Uncle Frank was a valued friend of mine for nearly a dozen years. He lived in The Fort Grand Hotel, 4070 W. Fort Street in Detroit just west of Hubbard. That is about eight blocks west of the Ambassador Bridge, as I recall. He lived in the same room since 1920. I lived nearby in an apartment on the corner of Fort Street and Hubbard.
I did not meet Uncle Frank until a mutual friend, Don Reese, asked me to drive Frank to a Bible study Uncle Frank was conducting at a home several miles away near Chandler Park, not far from Chadsey High School. Usually Don drove Frank there. Don was surprised I had not yet met Frank, for I had been living in the apartment on Hubbard for several years practically next door. It turns out that Frank’s Bible study was being held in the home of one of my own current high school Sunday school class pupils who attended Chadsey. Uncle Frank was good with children and young people. Once I got to know him, I gave him as many opportunities to teach my high school Sunday school class as I could so that they could benefit from someone who knew much more about the Bible than I did.
Uncle Frank was 75 when I met him about 1964, and I knew him until he went home to be with the Lord in 1975. I was the last person, so far as I know, to have seen him alive. Frank told me he was going home to be with the Lord that very night. Frank needed my help to get into bed. He told me he was looking forward with great delight and anticipation to waking up in the presence of his Lord and Savior before morning.
During those years that I knew him I learned much about the Bible and Bible doctrine I had not learned before. The first thing Frank challenged me with was the subject of the mode of Christian baptism. I told him I was always taught that immersion was the correct mode. Frank asked me if I was willing to read a book about the subject. I said I was. Frank loaned me his copy of G. W. Hughey’s work, The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism (Kansas City: Hudson Press, 1907). That book opened my eyes to a whole new understanding of what the Bible actually teaches on that very limited issue. Though Uncle Frank was merely a retired factory worker, retired from Kelvinator, he made the Bible his lifetime study. He specialized in the types of Scripture, especially as they depict the work of Christ for us. Frank had a professionally carved model of the Tabernacle, a subject he was expert in.
The world is 6016 years old today, October 23, 2012, according to Archbishop Ussher’s chronology. I share its birthday, though not so long ago. But I have now caught up to the age Uncle Frank Burrell was when I first met him. I have not yet caught up to his knowledge of the Bible, but like he was while I knew him, I’m still working on that every day.
Edited to add (10/25/12):
I just came across the “In Remembrance” folder from Uncle Frank’s funeral, held Wednesday, February 12, 1975 at the Don Graham Funeral Home in southwest Detroit. Frank Burrell was born January 10, 1886. He passed away February 9, 1975. Clergyman officiating: Rev. David R. Dresser (of the Ward Memorial Prebyterian Church, if I recall correctly) and Rev. Paul Whaley, Uncle Frank’s good friend, teacher at the Detroit Bible College. Interment: Michigan Memorial Cemetery.
I’ve always wondered about the dates given in that folder. Uncle Frank told me when I met him that he was 75; when he passed away it figured to be that he was 86. But if he was born in 1886, then in 1975 he would have been 89, if my arithmetic is right. In any case, he was a blessing to all who met him, and his impact continues even today.
jerry what a blessing your post on uncle frank and happy birthday bro. moses was 80 yr when he started his ministry so your just right in the prime of ministry. your friend ken
Thank you Ken, for the encouraging word.
I was delighted this morning to receive a note by email from one of my high school Sunday school pupils who knew and appreciated Uncle Frank. Here is what she wrote:
Yep – at uncle Frank’s very next moment of consciousness, he will see God.
“christian baptism”. What Jerry, the plain teaching of the Bible is hard to understand? Really? You could not find the truth on your desert island without reading a book other than the Bible? Jerry – you surprise me greatly. But then, you have surprised me at other times too.
OK OK – I just had to get the book you mentioned. I’m sorry – I’m still laughing too hard to type, almost. 3. It is a fact that women on an average from fourteen
to forty-five, for at least one-fourth of that period, could not be immersed without great danger to their lives or health. Can we accept it as probable that our Lord would have enjoined a mode of baptism fraught with such danger to the health and lives of His obedient children? I cannot believe that our Lord would make any such requirement.I’m sorry, is this guy serious? It certainly is not an argument from the Bible. We should tell all those olympic swimmers, they are endangering their life.
