Are there any Christian bands/songs you avoid because of lyrics?

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed.

nocturnaliridescence wrote: I'm almost more okay with something that's completely different from Christianity rather than something that's close but is clearly not there. Like if some indigenous song talked about praying for the dead, my mind could dissociate this from reality (glory to God for His discernment!) but when presented as "Christianity", it feels like poisoning the well.

Spurgeon wrote:Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
It is knowing the difference between right and almost right

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

Friday13th wrote:

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

That is not a strictly Roman Catholic belief, as Origen of Alexandria taught Universalism in the mid 3rd Century, long before there was anything like a Pope or Roman Catholicism. Origen even says in his Matthew commentary that all the Apostles were given the keys to the Kingdom, not just Peter, and any bishop who claims more authority from this is straying from the faith. I agree though, universalism and purgatory are totally unbiblical and not what earlier Christians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught. They plainly taught eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous.

The Trouble song is a good example of my problem. I’ve dived too deep in theology to leave much room for contrary positions on controversial topics, so the deeper the song goes theology-wise the more likely I can’t stand it. I am no longer a Protestant, nor Catholic or any denomination for that matter. I now tend to prefer bands like Narnia etc. since they pretty much stick to basics I can get behind completely. 

The song I can’t stomach anymore is sadly one of my old favorites: “Absolution Day” by Theocracy. It presents a totally fictitious account of a believer on judgment day, contradicted by every passage of Scripture on the topic of final judgment like Romans 2:4-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. It also has the terrible line “no blessed holy water can sanctify me in the eyes of God” denying that baptism saves and washes away sins, which is contrary to plain Scriptures like Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and against the testimony of every Christian prior to Zwingli, etc.

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

That is not a strictly Roman Catholic belief, as Origen of Alexandria taught Universalism in the mid 3rd Century, long before there was anything like a Pope or Roman Catholicism. Origen even says in his Matthew commentary that all the Apostles were given the keys to the Kingdom, not just Peter, and any bishop who claims more authority from this is straying from the faith. I agree though, universalism and purgatory are totally unbiblical and not what earlier Christians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught. They plainly taught eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous.

The Trouble song is a good example of my problem. I’ve dived too deep in theology to leave much room for contrary positions on controversial topics, so the deeper the song goes theology-wise the more likely I can’t stand it. I am no longer a Protestant, nor Catholic or any denomination for that matter. I now tend to prefer bands like Narnia etc. since they pretty much stick to basics I can get behind completely. 

The song I can’t stomach anymore is sadly one of my old favorites: “Absolution Day” by Theocracy. It presents a totally fictitious account of a believer on judgment day, contradicted by every passage of Scripture on the topic of final judgment like Romans 2:4-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. It also has the terrible line “no blessed holy water can sanctify me in the eyes of God” denying that baptism saves and washes away sins, which is contrary to plain Scriptures like Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and against the testimony of every Christian prior to Zwingli, etc.

I think the setting of Absolution Day isn’t supposed to exactly describe what the judgment will look like, it’s more symbolic of how Jesus took his punishment. But I have to disagree with that last statement. Only the blood of Christ saves, and baptism is an outward reflection of this. Baptism itself doesn’t save you, otherwise you could just baptize anybody and they’d be saved whether they believed or not, which is obviously not biblical

 Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

That is not a strictly Roman Catholic belief, as Origen of Alexandria taught Universalism in the mid 3rd Century, long before there was anything like a Pope or Roman Catholicism. Origen even says in his Matthew commentary that all the Apostles were given the keys to the Kingdom, not just Peter, and any bishop who claims more authority from this is straying from the faith. I agree though, universalism and purgatory are totally unbiblical and not what earlier Christians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught. They plainly taught eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous.

The Trouble song is a good example of my problem. I’ve dived too deep in theology to leave much room for contrary positions on controversial topics, so the deeper the song goes theology-wise the more likely I can’t stand it. I am no longer a Protestant, nor Catholic or any denomination for that matter. I now tend to prefer bands like Narnia etc. since they pretty much stick to basics I can get behind completely. 

