The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[Jeffrey]

what in the world did I say about baptism regeneration. Plain texts tell you how that relates. As I have said before your view is skewed from start to end when you make baptism a "work" of "ours" to obtain covenant as your positions smell gives havoc to everything you believe in relation to the word of God.

No, I make baptism an equivalent to circumcision, which had a significant meaning for covenant, but is not how salvation came (Romans 4).

[TheLegalist]

This is where you're just wrong, Blume. You see, we CAN'T keep up our end of the bargain.

hmmmm So we don' hold up "faithfulness" WOW amazing. Can you saaaaaay false doctrine?

Gen 18:19 I have chosen him52 so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep53 the way of the LORD by doing54 what is right and just. Then the LORD will give55 to Abraham what he promised56 him."

Gen 22:12 "Do not harm the boy!"25 the angel said.26 "Do not do anything to him, for now I know27 that you fear28 God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me."
Gen 22:13 Abraham looked up29 and saw30 behind him31 a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. So he32 went over and got the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place "The LORD provides."33 It is said to this day,34 "In the mountain of the LORD provision will be made."35
Gen 22:15 The LORD's angel called to Abraham a second time from heaven
Gen 22:16 and said, " 'I solemnly swear by my own name,'36 decrees the LORD,37 'that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
Gen 22:17 I will indeed bless you,38 and I will greatly multiply39 your descendants40 so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession41 of the strongholds42 of their enemies.
Gen 22:18 Because you have obeyed me,43 all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another44 using the name of your descendants.' "

Gen 26:4 I will multiply your descendants so they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them10 all these lands. All the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants.11
Gen 26:5 All this will come to pass12 because Abraham obeyed me13 and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."14

oh and you mean like the same law that JEsus obeyed unto righteousness of which the law gave witness... Like Mark 12:29-31 and that he gives us to obey as well? Oh that one! John 15! Yeah... obedience has nothing to do with salvation... (sarcasm) :blah :foottap




That was obvious since Abraham on... that's the beauty of the Gospel. The covenantal part of that is God original covenant continued, he'd save those who believe in him by faith."

Again define faith. Faith must have "context" Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. What is said defines "faith" and it's context and restrictions.

He's made that possible through Jesus. To employ new ways of entering into covenant is simply in error.

SHOW ME THE COVENANT ENTERED INTO IN GEN 15


Repentance is what one does BECAUSE OF faith, not to prove their faith. Faith has already happened. We stand justified at that moment.

yes and no... Your "response" being considered "just" does not mean you are IN covenant it means your offering will be accepted as he has judged your heart. Baptism is the place of offering to be united WITH Christ and his death UNTO new life. Which is why again you fail to understand "justice" done and how God judged Abraham's "REPONSE"!

The cross makes all the difference in the world.

It does but it only is "part" of the whole not the whole in itself.

What has not changed is God's everlasting and eternal covenant with His people, which was redeveloped in the New Testament to finally include Gentiles, part of God's plan all along (not just a Plan B repudiation against the Jews).

uh the gentiles could always enter into covenant with God and become a part of his chosen people.

[TheLegalist]

No, I make baptism an equivalent to circumcision, which had a significant meaning for covenant, but is not how salvation came (Romans 4).

is circumcision of any value? Yes to those under "the law!" Is baptism of any value? YES, to those entering CHrist!

[Jeffrey]

[QUOTE=Jeffrey;895848]This is where you're just wrong, Blume. You see, we CAN'T keep up our end of the bargain.

hmmmm So we don' hold up "faithfulness" WOW amazing. Can you saaaaaay false doctrine?

Gen 18:19 I have chosen him52 so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep53 the way of the LORD by doing54 what is right and just. Then the LORD will give55 to Abraham what he promised56 him."

Gen 22:12 "Do not harm the boy!"25 the angel said.26 "Do not do anything to him, for now I know27 that you fear28 God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me."
Gen 22:13 Abraham looked up29 and saw30 behind him31 a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. So he32 went over and got the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place "The LORD provides."33 It is said to this day,34 "In the mountain of the LORD provision will be made."35
Gen 22:15 The LORD's angel called to Abraham a second time from heaven
Gen 22:16 and said, " 'I solemnly swear by my own name,'36 decrees the LORD,37 'that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
Gen 22:17 I will indeed bless you,38 and I will greatly multiply39 your descendants40 so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession41 of the strongholds42 of their enemies.
Gen 22:18 Because you have obeyed me,43 all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another44 using the name of your descendants.' "

Gen 26:4 I will multiply your descendants so they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them10 all these lands. All the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants.11
Gen 26:5 All this will come to pass12 because Abraham obeyed me13 and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."14

oh and you mean like the same law that JEsus obeyed unto righteousness of which the law gave witness... Like Mark 12:29-31 and that he gives us to obey as well? Oh that one! John 15! Yeah... obedience has nothing to do with salvation... (sarcasm) :blah :foottap






Again define faith. Faith must have "context" Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. What is said defines "faith" and it's context and restrictions.



SHOW ME THE COVENANT ENTERED INTO IN GEN 15




yes and no... Your "response" being considered "just" does not mean you are IN covenant it means your offering will be accepted as he has judged your heart. Baptism is the place of offering to be united WITH Christ and his death UNTO new life. Which is why again you fail to understand "justice" done and how God judged Abraham's "REPONSE"!



It does but it only is "part" of the whole not the whole in itself.



uh the gentiles could always enter into covenant with God and become a part of his chosen people.

When you get this TL, you'll have a whole new appreciate for the cross.... are you ready... .NO!!!!! WE CAN'T KEEP UP OUR END OF THE BARGAIN!!!!! NO!!!! If we could, we wouldn't even need the cross!!!! This has been the story of our lot since the beginning. We screw up. Keep screwing up. By faith, and through the indwelled spirit, we can walk with Him through sanctification toward perfection, but continually get it wrong and fail. And when we think we are DOING it right, a little survey of our thought life will humble us (Jesus to the pompous Pharisees, "you think you are doing so good by not cheating on your wife, well I tell you anyone who even thinks it in his heart has done so." In other words, Jesus is affirming, don't front. None of you can do it on your own.')

This is the beauty of the story, my friend. Not that we aren't called to "be who we are in Christ," and to walk in sanctification by the Spirit, but that we are literally OFF THE HOOK!!!!

He obeyed when we couldn't. He was faithful when we weren't. The Gentiles could ALWAYS do so, but they didn't because of the poor and lousy elitism of the Jews. Paul's argument is definitely all for the inclusion of the Gentiles, making it plain and clear. It's not ethnic, and it's not by circumcision, it's by faith. This wasn't just to make it easier on the Gentiles (though shedding foreskin as an adult is surely easier), but it's a Hillen-style hermeneutic pointing back to Abraham as the father of the original covenant, and to show consistency that the way in has never changed.

[Jeffrey]

is circumcision of any value? Yes to those under "the law!" Is baptism of any value? YES, to those entering CHrist!

Of value, yes.

For the purpose of justification and righteousness, no.

BTW... you don't see the Jews having a separate way into heaven outside of Messiah do you?

[Jeffrey]

hmmmm So we don' hold up "faithfulness" WOW amazing. Can you saaaaaay false doctrine?

Gen 18:19 I have chosen him52 so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep53 the way of the LORD by doing54 what is right and just. Then the LORD will give55 to Abraham what he promised56 him."

Gen 22:12 "Do not harm the boy!"25 the angel said.26 "Do not do anything to him, for now I know27 that you fear28 God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me."
Gen 22:13 Abraham looked up29 and saw30 behind him31 a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. So he32 went over and got the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place "The LORD provides."33 It is said to this day,34 "In the mountain of the LORD provision will be made."35
Gen 22:15 The LORD's angel called to Abraham a second time from heaven
Gen 22:16 and said, " 'I solemnly swear by my own name,'36 decrees the LORD,37 'that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
Gen 22:17 I will indeed bless you,38 and I will greatly multiply39 your descendants40 so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession41 of the strongholds42 of their enemies.
Gen 22:18 Because you have obeyed me,43 all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another44 using the name of your descendants.' "

Gen 26:4 I will multiply your descendants so they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them10 all these lands. All the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants.11
Gen 26:5 All this will come to pass12 because Abraham obeyed me13 and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."14

oh and you mean like the same law that JEsus obeyed unto righteousness of which the law gave witness... Like Mark 12:29-31 and that he gives us to obey as well? Oh that one! John 15! Yeah... obedience has nothing to do with salvation... (sarcasm) :blah :foottap






Again define faith. Faith must have "context" Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. What is said defines "faith" and it's context and restrictions.



SHOW ME THE COVENANT ENTERED INTO IN GEN 15




yes and no... Your "response" being considered "just" does not mean you are IN covenant it means your offering will be accepted as he has judged your heart. Baptism is the place of offering to be united WITH Christ and his death UNTO new life. Which is why again you fail to understand "justice" done and how God judged Abraham's "REPONSE"!



It does but it only is "part" of the whole not the whole in itself.



uh the gentiles could always enter into covenant with God and become a part of his chosen people.

vs 6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river [d] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

Really God chose Abraham, a pagan, in Chapter 12. Abraham did nothing to deserve God's election. But God chose Him. Abraham responded. The Blessing covenant in Chapter 12 precedes the covenant of Chapter 15 in fact. God's intentions and plans for Abraham were initiated in Chapter 12.

As far as you fulfilling your "terms of the covenant," how's that working out for you? :) What a joy to know that He did on my behalf.

[notofworks]

CONDITIONAL????????? Holy ......... Seriously. Jesus died because we couldn't freaking live up to the "terms of conditions." He made a way!! If it's conditional, and his side of the bargain is like an earned wage, you've missed the entire Pauline thought of salvation by faith. I thought we were farther along than this!!!!


You go, Jeff!!!:ursofunny

[notofworks]

CONDITIONAL????????? Holy ......... Seriously. Jesus died because we couldn't freaking live up to the "terms of conditions." He made a way!! If it's conditional, and his side of the bargain is like an earned wage, you've missed the entire Pauline thought of salvation by faith. I thought we were farther along than this!!!!

Legalist: Because Jeffrey just used this euphemism, is he now backslidden?:lol

[TheLegalist]

[QUOTE=TheLegalist;895868]

When you get this TL, you'll have a whole new appreciate for the cross.... are you ready... .NO!!!!! WE CAN'T KEEP UP OUR END OF THE BARGAIN!!!!! NO!!!!

The law provided for SIN! HELLO! JUst as our new covenant provides for SIN! CHRIST and turning from it and asking for forgiveness from the heart.

That is why this scripture is true....

Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

It is you who set up false issues and paradigms in your mind.

If we could, we wouldn't even need the cross!!!! This has been the story of our lot since the beginning. We screw up. Keep screwing up. By faith, and through the indwelled spirit, we can walk with Him through sanctification toward perfection, but continually get it wrong and fail. And when we think we are DOING it right, a little survey of our thought life will humble us (Jesus to the pompous Pharisees, "you think you are doing so good by not cheating on your wife, well I tell you anyone who even thinks it in his heart has done so." In other words, Jesus is affirming, don't front. None of you can do it on your own.')
Who said we didn't the point is OBEDIENCE IS JUDGED UNTO PROMISE! IT WAS TRUE WITH ABRAHAM AND NOW!

This is the beauty of the story, my friend. Not that we aren't called to "be who we are in Christ," and to walk in sanctification by the Spirit, but that we are literally OFF THE HOOK!!!!

OFF THE HOOK to DO HIS COMMANDMENTS TO ABIDE and be judged FAITHFUL as ABRAHAM to OBTAIN THE PROMISE???????

YOU fail his word with your itching ear doctrine and negate the power of grace to overcome and DO HIS WILL! THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE NEW COVENANT! You doctrine is false and heretical it makes the cross noneffect to overcome by his Spirit. We walk in sanctification as JUDGMENT THAT WE ARE ABIDING BY DOING!

Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Eze 11:20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Eze 11:21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.

Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.



He obeyed when we couldn't. He was faithful when we weren't. The Gentiles could ALWAYS do so, but they didn't because of the poor and lousy elitism of the Jews. Paul's argument is definitely all for the inclusion of the Gentiles, making it plain and clear. It's not ethnic, and it's not by circumcision, it's by faith. This wasn't just to make it easier on the Gentiles (though shedding foreskin as an adult is surely easier), but it's a Hillen-style hermeneutic pointing back to Abraham as the father of the original covenant, and to show consistency that the way in has never changed.

Nice way to ignore every point I made and ASKED for a response SHOW ME THE COVENANT IN GEN 15!

I will ask again is obedience forensic or intrinsic to salvation?

[TheLegalist]

vs 6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.


There is no covenant HERE!

18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river [d] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

SHEESH READ the Bible this is a DIFFRENT COVENANT!

This covenant came about BECAUSE ABRAHAM DID WHAT GOD ASKED in Gen 12!