Oh – and geography is against baptism by immersion? Really? Again – not based on scripture. Is it not interesting the John did his baptizing in the Jordan? If much water was not needed, then lets just have a glass of water.
Must of this author’s argument is trying to make the word, “baptizo”. This author make much argument from tradition.
1 Peter 3:21-22 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
Baptism means nothing, if you have not a transformation of your mind.
Here is the BTSCTVM+ definition of the word, Baptizo:
– Original: βαπτίζω
– Transliteration: Baptizo
– Phonetic: bap-tid’-zo
– Definition:
1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3. to overwhelm Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that showsthe meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physicianNicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making picklesand is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that inorder to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped'(bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in thevinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in asolution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act ofbaptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to ourunion and identification with christ than to our water baptism. e.g.Mark 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’.christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. Theremust be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to thepickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.
– Origin: from a derivative of G911
– TDNT entry: 09:49,9
– Part(s) of speech:
– Strong’s: 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.
Total KJV Occurrences: 65
• any, 1
1 Corinthians 1:16
• Baptist, 1
Mark 6:14
• baptize, 9
Matthew 3:11(2); Mark 1:4; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16(2); John 1:26; John 1:33; 1 Corinthians 1:17
• baptized, 46
Matthew 3:6; Matthew 3:13; Matthew 3:14; Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:5; Mark 1:8; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:7; Luke 3:12; Luke 3:21(2); Luke 7:29; Luke 7:30; John 3:22; John 3:23; John 4:1; John 4:2; John 10:40; Acts 2:38; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:13; Acts 8:16; Acts 8:36; Acts 8:38; Acts 9:18; Acts 10:47; Acts 10:48; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; Acts 18:8; Acts 19:3; Acts 19:4; Acts 19:5; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3(2); 1 Corinthians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 1:14; 1 Corinthians 1:15; 1 Corinthians 1:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Corinthians 15:29(2); Galatians 3:27
• baptizest, 1
John 1:25
• baptizeth, 2
John 1:33; John 3:26
• baptizing, 3
John 1:28; John 1:31; John 3:23
• wash, 1
Mark 7:4
• washed, 1
Luke 11:38
So Jerry – do you believe in Infant Baptism? I’d really like to know.
Dear A. Way,
Let me put my reading specialist hat on for a moment to comment that you have not successfully read G. W. Hughey’s work on The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. I invite you to read further. It is a fascinating book, and very eye-opening for those open to the truth of Scripture, linguistics, philology.
I’ve had respected Christian scholars who shared with me the same reaction you just did. Both you and they can be equally faulted for not reading thoroughly an argument before judging of its validity.
Reading just chapter one won’t cut it in a discussion or a debate.
You mention John baptizing in the Jordan river. But you did not read what Hughey demonstrates that must mean. Hughey is not the only scholar to point out the facts in the matter. There are original notes in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge in the Old Testament which answer that issue directly (Joshuah 3:15). Ditzler offers a careful explanation of the matter too, and I cite him in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge at Mark 1:5.
And as for Uncle Frank, he is consciously now in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul taught that. Jesus taught that. But Sadducees and their modern materialist counterparts who “know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God” can’t conceive how that this is the teaching of the Bible, and plainly so.
You do not seem to have access to my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. I placed the arguments for both sides of the mode of baptism issue in full in the notes I wrote for that work. You clearly have not read those.
You are apparently totally unaware of the five volume work by James W. Dale on the one Greek word, ‘baptizo.’
The Bible does not teach immersion of persons for any religious purpose whatsoever in either the Old Testament or the New Testament.
The Bible does not teach baptismal regeneration. Hughey wrote another work on that subject which is quite thorough, on the subject of baptismal remission. Baptism as a rite has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins.
Some today who advocate infant baptism believe in baptismal regeneration. They are incorrect on the point of baptismal regeneration.
It is clear in the Greek text of the New Testament that infant baptism was practiced by the Apostles. It is a necessary inference drawn from the root meaning and the meaning of an associated word (‘oikodespotes’) used by Paul to Timothy that the word ‘oikos’ means a family with infant children, and when the whole family was baptized, it necessarily included infants. See the notes I placed in the New Treasury for documentation, starting at Acts 16:15.