The song I can’t stomach anymore is sadly one of my old favorites: “Absolution Day” by Theocracy. It presents a totally fictitious account of a believer on judgment day, contradicted by every passage of Scripture on the topic of final judgment like Romans 2:4-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. It also has the terrible line “no blessed holy water can sanctify me in the eyes of God” denying that baptism saves and washes away sins, which is contrary to plain Scriptures like Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and against the testimony of every Christian prior to Zwingli, etc.

I think the setting of Absolution Day isn’t supposed to exactly describe what the judgment will look like, it’s more symbolic of how Jesus took his punishment. But I have to disagree with that last statement. Only the blood of Christ saves, and baptism is an outward reflection of this. Baptism itself doesn’t save you, otherwise you could just baptize anybody and they’d be saved whether they believed or not, which is obviously not biblical

Look into the topic more, because the Scriptures literally say things like baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21),  and all Christians for the first 1500 years believed the NT was serious in these statements. 

We also need to be careful about false dichotomies. If someone’s house is on fire, the fireman saves the house, but he saves it with a hose of water, so one can properly say the house was saved by the hose. He also needs a fire hydrant, since the hose by itself can’t save. It needs an operator and a source of water. Likewise, it’s perfectly rational to say Jesus saves us through faith and baptism, baptism not being anything without faith.

seth wrote:

 Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

That is not a strictly Roman Catholic belief, as Origen of Alexandria taught Universalism in the mid 3rd Century, long before there was anything like a Pope or Roman Catholicism. Origen even says in his Matthew commentary that all the Apostles were given the keys to the Kingdom, not just Peter, and any bishop who claims more authority from this is straying from the faith. I agree though, universalism and purgatory are totally unbiblical and not what earlier Christians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught. They plainly taught eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous.

The Trouble song is a good example of my problem. I’ve dived too deep in theology to leave much room for contrary positions on controversial topics, so the deeper the song goes theology-wise the more likely I can’t stand it. I am no longer a Protestant, nor Catholic or any denomination for that matter. I now tend to prefer bands like Narnia etc. since they pretty much stick to basics I can get behind completely. 

The song I can’t stomach anymore is sadly one of my old favorites: “Absolution Day” by Theocracy. It presents a totally fictitious account of a believer on judgment day, contradicted by every passage of Scripture on the topic of final judgment like Romans 2:4-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. It also has the terrible line “no blessed holy water can sanctify me in the eyes of God” denying that baptism saves and washes away sins, which is contrary to plain Scriptures like Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and against the testimony of every Christian prior to Zwingli, etc.

I think the setting of Absolution Day isn’t supposed to exactly describe what the judgment will look like, it’s more symbolic of how Jesus took his punishment. But I have to disagree with that last statement. Only the blood of Christ saves, and baptism is an outward reflection of this. Baptism itself doesn’t save you, otherwise you could just baptize anybody and they’d be saved whether they believed or not, which is obviously not biblical

Look into the topic more, because the Scriptures literally say things like baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21),  and all Christians for the first 1500 years believed the NT was serious in these statements. 

We also need to be careful about false dichotomies. If someone’s house is on fire, the fireman saves the house, but he saves it with a hose of water, so one can properly say the house was saved by the hose. He also needs a fire hydrant, since the hose by itself can’t save. It needs an operator and a source of water. Likewise, it’s perfectly rational to say Jesus saves us through faith and baptism, baptism not being anything without faith.

To understand the meaning of scripture, it is important to interpret it in the context of Scripture as a whole. The idea that the physical act of baptism is what saves would be contradictory with many other passages of the New Testament, indicating that physical, outward forms of purification are not ultimately what is important to God, but rather the state of the heart (mind). And that belief in Christ is what ultimately saves, although baptism is commanded by God of every believer. A good illustration of this is the repentant thief on the cross, who was never baptized (due to it being impossible given his situation), but he believed and Jesus assured him of his salvation right then and there. Here is an article that discusses that verse you mentioned and its meaning: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

 Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

That is not a strictly Roman Catholic belief, as Origen of Alexandria taught Universalism in the mid 3rd Century, long before there was anything like a Pope or Roman Catholicism. Origen even says in his Matthew commentary that all the Apostles were given the keys to the Kingdom, not just Peter, and any bishop who claims more authority from this is straying from the faith. I agree though, universalism and purgatory are totally unbiblical and not what earlier Christians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught. They plainly taught eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous.

