Well..

at 06/09/05 2:17PM
I am letting you all know this will be my last entry on this blog. I have so much work that needs to be done, I know I will not spend much time here. Thanks for your participation! You can still find great articles and other spiritually related things on my website, TeenChristians.net! I will hopefully see you all someday in Glory.

In His Love,
Heath Aaron Robertson
  • bereanatheart
    I pray that the Lord bless you in your other endeavors!
    by bereanatheart at 06/09/05 2:55PM
  • smallgreenbug
    you've done so much to help young christians as well as the older ones (i'm sure), i'm suprised that you have time for anything. may God's will be done!
    by smallgreenbug at 06/13/05 11:15AM
  • crystal_clear
    Hi! My name is Morgan. I just checked out your website and I really appreciate all the work that you do. Your zeal is an encouragement. May God bless you. :o)
    by crystal_clear at 06/18/05 11:03PM
  • heatharobertson
    thank yall so much... love ya
    by heatharobertson at 07/04/05 9:55AM

A good way to buy time...

at 05/12/05 1:35AM
I am still unsure of the new topic so please consider this...

How many of you think you have a GOOD defense on the subject of baptism? I have found a lot of people do not. Tell me how you would explain to anyone that baptism is essential. Let's say that they have a descent Bible knowledge: "But Paul told the Romans to just 'Call upon the Lord' and you will be saved" (Rom. 10:13). Maybe try linking some of the other parts of the plan of Salvation. Just do your best and hopefully we all will be a little more prepared to defeat this error and "answer for the hope that is in us" (I Pet. 3:15).

(Take your time, present your defense and leave it at that. Let us study the things we are presented and let the Word help us to work out any error. If the need arises I may make this a topic, but for right now, just one answer. That doesnt mean you are only allowed to hit enter once. Use as much space as you want, but when you are done, you're done!)
  • tnerbydoom
    I would go to Rom 6 and read the first 14 verses, which leave no uncertainty that it is at the point of baptism that we die with christ in the likeness of his death and are raised in the likeness of his resurrection. It is at baptism that we put off the old man, and put on the new man. It is the same substitution that took place during the OT sacrificial system, except this new covenant is much more glorious and actually does atone for our souls. I would emphasize that this must be done in faith, or else it is worthless. I would also go to Heb 9:22 which says "...Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." The subsitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ is realize by faith in baptism. It is at that point that we deny ourselves take up our cross and follow him. That is seen by the language of Romans chapter 6.
    by tnerbydoom at 05/12/05 12:12PM
  • tnerbydoom
    Though the shedding of blood is necessary for atonement (Heb 9:22), we obviously cannot shed our blood or we would be dead, so Christ shed His blood for us. We accept his blood on our behalf when we symbolically die with him in baptism. It signifies the killing or mortifying of the old man, and the putting on of the new man.
    by tnerbydoom at 05/12/05 12:15PM
  • mer
    Related to Romans 6, the old man is crucififed, buried, and raised WITH CHRIST. If someone believes you can be saved before baptism and that baptism is just a sign of your faith, I would point out that when baptized in this way you would be killing the NEW man in baptism and not the OLD man. This doesn't agree with Romans 6:1-7. It is the OLD man that dies with Christ. I hope I explained that well enough.
    by mer at 05/12/05 12:28PM
  • godswarrior32803
    excellent point mer
    by godswarrior32803 at 05/12/05 1:32PM
  • godswarrior32803
    i'm writing that one down
    by godswarrior32803 at 05/12/05 1:32PM
  • mer
    I don't take credit for it though. I heard it in a sermon and thought it was excellent...something I hadn't thought of before.
    by mer at 05/12/05 1:48PM
  • heatharobertson
    awesome awesome!
    by heatharobertson at 05/12/05 1:49PM
  • tnerbydoom
    that point can be made by using 1Cor 15:35-49. The principle you are refering to is present in that passage.
    by tnerbydoom at 05/12/05 2:15PM
  • mer
    Thanks for the other passage.
    by mer at 05/12/05 2:24PM
  • deusvitae
    A Study of Denominations: Appendix A: Baptism
    by deusvitae at 05/12/05 9:47PM
  • eternalsunshine
    I find all of these lacking. Mostly because it could be very easily argued that the verses reference above are metaphors or similies. I believe showing that baptism is essential is very easy, showing that water baptism is essential, on the other hand, is kind of tricky. I would say the best case you can make for water baptism is that it is symbolic of our spiritual baptism and therefor necessary to complete the illustration.
    by eternalsunshine at 05/13/05 9:19AM
  • curlie
    I get the idea that you just like to argue. Is that the case?
    by curlie at 05/13/05 9:41AM
  • tnerbydoom
    I would definitely say the verses above are symbolic or metaphorical or similies; however, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are refering to water Baptism. It amazes me that someone could get around the imagery in Rom 6 and try to say water baptism is not essential. Of course, baptism is a symbolic act. IF it isn't done in faith, dipping in water does nothing. Jesus truly forgives sins, not simply dipping in water. But Jesus tells us to do so, in following his commandments our sins are washed away at the point that he says they are. Which happens to relate perfectly to the OT sacrificial system. [x]
    by tnerbydoom at 05/13/05 10:23AM
  • heatharobertson
    Think about our examples and direct references to water... 1. Matt. 3, John was baptizing in water. 2. All the conversions in Acts (Simon, Lydia, Saul, Eunich; "See here is water", Acts 8:36-38)
    by heatharobertson at 05/13/05 1:15PM
  • heatharobertson
    How many references are there to the baptism of fire? None. Baptism = immersion by definition right? So, if I threw you in a lake, you were baptized in water. If you were "thrown" in a "lake of fire" (Rev. 22), then you would be baptized with fire. It is very easy to see what the baptism of fire that Jesus refers to is. Also, I believe that if someone truly believes in the Bible, to miss the necessity for water baptism is a hard thing.
    by heatharobertson at 05/13/05 1:20PM
  • mer
    thanks
    by mer at 05/13/05 1:24PM
  • mer
    Wouldn't Matthew 3:12 make it even more clear what that fire is, which is mentioned in verse 11?
    by mer at 05/13/05 4:21PM
  • heatharobertson
    yes exactly.
    by heatharobertson at 05/14/05 12:42AM
  • heatharobertson
    i hate work.. new stuff coming soon
    by heatharobertson at 05/14/05 1:52PM
  • deusvitae
    The spiritual significance of the Lord's Supper does not negate the need to actually have bread and fruit of the vine; likewise, the spiritual significance of baptism does not negate the need to actually be immersed in water. If baptism were not in water, a whole lot of the Bible would be nonsensical (Acts 10:44-45, 1 Peter 3:20-21).
    by deusvitae at 05/14/05 3:07PM