Boice is correct that the essential meaning of “baptize” is “change in character.” That change results from intusposition, not immersion. The change takes place when one object or person is infused with or permeated by or totally influenced by another, as when the children of Israel were “baptised into Moses” (1 Corinthians 10:2), in the greatest display of infant baptism recorded in Scripture. Yet the Israelites went across on dry land, so there was no immersion in water there: it was the Egyptians who attempted the same crossing who were truly immersed, a Greek verb which does not provide for any “coming up out of the water.” When one is truly baptized into Christ (Romans 6:4), he or she stays baptized; real baptism is not a momentary dipping in water.
You assume I did not read what Hughey said about John. You are wrong. You have a habit of saying “must” a lot. Have you read the account in Joshua carefully? Why was it stated that the Jordan over flowed its banks? It is an important clue.
No, Jesus never taught that. Luke 16 does not work, and you can not see it for what it is saying. I only mention it for others that read this blog to know there is a false interpretation and a true. Luke 16 is a parable. Jesus always taught using parables. Proof:
A false interpretation is still false.
So, you really are a Catholic. Are you also a Morman baptizing for the dead? (1 Corinthians 15:29) No, this is not advocating baptizism for the dead. As for Acts 16:15, The fact that “her household” was baptized is no proof of the practice of infant baptism by the apostles. Lydia’s “household” may have consisted of slaves and other employees. (consider Act 10:2; Act 16:32-33) Peter said, Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Can an infant “repent”? Baptism is an outward demonstration of the decision to begin of new. An infant can’t do this. The Anabaptists got it right.
Jerry – What happened to your desert Island? You needed Hughey to change your opinion? And Boise, and Ditzler. That is because the Bible reading does not match what you are claiming. You did not come to your current belief from the plain reading. Nice.
Jerry – – there is a huge golf between our beliefs. I see no truth in your opinion of the state of the dead, and an eternal conscious burning heal. In your opinions on baptism. Or of other aspects of the law. And of Daniel’s 70 weeks. You are very close to catholics teaching. Do you also worship Mary? That would seal the deal. The “false prophet” of Revelation (16, 19, 20) from a historicist’s view is apostate Protestantism. Protestantism started as a protest to Rome. Are there any protestants left? Please note Jerry, Babylon has fallen.
Dear A. Way,
I’m happy to see you are still up to having a lively discussion. Yes, there is a huge gulf between our beliefs.
You mention in a nice summary some of the differences you have noted:
(1) you see no truth in my belief regarding the state of the dead.
That is to be expected. If my belief derives from an accurate study of Scripture, and a comparison of Scripture, and harmonizes with Scripture, then it is likely my view is correct.
The Sadducees did not believe in my view either (Acts 23:8). I hold the same view that our Lord Jesus Christ taught, and he was right, and so am I, and the Sadducees were wrong, and on this topic, so are you.
The Bible speaks of two kinds of death pertinent to this discussion: (1) physical death and (2) spiritual death.
Ezekiel 18:4, “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” That is not a statement pertaining to physical death, but spiritual death. This is proven in context when in the very same chapter the “death” specified in Ezekiel 18:4 is affirmed to be reversible (in this life) in Ezekiel 18:20-21,
Very clearly, the wicked could not turn from all his sins that brought him death if he had already died physically. Yet the text is clear that “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” The threatened death, therefore, is not physical, but spiritual death.
In this life, a person who is in the state of spiritual death can change that state to being alive spiritually:
The persons Paul is speaking of, the persons to whom he addressed his letter to the Ephesians, were at one time “dead in trespasses and sins,” but now they had been “quickened,” or made alive spiritually. They were once spiritually dead, but upon placing faith in Christ, were made spiritually alive.
And so for the warning God gave in His command to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden,
God promised that in the very day, the same day of 24 hours, “that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”
Did Adam and/or Eve die physically the very day they partook of that tree? Absolutely not. If God intended to emphasize that their immediate death was physical, then God did not fulfill His threat. But God does not and cannot lie. Therefore, Adam and Eve must have died in some manner the very day they ate the forbidden fruit. The death which they experienced was spiritual death, and in context the evidence is that this spiritual death took place instantly for (1) they attempted to hide from God; (2) they knew they were naked; (3) they attempted to fashion clothing of their own to cover their newly realized nakedness; (4) they no longer had the same relationship with God they enjoyed before their disobedience; (5) when confronted with their failure to obey the one command God had given them they made every effort to place the blame elsewhere than upon themselves. Surely every perceptive reader recognizes that what has transpired immediately is spiritual death.