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
Gen 12:2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
Gen 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
Gen 12:4 So Abram went, as the LORD had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.
Gen 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan,
Gen 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.
Gen 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.


Oh and NOTICE what else GOD REQUIRED HIM TO DO TO ENTER COVENANT FOR "THE LAND!"

NOTICE THE BREAK! God deals what HE PREVIOUSLY had dealt with Abraham about!

Gen 15:7 And he said to him, "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."
Gen 15:8 But he said, "O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?" (OBTAIN IT!)
Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."
Gen 15:10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.
Gen 15:11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
Gen 15:12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.

Gen 15:17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.
Gen 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

This is not the COVENANT MADE WITH ABRAHAM IN GEN 22 that deals with the offspring in which Gen 15:6 deals with!

I showed this and YOU STILL IGNORE IT! LAND and SEED COVENANTS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! BOTH was offered IF he did what was commanded.


Really God chose Abraham, a pagan, in Chapter 12. Abraham did nothing to deserve God's election. But God chose Him. Abraham responded. The Blessing covenant in Chapter 12 precedes the covenant of Chapter 15 in fact. God's intentions and plans for Abraham were initiated in Chapter 12.

As far as you fulfilling your "terms of the covenant," how's that working out for you? :) What a joy to know that He did on my behalf.

God always has reasons to choose it's called God judged his life as a individual. God gives GRACE to the HUMBLE! Many are called FEW CHOSEN.... SAME THEME AS ALWAYS!
Oh so you don't take reformed doctrine but yet you spew it? So you don't have to be obedient he did it for you? That is OSAS as it gets!

[TheLegalist]

Of value, yes.

For the purpose of justification and righteousness, no.

BTW... you don't see the Jews having a separate way into heaven outside of Messiah do you?

seriously you go off on tangents...

justification..... God judges your reponse "just" THAT IS IT! When you come before him to offer yourself in covenant/offering your heart must be "considered/reckoned" JUST to obtain citizenship in Christ. Thus if he asks you to be baptized to enter covenant which is to take upon Christ death unto newness of life which a covenant brings.... is that a work like God asked Abraham in Gen 15 to...


Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."

is that works of ourselves?

[Jeffrey]

[QUOTE=Jeffrey;895872]

The law provided for SIN! HELLO! JUst as our new covenant provides for SIN! CHRIST and turning from it and asking for forgiveness from the heart.

That is why this scripture is true....

Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

Oh my... you are using this random scripture as a PROOF TEXT?? Are you serious? First, get out of the KJV for a moment. Second, what does the text say. Law did not provide for sin, it made sin even worse by making it transgression (Paul in Romans). There was no providing in the Law. Sure, one could argue it was to be a guidepost to avoid sin, but all it did, because of our issues, is make our sins before God even worse!

The fact is what you said in the latter is your salvation "Turning from it, and asking forgiveness." That, my friend, IS a works-based theology if that is how you define how the covenant is maintained. It's maintained because God is faithful to it.

It is your who set up false issues and paradigms in your mind.
?

Who said we didn't the point is OBEDIENCE IS JUDGED UNTO PROMISE! IT WAS TRUE WITH ABRAHAM AND NOW!
Interesting. For Abraham, you get stuck on obedience, whle Paul was stuck on faith. Perhaps a little leading to how you read the Story?


OFF THE HOOK to DO HIS COMMANDMENTS TO ABIDE and be judged FAITHFUL as ABRAHAM to OBTAIN THE PROMISE???????

YES! Off the hook. Not off the hook so we can try and deserve it again, or try again so we can maybe be perfect this time -- OFF THE HOOK. Soak in that for a moment. Don't move on so quickly. Amazing isn't it! Faithful -- full of faith, continue trusting God. When sin abounds, it's an issue of unbelief, not just a moral breakdown. If we continue in sin, we eventually end up in unbelief. HE has obtained the promise on our behalf, as God tried to do with Abraham (who was his next choice after Adam).

YOU fail his word with your itching ear doctrine and negate the power of grace to overcome and DO HIS WILL! THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE NEW COVENANT! You doctrine is false and heretical it makes the cross noneffect to overcome by his Spirit. We walk in sanctification as JUDGMENT THAT WE ARE ABIDING BY DOING!

I don't FAIL is word, I believe in the FULFILLMENT of his Word. While I reject "itching ear" uncommitted Christianity, if GRACE itches my ear, then I'll scratch until this baby bleeds. This is the gospel Paul was so excited to preach... and one he had to constantly try to qualify to Judaizers worried about people "getting away with things" who really had their own heart issues about trying to be God.

False? Heretical? It's Jesus and Him CRUCIFIED! I have not negated the power to overcome. We can. We haven't yet, though we have begun. Already/not yet. Entirety of Pauline eschatology. Our justification is in the future, though an event to us in the present.

Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Eze 11:20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Eze 11:21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.

Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

And now his statutes are not on tablets of stone but on hearts. It comes by being in relationship with Him, trusting Him in faith that he is who he claimed himself to be. The eternal God, all-powerful, in control, all-knowing, faithful, a provider, counselor and glorious.

You cling to the "keep my ordinances" as if I don't believe that a person of faith WON'T want to do this --- but my point is, we still fail and still come short. We are perfected ONLY in Christ, meaning Christ didn't possess us or impute perfection into us, rather we are in the Messiah, seen in the Messiah, justified in the Messiah, and the way we stay in the Messiah is a relationship called FAITH.

Your doctrine of keeping ordinances as the security of your salvation wreaks of WORKS, and that is heresy, my friend. And while we're at it... how's that working out for you??



Nice way to ignore every point I made and ASKED for a response SHOW ME THE COVENANT IN GEN 15!

I will ask again is obedience forensic or intrinsic to salvation?

You ask the wrong question. You obsess with obedience, just like a Palestinian Jew. Relax... take a breath. Grace is beautiful. Paul's ultimate words for how to live were "be who you are." You're a Christian, so be that. You follow Jesus, his disciple, so be that. Walk the road with him, despite on your shortcomings and failures. We get better along the way.

(BTW... of course obedience isn't forensic)

[Jeffrey]

There is no covenant HERE!





Are we reading the same Bible? Virtually ever scholar of Gen 15 sees a covenant here. And actually, the promise of God began in Gen 12, the stories continues on, and God makes his promises clear in covenantal form.

If Abrahams faith, that Paul points back to, is not the basis of the entire covenant (faith), then I don't know what is.

In case you fail to realize the covenantal language (because the terms of agreement aren't spelled out enough), v18 says 18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying,(W) "To your offspring I give[c] this land, from(X) the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites."

[TheLegalist]

[QUOTE=TheLegalist;895888]

You ask the wrong question. You obsess with obedience, just like a Palestinian Jew. Relax... take a breath. Grace is beautiful. Paul's ultimate words for how to live were "be who you are." You're a Christian, so be that. You follow Jesus, his disciple, so be that. Walk the road with him, despite on your shortcomings and failures. We get better along the way.

(BTW... of course obedience isn't forensic)

Also the Jews/pharisees where not obeident they negated law for there own law. Thus your point is false and has nothing to do with what I said.

That is not what I asked I said is it FORENSIC to salvation if you are saying it's not. Then you ae contradicting everything you have said. forensic = works/obediance are a only a evidence of not related to salvation. Intrinsic says they are interelated to have or obtain eternal life etc....

[Jeffrey]

There is no covenant HERE!



SHEESH READ the Bible this is a DIFFRENT COVENANT!

This covenant came about BECAUSE ABRAHAM DID WHAT GOD ASKED in Gen 12!

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
Gen 12:2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
Gen 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
Gen 12:4 So Abram went, as the LORD had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.
Gen 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan,
Gen 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.
Gen 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.


Oh and NOTICE what else GOD REQUIRED HIM TO DO TO ENTER COVENANT FOR "THE LAND!"

NOTICE THE BREAK! God deals what HE PREVIOUSLY had dealt with Abraham about!

Gen 15:7 And he said to him, "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."
Gen 15:8 But he said, "O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?" (OBTAIN IT!)
Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."
Gen 15:10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.
Gen 15:11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
Gen 15:12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.

Gen 15:17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.
Gen 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

This is not the COVENANT MADE WITH ABRAHAM IN GEN 22 that deals with the offspring in which Gen 15:6 deals with!

I showed this and YOU STILL IGNORE IT! LAND and SEED COVENANTS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! BOTH was offered IF he did what was commanded.




God always has reasons to choose it's called God judged his life as a individual. God gives GRACE to the HUMBLE! Many are called FEW CHOSEN.... SAME THEME AS ALWAYS!
Oh so you don't take reformed doctrine but yet you spew it? So you don't have to be obedient he did it for you? That is OSAS as it gets!

God's promise of offspring were from the very beginning.

"Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2(B) And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3(C) I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and(D) in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."[b]

Did Paul appeal to Gen 22 or Gen 15, TL? No matter the timing of FULFILLING his promise or elaborating on it further, his promise was from the beginning. "GO and I will give you blessing." Abraham believed God and that was accounted to him as righteousness. Even though he saw the situation with Sarah as impossible, he still believed God.

You're so linear with all of this. God chose Abraham just as he did Moses, Noah, David and you and I. They didn't deserve his choosing. They responded with faith. Stick with Paul here, TL.

[Jeffrey]

God always has reasons to choose it's called God judged his life as a individual. God gives GRACE to the HUMBLE! Many are called FEW CHOSEN.... SAME THEME AS ALWAYS!
Oh so you don't take reformed doctrine but yet you spew it? So you don't have to be obedient he did it for you? That is OSAS as it gets!

I never said obedience is NOT required. I said you let me know when you perfectly obey him, don't ever screw up, are "faithful" to your part of the deal, and then we can't. BECAUSE you're not faithful to your part of the deal, the Messiah was on your behalf. Your way in is through him, and the way in is still through faith. Faith wants to obey. Grace picks up our sloppy slack along the way.

You are so concerned about people getting away with something :ursofunny Don't you get it, you ARE getting away with something?

Abraham was humble now? Abraham deserved God's choosing now? Where do you get this stuff?

I don't care to discuss "REFORMED" or "BAPTIST" theology. Stick to the discussion.

As far as OSAS, where do you get that? If you live in unbelief (consequently sin), you can lose yourself along the way. I don't believe in OSAS. Quit jumping the gun on me. What that is, though, is SECURITY in the cross of Jesus. No more spiritual paranoia and nervously repenting of everything i can think of because if he "comes right now I won't be in heaven with jesus" mentality.

[Jeffrey]

[QUOTE=Jeffrey;895919]

Also the Jews/pharisees where not obeident they negated law for there own law. Thus your point is false and has nothing to do with what I said.

That is not what I asked I said is it FORENSIC to salvation if you are saying it's not. Then you ae contradicting everything you have said. forensic = works/obediance are a only a evidence of not related to salvation. Intrinsic says they are interelated to have or obtain eternal life etc....

That's simply not true. If you trust Jesus, you obey Jesus. The thread isn't about Christian living, it's about salvation we don't deserve. Get it?

[TheLegalist]

Are we reading the same Bible? Virtually ever scholar of Gen 15 sees a covenant here. And actually, the promise of God began in Gen 12, the stories continues on, and God makes his promises clear in covenantal form.

this is not true "REFORMED scholars who MUST have a covenant WHERE THERE IS NONE do. Read the BIBLE the covenant is made in Gen 22 and I have pointed this scripture out multiple times.

If Abrahams faith, that Paul points back to, is not the basis of the entire covenant (faith), then I don't know what is.

CONTEXT= what is faith defined as!
HELLO... seriously connect the dots of what I have said multipletime. HIS faith is seen as a whole not just a isolate! James 2 "fulfilled"... when... ISAAC. Thus God judged/considered/thought "it" to him as just or righteous.

In case you fail to realize the covenantal language (because the terms of agreement aren't spelled out enough), v18 says 18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying,(W) "To your offspring I give[c] this land, from(X) the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites."

your point? This was not the covenant about offspring as sands of the sea etc... EVEN your reformed theologians say that is not the same covenant.
The covenant is clearly made in Gen 22 if you can't see that your blind.

[Jeffrey]

seriously you go off on tangents...

justification..... God judges your reponse "just" THAT IS IT! When you come before him to offer yourself in covenant/offering your heart must be "considered/reckoned" JUST to obtain citizenship in Christ. Thus if he asks you to be baptized to enter covenant which is to take upon Christ death unto newness of life which a covenant brings.... is that a work like God asked Abraham in Gen 15 to...


Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."

is that works of ourselves?

That's ALL justification is??? Really???? Your RESPONSE? Your heart response?

Your heifers and turtle doves all come AFTER Abraham's faith was accounted to him as RIGHTEOUSNESS, not BEFORE.

[mfblume]

This is where you're just wrong, Blume. You see, we CAN'T keep up our end of the bargain.

The new covenant has a part for us to play and we certainly can keep it. That is why we read in Heb 8 that the new covenant solved any problem in man not being able to continue.