The Trouble song is a good example of my problem. I’ve dived too deep in theology to leave much room for contrary positions on controversial topics, so the deeper the song goes theology-wise the more likely I can’t stand it. I am no longer a Protestant, nor Catholic or any denomination for that matter. I now tend to prefer bands like Narnia etc. since they pretty much stick to basics I can get behind completely. 

The song I can’t stomach anymore is sadly one of my old favorites: “Absolution Day” by Theocracy. It presents a totally fictitious account of a believer on judgment day, contradicted by every passage of Scripture on the topic of final judgment like Romans 2:4-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. It also has the terrible line “no blessed holy water can sanctify me in the eyes of God” denying that baptism saves and washes away sins, which is contrary to plain Scriptures like Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and against the testimony of every Christian prior to Zwingli, etc.

I think the setting of Absolution Day isn’t supposed to exactly describe what the judgment will look like, it’s more symbolic of how Jesus took his punishment. But I have to disagree with that last statement. Only the blood of Christ saves, and baptism is an outward reflection of this. Baptism itself doesn’t save you, otherwise you could just baptize anybody and they’d be saved whether they believed or not, which is obviously not biblical

Look into the topic more, because the Scriptures literally say things like baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21),  and all Christians for the first 1500 years believed the NT was serious in these statements. 

We also need to be careful about false dichotomies. If someone’s house is on fire, the fireman saves the house, but he saves it with a hose of water, so one can properly say the house was saved by the hose. He also needs a fire hydrant, since the hose by itself can’t save. It needs an operator and a source of water. Likewise, it’s perfectly rational to say Jesus saves us through faith and baptism, baptism not being anything without faith.

To understand the meaning of scripture, it is important to interpret it in the context of Scripture as a whole. The idea that the physical act of baptism is what saves would be contradictory with many other passages of the New Testament, indicating that physical, outward forms of purification are not ultimately what is important to God, but rather the state of the heart (mind). And that belief in Christ is what ultimately saves, although baptism is commanded by God of every believer. A good illustration of this is the repentant thief on the cross, who was never baptized (due to it being impossible given his situation), but he believed and Jesus assured him of his salvation right then and there. Here is an article that discusses that verse you mentioned and its meaning: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

I know and used to use all those arguments, but I don’t think they are sound. For example, the thief on the cross died prior to Christ’s ascension and institution of Christian baptism in Matthew 28, so his salvation is no different than an OT saint and is completely irrelevant to how the NT teaches we Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit and saved. And to take any principle like we are not saved by outward works of the Law of Moses, and then try to apply that to commands of Jesus, is simply a giant category error. 

What I had not heard when I was a Protestant was the large bodies of writings from the early church and how the understood baptism, salvation, final judgment, etc. It wasn’t until I compared the two systems of thought that I could dicern which was logically coherent, as Proverbs says: “the first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” - Proverbs 18:17

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

 Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

That is not a strictly Roman Catholic belief, as Origen of Alexandria taught Universalism in the mid 3rd Century, long before there was anything like a Pope or Roman Catholicism. Origen even says in his Matthew commentary that all the Apostles were given the keys to the Kingdom, not just Peter, and any bishop who claims more authority from this is straying from the faith. I agree though, universalism and purgatory are totally unbiblical and not what earlier Christians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught. They plainly taught eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous.

The Trouble song is a good example of my problem. I’ve dived too deep in theology to leave much room for contrary positions on controversial topics, so the deeper the song goes theology-wise the more likely I can’t stand it. I am no longer a Protestant, nor Catholic or any denomination for that matter. I now tend to prefer bands like Narnia etc. since they pretty much stick to basics I can get behind completely. 

The song I can’t stomach anymore is sadly one of my old favorites: “Absolution Day” by Theocracy. It presents a totally fictitious account of a believer on judgment day, contradicted by every passage of Scripture on the topic of final judgment like Romans 2:4-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. It also has the terrible line “no blessed holy water can sanctify me in the eyes of God” denying that baptism saves and washes away sins, which is contrary to plain Scriptures like Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and against the testimony of every Christian prior to Zwingli, etc.