Remember that Satan told Eve that she would not die. Satan’s lie appeared to be the truth then, and to those who believe in materialist theology today in a different manner, because Eve did not physically die the instant she ate the fruit, nor did Adam, for they lived for many years after that. If physical death were the threatened penalty, physical death was not exacted upon the very day they ate the fruit, as threated or promised by God. But that makes it obvious that physical death was not the threatened penalty: spiritual death was.
Now consider Romans 6:23 in this light:
What kind of death is being spoken of in Romans 6:23? Since physical death is not the penalty for sin, the death spoken of is a reference to spiritual death.
The word “but” marks a contrast in Romans 6:23, an opposition in thought involving opposites. In the first clause Paul writes of “death”; in the second clause he writes of “eternal life.”
Which is the intended opposite of “eternal life”–physical death of the body, or spiritual death of the soul/spirit? I believe that Scripture intends for us to understand the death spoken of here as eternal, spiritual death, involving a permanent separation from God in either heaven or his eternal kingdom. Since spirits do not cease to live upon the physical death and dissolution of our earthly body (Matthew 10:28), the spirits of unsaved individuals will upon their resurrection (John 5:28, 29) be permanently united to an imperishable body which will upon their judgment at the Great White Throne be consigned forever to the Lake of Fire, where they will suffer torment forever and forever, in that place of torment prepared originally for the devil and his angels.
Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 that (1) the body can be killed; (2) the soul cannot be killed; (3) God does not kill the body or the soul in hell; (4) rather, God is able to destroy both soul and body in hell; (5) the underlying Greek word behind “destroy” never has reference to annihilation experienced in the age to come; (6) rather, “destroy” means to render unfit for the original purpose in this case that God had for the persons involved, for He is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9); (7) both soul and body will be cast into hell or gehenna, the Lake of Fire; (8) this proves that the soul or spirit has a conscious existence apart from our present physical body or Christ’s warning would be nonsensical; (9) and that this present physical body (of the unsaved, against whom our Lord Jesus Christ issues this solemn warning) will be resurrected and as we learn from Matthew 25:46 will last forever in duration in hell to experience eternal punishment for as long a duration as those possessing eternal life will last with God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now that is what the Bible teaches.
Now, your view differs from mine. Fortunately, on many of these issues, that is no problem, because from what I understand so far in my study of Scripture, these issues do not mark the difference between saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and a position that would be a denial of the belief-content that marks that saving faith. More simply stated, in non-essentials of the faith, good Bible believing Christians may differ.
When views differ, they cannot both be correct. They could both be wrong, but if they differ, logic requires that they cannot both be correct. Therefore, either I am wrong, and you are right; or, you are wrong and I am right; or, we both are wrong. We cannot both be right. That is the law of non-contradiction, which in real Bible study is a good basis for determining truth. For example, the Bible as a Divine revelation is non-contradictory. If we see a contradiction, we must discern whether it is only an apparent contradiction, or whether it really is a contradiction according to our own current understanding. But if our understanding results in a contradiction in the Bible, then clearly our understanding is incorrect, and needs to be corrected on the basis of further study of Scripture. I have said many times here that as we genuinely study the Bible, we may learn something new we did not know before. Sometimes when this happens, it requires us to change something we previously believed about what we mistakenly understood the Bible to teach.
More often, I find I need to correct my belief about something taught in the Bible because my understanding was informed by teachers who themselves were mistaken in their understanding of the Bible.
(2) Issues concerning baptism
Now that is where Uncle Frank enters the picture for me. He asked what I believed the Bible taught about the mode of Christian baptism. I informed him I believed the Bible taught immersion. That is what I had been taught, or otherwise absorbed from Christians around me.
Uncle Frank loaned me Hughey’s work on The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. I read it all the way through, and carefully at that. His Biblical arguments are conclusive. He proved that immersion was never the mode of Christian water baptism in the New Testament.
In my comment above I made a “universal claim” when I said there are no examples of persons immersed in water for any religious purpose whatsoever in either the Old Testament or the New. By examples I mean provable examples.
If my position is mistaken, I have stated it in the easiest form for you to refute it. All you have to do to prove my position wrong is to furnish just ONE unassailably provable example to the contrary. If you are right, that will be easy for you to do. If you are wrong, that will be impossible for you to do.
(3) Concerning aspects of the law
I assume you have reference to the Fourth Commandment regarding Seventh Day worship.