But you totally missed my point. The point was that any given covenant has two parties. Us and God, in this case. And we have a part to play. Acts 2:38. And God promised to save BY HIS CROSS those who take part in that covenant.

That was obvious since Abraham on... that's the beauty of the Gospel. The covenantal part of that is God original covenant continued, he'd save those who believe in him by faith. He's made that possible through Jesus. To employ new ways of entering into covenant is simply in error.

Where are you getting this "new ways" thing from? Peter, not me, said Acts 2:38. Jesus, not me, said Luke 24:47-49, the elements of Acts 2:38.

Repentance is what one does BECAUSE OF faith, not to prove their faith.

Strawman argument.

Faith has already happened. We stand justified at that moment.

Only if it is faith that WILL WORK.

The cross makes all the difference in the world. What has not changed is God's everlasting and eternal covenant with His people, which was redeveloped in the New Testament to finally include Gentiles, part of God's plan all along (not just a Plan B repudiation against the Jews).

Nothing was redeveloped. God planned the gentiles to come into this thing since before Adam. Where are you getting these ideas? Redeveloped? The fact is that the new covenant has a part for us to play, and your accusation that baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues being salvation by works is simply and blatantly wrong, since those things are no more salvation by works than faith is. This keeps getting brushed aside, but it is the real issue.

Mike, Is circumcision equivalent to baptism, in terms of it being/or not being a "work?"

What is all this? The simple issue is baptism saves and only because it is reliant upon the cross. Period.

The issue is that we feel we can do something to earn salvation, when in fact, those who have received salvation did so after God chose them -- the Spirit called them, they responded with a heart of faith.

Which is where baptism comes in. It is a necessary response by faith.

I would say that if I spoke in tongues and then was vindicated as saved, I feel mighty proud of my own participation in my salvation.

You refuse to listen. Tongues can IN NO WAY be a means of salvation by works. God gives the utterance. How many times mus we say this?

If I toiled for 5 hours at an altar to search through evils in my heart, I feel like I earned my salvation. If I were to whip my back in an effort to make me more morally disciplined, I certainly would feel like I've earned my place.

Removing things FROM our lives does not save us. God alone saves. Salvation is THINGS ADDED to our lives, and we can add nothing. All we can do is remove to clear the way for God to add.

Mike, the blood has already been applied once for all people. It was offered at the time of the Messiah's death. The access key has been turned. We enter into that covenant by faith alone.

Wrong. Faith alone is NOT the covenant. Why did Peter not say "What must you do? Simply have faith!" in Acts 2:38?

[TheLegalist]

[QUOTE=TheLegalist;895923]

That's simply not true. If you trust Jesus, you obey Jesus. The thread isn't about Christian living, it's about salvation we don't deserve. Get it?

again YOU DON'T GET IT! To come into covenant is a promise "TO OBTAIN" BY "____________" complete salvation is not realized until the end. To come INTO COVENANT STILL DEMANDS A PROPER RESPONSE! God judges/considers/reckons it "just" or not! Baptism is your hearts response to be united with Christ in his death. It is a appointed time BY GOD to obtain not APPOINTED BY MAN!

[sbo1971]

I guess that little statement in the Bible that says "baptism doth both now save us" means nothing or is not for those educated folks today

[Jeffrey]

this is not true "REFORMED scholars who MUST have a covenant WHERE THERE IS NONE do. Read the BIBLE the covenant is made in Gen 22 and I have pointed this scripture out multiple times.

Wrong. I can name at least two predominant scholars who aren't REFORMED. But I can careless what we call them. First you say it's sort of a covenant, but limited to land, but then say there is NO covenant. Make up your mind.


CONTEXT= what is faith defined as!
HELLO... seriously connect the dots of what I have said multipletime. HIS faith is seen as a whole not just a isolate! James 2 "fulfilled"... when... ISAAC. Thus God judged/considered/thought "it" to him as just or righteous.



your point? This was not the covenant about offspring as sands of the sea etc... EVEN your reformed theologians say that is not the same covenant.
The covenant is clearly made in Gen 22 if you can't see that your blind.


ha. Get off the "your reformed theologians."

Gen 22 reinforces what was told to Abram in Gen 12. What is unique here that you are jumping up and down about?

Interestingly, this event also as Messianic overtones as well. But that's a TRUE tangent.

[Jeffrey]

The new covenant has a part for us t6o play and we certainly can keep it. That is why we read in Heb 8 that the new covenant solved any problem in man not being able to continue.

But you totally missed my point. The point was that any given covenant has two parties. Us and God, in this case. And we have a part to play. Acts 2:38. And God promised to save BY HIS CROSS those who take part in that covenant.



Where are you getting this "new ways" thing from? Peter, not me, siad Acts 2:38. Jesus, not me, said Luke 24:47-49, the elements of Acts 2:38.



Strawman argument.



Only if it is faith that WILL WORK.



Nothing was redeveloped. God planned the gentiles to come into this thing since before Adam. Where are you getting these ideas? Redeveloped? The fact is that the new covenant has a part for us to play, and your accusation that baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues being salvation by works is simply and blatantly wrong, since those things are no more salvation by works than faith is. This keeps getting brushed aside, but it is the real issue.

Your closer than TL. Faith (that will work). It's still faith BEFORE it works!

Peter didn't change the covenant of God ha! Come on, Blume! We really distort and botch Peter's sermon. I guess we can blame Luke, but really it wasn't his fault either. It was those folks at the turn of the last century.


It was redeveloped, around the idea of a Messiah. The people of God was no longer EXCLUSIVELY Israel, but now ALL PEOPLES would be blessed, the fulfillment of God's words to Abram in Gen 12.

The head-scratching comes as you guys just keep adding to this beautiful message, requirements before one can accept what has been done for them.

[Jeffrey]

Wrong. Faith alone is NOT the covenant. Why did Peter not say "What must you do? Simply have faith!" in Acts 2:38?

Wow... that's all I can say.

[mfblume]

Faith corresponds with a shadow of baptism? I mean, where do we get this stuff. Baptism isn't a shadow of faith, even your proof-text articulates that.

The shadow of baptism is anything in the Old Testament that was required by God in all their sacrifices that proposed the concept of vicarious sacrifice, for example.

We error when we take Paul's analogous evidence (on issues that aren't baptism) and make it say things Paul was never saying. I will give you this: I definitely believe baptism is more than a mere symbol, but that there is something uniquely powerful happening at baptism. However, I am convinced by Paul's own words (and the Messiah's) that baptism is not a regenerative work, and that salvation has happened at faith in Jesus.

Baptism was never said to be regenerative work. This is where you are not listening to us. It is obedience to the covenant, and it MOVES God to regenerate and save. Baptism is not regeneration.

[Jeffrey]

[QUOTE=Jeffrey;895927]

again YOU DON'T GET IT! To come into covenant is a promise "TO OBTAIN" BY "____________" complete salvation is not realized until the end. To come INTO COVENANT STILL DEMANDS A PROPER RESPONSE! God judges/considers/reckons it "just" or not! Baptism is your hearts response to be united with Christ in his death. It is a appointed time BY GOD to obtain not APPOINTED BY MAN!

The end isn't here. We are justified now in the future. Come on, TL, you know your Pauline eschatology a little better than that.

Yes, the proper response is FAITH. God reckons it as righteousness, not "judging an action as just." You make this stuff up sometimes.

I agree with your words about baptism, btw.

Note that we OBTAIN a gift that is freely offered (not ATTAIN). It's not a gift that you have to go jump through hoops to receive. You get it. Part of having that gift may include some hoops, but it's not on lay-away!

[Jeffrey]

I guess that little statement in the Bible that says "baptism doth both now save us" means nothing or is not for those educated folks today

I guess proof-texting means a lot for those uneducated folks, doesn't it.

[mfblume]

Your closer than TL. Faith (that will work). It's still faith BEFORE it works!


You know quite well there is faith that does not work. And that faith does not save.

Peter didn't change the covenant of God ha! Come on, Blume! We really distort and botch Peter's sermon. I guess we can blame Luke, but really it wasn't his fault either. It was those folks at the turn of the last century.

Reject Peter all you wish, but he said what he said.

It was redeveloped, around the idea of a Messiah. The people of God was no longer EXCLUSIVELY Israel, but now ALL PEOPLES would be blessed, the fulfillment of God's words to Abram in Gen 12.
Nothing was redeveloped. The true picture is that God all along planned for all mankind to be saved. And Israelite exclusivity was preparatory for that, not vice versa as though Israelite exclusivity was redeveloped.

The head-scratching comes as you guys just keep adding to this beautiful message, requirements before one can accept what has been done for them.

We added nothing! You remove from it. Jesus, not me, said repentance and remission of sins must be preached in His name for people to obey. And Acts 2:38 lays it all out. Why do you refuse to deal with the corresponding nature of Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 2:38?

Words must mean nothing.

[mfblume]

I guess that little statement in the Bible that says "baptism doth both now save us" means nothing or is not for those educated folks today

I agree. I said the same thing earlier. And that is not prooftexting either.

Folks can say all they want, but the issue is that faith and repentance are steps. So there are no one steppers, anyway. And baptism and Spirit infilling are no more salvation by works than they are.

[Jeffrey]

The shadow of baptism is anything in the Old Testament that was required by God in all their sacrifices that proposed the concept of vicarious sacrifice, for example.



Baptism was never said to be regenerative work. This is where you are not listening to us. It is obedience to the covenant, and it MOVES God to regenerate and save. Baptism is not regeneration.

Ah... okay. So you DON'T believe in baptismal regeneration? I think TL does.
But thanks for clearing that up.

This is a faith covenant. Baptism is part of our participation, but it is not a pre-requisite. All we have to do is accept it by faith. That's it. So hard for folks...

We don't PROVOKE God to decide to save us because we've done something. He is offering to save us. He is already MOVED to save us! Your last sentence is exactly what baptismal regeneration is all about!

[TheLegalist]

That's ALL justification is??? Really???? Your RESPONSE? Your heart response?

Your heifers and turtle doves all come AFTER Abraham's faith was accounted to him as RIGHTEOUSNESS, not BEFORE.

ARE YOU SERIOUS! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! He was considered RIGHTEOUS before Gen 15:6 ALSO by his response! BIG DEAL! The points is God judges EACH ACTION "just" or "unjust" Just as God judged Gen 12 and Abraham doing. He alsos judged his response to bring what God told him to make covenant.

You ingore the CLEAR POINTS outlined! You do this all the time. TO ENTER.... GET THIS ...............TO ENTER covenant God asked him "TO DO" God made covenant by these offerings for the Land. Your points on "justificaton" are simply ignorant of the facts of what the whole deals with. You don't care about truth but ignore it for your own doctrine. Justification is simply God doing his justice toward our actions. That's it!

[mfblume]

Ah... okay. So you DON'T believe in baptismal regeneration? I think TL does.

I see no one here who believes in baptismal regeneration. In fact, I think you do not understand what baptismal regeneration is. It is the belief that baptism need require NO FAITH and is done so that the simple act in and of itself regenerates us. Hence, infant baptism.

But thanks for clearing that up.

This is a faith covenant. Baptism is part of our participation, but it is not a pre-requisite. All we have to do is accept it by faith. That's it. So hard for folks...

It is indeed a prerequisite. Jesus said belief and baptism come before salvation.

We don't PROVOKE God to decide to save us because we've done something.

Strawman. He already decided to save us.

He is offering to save us. He is already MOVED to save us! Your last sentence is exactly what baptismal regeneration is all about!

You do not evidently know what baptismal regeneration is.

God already moved to save us and we must move towards that salvation that is already laying there before us. God made the meal, but we have to walk up to it to eat it. And that is exactly what you claim faith alone does, and yet you are not seeing that faith is a step as much as baptism, and that it is also faith THAT works, and not just faith.

[Jeffrey]

You know quite well there is faith that does not work. And that faith does not save.

I only know faith. Faith that is alive, and faith that dies. Faith that dies slowly resorts back to sin and death, and the underlying issue is disbelief.

Reject Peter all you wish, but he said what he said.
I've not rejected Peter. I think Peter and I would get along fine. I think you'd make Luke's account of Peter's sermon something it was not: namely a systematic theology of how we are saved.

Nothing was redeveloped. The true picture is that God all along planned for all mankind to be saved. And Israelite exclusivity was preparatory for that, not vice versa as though Israelite exclusivity was redeveloped.

Let me clarify. When I say "redeveloped" I'm speaking in Pauline terms. For him, as a Jew, it certainly was. They never saw themselves sharing the election of God with Gentiles. Yes, it was God's original plan, and yes, they missed the boat.


We added nothing! You remove from it. Jesus, not me, said repentance and remission of sins must be preached in His name for people to obey. And Acts 2:38 lays it all out. Why do you refuse to deal with the corresponding nature of Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 2:38?