I think the setting of Absolution Day isn’t supposed to exactly describe what the judgment will look like, it’s more symbolic of how Jesus took his punishment. But I have to disagree with that last statement. Only the blood of Christ saves, and baptism is an outward reflection of this. Baptism itself doesn’t save you, otherwise you could just baptize anybody and they’d be saved whether they believed or not, which is obviously not biblical

Look into the topic more, because the Scriptures literally say things like baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21),  and all Christians for the first 1500 years believed the NT was serious in these statements. 

We also need to be careful about false dichotomies. If someone’s house is on fire, the fireman saves the house, but he saves it with a hose of water, so one can properly say the house was saved by the hose. He also needs a fire hydrant, since the hose by itself can’t save. It needs an operator and a source of water. Likewise, it’s perfectly rational to say Jesus saves us through faith and baptism, baptism not being anything without faith.

To understand the meaning of scripture, it is important to interpret it in the context of Scripture as a whole. The idea that the physical act of baptism is what saves would be contradictory with many other passages of the New Testament, indicating that physical, outward forms of purification are not ultimately what is important to God, but rather the state of the heart (mind). And that belief in Christ is what ultimately saves, although baptism is commanded by God of every believer. A good illustration of this is the repentant thief on the cross, who was never baptized (due to it being impossible given his situation), but he believed and Jesus assured him of his salvation right then and there. Here is an article that discusses that verse you mentioned and its meaning: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

I know and used to use all those arguments, but I don’t think they are sound. For example, the thief on the cross died prior to Christ’s ascension and institution of Christian baptism in Matthew 28, so his salvation is no different than an OT saint and is completely irrelevant to how the NT teaches we Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit and saved. And to take any principle like we are not saved by outward works of the Law of Moses, and then try to apply that to commands of Jesus, is simply a giant category error. 

What I had not heard when I was a Protestant was the large bodies of writings from the early church and how the understood baptism, salvation, final judgment, etc. It wasn’t until I compared the two systems of thought that I could dicern which was logically coherent, as Proverbs says: “the first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” - Proverbs 18:17

Baptism was introduced before Jesus’s ascension, by John the Baptist. And the principle of the state of the heart/mind being more important than outward things is not just from the OT, it is taught by Jesus Himself (for example Mark 7:5-23, not directly about baptism but illustrates the principle). Also, there are plenty of verses that indicate that only by faith, and by faith alone, can someone be saved (Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:31, Galations 2:16, and plenty more.) Like I said, interpret Scripture with Scripture. I cannot see the “baptism saves your soul” interpretation as logically coherent, since it goes against other passages in Scripture. If your interpretation brings about contradictory messages, then it is probably not the correct one.

Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

 Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

That is not a strictly Roman Catholic belief, as Origen of Alexandria taught Universalism in the mid 3rd Century, long before there was anything like a Pope or Roman Catholicism. Origen even says in his Matthew commentary that all the Apostles were given the keys to the Kingdom, not just Peter, and any bishop who claims more authority from this is straying from the faith. I agree though, universalism and purgatory are totally unbiblical and not what earlier Christians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught. They plainly taught eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous.

The Trouble song is a good example of my problem. I’ve dived too deep in theology to leave much room for contrary positions on controversial topics, so the deeper the song goes theology-wise the more likely I can’t stand it. I am no longer a Protestant, nor Catholic or any denomination for that matter. I now tend to prefer bands like Narnia etc. since they pretty much stick to basics I can get behind completely. 

The song I can’t stomach anymore is sadly one of my old favorites: “Absolution Day” by Theocracy. It presents a totally fictitious account of a believer on judgment day, contradicted by every passage of Scripture on the topic of final judgment like Romans 2:4-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. It also has the terrible line “no blessed holy water can sanctify me in the eyes of God” denying that baptism saves and washes away sins, which is contrary to plain Scriptures like Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and against the testimony of every Christian prior to Zwingli, etc.