Since you have never posted a verifiable text from the New Testament commanding Christian believers to worship God on the Sabbath, you are assuming what is to be proved. But there is no evidence in the New Testament that true Christians met for Christian worship on the seventh-day Sabbath. Jewish Christians, since they were still Jews living in Israel or elsewhere continued to worship God with those of their nation in the Temple while it stood or in the synagogue while they were still free to do so, but that is Jewish worship, not Christian worship. Of the Ten Commandments only nine are repeated as commands for Christian believers to obey in the New Testament. Why is the Fourth Commandment NEVER repeated as a command to Christians? If Gentile Christians were expected to engage in Sabbath worship on the seventh day, surely they would have to be taught to do so. But there is never a stricture given to anyone in the New Testament for improperly or altogether not observing the Sabbath. There are numerous such strictures and reminders given in the Old Testament, particularly in Isaiah, directed to the Jews. Properly considered, in terms of the balance of truth and emphasis presented in the New Testament, the absence of any command regarding Sabbath observance and practice surely marks a change in practice established by the original Apostles themselves under the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(4) Concerning the interpretation of Bible prophecy
We have discussed prophetic matters frequently and in-depth here. You deny that there are any unannounced gaps in time prophecies in the Bible. Your denial is very ill-advised. I have previously given you a full list of passages pertaining to Bible prophecy which undeniably contain an unannounced time gap between adjacent clauses or sentences. That list I have given in the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and also Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible at a note for Isaiah 61:2, on page 813 and page 785, respectively.
As usual, I furnish detailed evidence. You manage to continue to affirm your denial of the evidence.
Unfortunately for your mistaken position, Jesus affirms my view, not yours. He does that most significantly in His statement recorded in Luke 24:26 as He explained Bible prophecy to the two discouraged disciples on the road to Emmaus:
Peter recalled this very teaching of Christ and makes reference to it in 1 Peter 1:11,
This was the central stumblingblock for the Jew in the time of Christ. It is still a stumblingblock today.
Jews object to the claim of Christians that Jesus Christ is the Messiah because they know of many Bible prophecies that Jesus DID NOT fulfill when He came. Since Jesus did not fulfill these predictions, the Jews believe Jesus cannot possibly be their Messiah.
Jesus furnished the key to unlock Messianic Prophecy as he taught the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Peter repeated that key.
The key Jesus gave asserts that the Messiah, according to Bible prophecy, first must suffer; then, at another time, He comes in the glory they expected.
That Jesus is correct is easy to see if you consult the cross references I have given either at Luke 24:26, or more especially, at 1 Peter 1:11. There are passages from the Old Testament that Jesus most likely cited from the Psalms, for example, that presented Messianic Prophecy in exactly that order: First the suffering, Then the glory. The prophecies are contained in the Messianic Psalms, and since each Psalm is a distinct literary unit, the order cannot be mistaken, because that is the order stated in the individual Messianic Psalm.
Now, this proves my case, and disallows yours. For the same Psalm to contain continuous Messianic Prophecy, the first portion having clear reference to events we now know took place at the First Advent, the second or remaining portion having clear reference to events that must refer to the Second Advent or His Coming in Glory, logically necessitates that there is an unannounced time gap in the text of that prophecy, a gap that has so far extended to almost 2000 years.
Psalm 22:1-21 speaks of the sufferings; Psalm 22:22-31 speaks of the glory.
Isaiah 53:1-10 speaks of the sufferings; Isaiah 53:11, 12 speaks of the glory.
It is evident, and logically necessary, that there is a time gap between Isaiah 53:10 and Isaiah 53:11, just as there is a time gap between Psalm 22:21 and Psalm 22:22. These gaps are not announced in the text. They are therefore unannounced time gaps between adjacent statements of prophecy as I have affirmed.
I have furnished specific evidence to support my claim that there are unannounced time gaps present in Biblical prophecy. To deny my claim is to deny the Bible itself and the claims Jesus made to teach His Messiahship.
The Sadducees did not believe in my view either (Acts 23:8). I hold the same view that our Lord Jesus Christ taught, and he was right, and so am I, and the Sadducees were wrong, and on this topic, so are you.
This is a cleaver why of saying I believe how the Saducees believed. But actually, you are more in line with the Saducess than the Pharisee. You believe that when you die, you don’t die, but go to heaven or hell. The Pharisee believed in the resurrection from the dead. Dead where you are really dead, not the dead=alive you believe. And this is what Jesus also taught.