Refuse to deal with it? Huh?
Repentance and forgiveness of sins comes by way of Jesus and the authority he has because of the resurrection. I'll give it to you since Acts 2 and Luke 24 are the same writers, that one could certainly entertain your logic. But that's precisely where I go with it to. I read Acts 2:38 through Luke 24, and don't come out of it with baptismal regeneration. I come out of it salvation by way of and authority of Jesus.

Words must mean nothing.

Right, they don't.

[TheLegalist]

Ah... okay. So you DON'T believe in baptismal regeneration? I think TL does.
But thanks for clearing that up.


oh of course.... seriously it's pointless to even discuss this as you simply either are to ingorant to understand or prideful to listen to what is said. to say i believe in baptism regeneration is a TOTAL IGNORE of everything I have said. THat or you don't know what baptism regeneration is.

This is a faith covenant. Baptism is part of our participation, but it is not a pre-requisite. All we have to do is accept it by faith. That's it. So hard for folks...

We don't PROVOKE God to decide to save us because we've done something. He is offering to save us. He is already MOVED to save us! Your last sentence is exactly what baptismal regeneration is all about!

oh yes WE provoke God with his own appointed time and will and word. ROFL! I am done for the day as this is getting insane.

[Jeffrey]

ARE YOU SERIOUS! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! He was considered RIGHTEOUS before Gen 15:6 ALSO by his response! BIG DEAL! The points is God judges EACH ACTION "just" or "unjust" Just as God judged Gen 12 and Abraham doing. He alsos judged his response to bring what God told him to make covenant.

You ingore the CLEAR POINTS outlined! You do this all the time. TO ENTER.... GET THIS ...............TO ENTER covenant God asked him "TO DO" God made covenant by these offerings for the Land. Your points on "justificaton" are simply ignorant of the facts of what the whole deals with. You don't care about truth but ignore it for your own doctrine. Justification is simply God doing his justice toward our actions. That's it!

Wow, so justification is by EACH ACTION now? You amaze me, TL. I know you are smarter than this. I've read your words before.

God didn't judge Abram's ACTION he reckoned and accounted to him righteousness because of his faith. Quit changing terminology.

Your minimizing of justification by faith would cause Paul to have a heart attack and write you a very colorful letter. And of course, Martin Luther would roll over in his grave.

Justification, to you, is all something we deserve for being good. Amazing.

[Jeffrey]

oh of course.... seriously it's pointless to even discuss this as you simply either are to ingorant to understand or prideful to listen to what is said. to say i believe in baptism regeneration is a TOTAL IGNORE of everything I have said. THat or you don't know what baptism regeneration is.



oh yes WE provoke God with his own appointed time and will and word. ROFL! I am done for the day as this is getting insane.

Sheesh, you insists on personal attacks. Funny guy you are.

Prideful? Blind? Retarded? Ignorant? Yup, that's me because I agree with the masses of scholars on this issue over TL.

Thanks for the demeaning pep talk.

I was sort of enjoying our discussion. You're too smart for it though. So, I'll go ahead and check out for the day.

[TheLegalist]

ha. Get off the "your reformed theologians."

Gen 22 reinforces what was told to Abram in Gen 12. What is unique here that you are jumping up and down about?

Interestingly, this event also as Messianic overtones as well. But that's a TRUE tangent.

LOL... seriously the problem is with you is you miss the little very important points that bring about the big picture. I have attempted to show you the points and you ignore the most simple things.

I will repeat...

Gen 22:16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
Gen 22:17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,
Gen 22:18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

"I WILL" "I WILL" THIS IS COVENANT LANGUAGE! The covenant is made AT THIS POINT! WHY? because you have obeyed my voice!

The covenant was not made UNTIL Gen 22 concerning his offspring.

[TheLegalist]

Sheesh, you insists on personal attacks. Funny guy you are.

Prideful? Blind? Retarded? Ignorant? Yup, that's me because I agree with the masses of scholars on this issue over TL.

Thanks for the demeaning pep talk.

I was sort of enjoying our discussion. You're too smart for it though. So, I'll go ahead and check out for the day.

well I am having to wonder seriously... Whether you don't agree that is one thing but you TOTALY ignore what is said TOTALY and then call me a BAPTISM REGENERATION believer. Seriously you IGNORE what is said! How in the WORLD you can say this is beyond my imagination. Anyone who would do that is ignorant of the issue OR simpy likes to flame accusations and lump people. Probably true since several of you lump works so why not baptism to. Why you do such I have no idea. After a while it get pointless.

What scholars? That is hilarious! REFORMED SCHOLARS? CATHOLIC? NAZARENE? PENTECOSTAL? LUTHERAN? You do realize that most likely don't agree with each other on a lot of things. Many will agree with my point in Gen 15 and 22 and 12 etc...

[Jeffrey]

LOL... seriously the problem is with you is you miss the little very important points that bring about the big picture. I have attempted to show you the points and you ignore the most simple things.

I will repeat...

Gen 22:16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
Gen 22:17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,
Gen 22:18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

"I WILL" "I WILL" THIS IS COVENANT LANGUAGE! The covenant is made AT THIS POINT! WHY? because you have obeyed my voice!

The covenant was not made UNTIL Gen 22 concerning his offspring.

TL, though you are zoning in on "BECAUSE YOU OBEYED" more consistent with the Story is that Abraham had faith, and in this act, still trusted God in faith. His faith was not new in Gen 22, it began in Gen 12 when he radically left all he knew to a city he didn't know concerning details he didn't have.

Also, offspring is certainly a part of Gen 12:
And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Why wouldn't it be? God made a pact with Abram from the get-go. He chose him, asked for his trust, told him where to go and Abram was on a journey ever since. Beautiful story.

[TheLegalist]

Wow, so justification is by EACH ACTION now? You amaze me, TL. I know you are smarter than this. I've read your words before.

God didn't judge Abram's ACTION he reckoned and accounted to him righteousness because of his faith. Quit changing terminology.

Your minimizing of justification by faith would cause Paul to have a heart attack and write you a very colorful letter. And of course, Martin Luther would roll over in his grave.

Justification, to you, is all something we deserve for being good. Amazing.

I will respond to this later... as I have pointed out the language 1000 times and "it" was considered. What is "IT" in Gen 15 being considered or being judged. BELIEF! God judges response! Thus IT was considered/judged to him as righteousness/right/just. Abraham is the benficiary of the judgment concerning his action. this is clearly how judicial aspects work.

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. ESV

Gen 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty. NET

[Jeffrey]

well I am having to wonder seriously... Whether you don't agree that is one thing but you TOTALY ignore what is said TOTALY and then call me a BAPTISM REGENERATION believer. Seriously you IGNORE what is said! How in the WORLD you can say this is beyond my imagination. Anyone who would do that is ignorant of the issue OR simpy likes to flame accusations and lump people. Probably true since several of you lump works so why not baptism to. Why you do such I have no idea. After a while it get pointless.

What scholars? That is hilarious! REFORMED SCHOLARS? CATHOLIC? NAZARENE? PENTECOSTAL? LUTHERAN? You do realize that most likely don't agree with each other on a lot of things. Many will agree with my point in Gen 15 and 22 and 12 etc...

Please give me some citations of scholars (reputable) that agree with you concerning Gen 22. I find it amazing that Paul missed the memo on that point, when he pointed back to Gen 15 and when Abram was reckoned righteousness.

On Baptismal Regeneration, I may have confused your position. You are probably right. I'm not the BR expert. You are playing with semantics, though you believe literally "baptism which now saves us" you believe only because its in accordance to the Gospel plan, and not isolated as source of salvation on its own. I think it still toes the line.

You insist on lumping me with Reformed scholarship, though I'm not concerned if that is true, but it's not my aim. What scholarship do you identify with? William Seymour? Durham? Charles Parham?

[Jeffrey]

I will respond to this later... as I have pointed out the language 1000 times and "it" was considered. What is "IT" in Gen 15 being considered or being judged. BELIEF! God judges response! Thus IT was considered/judged to him as righteousness/right/just.

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. ESV

Gen 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty. NET

You use the word "judged" more than anyone I know.

"It" = "his faith" = "his believing the Lord" the precedent clause of Gen 15:6.

[mfblume]

You know quite well there is faith that does not work. And that faith does not save.
I only know faith. Faith that is alive, and faith that dies. Faith that dies slowly resorts back to sin and death, and the underlying issue is disbelief.
There is dead faith and living faith, not faith that dies.

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.


Reject Peter all you wish, but he said what he said.
I've not rejected Peter. I think Peter and I would get along fine. I think you'd make Luke's account of Peter's sermon something it was not: namely a systematic theology of how we are saved.

The text says the words of Acts 2:38 were part of words that were spoken to the effect that the listeners would be saved.

Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.


Nothing was redeveloped. The true picture is that God all along planned for all mankind to be saved. And Israelite exclusivity was preparatory for that, not vice versa as though Israelite exclusivity was redeveloped.

Let me clarify. When I say "redeveloped" I'm speaking in Pauline terms. For him, as a Jew, it certainly was. They never saw themselves sharing the election of God with Gentiles. Yes, it was God's original plan, and yes, they missed the boat.

Incorrect. Let's see what Paul actually said. Paul taught that Abraham was told that his seed would be blessed and the inheritance would go to his seed. Paul said Christ is that seed. That is redeveloping nothing.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


The same thing is found in Romans:

Rom 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


God told Abraham exactly what the New Covenant involved, and did not redevelop anything He said to Abraham.

We added nothing! You remove from it. Jesus, not me, said repentance and remission of sins must be preached in His name for people to obey. And Acts 2:38 lays it all out. Why do you refuse to deal with the corresponding nature of Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 2:38?

Refuse to deal with it? Huh?

I have laid out the correlation and showed this was Christ's will for the apostles to BEGIN TO PREACH in Jerusalem. Nary a remark.

Repentance and forgiveness of sins comes by way of Jesus and the authority he has because of the resurrection.

Right. And that includes baptism. Repentance and baptism together accomplish this. If you refuse to agree, and say baptism comes AFTER remission, then why are the Greek words ("for the remission of sins") in the same sequence in Acts 2:38 as they are in reference to the blood which causes remission of sins?

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


I'll give it to you since Acts 2 and Luke 24 are the same writers, that one could certainly entertain your logic. But that's precisely where I go with it to. I read Acts 2:38 through Luke 24, and don't come out of it with baptismal regeneration. I come out of it salvation by way of and authority of Jesus.

And you evidently do not know what baptismal regeneration is, as I already explained.

[mfblume]

and then call me a BAPTISM REGENERATION believer.

Evidently many here do not know what baptismal regeneration is. How can there be communication when dogmatic titles are misunderstood and used anyway? Faith is created in baptism according to baptismal regenerationists. No one here espouses that.

[Jeffrey]

The text says the words of Acts 2:38 were part of words that were spoken to the effect that the listeners would be saved.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Interesting you insist the word used in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves" is salvation, literally God's plan of HOW he will save. Most read this as "Get out of this rotten, dying culture! Get out while you can! Turn to Jesus!"

I really think a dose of honesty with Acts 2 would go a long way. By honesty, not that of one's character, but of one's intellect.

The rest I will respond later.

[Jeffrey]

Evidently many here do not know what baptismal regeneration is. How can there be communication when dogmatic titles are misunderstood and used anyway? Faith is created in baptism according to baptismal regenerationists. No one here espouses that.

Baptismal regeneration, the literal meaning of which is "being generated again" (regeneration) "through baptism" (baptismal), is the doctrine within some Christian denominations that holds that salvation is dependent upon, or more precisely, mediated through, the act of baptism; in other words, baptismal regenerationists believe that it is ordinarily necessary for one to be baptized in order to be saved. Not as a denial that faith alone saves, but as a confession of a divinely-ordained means by which the Gospel comes and creates faith.

This is a common doctrine of Restorationist movements (which would include Classical Pentecostalism)


I can certainly understand your semantical differences, but they are minute at best. And given this definition, I think we've used the term in a fair context.

[mfblume]

Interesting you insist the word used in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves" is salvation, literally God's plan of HOW he will save. Most read this as "Get out of this rotten, dying culture! Get out while you can! Turn to Jesus!"

I really think a dose of honesty with Acts 2 would go a long way. By honesty, not that of one's character, but of one's intellect.

The rest I will respond later.

Do you actually believe that Peter was merely telling them how to get out of their rotten culture? How many salvations did you think were going on in Acts 2?

[mfblume]

Baptismal regeneration, the literal meaning of which is "being generated again" (regeneration) "through baptism" (baptismal), is the doctrine within some Christian denominations that holds that salvation is dependent upon, or more precisely, mediated through, the act of baptism; in other words, baptismal regenerationists believe that it is ordinarily necessary for one to be baptized in order to be saved. Not as a denial that faith alone saves, but as a confession of a divinely-ordained means by which the Gospel comes and creates faith.