I think the setting of Absolution Day isn’t supposed to exactly describe what the judgment will look like, it’s more symbolic of how Jesus took his punishment. But I have to disagree with that last statement. Only the blood of Christ saves, and baptism is an outward reflection of this. Baptism itself doesn’t save you, otherwise you could just baptize anybody and they’d be saved whether they believed or not, which is obviously not biblical

Look into the topic more, because the Scriptures literally say things like baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21),  and all Christians for the first 1500 years believed the NT was serious in these statements. 

We also need to be careful about false dichotomies. If someone’s house is on fire, the fireman saves the house, but he saves it with a hose of water, so one can properly say the house was saved by the hose. He also needs a fire hydrant, since the hose by itself can’t save. It needs an operator and a source of water. Likewise, it’s perfectly rational to say Jesus saves us through faith and baptism, baptism not being anything without faith.

To understand the meaning of scripture, it is important to interpret it in the context of Scripture as a whole. The idea that the physical act of baptism is what saves would be contradictory with many other passages of the New Testament, indicating that physical, outward forms of purification are not ultimately what is important to God, but rather the state of the heart (mind). And that belief in Christ is what ultimately saves, although baptism is commanded by God of every believer. A good illustration of this is the repentant thief on the cross, who was never baptized (due to it being impossible given his situation), but he believed and Jesus assured him of his salvation right then and there. Here is an article that discusses that verse you mentioned and its meaning: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

I know and used to use all those arguments, but I don’t think they are sound. For example, the thief on the cross died prior to Christ’s ascension and institution of Christian baptism in Matthew 28, so his salvation is no different than an OT saint and is completely irrelevant to how the NT teaches we Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit and saved. And to take any principle like we are not saved by outward works of the Law of Moses, and then try to apply that to commands of Jesus, is simply a giant category error. 

What I had not heard when I was a Protestant was the large bodies of writings from the early church and how the understood baptism, salvation, final judgment, etc. It wasn’t until I compared the two systems of thought that I could dicern which was logically coherent, as Proverbs says: “the first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” - Proverbs 18:17

Baptism was introduced before Jesus’s ascension, by John the Baptist. And the principle of the state of the heart/mind being more important than outward things is not just from the OT, it is taught by Jesus Himself (for example Mark 7:5-23, not directly about baptism but illustrates the principle). Also, there are plenty of verses that indicate that only by faith, and by faith alone, can someone be saved (Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:31, Galations 2:16, and plenty more.) Like I said, interpret Scripture with Scripture. I cannot see the “baptism saves your soul” interpretation as logically coherent, since it goes against other passages in Scripture. If your interpretation brings about contradictory messages, then it is probably not the correct one.

Certainly the truth is not contradictory. The issue is you believe you have rightly interpreted Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:31, and Galatians 2:16, etc. and then insist that your interpretation of these verses should be used as the starting points in attempting to understand the verses on baptism. It’s no wonder you have a contradiction on your hands. But if you simply start by acknowledging plain verses like Acts 2:38-39, in which Peter in his first sermon tells listeners to repent and be water baptized for the remission of sins, and only subsequently are they promised to receive the Holy Spirit, one will have a better starting point to understand Ephesians and Galatians. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Galatians are only talking about not being saved by works of the Law of Moses like circumcision as is plain from the context of Ephesians 2:11-17 and Galatians 2 and 3, and as all early Christians interpreted works of the Law which do not save.

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

 Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

That is not a strictly Roman Catholic belief, as Origen of Alexandria taught Universalism in the mid 3rd Century, long before there was anything like a Pope or Roman Catholicism. Origen even says in his Matthew commentary that all the Apostles were given the keys to the Kingdom, not just Peter, and any bishop who claims more authority from this is straying from the faith. I agree though, universalism and purgatory are totally unbiblical and not what earlier Christians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught. They plainly taught eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous.

The Trouble song is a good example of my problem. I’ve dived too deep in theology to leave much room for contrary positions on controversial topics, so the deeper the song goes theology-wise the more likely I can’t stand it. I am no longer a Protestant, nor Catholic or any denomination for that matter. I now tend to prefer bands like Narnia etc. since they pretty much stick to basics I can get behind completely. 