This is your interpretation based on your false believe that there is an entity separate from the body called a soul. But the Bible teaches that we are a unity, the whole living organism is a soul. Gen 2:7, God breathed into his nostriles, and man BECAME a living soul. The Jewish understand that a soul is the whole person, even the blood in his veins. So there is not differentiation between the body and soul. When a person dies, they are dead.
When God said, if you eat of the fruit, you will surely die, this is the truth. Satan lied. Was the sentence executed immediately? The Hebrew literally says, “dying thou shalt die,” means that upon the day of transgression sentence would be pronounced. Man would pass from the status of conditional immortality to that of unconditional mortality. Punishment and death are the certain results of man’s free choice to rebellion against God, and this punishment and death is a natural consequence.
Do consider Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
My interpretation is consistent with this verse. The wages of sin, is death. And the gift of God is eternal life through Christ. You say, death = eternal tormented life. Death = Lift. Sorry, it just does not fit.
James makes it clear what Romans 6:23 is talking about and what Genesis 2:17 is talking about. Sin, when it is finished bring forth death, total destruction, anilation.
Matthew 10:28 KJV And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
There is a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. This is clear in the Bible. Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment: All will be resurrected, brought back to life. The righteous to everlasting life, and wicked to everlasting death. In this current world, righteous people die. Wicked people die. But all will live again in the resurrections. The righteous will have everlasting life. The wicked, will be totally and utterly destroyed. This is the story line of the Bible. It is not true, that when you die, you immediately receive your final state.
I agree, we both can’t be right. I do not see your view in the Bible, thus I can not buy into your view. I have provided many links above where evangelical Christians do not find your view in the Bible. You will undoubtedly say they have not studied the Bible correctly. You can not see how you are wrong in your interpretation. You need to be convinced in your own mind. You said:
This is an interesting question, because if violates your desert island scenario, and it does so in two ways. You understanding was not based on studying the Bible alone, and your corrections was not based on studying the Bible alone. Thus, this taints every accusation you have made to me when my interpretation differs from yours using your desert island principle. You claimed that your interpretation was based on the study of the Bible alone. But as I always suspected and even accused, your interpretation was based on others opinion. Thanks for finally admitting it clearly.
Nor have your any proof of the establishment of the pagan day of Sun worship as the day for Christians to worship. You claim that Acts 20:7 was a day of Christian worship. The breaking of bread was something the early Christians did every day together. We do have many, many times where the Christians gathered on the seventh day to teach and worship. It is clear that the commandments were understood by the NT writers. It is clear they recognized that the 4th commandment was still active. Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. Nothing changed after the resurrection in this regard. Matthew 19:18 shows the NT writers knew the commandments. They also practiced them. I did witness a change in your belief about the institution of the Sabbath, again from influences that came from off your desert island. One question I don’t think you have ever asked about the Sabbath, and that is, is the Sabbath an arbitrary command? If it is arbitrary, then yes, it could be done away with. But if it is not arbitrary, then could it have been removed?
Prophesy – No, I do not think it wrong to find fault with a break in the time line. In fact, by claiming a break in the time line, the Book of Revelation is thrown all into the future, and events happening today are gravely mis-understood. Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he reveals his secret to his servants the prophets. Do you really believe that Luke 24:26 was not fulfilled? WOW. Unbelievable. Jesus was explaining how indeed His suffering was fulfilled! Jesus did fulfill these prophesies. Nearly 300 prophesies Jesus fulfilled. The Jews were looking for the nation to be delivered from the Romans. The disciples that same. Look at James and John. Look at Peter! But Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this world. He did not come to provide a temporal geopolitical deliverance, but deliverance from Sin. Jesus suffered and died. The prophesies CLEARLY forecast this. Jesus suffered them. But they were expecting a different fulfillment. Thus the question, must not the Messiah suffer these things? Of course, and He did. Jesus told the disciples on the road to Emmaus, all the scripture pertaining to the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus. When they understood (finally) what the scriptures were saying, did not their heart burn within them? I came to the realization that Jesus was the fulfillment of prophesy.
The Talmud later would make commands that anyone who tried to decipher the prophesy of Daniel, was to be cursed. Why? Because the ONLY fulfillment that could be possible was that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. And they crucified Him. The Jews did not reject Christ because He did not fulfill prophesy, they rejected Him in spite of it. The Gospel writers clearly demonstrate that Christ fulfilled prophesy. There is NO time gap.