This is a common doctrine of Restorationist movements (which would include Classical Pentecostalism)


I can certainly understand your semantical differences, but they are minute at best. And given this definition, I think we've used the term in a fair context.

Read your own quote that I underscored and emboldened.

Infant baptism is done due to baptismal regenerationism. Minute? Hardly.

[mfblume]

Interesting you insist the word used in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves" is salvation, literally God's plan of HOW he will save. Most read this as "Get out of this rotten, dying culture! Get out while you can! Turn to Jesus!"

I really think a dose of honesty with Acts 2 would go a long way. By honesty, not that of one's character, but of one's intellect.

The rest I will respond later.

Adam Clarke:

Act 2:40
Save yourselves from this untoward generation - Separate yourselves from them: be ye saved, σωθητε: the power is present with you; make a proper use of it, and ye shall be delivered from their obstinate unbelief, and the punishment that awaits it in the destruction of them and their city by the Romans.

The idea is that they had steps to take to rescue themselves from the wrath to come on Jerusalem. And that would be due to God rescuing them from sin. See the difference? Would you think salvation from sin was theirs without baptism and Spirit, but salvation from the wrath to come was not unless they got baptized? lol

[Jeffrey]

Read your own quote that I underscored and emboldened.

Infant baptism is done due to baptismal regenerationism. Minute? Hardly.

Lutherans believed in BR, and many Lutherans who rejected infant baptism. Both qualified and clarified particular points, but it was essentially the same -- baptism is a requirement for salvation.

[mfblume]

Lutherans believed in BR, and many Lutherans who rejected infant baptism. Both qualified and clarified particular points, but it was essentially the same -- baptism is a requirement for salvation.

No, you still have it wrong. BR is the belief that baptism without faith causes faith, salvation, or anything else we need. It is the idea that exerting FAITH before baptism is not involved.

[Jeffrey]

Do you actually believe that Peter was merely telling them how to get out of their rotten culture? How many salvations did you think were going on in Acts 2?

You're not hearing me. Just because you see the word "salvation" doesn't mean Peter is giving them the covenant terms, or explaining HOW they should be saved. Peter surely told them what to do, but it's folly to insist that Peter's instructions are the theological treaty of the NT, or that even his instructions don't need any qualifying, since many have attached their doctrines to his words, making Peter say something he did not. He did say to be baptized. He did NOT say you aren't saved until you are baptized. He did say to those Jews at Pentecost that they WOULD receive the Spirit. He did NOT say, without Spirit baptism with tongues you are not saved. Just a couple examples.

[Jeffrey]

No, you still have it wrong. BR is the belief that baptism without faith causes faith, salvation, or anything else we need. It is the idea that exerting FAITH before baptism is not involved.

I've heard it otherwise, Blume. Like most doctrines, I'm sure the platform is quite broad. I'll concede to you on this point, though, since you're more the expert there.

[mfblume]

I've heard it otherwise, Blume. Like most doctrines, I'm sure the platform is quite broad. I'll concede to you on this point, though, since you're more the expert there.

Jeffrey, that is not the real point, though, anyway. The fact is that salvation by works means actions are believed to make one righteous in and of themselves without God's grace. And no one here believes in that. If I said it once, I said it a hundred times, repentance and faith are of the same nature as baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues. Baptism and Spirit infilling in no way are accomplished by us as though we do not require the cross to be the ONLY work that saves us. Why is that so hard to understand?

[mfblume]

You're not hearing me. Just because you see the word "salvation" doesn't mean Peter is giving them the covenant terms, or explaining HOW they should be saved. Peter surely told them what to do, but it's folly to insist that Peter's instructions are the theological treaty of the NT, or that even his instructions don't need any qualifying, since many have attached their doctrines to his words, making Peter say something he did not. He did say to be baptized. He did NOT say you aren't saved until you are baptized. He did say to those Jews at Pentecost that they WOULD receive the Spirit. He did NOT say, without Spirit baptism with tongues you are not saved. Just a couple examples.

Your words fail in light of the simple words Christ said. Christ said the ones who believe and are baptized shall be saved. Period. It takes a lot of stretching to deny that. He did not say He that believes is saved and shall be baptized. And Peter's words merely reflected those as well as the words of Luke 24:47-49. Why did Jesus tell them to preach those things in Luke 24?

[Jeffrey]

Jeffrey, that is not the real point, though. The fact is that salvation by works means actions are believed to make one righteous in and of themselves without God's grace. And no one here believes in that. If I said it once, I said it a hundred times, repentance and faith are of the same nature as baptism and Spirit infilling with tongues. Baptism and Spirit infilling in no way are accomplished by us as though we do not require the cross to be the ONLY work that saves us. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because, like circumcision, the gift of salvation is a gift that is unearned, only accepted. Your point is hard to understand, because I can't reconcile it with the words of Paul, or even the words of Jesus, or of John. I agree these things are not "works" in the pure sense of the word (The Law, etc), etc...

Repentance is a heart action, nothing else, and comes because of faith. We are baptized because of faith. We can obtain gifts of the Spirit because of faith. It's all centered on FAITH. And that faith is recognized as righteousness UPON faith, not dependent on anything else.

[Jeffrey]

Your words fail in light of the simple words Christ said. Christ said the ones who believe and are baptized shall be saved. Period. It takes a lot of stretching to deny that. He did not say He that believes is saved and shall be baptized. And Peter's words merely reflected those as well as the words of Luke 24:47-49. Why did Jesus tell them to preach those things in Luke 24?

Finish that verse, Blume, and you tell me if his point was belief or some sort of doctrine on baptism?

Belief, Belief, Belief, the entire theme of St. John, of Jesus, of Paul... WHY is that so hard to understand.

[mfblume]

Because, like circumcision, the gift of salvation is a gift that is unearned, only accepted.

Right, but that misses my belief totally. Baptism IS part of the ACCEPTING as much as repentance is. What is the difference between baptism and repentance as far as being means towards salvation?

Your point is hard to understand, because I can't reconcile it with the words of Paul, or even the words of Jesus, or of John. I agree these things are not "works" in the pure sense of the word (The Law, etc), etc...

I think your struggle is in not really getting our words. We are saying baptism is a means of acceptance of salvation. The only thing wrong with salvation by works is the law's type of works that disregard the cross to be righteous. If you refer to anything else in your attempts to refute the need for baptism, you are out of the category of the issue of salvation by works or not.

Repentance is a heart action, nothing else,

That is moot since ACTION is ACTION whether it is of the heart or not. And neither heart action nor action of baptism in the physical are meant to make us righteous.

and comes because of faith. We are baptized because of faith. We can obtain gifts of the Spirit because of faith. It's all centered on FAITH. And that faith is recognized as righteousness UPON faith, not dependent on anything else.

RIGHT! I have said that all along! Why do you think I did not? But that does not mean baptism is not necessary. It is not necessary in the sense that it is something that makes us righteous. WHAT MAKES US RIGHTEOUS is the issue! Notofworks refuses to hear us saying this. It seems you are as well.

It's like you're caught up in a difference between physical action and heart action, and as far as righteousness is concerned, they are not different from one another.

[mfblume]

Finish that verse, Blume, and you tell me if his point was belief or some sort of doctrine on baptism?

Belief, Belief, Belief, the entire theme of St. John, of Jesus, of Paul... WHY is that so hard to understand.

I understand it. Without belief none of it is of any use. That is why I do not believe salvation by works.

[Timmy]

I understand it. Without belief none of it is of any use. That is why I do not believe salvation by works.

Isn't your salvation a result of the works of others? Someone told you about the Gospel. That's a work. Without it, you would not have been saved. Right?

[mfblume]

Isn't your salvation a result of the works of others? Someone told you about the Gospel. That's a work. Without it, you would not have been saved. Right?

Wrong. The efforts of anyone, including me in my baptism, are not actions that directly make me righteous. Saying someone preached to me so that I could be saved, and that without such a person I would not be saved, is not salvation by works that render us righteous in and of themselves. Everyone here is missing the point that salvation by works means works in and of themselves renders us righteous.

This was the all-erring problem of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Acquire a knowledge of what is good and what is evil and utilize that knowledge to make yourself righteous.

Folks, do a study on righteousness and how it is acquired, and realize that salvation by works is directly contradictory to the truth of how we become righteous. Action is fine so long as it does not propose to make us righteous in and of itself. Until people learn that, they will never get the truth of the picture. It seems people against baptism as part of salvation simply refuse to deal with that all-important and all-determining issue, and they miss it everytime we speak of it.

[Timmy]

Wrong. The efforts of anyone, including me in my baptism, are not actions that directly make me righteous. Saying someone preached to me so that I could be saved, and that without such a person I would not be saved, is not salvation by works that render us righteous in and of themselves. Everyone here is missing the point that salvation by works means works in and of themselves renders us righteous.

This was the all-erring problem of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Acquire a knowledge of what is good and what is evil and utilize that knowledge to make yourself righteous.

Folks, do a study on righteousness and how it is acquired, and realize that salvation by works is directly contradictory to the truth of how we become righteous. Action is fine so long as it does not propose to make us righteous in and of itself. Until people learn that, they will never get the truth of the picture. It seems people against baptism as part of salvation simply refuse to deal with that all-important and all-determining issue, and they miss it everytime we speak of it.

I understand what the usual meaning of the term "salvation by works" is. I didn't mean someone else's works made you righteous. But isn't it true that someone's works led to your hearing the Gospel? And isn't it true that, had those works not been done (or someone else's similar works), you would not have heard?

[mfblume]

I understand what the usual meaning of the term "salvation by works" is. I didn't mean someone else's works made you righteous. But isn't it true that someone's works led to your hearing the Gospel? And isn't it true that, had those works not been done (or someone else's similar works), you would not have heard?

Yes, indeed! But the only thing the bible is against is salvation by works as though those works make us righteous. And even in the cases of people preaching for me to be saved, it is really God directing it all.

[Timmy]

Yes, indeed! But the only thing the bible is against is salvation by works as though those works make us righteous. And even in the cases of people preaching for me to be saved, it is really God directing it all.

:thumbsup Just sayin'. :lol

[Timmy]

Wait, what? God is directing it all? What do you mean by that, exactly? And is He doing a good job, so far? :hmmm

[notofworks]

Yes, indeed! But the only thing the bible is against is salvation by works as though those works make us righteous. And even in the cases of people preaching for me to be saved, it is really God directing it all.


So am I to understand, from this statement, that you believe works could help us obtain righteousness, but works don't make us righteous? I'm still a little stuck on your claim that you were able to speak in tongues (a necessary element of salvation according to you) because you "let go of sin."

[pelathais]

oh and by the way... I am a nice guy! :ursofunny
Thanks, I thought that was the part you said I was failing to understand. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[pelathais]

Wrong. The efforts of anyone, including me in my baptism, are not actions that directly make me righteous. Saying someone preached to me so that I could be saved, and that without such a person I would not be saved, is not salvation by works that render us righteous in and of themselves. Everyone here is missing the point that salvation by works means works in and of themselves renders us righteous.

This was the all-erring problem of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Acquire a knowledge of what is good and what is evil and utilize that knowledge to make yourself righteous.

Folks, do a study on righteousness and how it is acquired, and realize that salvation by works is directly contradictory to the truth of how we become righteous. Action is fine so long as it does not propose to make us righteous in and of itself. Until people learn that, they will never get the truth of the picture. It seems people against baptism as part of salvation simply refuse to deal with that all-important and all-determining issue, and they miss it everytime we speak of it.
One could simply read the opening pages of this thread to find the study that you're suggesting.

Romans 4 and its summation in Romans 5:1, have been quoted so much that it threatened to bring down the Biblegateway server.

Changing your position as you've done is great! :thumbsup but don't chide with "everyone" because they didn't agree with you when you were on the other side of the fence.

[TheLegalist]

Thanks, I thought that was the part you said I was failing to understand. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

HAHAHAHAHAHA.... my friend this is THEOLOGY and DOCTRINE.... they have no friends. Get away from discussing points that war with each other and the problem is I never take anything serious and hold no grudges and love to have fun to much.... When it comes to doctrine truth cuts and does not waver and it's not a game and it's not to be taken lightly. I hope you understand.

[TheLegalist]

So am I to understand, from this statement, that you believe works could help us obtain righteousness, but works don't make us righteous? I'm still a little stuck on your claim that you were able to speak in tongues (a necessary element of salvation according to you) because you "let go of sin."

see you almost are close... Our actions are either righteous/just or not. God judges/considers them as in Gen 15:6. He is the one that declares righteous which is a legal position of actions judged. When it comes to sins. God's justice declares the penalty to be satisfied or debt to be paid. It is not a acquittal. Gen 15:6 is not dealing with sin it is simply about justice done. which is a very clear aspect of how God deals with man.

Judgment & Justification In Early Judaism And The Apostle Paul by Chris VanLandingham

is a excellent and probably one of the most thorough books on this subject concerning this dealing with OT writings and New Testament era.

[TheLegalist]

You use the word "judged" more than anyone I know.