The song I can’t stomach anymore is sadly one of my old favorites: “Absolution Day” by Theocracy. It presents a totally fictitious account of a believer on judgment day, contradicted by every passage of Scripture on the topic of final judgment like Romans 2:4-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. It also has the terrible line “no blessed holy water can sanctify me in the eyes of God” denying that baptism saves and washes away sins, which is contrary to plain Scriptures like Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and against the testimony of every Christian prior to Zwingli, etc.

I think the setting of Absolution Day isn’t supposed to exactly describe what the judgment will look like, it’s more symbolic of how Jesus took his punishment. But I have to disagree with that last statement. Only the blood of Christ saves, and baptism is an outward reflection of this. Baptism itself doesn’t save you, otherwise you could just baptize anybody and they’d be saved whether they believed or not, which is obviously not biblical

Look into the topic more, because the Scriptures literally say things like baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21),  and all Christians for the first 1500 years believed the NT was serious in these statements. 

We also need to be careful about false dichotomies. If someone’s house is on fire, the fireman saves the house, but he saves it with a hose of water, so one can properly say the house was saved by the hose. He also needs a fire hydrant, since the hose by itself can’t save. It needs an operator and a source of water. Likewise, it’s perfectly rational to say Jesus saves us through faith and baptism, baptism not being anything without faith.

To understand the meaning of scripture, it is important to interpret it in the context of Scripture as a whole. The idea that the physical act of baptism is what saves would be contradictory with many other passages of the New Testament, indicating that physical, outward forms of purification are not ultimately what is important to God, but rather the state of the heart (mind). And that belief in Christ is what ultimately saves, although baptism is commanded by God of every believer. A good illustration of this is the repentant thief on the cross, who was never baptized (due to it being impossible given his situation), but he believed and Jesus assured him of his salvation right then and there. Here is an article that discusses that verse you mentioned and its meaning: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

I know and used to use all those arguments, but I don’t think they are sound. For example, the thief on the cross died prior to Christ’s ascension and institution of Christian baptism in Matthew 28, so his salvation is no different than an OT saint and is completely irrelevant to how the NT teaches we Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit and saved. And to take any principle like we are not saved by outward works of the Law of Moses, and then try to apply that to commands of Jesus, is simply a giant category error. 

What I had not heard when I was a Protestant was the large bodies of writings from the early church and how the understood baptism, salvation, final judgment, etc. It wasn’t until I compared the two systems of thought that I could dicern which was logically coherent, as Proverbs says: “the first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” - Proverbs 18:17

Baptism was introduced before Jesus’s ascension, by John the Baptist. And the principle of the state of the heart/mind being more important than outward things is not just from the OT, it is taught by Jesus Himself (for example Mark 7:5-23, not directly about baptism but illustrates the principle). Also, there are plenty of verses that indicate that only by faith, and by faith alone, can someone be saved (Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:31, Galations 2:16, and plenty more.) Like I said, interpret Scripture with Scripture. I cannot see the “baptism saves your soul” interpretation as logically coherent, since it goes against other passages in Scripture. If your interpretation brings about contradictory messages, then it is probably not the correct one.

Certainly the truth is not contradictory. The issue is you believe you have rightly interpreted Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:31, and Galatians 2:16, etc. and then insist that your interpretation of these verses should be used as the starting points in attempting to understand the verses on baptism. It’s no wonder you have a contradiction on your hands. But if you simply start by acknowledging plain verses like Acts 2:38-39, in which Peter in his first sermon tells listeners to repent and be water baptized for the remission of sins, and only subsequently are they promised to receive the Holy Spirit, one will have a better starting point to understand Ephesians and Galatians. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Galatians are only talking about not being saved by works of the Law of Moses like circumcision as is plain from the context of Ephesians 2:11-17 and Galatians 2 and 3, and as all early Christians interpreted works of the Law which do not save.

I am not denying that believer are commanded to be baptized. But the difference in our interpretations is their position on the context of the message of the Bible as a whole. The idea that the physical act of baptism is what saves goes against multiple clear Biblical principles. Including the doctrine that salvation is not by works and the doctrine that outward, physical purification is not as important as the state of the heart/mind. To try to re-interpret these doctrines to fit the “baptism saves” narrative would require MUCH more mental gymnastics, and many more passages to claim they don’t mean what they say literally, than the idea that Peter didn’t mean the physical act of baptism is what brings salvation. And the idea that the passages about works not saving you only refer to Moses’s law doesn’t make sense. Jesus didn’t come to give us another law that we must obey to earn our way to heaven.

