgave you and cleansed you of your sin.

The Nicene Creed is not Christian

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

gяελ нατ jεsμs ƒяεακ

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

gяελ нατ jεsμs ƒяεακ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

His Humble Servant

Well-Known Member

Butch5

Butch5

gяελ нατ jεsμs ƒяεακ

gяελ нατ jεsμs ƒяεακ

Well-Known Member

gяελ нατ jεsμs ƒяεακ

Similar threads