It is interesting you bring up Isaiah 53:11. This verse contains the Biblical definition of Grace.
Sorry Jerry, your evidence I do not find consistent with the Bible. Your declarations are just like your mentor Hughey, I mean, how could anybody come to a different interpretation? I do not see it as my job to convince you, or anyone for that matter, of the truth found in the Bible. I only point out that there is a vastly different interpretation from the way main stream Christianity has gone. People need to be like the Bereans, and examine the Bible to see if these interpretations are true, do real Bible study.
Dear A. Way,
You have affirmed in the past that you believe your view of Bible prophecy is correct, and that my view is not correct.
You stated that your view is the view of the Protestant Reformers, and that my view is not in agreement with what the Reformers believed.
Did it ever occur to you that the Reformers were wrong in their understanding of Bible prophecy?
With the help of Ken Sagely, who at the time furnished a most interesting link to Bishop J. C. Ryle’s comments on Bible prophecy, evidence was discussed and cited here to show that Bishop Ryle, who revered the Puritans and the Reformers, also said that the Reformers were very mistaken in their understanding and interpretation of Bible prophecy. It may be you will recall that discussion.
It is my belief, after studying the subject of Bible prophecy most thoroughly, that the Reformers cannot possibly be correct about their understanding of Bible prophecy because they fail to account carefully for the provisions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. This is a fatal flaw, and invalidates the view they held.
Now as to the subject of the mode of baptism, I affirm the Greek terms for baptism involve non-modal words. The words used express what was done but do not define how it was done. Therefore, all modes are permissible, though some modes are more valid than others because they fit the context better, and are in line with the usage of the original language words. I have affirmed that although immersion is a possible mode of Christian water baptism, there are no examples in either the Old Testament or the New Testament of any person or persons being immersed into water for any religious purpose whatsoever.
I have just made a “universal claim.” That makes it easy for you to refute to prove me wrong. All that is necessary to prove me wrong is to furnish just one example to the contrary. If I am wrong, that will be very easy for you to do. If I am right, it will be impossible to do. Now lets see what you can do in terms of presenting solid Biblical evidence for your case.
But your very esteemed Reformers agreed with me about the mode of Christian water baptism. They did not believe in immersion.
But that places your arguments on the horns of a dilemma. Are the Reformers correct about the mode of Christian water baptism? If so, they agree with me.
But I have never argued that the case for my view of the mode of Christian water baptism is supported by what the Reformers either taught or practiced. My claim is based upon what I have learned is what the Bible actually teaches.
I have used the metaphor of taking a trip to Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island to highlight the important principle that we must both get and confirm our understanding of what the Bible teaches by going first to the Bible and learning all that it has to say apart from denominational literature, or our favorite study Bible notes, or the teachings of our favorite radio pastor such as Dr. R. C. Sproul or Dr. John MacArthur or anyone else. Nor should we be consulting the literature of aberrant religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons.
Of course, we cannot help learning false teaching, no matter how sincerely proclaimed, by those we have been exposed to in Sunday school and church during our youth.
It is our duty to study the Bible for ourselves, and seek to learn what it says, directly from the Bible, using the Bible study procedures and Bible study tools I have advocated here for Real Bible Study.
Once we have learned all we can directly from the Bible, it is not wrong but a good idea to learn more from Bible scholars who have carefully studied out topics in greater depth than we are equipped ourselves to do.
I am thankful to have met Uncle Frank. I am thankful he loaned me Hughey’s work, The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. I inherited a good portion of Uncle Frank’s library. I now have the very volume he loaned me to read so many years ago. Frank read his books repeatedly, so they are well-worn, and well-marked. Even the original cover of Hughey’s work is now gone. I had purchased my own copy of the book in a second-hand bookstore that is in good condition yet.
You spoke of Hughey’s Introduction. Now you might realize that Hughey was a debater. He presents a case that extends to the length of the book. The Introduction presents support for his claim that “Christianity a Universal Religion.” The argument then runs: “Hence the probability that its rites, ceremonies, and sacraments would be of universal application.” Then he cites “A Baptist minister’s idea of the unphysiological character of immersion and its inapplicability to all classes and conditions of the human race.” As a debater, notice his technique of citing evidence from friends of the immersion theory which detracts from that theory.