This Discussion is Over. (Please Read)

at 05/06/05 10:05PM
Over the past 1.5 months we have discussed certain issues dealing with marriage and divorce. AS most of you know, Tim Haile and I began a public discussion on this weblog. This came about as a result of Tim reading my article "The Vow Only Marriage". He wrote a response to my article and asked me to post it here on my blog, so I did. I asked him to post the articles on his website (www.biblebanner.com). He said he would think about it. This seemed a little weird to me, but I went ahead.

As we proceeded in the discussion, indirectly (documented) he has called me a liar, misrepresenter, irresponsible, dishonest, and maybe others I have missed. He has ignored the very questions he has been asked. Gone in circles again and again. One man told me "any one who advocates such a doctrine is likely to be the dishonest one". I thought better of Tim. Tim recently posted his response to my article on BibleBanner.com. He has yet to post my original article or my responses to him.

This kind of action says many things about Tim. He has no defense for his false doctrine. The only real defense he has is to not defend it! Which is what he is doing. I thought better of Tim... I had hoped he would either give up his erroneous teaching or atleast have some kind of defense, but he did not and does not! This is not meant to be hurtful, but to let you know why this discussion is discontinued. I cannot continue a discussion with someone who has proved themselves not to be a seeker of Truth. This is the result and end for all false teachers. I hope the material you have seen and our discussions will prove to benefit you. A new subject of discussion will be up soon. Please pray for Tim and others who advocate false doctrine. May God help us turn sinners from the error of their way (Jms. 5:19, 20).

Heath Aaron Robertson

(PS. Here is the articles that did come about in this discussion:

1.The Vow Only Marriage
2.Tim Hailes Response to Heath Robertson
3.Heath's Response to Tim
4.How Does One Get Married?)
  • heatharobertson
    anyways.. i have enjoyed the conversation.... feel free to continue... but i am going to go get my clean on.. and see the world... have a good day
    by heatharobertson at 05/07/05 3:45PM
  • deusvitae
    Note on above: I do not intend to mean that God joins two people who have no right to be joined to one another, only that the particulars of the ceremony may be sinful.
    by deusvitae at 05/07/05 3:46PM
  • deusvitae
    One does not need to hear the debate to see that Tim Hile is advocating mental divorce, since his propositions clearly show that he adhered to the doctrine.
    by deusvitae at 05/07/05 3:47PM
  • heatharobertson
    the point is that the covenant CANNOT be nade without God.. as im sure you agree with that... God being the joiner, is not going to join something wihtout the participants doing ALL he has said to do...
    by heatharobertson at 05/07/05 3:49PM
  • heatharobertson
    it is that simple
    by heatharobertson at 05/07/05 3:49PM
  • heatharobertson
    i cannot be a Christian without repenting of my sins and I cannot be married without fulfilling all that is required for marriage
    by heatharobertson at 05/07/05 3:51PM
  • heatharobertson
    it is the fact that obedience civil requirements are APART of God's marriage law... the curfew and fountain question are irrlevant (tho i still have not come to a conclusion on that)
    by heatharobertson at 05/07/05 3:53PM
  • heatharobertson
    there is no civil requirement found in the specified plan of salvation.. but by study of Gods Word... the general principles laid out in Matt. 19 along with Romans 13; I Pet. 2 that obedience to the civil law is apart of God's law
    by heatharobertson at 05/07/05 3:55PM
  • deusvitae
    I would say that civil requirements are separate from God's law on marriage, and whenever possible, both should be obeyed, but if they ever conflict, to go with God. I could not confidently say, however, that lack of obedience of civil procedure necessitates that God does not recognize the marriage.
    by deusvitae at 05/07/05 4:14PM
  • big_guy
    heath, you need to separate your "a" from "part". apart is a separation, your arm is a part of the body. I think you mean a part, but the way you are writing it comes across that you are saying there is a separation, which if that were the case the discussion would not have lasted this long
    by big_guy at 05/07/05 10:33PM
  • heatharobertson
    well.. im on drugs (nyquil) sorry... thanks for your help tho!
    by heatharobertson at 05/08/05 1:56AM
  • tnerbydoom
    Your reasons for ending the discussion sound the same as every other person I have heard who ended a discussion with him. It is easy to relegate to call people liars and dishonest when your points don't make any sense, and you have no scriptural backing for your position. It is sad really. It is sad to be in such error and not realize it. It is sad that there are others who are being led into that error. Most of all, it is sad that Tim feels the need to devote his Christian life to this topic. There are a lot more lost souls than there are people who are not remarrying though they are "free" to marry. MDR is an important topic, don't get me wrong; however, I can't understand someone who devotes his life to the topic, debating it and arguing it with so many people. Seems like time could be better spend doing more important things.
    by tnerbydoom at 05/09/05 10:47AM
  • tnerbydoom
    sorry for the mistakes, but I won't take the time to fix them. I hope no one minds.
    by tnerbydoom at 05/09/05 10:49AM
  • standing_for_truth
    the real problem is that... Tim calls me a liar because this is not the position he advocates.. because he believes that somewhere in the depths of the definition of "leaving" (matt. 19:5) includes a public declaration of intention but i think anyone can see the definition and understand that it does not! anyways new topic wednesday. cya
    by standing_for_truth at 05/09/05 7:45PM
  • standing_for_truth
    "the vow only marriage'
    by standing_for_truth at 05/09/05 7:46PM
  • standing_for_truth
    is what is left wihtout his added definition of leaving
    by standing_for_truth at 05/09/05 7:47PM
  • tnerbydoom
    I think we should just follow Isaac's example. "Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebekahand she became his wife, and he loved her." But I guess since he was the master of that area he could do what he wanted.
    by tnerbydoom at 05/11/05 1:12PM
  • heatharobertson
    hmm.. sarcasm im sure..
    by heatharobertson at 05/11/05 3:08PM
  • tnerbydoom
    well, yeah. And he was the civil authority. Wouldn't it be nice to make your own rules.
    by tnerbydoom at 05/11/05 3:56PM
  • tnerbydoom
    Eccl. 8:2-6 is another good passage about "civil" authority.
    by tnerbydoom at 05/11/05 3:58PM

Another article to consider...

at 05/05/05 4:41PM
How Does One "Get Married"?
I thought this would be helpful in our studies... Let me know what you think!

Q&A Session 1

at 05/04/05 3:24PM
Over the past 1.5 months we have been discussing an article I wrote entitled 1. The Vow Only Marriage. This article was brought about on the basis that what some teach concerning marriage and divorce very much reflect or really is this doctrine. Beginning in April, Tim Haile and I began an email discussion. He read over my article and wrote a 2. Response to it. He asked me to post it here. After a week or so of discussion on his response I wrote another 3. Response.

I have recently asked Tim if he would like to continue in a different format. I will ask him 5 questions, upon answering he will give me 5 questions and so on. If he chooses to participate, I plan on continuing this for a few weeks. Then, I will leave the information we have gathered over about 2 months for your personal studies. I hope it has been beneficial. Once we do finish, a new subject will be posted for discussion. Here is the first set of questions:

1. Where can we find in the Scriptures, that if one leaves and cleaves (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; with the right intentions) at that point, they are married "before God" (ref. Quick Answer #3)?

2. Where in the Scriptures does anyone even infer that leaving and cleaving are the sole requirements to be married "before God"?

3. I have shown in my Response that the civil requirements to be married DO NOT supersede God's requirements and therefore not in contradiction to Acts 5:29. That being understood, would not the obedience to the civil requirements fall under the category of God's requirements (Rom. 13; I Pet. 2; in other words, to be married before God, you must also be married "before man")?

4. Can an eligible man and woman commit (vow) to one another without a witness, without a marriage license, without officiation, move in together, and be married "before God"?

5. How do we "pick and choose" where Rom. 13 and I Pet. 2 should be applied?

(I would ask that we try to stay in defense of the Truth and not wasting time pointing fingers. I understand that the defense calls for us to point out where error is found, but not to the extent of losing sight on the subject. Just be moderate, Christ-like, and do everything with love (I Cor. 13).)
  • heatharobertson
    (by the way.. this is still open for public discussion.. even before he answers them..)
    by heatharobertson at 05/05/05 12:54AM