There is no verse in the Bible that says we are absolved by the blood of Jesus on judgment day. That happens, but not on final judgment day. It says we will be judged by our works.

Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

 Friday13th wrote:

seth wrote:

Friday13th wrote:

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Regardless of the lyrics, I still enjoy the song musically.

That is not a strictly Roman Catholic belief, as Origen of Alexandria taught Universalism in the mid 3rd Century, long before there was anything like a Pope or Roman Catholicism. Origen even says in his Matthew commentary that all the Apostles were given the keys to the Kingdom, not just Peter, and any bishop who claims more authority from this is straying from the faith. I agree though, universalism and purgatory are totally unbiblical and not what earlier Christians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught. They plainly taught eternal conscious torment for the unrighteous.

The Trouble song is a good example of my problem. I’ve dived too deep in theology to leave much room for contrary positions on controversial topics, so the deeper the song goes theology-wise the more likely I can’t stand it. I am no longer a Protestant, nor Catholic or any denomination for that matter. I now tend to prefer bands like Narnia etc. since they pretty much stick to basics I can get behind completely. 

The song I can’t stomach anymore is sadly one of my old favorites: “Absolution Day” by Theocracy. It presents a totally fictitious account of a believer on judgment day, contradicted by every passage of Scripture on the topic of final judgment like Romans 2:4-16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. It also has the terrible line “no blessed holy water can sanctify me in the eyes of God” denying that baptism saves and washes away sins, which is contrary to plain Scriptures like Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and against the testimony of every Christian prior to Zwingli, etc.

I think the setting of Absolution Day isn’t supposed to exactly describe what the judgment will look like, it’s more symbolic of how Jesus took his punishment. But I have to disagree with that last statement. Only the blood of Christ saves, and baptism is an outward reflection of this. Baptism itself doesn’t save you, otherwise you could just baptize anybody and they’d be saved whether they believed or not, which is obviously not biblical

Look into the topic more, because the Scriptures literally say things like baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21),  and all Christians for the first 1500 years believed the NT was serious in these statements. 

We also need to be careful about false dichotomies. If someone’s house is on fire, the fireman saves the house, but he saves it with a hose of water, so one can properly say the house was saved by the hose. He also needs a fire hydrant, since the hose by itself can’t save. It needs an operator and a source of water. Likewise, it’s perfectly rational to say Jesus saves us through faith and baptism, baptism not being anything without faith.

To understand the meaning of scripture, it is important to interpret it in the context of Scripture as a whole. The idea that the physical act of baptism is what saves would be contradictory with many other passages of the New Testament, indicating that physical, outward forms of purification are not ultimately what is important to God, but rather the state of the heart (mind). And that belief in Christ is what ultimately saves, although baptism is commanded by God of every believer. A good illustration of this is the repentant thief on the cross, who was never baptized (due to it being impossible given his situation), but he believed and Jesus assured him of his salvation right then and there. Here is an article that discusses that verse you mentioned and its meaning: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

I know and used to use all those arguments, but I don’t think they are sound. For example, the thief on the cross died prior to Christ’s ascension and institution of Christian baptism in Matthew 28, so his salvation is no different than an OT saint and is completely irrelevant to how the NT teaches we Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit and saved. And to take any principle like we are not saved by outward works of the Law of Moses, and then try to apply that to commands of Jesus, is simply a giant category error. 

What I had not heard when I was a Protestant was the large bodies of writings from the early church and how the understood baptism, salvation, final judgment, etc. It wasn’t until I compared the two systems of thought that I could dicern which was logically coherent, as Proverbs says: “the first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” - Proverbs 18:17

Baptism was introduced before Jesus’s ascension, by John the Baptist. And the principle of the state of the heart/mind being more important than outward things is not just from the OT, it is taught by Jesus Himself (for example Mark 7:5-23, not directly about baptism but illustrates the principle). Also, there are plenty of verses that indicate that only by faith, and by faith alone, can someone be saved (Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:31, Galations 2:16, and plenty more.) Like I said, interpret Scripture with Scripture. I cannot see the “baptism saves your soul” interpretation as logically coherent, since it goes against other passages in Scripture. If your interpretation brings about contradictory messages, then it is probably not the correct one.