"It" = "his faith" = "his believing the Lord" the precedent clause of Gen 15:6.

correct his "faith' is judged. The reason I use judge all the time because that is what happens. Everything we do has judgment or a "reactive result" Breathing air has a judgment on the body. Our actions have judgment before God and law is always there. back to the subject...

1) Gen 15:6 is not about sin
2) Gen 15:6 is not directly about salvation
3) Gen 15:6 IS ABOUT God doing justice to Abrahams action.
4) Gen 15:6 is not about covenant.
5) Gen 12 you state a covenant is there, then turn around and say it's in Gen 15:6 you can't have it both ways.
6) What God wants to do and coming INTO actual covenant are two different things.
7) Gen 15 clearly shows God coming INTO the land covenant though God discussed what he "wanted" to do. It was not covenant yet.
8) God discusses in Gen 15:3-4 what he "wants" to do and explains to Abraham his "plans". It takes following to be faithful and to bring it to completion. As faith is defined by the context of what is said and the resulting action.
9) Gen 12 Abraham is told to move and he does so. Once stopped because of his action he asks God "how" to possess... God makes covenant by asking him to do and by doing He makes covenant concerning the land which would go unto his seed. Even though it would go unto his seed ,the multiplying the seed and promise was another aspect not yet realized.
10) Abraham had not obtained a covenant toward his seed multiplying...
11) we see the consistent pattern of God asking and Abraham doing and the result is covenant again in Gen 17....

Gen 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless,
Gen 17:2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly."

Notice it is STILL future of what God wanted to do. It is called a progressive covenantry. One leads to another. He speaks of the future covenant yet speaks of being under covenant. How is this covenant again brought about? By him doing just like before.

What is the covenant he is supposed to walk TO obtain "that I may make" in the future?

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.

Is this the covenant in Gen 22? No! It is the covenant to obtain "that I may make" a covenant. Because God says he wants to do something doesn't mean it's covenant. God judges and will be faithful if you are faithful to his Word. Just like today. We have covenant to receive the promises yet we have not OBTAINED YET the covenant/fulfillment of eternal life. When we are judged faithful, we obtain that covenant of promise.

Abraham OBTAINED by obedience that which by God's grace he offered.... "THAT I MAY MAKE" why would the seed come about and be blessed....

Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh. As it is said to this day, In the mount of Jehovah it shall be provided.
Gen 22:15 And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven,
Gen 22:16 and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,
Gen 22:17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore. And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.
Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because thou hast obeyed my voice.

This is the covenant "that I may make" God tells Isaac WHY it came about. Was it mental assent of promise which one was justified or the WORKS that justified Abraham by faith response?

Gen 26:3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee. For unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father.
Gen 26:4 And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Gen 12 he did and was judged to bring about Gen 15

Gen 15:8 And he said, O Lord Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."
Gen 15:10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

TO OBTAIN AND INHERIT LAND PROMISE!

which brought about another promise and covenant by which God demanded something before covenant in Gen 17 above which led to Gen 22 which took him responding and was judged just the he obtained covenant.

Gen 18:18 seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Gen 18:19 For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him."

To bring upon and confirm the promise by covenant are two different things.

concerning Paul.... he is talking about a certain aspect how a action of faith is "judged/considered" thus one stands turned to God and his heart be acceptable unto God. Abraham was considered righteous not simply by circumcision but well before circumcision. Was circumcision a righteous response? Yes but it in itself was not righteousing but God's judgment of action is what delcares right or just. Not our works speaking "judgment" outside of God.

[pelathais]

HAHAHAHAHAHA.... my friend this is THEOLOGY and DOCTRINE.... they have no friends. Get away from discussing points that war with each other and the problem is I never take anything serious and hold no grudges and love to have fun to much.... When it comes to doctrine truth cuts and does not waver and it's not a game and it's not to be taken lightly. I hope you understand.
Sure, you bonehead.

Now, why don't you do as Mike has done and come back at this issue from a "grace" point of view?

God's covenant with Abraham didn't begin until after Abraham had already been "accounted righteous." The covenant is important - it's vital! But Abe's standing with God was already established before the first "cut" in the covenant was made.

[TheLegalist]

Sure, you bonehead.

Now, why don't you do as Mike has done and come back at this issue from a "grace" point of view?

God's covenant with Abraham didn't begin until after Abraham had already been "accounted righteous." The covenant is important - it's vital! But Abe's standing with God was already established before the first "cut" in the covenant was made.

it's pointless you don't hear....

Grace is simply God's favor and it is given to the humble(condition) which mean God judged the heart already.

concerning covenant... I agree it is "notofworks" or maybe it "Jeffrey"(so confusing) LOL... that you need to argue with on that. God must consider one "right" before he can even think of entering covenant. I think I have CLEARLY explained that but you ignore it. He did not enter into covenant until Abraham "did" in Gen 12 and Gen 15:8-10 for land covenant.

You also fail to recognize the point of JAMes that mental assent alone does not justify it is the corresponding action/response to the Word and it's context that God does "justice" to. Gen 15:6 is about fulfillment in the eyes of the narrator! Not a moment in time PER JAMES!

Jesus clearly teaches it is not who says yes that is just as words mean nothing. It is who does that is declared/considered righteous. A person could with all intent agree but then not do. God brings about the ability or the aspect possible for belief(Word presented/offered/made known) which then belief or faith is defined within the context. Our response must be judged (which is God's justice) by what is required and can only be judged by our deeds/response. That is the point of Gen 15:6 it is a consideration of Gen 15:8-10 all the way to Gen 22 in view. Thus BEFORE AND AFTER CIRCUMCISION! Which Pauls points focuses on the before but does not exclude the after. James brings up the whole meaning of Gen 15:6! Thus believed is continous view of what "would" be and happen.

Also simple belief in itself does not bring about covenant. Abraham life and his dealings with God clearly shows a simple action to more complex response was required to enter into covenant.

[mfblume]

So am I to understand, from this statement, that you believe works could help us obtain righteousness, but works don't make us righteous?


Once again, a good study on the topic of righteousness in the bible, and how Israel was made to seek it more than anything through law, and how works cannot attain it, is required. I think too many have not done such a study.

Anyway, all that I am saying is that baptism, for example, is not an act that in and of itself makes us righteous. That is all. And try as one might, one cannot find a loophole out of this need for baptism after a statement made like that, since it removes the ONLY problem with any salvation by works activity. Salvation by works is doing activities that, in and of themselves, render us righteous without the work of God's grace involved as the only means of attaining righteousness.

And until everyone can realize that the mental and heart assent of repentance and faith are as much activities as is baptism, albeit baptism is physical and the others are inward, they will not get this point.

Righteousness is our ticket to glory. Law tried to get man to make himself righteous. God knew it would not work, but man needed to know that. And baptism is the same thing as repentance as far as purposes go. Repentance admits self is useless and could never attain righteousness. Baptism is the same. It is a baptism into death and a burial of the old man, since it admits self is so useless, that all that can be done with that old man is to have it die and put away for good. That is as far from salvation by works as is possible.

I kinda think folks do not even realize how baptism is indeed a putting away of the old man in death. We have so much of this foolish "outward show of an inward work" nonsense, which is not even in the bible, that people forget that Romans 6:3-6 teaches baptism is involved in uniting us to the death of Christ so that His death is considered our deaths, since the old man can not attain its own righteousness, and is worthy for nothing other than death!

This act of this "burial" and "death" of the old man is done in order for us to get to the place where God alone is the one getting the glory for granting us the gift of righteousness. I mean, one could get no further away from "salvation by works" than by rendering dead and burying the old man that might ever consider saving himself by his own works.

So the baptism does not make us righteous by any means! It slays the "us" that might ever think it can make itself righteous.

Put it this way. It is as though our hands are full with our own efforts to attain righteousness, and God is trying to place within those hands his righteousness. And until we empty our hands of our hopes and dreams and efforts to make ourselves righteous, God cannot give us righteousness. And we empty our hands BY BAPTISM AND REPENTANCE

I'm still a little stuck on your claim that you were able to speak in tongues (a necessary element of salvation according to you) because you "let go of sin."

It's simple! Again, you agree repentance is a NECESSARY STEP along with the other non-admitted "step" of faith, making no one a one-stepper, so you should understand quite easily that unless one repents one cannot be saved or given righteousness or given any other gift from God! The Baptism of the Holy Ghost is a GIFT, as much as righteousness is. And if you can see how repentance is necessary in order to receive any gift from God, then you can understand that not letting go of sin would disallow God from giving me the GIFT of the Holy Ghost.

Don't try to find a flaw in my words, here. lol. Just hear what I am saying, for if you believe repentance is necessary for anything from God then you should know that "letting go of sin" is repentance, and I had not actually repented, which is why I was not being Spirit filled.

[TheLegalist]

Once again, a good study on the topic of righteousness in the bible, and how Israel was made to seek it more than anything through law, and how works cannot attain it, is required. I think too many have not done such a study.

Anyway, all that I am saying is that baptism, for example, is not an act that in and of itself makes us righteous. That is all. And try as one might, one cannot find a loophole out of this need for baptism after a statement made like that, since it removes the ONLY problem with any salvation by works activity. Salvation by works is doing activities that, in and of themselves, render us righteous without the work of God's grace involved as the only means of attaining righteousness.

And until everyone can realize that the mental and heart assent of repentance and faith are as much activities as is baptism, albeit baptism is physical and the others are inward, they will not get this point.

Righteousness is our ticket to glory. Law tried to get man to make himself righteous. God knew it would not work, but man needed to know that. And baptism is the same thing as repentance as far as purposes go. Repentance admits self is useless and could never attain righteousness. Baptism is the same. It is a baptism into death and a burial of the old man, since it admits self is so useless, that all that can be done with that old man is to have it die and put away for good. That is as far from salvation by works as is possible.

I kinda think folks do not even realize how baptism is indeed a putting away of the old man in death. We have so much of this foolish "outward show of an inward work" nonsense, which is not even in the bible, that people forget that Romans 6:3-6 teaches baptism is involved in uniting us to the death of Christ so that His death is considered our deaths, since the old man can not attain its own righteousness, and is worthy for nothing other than death!

This act of this "burial" and "death" of the old man is done in order for us to get to the place where God alone is the one getting the glory for granting us the gift of righteousness. I mean, one could get no further away from "salvation by works" than by rendering dead and burying the old man that might ever consider saving himself by his own works.

So the baptism does not make us righteous by any means! It slays the "us" that might ever think it can make itself righteous.

Put it this way. It is as though our hands are full with our own efforts to attain righteousness, and God is trying to place within those hands his righteousness. And until we empty our hands of our hopes and dreams and efforts to make ourselves righteous, God cannot give us righteousness. And we empty our hands BY BAPTISM AND REPENTANCE



It's simple! Again, you agree repentance is a NECESSARY STEP along with the other non-admitted "step" of faith, making no one a one-stepper, so you should understand quite easily that unless one repents one cannot be saved or given righteousness or given any other gift from God! The Baptism of the Holy Ghost is a GIFT, as much as righteousness is. And if you can see how repentance is necessary in order to receive any gift from God, then you can understand that not letting go of sin would disallow God from giving me the GIFT of the Holy Ghost.

Don't try to find a flaw in my words, here. lol. Just hear what I am saying, for if you believe repentance is necessary for anything from God then you should know that "letting go of sin" is repentance, and I had not actually repented, which is why I was not being Spirit filled.

excellent... ehhh but they will still stick with a paradigm that is false and makes the rest of the Bible useless because of them misusing and abusing scripture. They don't see there own contradiction as you pointed out.

[mfblume]

Wait, what? God is directing it all? What do you mean by that, exactly? And is He doing a good job, so far? :hmmm

Let me share a little account of what happened with me just in the past month to explain my point. (I am dying to share this and will take this opportunity to do so, and apologize for getting off topic for a bit).

PRAISE BREAK , EVERYONE!

A situation that occurred a handful of years ago, before I ever came here last October to minister, in our local church involving a married brother and sister. That situation required things to be made right with another couple who have long since lost contact with the local couple. This has been years that this loss of contact occurred. People moved, phone numbers changed, etc., etc.

In the meantime, we move here last October. In fact the former pastor here told me about this other couple whom he would like to contact and get things right, since the last time they had contact viewpoints were quite different, but light was realized later and the pastor wanted to see things smoothed out and made right.

My son had moved up with us from the USA back home to Canada. He stayed in the nearby city while we entered pastorate in this smaller town. My son stayed with my older son and his family til he could find work. Could not find work for months, and time came for my younger son to obtain his own dwelling and move out. Did not have a place to move into. So, I called the pastor where both my sons attend church in the city.

"Have a place for my son to rent or board, on short notice -- two days?" lol

"Will contact the congregation by email and see who might have a place."

