Clarifying on behalf of God

[Valerie]

Baptism and Eschatology seem to be two areas where there is considerable dispute among different denominations as to what God's message actually is.

The most important message is that Jesus, the Son of God, died for our sins and that we accept Him as our Savior. And live a life of obedience to the Lord after being saved. There should be no dispute about that.

There are many other aspects from the bible that could be questioned, but we should never question the Salvation message.

I would have several questions and one example would be:

Exodus:9-10-11 says:
 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:  And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Then Timothy 6:16 in talking about God:
Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever.

Always wondered about that discrepancy. There would be more, but the salvation message is the most important.

Some would say that was the pre-incarnate God, as in Jesus before He became man- different places He was seen in the OT.

[Josh]

Baptism and Eschatology seem to be two areas where there is considerable dispute among different denominations as to what God's message actually is.

The most important message is that Jesus, the Son of God, died for our sins and that we accept Him as our Savior. And live a life of obedience to the Lord after being saved. There should be no dispute about that.

I would say that such a message is meaningless unless it is taught what “accept him” actually means (which I believe means following and obeying him).

[Sudsy]

Water baptism other than by immersion - not in the Bible.

[Soloist]

Water baptism other than by immersion - not in the Bible.

Debatable. That is why people keep trying to clarify the correct mode. I’m in the immersion camp myself, but there are suggestive things that could be taken both ways.

[Sudsy]

Water baptism other than by immersion - not in the Bible.

Debatable. That is why people keep trying to clarify the correct mode. I’m in the immersion camp myself, but there are suggestive things that could be taken both ways.

But this is a conclusion some have come to that it is not debatable as there is no particular other mode mentioned in the Bible. They would say the very word Baptism in the Greek means immersion.

[Soloist]

Water baptism other than by immersion - not in the Bible.

Debatable. That is why people keep trying to clarify the correct mode. I’m in the immersion camp myself, but there are suggestive things that could be taken both ways.

But this is a conclusion some have come to that it is not debatable as there is no particular other mode mentioned in the Bible. They would say the very word Baptism in the Greek means immersion.

That is the point though. It’s not clear to others therefore it’s exactly something that people like yourself feel need to be clarified for God.
If you want to debate that it’s not needing clarification for God fitting in the subject here, start a thread and we can debate baptism until the floods recede.

[Sudsy]

Debatable. That is why people keep trying to clarify the correct mode. I’m in the immersion camp myself, but there are suggestive things that could be taken both ways.

But this is a conclusion some have come to that it is not debatable as there is no particular other mode mentioned in the Bible. They would say the very word Baptism in the Greek means immersion.

That is the point though. It’s not clear to others therefore it’s exactly something that people like yourself feel need to be clarified for God.
If you want to debate that it’s not needing clarification for God fitting in the subject here, start a thread and we can debate baptism until the floods recede.

I did not take this thread as things needing to be clarified on behalf of God but rather as the opening statement says -

This is a thread to list conclusions that people have come to about God and the Bible that are not particularly mentioned in the Bible, 

Therefore some Christians conclude that the Bible does not particularly speak of any other mode but immersion. We have had previous threads on modes of baptism and I'm not into debating this again. Anyway, I will move on as we seem to have different understandings on what this thread was seeking.

[Josh]

Claiming "baptism" means a full dunk.

[Ernie]

I don't have any problem with expository preaching per say. And yes, we could do better at teaching the scriptures instead of being topical most of the time. If expository preaching is what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus, I have no problem with it. But that is not often what happens during expository preaching. Often preachers feel a need to keep inserting their views on what a passage means or what the author probably meant.

Maybe I’m missing something, but how is it possible to preach without inserting your own views? Wouldn’t that just be reading the Scriptures then?
Even in the early church writings they read the Scriptures but also explained them.

But the early church writers didn't always agree. Hence we have Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians.
"Explaining what a passage means" is why there are thousands of denominations and many heresies. The ancient churches think they are doing better but all they did was lock down certain viewpoints which I think is just as problematic.

Sometimes the scriptures on a particular topic all indicate the same thing. I think everybody agrees that the scriptures teach that murder is wrong. People may differ on the definition of murder but not that the Bible forbids murder.

Sometimes the scriptures seem to be saying two or more different things on a particular topic. Many preachers feel a need to focus in on one viewpoint (as Neto described in the other thread) and force all other verses to fit that view point.

If the scriptures seem to be saying more than one thing about a particular topic, or convey contrasting ideas about a topic...
I think we should...
1. Treat it like the 5 blind men describing an elephant and assume that each different perspective is all part of the whole.
or
2. Say that it could be any of a number of perspectives, but we won't know for sure until we get to the next life. I think that maturity in apologetics is knowing what we should resolutely affirm, and what sorts of things we should hold with an open hand.

For a preacher to say, "this is the view that I think is true" will probably result in listeners needing to mentally take sides for or against the pastor.
I think this is mostly unnecessary.

What is a preacher to do? Make sure the listeners know what the Bible says, show themes in scripture, compare scripture with scripture, share testimonies, give illustrations, give warnings, call people to belief and obedience, etc.

[joshuabgood]

What Ernie said. The truth is there are conflicting competing spiritual truths. And they take wisdom to discern which is appropriate to apply...mercy or justice for instance.

Hebraic approaches to truth are open about this.

This is why Systematic theology fails.