Certainly the truth is not contradictory. The issue is you believe you have rightly interpreted Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:31, and Galatians 2:16, etc. and then insist that your interpretation of these verses should be used as the starting points in attempting to understand the verses on baptism. It’s no wonder you have a contradiction on your hands. But if you simply start by acknowledging plain verses like Acts 2:38-39, in which Peter in his first sermon tells listeners to repent and be water baptized for the remission of sins, and only subsequently are they promised to receive the Holy Spirit, one will have a better starting point to understand Ephesians and Galatians. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Galatians are only talking about not being saved by works of the Law of Moses like circumcision as is plain from the context of Ephesians 2:11-17 and Galatians 2 and 3, and as all early Christians interpreted works of the Law which do not save.

I am not denying that believer are commanded to be baptized. But the difference in our interpretations is their position on the context of the message of the Bible as a whole. The idea that the physical act of baptism is what saves goes against multiple clear Biblical principles. Including the doctrine that salvation is not by works and the doctrine that outward, physical purification is not as important as the state of the heart/mind. To try to re-interpret these doctrines to fit the “baptism saves” narrative would require MUCH more mental gymnastics, and many more passages to claim they don’t mean what they say literally, than the idea that Peter didn’t mean the physical act of baptism is what brings salvation. And the idea that the passages about works not saving you only refer to Moses’s law doesn’t make sense. Jesus didn’t come to give us another law that we must obey to earn our way to heaven.

Well that's good you still believe we should be baptized. The message of the Bible as a whole is to worship God the Father and His Son Jesus by obeying them. As Ecclesiastes finishes: "The conclusion, when everything has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." - Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NASB)


Seems pretty straightforward to me what the Bible is about when it tells us like that. It also seems pretty clear what final judgment is from Matthew 16:17, John 5:28-29, Romans 2:4-16, 1 Corinthians 3:13-16, 2 Corinthians 5:11, Galatians 6:7-10, Revelation 20:12, Revelation 22:12-14, Paul himself telling us that God will judge every person without exception on final judgment day by their works, and he literally says this is the cause for inheriting eternal life. Interesting that some of those passages are in the very books you say are preaching against all works of every kind like Galatians. That's why I'm criticizing "Absolution Day." There is no verse in the Bible that says we are absolved by the blood of Jesus on judgment day. That happens, but not on final judgment day. It says we will be judged by our works.


Paul also tells us that now we are born again and have the Holy Spirit, the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh (Romans 8:4). So Paul teaches we are righteous by what we do. We have ancient commentaries on Romans from Christians like Origen, John Chrysostom, etc., many that natively spoke Koine Greek, and not one of them thought that Paul was talking about all works of every kind when he said we are not justified by. You won't find one Christian who believed that until Martin Luther. We're just not justified by works of the Law of Moses as is plainly the context in every passage speaking in that way, but instead we are justified works of Christ's law done through the power of the Holy Spirit as Paul teaches in Romans 2 and Romans 8. That's why I rejected your position, because I realized I was believing something logically untenable and contradictory to all of Scripture.

nocturnaliridescence wrote:

There is no verse in the Bible that says we are absolved by the blood of Jesus on judgment day. That happens, but not on final judgment day. It says we will be judged by our works.

And your personal works will apparently consist of teaching people that earthly water can absolve sins, and that sinful humans can save themselves by their own filthy rags ("works") only needing a little helping hand from our holy and righteous Lord. 

seth wrote:The only ones I can think of that I avoid are some of Theandric’s songs that promote the Catholic view of Mary

TZ75 wrote:“Pray for the Dead” by Trouble is based on the Catholic belief or doctrine that you can still save a soul that has already passed. 

Theonymic wrote:

seth wrote:The only ones I can think of that I avoid are some of Theandric’s songs that promote the Catholic view of Mary

Never heard of them, but now I'm curious - Orthodox have a similar, though not identical "view" of the Theotokos.