Two days went by and no place, so we pick him up and bring him here home with us for the weekend. He has to go back to work in three more days, but the day after we pick him up they find a place for him to stay in the city. We take him to the city to meet the people and have him ready for work as well. THE PEOPLE ARE THE COUPLE WHO LOST CONTACT WITH OUR LOCAL COUPLE, and I am thrown in the midst of it all and hear the whole story.

Turned out that an open door of reconciliation and forgiveness were always there during the last several years between the contact the two couples had with each other. Out of 700,000 people, I land in the couple's home on a spur-of-the-moment email response for my son to get a place to rent. This couple in the city had only started going to my son's church a year ago.

Everyone is feeling joy and praising God and GOD IS DIRECTING THE WHOLE THING AND DOING A GOOD JOB OF IT! Sorta reminds me of the incident I told you about where a man bought one of 22 books of mine that I sold over the net, and I meet him two airports away from Canada down in Phoenix sitting on the seat beside mine in the plane!

I can only speak from experience, that God directs these sorts of things, including the example I gave to you, and does an awesome job of it!

[notofworks]

Let me share a little account of what happened with me just in the past month to explain my point. (I am dying to share this and will take this opportunity to do so, and apologize for getting off topic for a bit).

PRAISE BREAK , EVERYONE!

A situation that occurred a handful of years ago, before I ever came here last October to minister, in our local church involving a married brother and sister. That situation required things to be made right with another couple who have long since lost contact with the local couple. This has been years that this loss of contact occurred. People moved, phone numbers changed, etc., etc.

In the meantime, we move here last October. In fact the former pastor here told me about this other couple whom he would like to contact and get things right, since the last time they had contact viewpoints were quite different, but light was realized later and the pastor wanted to see things smoothed out and made right.

My son had moved up with us from the USA back home to Canada. He stayed in the nearby city while we entered pastorate in this smaller town. My son stayed with my older son and his family til he could find work. Could not find work for months, and time came for my younger son to obtain his own dwelling and move out. Did not have a place to move into. So, I called the pastor where both my sons attend church in the city.

"Have a place for my son to rent or board, on short notice -- two days?" lol

"Will contact the congregation by email and see who might have a place."

Two days went by and no place, so we pick him up and bring him here home with us for the weekend. He has to go back to work in three more days, but the day after we pick him up they find a place for him to stay in the city. We take him to the city to meet the people and have him ready for work as well. THE PEOPLE ARE THE COUPLE WHO LOST CONTACT WITH OUR LOCAL COUPLE, and I am thrown in the midst of it all and hear the whole story.

Turned out that an open door of reconciliation and forgiveness were always there during the last several years between the contact the two couples had with each other. Out of 700,000 people, I land in the couple's home on a spur-of-the-moment email response for my son to get a place to rent. This couple in the city had only started going to my son's church a year ago.

Everyone is feeling joy and praising God and GOD IS DIRECTING THE WHOLE THING AND DOING A GOOD JOB OF IT! Sorta reminds me of the incident I told you about where a man bought one of 22 books of mine that I sold over the net, and I meet him two airports away from Canada down in Phoenix sitting on the seat beside mine in the plane!

I can only speak from experience, that God directs these sorts of things, including the example I gave to you, and does an awesome job of it!



I'm despise and am repulsed by manipulated and contrived "Praise Breaks", so I won't be joining in.

:shockamoo

[TheLegalist]

I'm despise and am repulsed by manipulated and contrived "Praise Breaks", so I won't be joining in.

:shockamoo

ROFL!

[notofworks]

Once again, a good study on the topic of righteousness in the bible, and how Israel was made to seek it more than anything through law, and how works cannot attain it, is required. I think too many have not done such a study.

Anyway, all that I am saying is that baptism, for example, is not an act that in and of itself makes us righteous. That is all. And try as one might, one cannot find a loophole out of this need for baptism after a statement made like that, since it removes the ONLY problem with any salvation by works activity. Salvation by works is doing activities that, in and of themselves, render us righteous without the work of God's grace involved as the only means of attaining righteousness.

And until everyone can realize that the mental and heart assent of repentance and faith are as much activities as is baptism, albeit baptism is physical and the others are inward, they will not get this point.

Righteousness is our ticket to glory. Law tried to get man to make himself righteous. God knew it would not work, but man needed to know that. And baptism is the same thing as repentance as far as purposes go. Repentance admits self is useless and could never attain righteousness. Baptism is the same. It is a baptism into death and a burial of the old man, since it admits self is so useless, that all that can be done with that old man is to have it die and put away for good. That is as far from salvation by works as is possible.

I kinda think folks do not even realize how baptism is indeed a putting away of the old man in death. We have so much of this foolish "outward show of an inward work" nonsense, which is not even in the bible, that people forget that Romans 6:3-6 teaches baptism is involved in uniting us to the death of Christ so that His death is considered our deaths, since the old man can not attain its own righteousness, and is worthy for nothing other than death!

This act of this "burial" and "death" of the old man is done in order for us to get to the place where God alone is the one getting the glory for granting us the gift of righteousness. I mean, one could get no further away from "salvation by works" than by rendering dead and burying the old man that might ever consider saving himself by his own works.

So the baptism does not make us righteous by any means! It slays the "us" that might ever think it can make itself righteous.

Put it this way. It is as though our hands are full with our own efforts to attain righteousness, and God is trying to place within those hands his righteousness. And until we empty our hands of our hopes and dreams and efforts to make ourselves righteous, God cannot give us righteousness. And we empty our hands BY BAPTISM AND REPENTANCE



It's simple! Again, you agree repentance is a NECESSARY STEP along with the other non-admitted "step" of faith, making no one a one-stepper, so you should understand quite easily that unless one repents one cannot be saved or given righteousness or given any other gift from God! The Baptism of the Holy Ghost is a GIFT, as much as righteousness is. And if you can see how repentance is necessary in order to receive any gift from God, then you can understand that not letting go of sin would disallow God from giving me the GIFT of the Holy Ghost.

Don't try to find a flaw in my words, here. lol. Just hear what I am saying, for if you believe repentance is necessary for anything from God then you should know that "letting go of sin" is repentance, and I had not actually repented, which is why I was not being Spirit filled.




Good grief, are you this long-winded when you preach?? I don't drink coffee, but you're making me want to!:lol

Yes, I believe in repentance but in the true sense of the word, which is "To Turn" which is exactly what someone does when they "believe in their heart and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised them from the dead." So of course, I believe in repentance. I don't care for the term "Step", but if you wanna call it that, fine.

I just cannot process your theology that the Holy Spirit is a "gift", yet at the same time, a "requirement". And I also really, really struggle with your theology that one can improve oneself and thereby, receive this "gift." My kids have never "earned" any of their "gifts." To me, that's edging into serious and dangerous heresy. You went to great lengths (almost beyond my attention span) to justify your stance, but at the end of the day, you're believing that you can improve yourself and better position yourself to receive salvation. This is a LOUD violation of "Not of Works" (hey, that'd make a good ID), lest any man should boast." I can't boast in this. I've done NOTHING to better position myself.

And you still haven't explained how some just receive this "gift" (tongues) the first time they walk into a church and some have to work on some things. Doesn't seem fair to me.

Do you have any other explanation for those that "tarry" for months/years for the Holy Spirit than, "They need to get rid of sin in their life"? And if that's the only explanation for the "tarrying", what is your prooftext for that belief? Who in the bible ever "tarried for the Holy Ghost", what is the scriptural principle for someone "tarrying for the Holy Ghost"?

[mfblume]

I preached last Sunday on the cross. I love the preaching of the cross.

Elisha passed by Shunnem many times, and a woman there noted to her husband that they should build an extension on their home for a room for the prophet to rest in when he would pass by. Elisha came and took opportunity and rested at their home.

This speaks of the cross. Elisha stands as Jesus Christ in this story. Christ laid down his life and was laid to rest in the tomb. Sleep in the bible stands as death. So the place where Elisha slept stands as the tomb of Christ.

The prophet then prophesied about the Sunnemite woman having a son. This is like the work of the cross being followed by the promise of children born into the kingdom!

The woman bears a child at the foretold time and the child grows. Time comes when the boy is old enough to work with his father and reap crops. This stands for the sou8l born again who is mature enough to start working for the Lord and win the lost. Reaping.

An affliction attacks the boy's head, and he hollers, "My head my head!"

When the enemy attacks us, it is in our MINDS and THOUGHTS. People backslide due to attacks in their minds. Paul taught about casting down IMAGINATIONS (a "mind issue) that war against the KNOWLEDGE (a "mind" issue again) of God.

They took the boy to his mother, as the mother stands for the church.

The boy died on her knees, and she laid him in Elisha's bed where he slept.

The church teaches people that even after they are saved, they need to go back to the place where Jesus laid in Death. And by going back there, they need to identify in their hearts with Christ's death all over again, just as when they were first saved. They need to go over the truth of the cross in their minds when the enemy attacks, since the attack is in the mind and the mind must be renewed and aligned with truth so as to cast down the attacks in the mind from the devil.

The woman leaves the boy alone in the room. The church teaches people to learn to be alone with the Lord in their time of renewing their minds and aligning their minds with truth so as to defeat the attack of the enemy and overcome.

Elisha returns and enters the room and shuts the door behind him. When we renew our minds to the truths of what occurred in our lives when we were united to Christ in His death, back to the place where he laid, the Lord comes in and something wonderful occurs.

Elisha put his mouth on the boy's mouth, his eyes on the boy's eyes and his hands on the boy's hands. This stands for IDENTIFICATION WITH CHRIST IN HIS DEATH to the extent that we realize HE DIED AS US when He died.

He took our place to such an extent that His eyes that closed in death must be considered as our eyes. His mouth that became silent in death were as good as our mouths. His hands that sopped touching and lay lifeless were as good as our hands. He died AS US.

That is how we first got saved. Identification with Christ in His death which occurred in baptism into His death, as noted in Romans 6:3. THIS IS HOW BAPTISM FITS THE PICTURE. It is identification with Christ in his death.

And we need to go over this in our hearts everytime the enemy attacks us, hopefully until it is so ingrained in us that our understanding of this remains intact and we overcome attacks from even getting us down again.

THE CROSS IS FOR FAR MORE THAN getting us saved. We need its truth for the rest of our lives in this world, and in this way we claim the blood, as the old timers used to say. Pursuing this understanding in our minds when attacked is actually what they mean by claiming the blood.

And then the boy sneezed seven times.

Sneezing is physically the clearance from the head of blockages and obstructions. Spiritually, sneezing would stand for clearing the thoughts and lies and misconceptions the devil used in inflicting our minds to overcome us. And by identification with Christ in His death during these times of attack, these obstructions are PERFECTLY (Number 7 stands for completion) cleared out!

THE CROSS ALONE SAVES AND CONTINUES TO SAVE!

(NOTE: AS MUCH AS THE CROSS SAVES BY OUR REPEATED IDENTIFICATION WITH CHRIST IN THE WAY DESCRIBED ABOVE, WHILE THE ACT OF IDENTIFICATION IS NOT SALVATION IN ITSELF, OUR BAPTISM THAT OCCURRED WHEN WE FIRST WERE SAVED FROM SIN IS LIKEWISE NOT A "SALVATION BY WORKS" EFFORT.)

[TheLegalist]

Good grief, are you this long-winded when you preach?? I don't drink coffee, but you're making me want to!:lol

Yes, I believe in repentance but in the true sense of the word, which is "To Turn" which is exactly what someone does when they "believe in their heart and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised them from the dead." So of course, I believe in repentance. I don't care for the term "Step", but if you wanna call it that, fine.

I just cannot process your theology that the Holy Spirit is a "gift", yet at the same time, a "requirement". And I also really, really struggle with your theology that one can improve oneself and thereby, receive this "gift." My kids have never "earned" any of their "gifts." To me, that's edging into serious and dangerous heresy. You went to great lengths (almost beyond my attention span) to justify your stance, but at the end of the day, you're believing that you can improve yourself and better position yourself to receive salvation. This is a LOUD violation of "Not of Works" (hey, that'd make a good ID), lest any man should boast." I can't boast in this. I've done NOTHING to better position myself.

And you still haven't explained how some just receive this "gift" (tongues) the first time they walk into a church and some have to work on some things. Doesn't seem fair to me.

Do you have any other explanation for those that "tarry" for months/years for the Holy Spirit than, "They need to get rid of sin in their life"? And if that's the only explanation for the "tarrying", what is your prooftext for that belief? Who in the bible ever "tarried for the Holy Ghost", what is the scriptural principle for someone "tarrying for the Holy Ghost"?


SO you are saying salvation and eternal life have no conditions? They are gifts that are COMPLETELY UNCONDITIONAL and UNMERITED?? The key is to the issue at hand is the proper term is more "offering" than what we consider "gift" God offers salvation freely to those whom take upon his yoke by faith/proper response.

Jesus clearly says that Eternal life is to them that DO his commandment. This was my point earlier concerning is obedience forensic or intrinsic to salvation and eternal life. You clearly see it only a "forensic" when Jesus and others say it is intrinsic which would mean salvation is based upon conditions met by contract.