Then Hughey discusses the varied and even contradictory opinions of those who support the immersionist position when it comes to the meaning and usage of the underlying Greek words. He cites standard and still prominent authorities on the Baptist side, including Carson.
In Chapter IV he discusses the testimony of the lexicons, and on pages 60-63 discusses the fact that Liddell and Scott changed the definition of the Greek word for baptism when their work was prepared for an American audience, with no warrant in the sources that lexicon was based upon. The lexicon would sell more copies in America if it did not retain evidence contrary to the view of American Baptists.
Chapter X is about John’s Baptism. Hughey affirms that “Sprinkling was the uniform practice among the Jews throughout all their history” on pages 146-151. In that chapter he notes John baptized with water.
These are not things I was ever taught in Sunday school. Even now there is quite a silence on the issue, and the non-immersionist side of the question is not often presented. I believe the non-immersionist side is strictly Biblical and ought to be considered by every Bible believing Christian.
You have proved my point, thanks! You did not get your ideas of baptism form the Bible. If you had a blank slate, and the Bible only, you could not have come up with sprinkling. The texts don’t bear it out. Certainly not baptism of infants. And what would baptism for infants mean? Nothing unless you are legalistic. Your views on Bible prophesy have been achieved by the same means. Not by Bible study alone, but the influence of other people. You did not get your gap theory on your own on a desert island. The simple straight forward reading of the Bible does not provide for an “unannounced” gap in the timeline.
The Reformers – do you reject the reformation? Why was the reformation started? Certainly, the reforms all had interesting and differing ideas. There was however a common threads. I’m sure you know that these were. Sola Scriptura, Sola Christos, and one more – the identity of Daniel’s little horn power.
Why did the reformation fail? At the council of Trent, it was ruled that “Tradition is greater than Scripture”, and how so, on what point? Do you know? So Sola Scriptura was out. Sola Christos is attacked on many points, even to the point that the church is higher than God on earth. The idea of infant baptism fails in this regard from protestant priniciple of the Bible, and that is that salvation is by Faith in Jesus. A new born infant can not exercise that faith. I think a good summary of this issue can be found HERE. Also that without Mary, she was the immaculate conception after all, not Jesus, and was the source of Jesus’ sinlessness. The only time the pope has spoken ex cathedra the first Vatican Council has been on the blessedness of Mary. You never said if you believe in Mary, the queen of heaven. The last point of the reformers was the identity of Daniel’s little horn power. Out of this came a number of teachings to throw off the scent to the true identity. Both of Jesuit making. Ribera’s Futurism Puts the Antichrist Into A Future, and Alcazar’s Preterism Identifies the Antichrist as Nero. Futurism has been extremely successful. Jerry have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
Do we really want to go back to catholicism and have the church run the state? That is where we are heading. People will be forced to participate in that the church dictates, “for the good of the country”. The United States was formed as a result of Church running the state. There was a separation of church and state built into our system. That is breaking down. Who will be the winners and who will be the losers in the end. Are there any Protestants left?
To many typos in the last post, oh well, I think you get the idea.
Dear A. Way,
I just found an interesting article by Dr. Timothy Keller titled “The Importance of Hell.”
Here is the link:
http://redeemer.com/news_and_events/newsletter/index.html?aid=214
Keller – not understand it still not understanding. He as you make “destroy” = live. He used Jude as an example but misses the example. Sodom and Gomorrah are and example. They are, why is it hard to see? “The image of ‘gehenna’ and ‘maggots’ means decomposition.” Exactly. And there no entity that is apart from the body. God created us. That includes every part of us. We are a unity.
“Conclusion The doctrine of hell is crucial-without it we can’t understand our complete dependence on God, the character and danger of even the smallest sins, and the true scope of the costly love of Jesus. ” The doctrine of hell as taught by Keller turns God in to a monster. One who would torture His creation forever.
The wages of sin is death, but the give of God is eternal life. Death does not equal life. Keller makes the mistake of teaching a naturally immortal soul. But this is against the teaching of the Bible which declares that only God is immortal. 1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:16 Who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach to; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.
“The theory of eternal torment is one of the false doctrines that constitute the wine of the abomination of Babylon, of which she makes all nations drink. Revelation 14:8; 17:2. That ministers of Christ should have accepted this heresy and proclaimed it from the sacred desk is indeed a mystery. They received it from Rome.”