[mfblume]

Good grief, are you this long-winded when you preach?? I don't drink coffee, but you're making me want to!:lol

Are you kidding? I can hardly get things out in an hour! lol :lol

Yes, I believe in repentance but in the true sense of the word, which is "To Turn" which is exactly what someone does when they "believe in their heart and confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised them from the dead." So of course, I believe in repentance. I don't care for the term "Step", but if you wanna call it that, fine.


I am only going by the terms that folks on this forum have used. But that repentance you believe in is no more a work for salvation than baptism is.

I just cannot process your theology that the Holy Spirit is a "gift", yet at the same time, a "requirement".

Why? Righteousness is a gift, and also a requirement!

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

And I also really, really struggle with your theology that one can improve oneself and thereby, receive this "gift."

One CANNOT improve oneself. That is my point. Improving oneself is making oneself righteous. All we can do is empty ourselves of what is wrong. But we cannot give ourselves anything that is good.

The problem is that, I think, you are trying to find fault in what I am saying rather than actually hearing me out. personally, I think you do not want to agree with me, which makes you find SOMETHING wrong in my words, so you remain confused in my words when you cannot find something.

My kids have never "earned" any of their "gifts."

See? this is what I mean. I never said anything about earning anything. But5 you are putting words in my mouth at every turn. First you say it is improving oneself to be baptized, and now you say we are earning righteousness.

Anyway, you are right about earning gifts! But if they had something in their hands that hindered you from handing them a gift, they cannot hold your gift.

To me, that's edging into serious and dangerous heresy.

Of course, it is, but I do not believe what you claimed I do.

You went to great lengths (almost beyond my attention span) to justify your stance, but at the end of the day, you're believing that you can improve yourself and better position yourself to receive salvation.

NO I am not saying that. Had you read my words with more intention o n actually getting my point, than pushing your patience to the limit, you would have seen that good bro.

This is a LOUD violation of "Not of Works" (hey, that'd make a good ID), lest any man should boast." I can't boast in this. I've done NOTHING to better position myself.

What does repentance do?

And you still haven't explained how some just receive this "gift" (tongues) the first time they walk into a church and some have to work on some things. Doesn't seem fair to me.

You still have not acknowledged that no one can speak in tongues unless God gives the utterance.

Do you have any other explanation for those that "tarry" for months/years for the Holy Spirit than, "They need to get rid of sin in their life"? And if that's the only explanation for the "tarrying", what is your prooftext for that belief? Who in the bible ever "tarried for the Holy Ghost", what is the scriptural principle for someone "tarrying for the Holy Ghost"?

I do not have prooftexts. Do you know hat a prooftext is? I said that was MY experience. And I may not even know all the reasons why others do not receive the Spirit. The fact is, God gives the Spirit, and we cannot contrive it.

Until you actually look for good in my words, you will not get my words, for it seems clear you are looking for fault and not actually hearing me.

[notofworks]

SO you are saying salvation and eternal life have no conditions? They are gifts that are COMPLETELY UNCONDITIONAL and UNMERITED??


Abso-flippin-lutely!! (Jeffrey's having an effect on me)

[mfblume]

Abso-flippin-lutely!! (Jeffrey's having an effect on me)

Wrong, You believe you have to repent and believe. The only ones who believe unconditional salvation are the universal reconciliationists who think no one need so much as repent or believe to be saved.

[Timmy]

. . .


One CANNOT improve oneself. . . .


Dude! Speak for yourself! Seriously!

[notofworks]

Dude! Speak for yourself! Seriously!



:ursofunny

[Pressing-On]

I do not have prooftexts. Do you know hat a prooftext is? I said that was MY experience. And I may not even know all the reasons why others do not receive the Spirit. The fact is, God gives the Spirit, and we cannot contrive it.
.

Pride is another reason. From my own experience, I was holding onto something that was a matter of vanity and pride. When I let that go, I received His spirit. I didn't know, at first, that thing was hindering my serious dedication to giving ALL of myself to God. I was sitting and reading one night and the thought came to me so strong that I knew what the hindrance was. And He, knowing my heart, knew that I didn't want anything between us. I saw that after the fact.

When you come to repentance, you know the things that you are doing are wrong. We all know basic sin. Some other things in our lives, while we don't call them sin, can keep us from totally giving Him our ALL. We are not always aware that some things could hider us and cause us to become the various grounds discussed in Mark 4, IMO.

Being that all are issues of the heart, I believe that God, in His gracious mercy and judgment, gives every man an opportunity by the Gospel. I believe that some are filled because God knows that His Spirit will lead them out of some things they are holding on to, things that are not necessarily sin, but could cause their walk not to deepen. Others, like me, may not have possibly grown if, at the outset, something was between us. Again, that was my experience and understanding. And, again, it's the heart that God knows and deals with on an individual basis.

That is why I am against various terms we try to use in order to explain our opinion of what we believe is a process in the Bible. For instance, Jeffrey had mentioned "crises experience" which Pentecostals seem to have inherited from John Wesley. This "crises experience" is tied in with the "second blessing" or "tarrying" for the Holy Ghost. The idea being a period of time where a person is drawing closer to God, after repentance and baptism, in order to be filled with God's Spirit.

I don't mind when we use general terms like Eschatology and Soteriology, but when we come up with words on our own to describe our point of view in relation to the Bible, such as, "crises experience", "Jesus bomb", "one-step" and "two-step", I generally draw a line.

"Crisis experience", obviously, is not a good choice of words as it doesn't apply to everyone. Cornelius being one example. It starts with belief and repentance. We don't have to come up with terms in order to explain these things. It takes away from the beauty and power of His Word, IMO.

[TheLegalist]

Abso-flippin-lutely!! (Jeffrey's having an effect on me)

If that is the case you have to believe in antinomianism, and OSAS as

1) Salvation would not even require faith as salvation is just handed and forced upon you.
2) You make a mockery of Gen 15:6 and what "justice" is.
3) You make a mockery of Abiding and doing his commandments to "continue" to abide and be considered his friend.

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
Joh 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Joh 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.
Joh 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.
Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
Joh 15:17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.


4) You ignore and mock that salvation comes at a cost

Mat 13:45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls,
Mat 13:46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.
Mat 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.

5) You negate that salvation is via contract to obtain life...

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

6) Counting the cost to obtain is not really counting the cost. As ot you no cost must be measured as simple belief or agreement HAS NO RISK OF LOSS OR COST!

Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. [/B
]Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down [B]first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

This is not about one moment but the life of a believer of forsaking!

You are saying that without fullfilling his purpose you stay and abide unto salvation.

Luk 14:34 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
Luk 14:35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

When you lose your pupose (commandments) you lose who you are and are cast out as meaningless.

You are saying you can do so without cost IN THE BEGINNING and througout.

You make God's righteousness/justice slothful in that we would acquit the unrighteous...

Pro 17:15 The one who acquits the guilty and the one who condemns the innocent both of them are an abomination to the LORD.

Salvation would not be to those who obey as it would be without ANY relationship to obedience.

Heb 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him

One can be without any righteousness and be considered WED to Christ for the garment that we wear we have made ready with our deeds...

Mat 22:11 But when the king came in to see the wedding guests, he saw a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.
Mat 22:12 And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' But he had nothing to say.8
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to his attendants, 'Tie him up hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth!'
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen."

Rev 19:7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready;
Rev 19:8 it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure"-- for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

Salvation is a purchase from the only one who can offer it. Jesus Christ the righteous! We enter contract to obtain by becoming his servants and negate all else. For a double minded man is unstable in his ways and we must plow straight for narrow is the way. Many agonize to enter but cannot as many are called but few chosen.

[Jeffrey]

If that is the case you have to believe in antinomianism, and OSAS as

1) Salvation would not even require faith as salvation is just handed and forced upon you.
2) You make a mockery of Gen 15:6 and what "justice" is.
3) You make a mockery of Abiding and doing his commandments to "continue" to abide and be considered his friend.



First, he's about as antinomian as you are a pure, bona fide legalist.

Second, where did he say salvation did not require faith? If I recall, that's his entire argument.

Third, I think our major disagreement is how you see Abraham's "being made right with God" and your absurd claim that Abraham's reckoned righteousness is not salvific (I'll get back to that later).

Finally, no one makes a mockery of doing his commandments, Legalist. You guys obsess with this. We are talking about initiation. Getting in the family. It's a faith family. That's the point.

[Jeffrey]

correct his "faith' is judged. (Not that this doesn't have technical merit, but why do you use language Paul did not so often? Over and over again you say faith. In the case of us before God, we are already found guilt. Our actions can't be further judged. We are GUILTY. We are justified through Jesus.

The reason I use judge all the time because that is what happens. Everything we do has judgment or a "reactive result" Breathing air has a judgment on the body. Our actions have judgment before God and law is always there. back to the subject... I can't even agree with you here and your use of judgement in such critical ways. If we get what we deserve by our actions, we all deserve death. You included!

1) Gen 15:6 is not about sin Right with God has nothing to do with sin????
2) Gen 15:6 is not directly about salvation more head scratching. Then you can take salvation, I'll take being made right before God.
3) Gen 15:6 IS ABOUT God doing justice to Abrahams action. WRONG. Paul's entire point to use Abraham was not his action, it was his faith. We go circles on this. You get playful with the text, but Paul wasn't using Abram as an example for how perfectly obedient and upstanding of a guy he was... he used him as an example of faith.
4) Gen 15:6 is not about covenant. Wrong again.
5) Gen 12 you state a covenant is there, then turn around and say it's in Gen 15:6 you can't have it both ways. Why can't you? Why is everything an either/or???
6) What God wants to do and coming INTO actual covenant are two different things. ?
7) Gen 15 clearly shows God coming INTO the land covenant though God discussed what he "wanted" to do. It was not covenant yet. Hmmmm...
8) God discusses in Gen 15:3-4 what he "wants" to do and explains to Abraham his "plans". It takes following to be faithful and to bring it to completion. As faith is defined by the context of what is said and the resulting action. Wow. That's very creative, TL. It was accounted to him as righteousness. That's pretty much a present reality, not a carrot "if you can be a perfect little boy you'll get this." It's a GIFT! Undeserved. Freely given.
9) Gen 12 Abraham is told to move and he does so. Once stopped because of his action he asks God "how" to possess... God makes covenant by asking him to do and by doing He makes covenant concerning the land which would go unto his seed. Even though it would go unto his seed ,the multiplying the seed and promise was another aspect not yet realized. You compartmentalize covenant, and I find it interesting I admit. But those categories aren't in the story. Remember to read this as a story not a contract. It's a WONDERFUL story. A guy deserving death gets chosen, by faith he believes God and its accounted to him as righteousness. This is the story of Abram's life. Out of that faith comes obedience, but it's faith nonetheless that reckons him righteousness.
10) Abraham had not obtained a covenant toward his seed multiplying... Explain.
11) we see the consistent pattern of God asking and Abraham doing and the result is covenant again in Gen 17.... What we see is reassurance along the way from him first promise. "Go and I will show you a city" this it the movement of the story. Along the way, in victories of faith, Abram is assured, and more details of the promise are made clear to us.

(If God was so tit-for-tat with covenant, and his faithfulness to the covenant are dependent on us, then he would not have sent His Son to die. He did so because he is faithful to covenant and determined to find a way for us all. What he guaranteed by faith, was fulfilled in Jesus, and is still accessible by faith.

Gen 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless,
Gen 17:2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly."

Do you know the meaning of the word blameless? Are you blameless? Interested in how you interpret this verse. Again, you read this as a linear contract and not as a story.

Notice it is STILL future of what God wanted to do. It is called a progressive covenantry. One leads to another. He speaks of the future covenant yet speaks of being under covenant. How is this covenant again brought about? By him doing just like before. First, this is not the first time God says these promises to Abram. How you get around that, I don't know. Second, you make a good point about "may" -- the NIV says this:

I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."

In other words, circumcision, first introduced here, is a way God is confirming his covenant. This, by the way, contradicts your plans to somehow say Abram earned the covenant for the first time in Gen 22.

With that said, are you familiar with Paul's already/not yet theology? You can probably guess where I'd go with that.

What is the covenant he is supposed to walk TO obtain "that I may make" in the future?

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.

Is this the covenant in Gen 22? No! It is the covenant to obtain "that I may make" a covenant. Because God says he wants to do something doesn't mean it's covenant. God judges and will be faithful if you are faithful to his Word. Just like today. We have covenant to receive the promises yet we have not OBTAINED YET the covenant/fulfillment of eternal life. When we are judged faithful, we obtain that covenant of promise.

What translation are you using?

Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

This IS MY COVENANT, not someday I'll give you a covenant. It's the same story. He's revealing more. The journey began with faith, a destination unknown. God is pulling back layers and showing Abram the future as we travel with him. As a demonstration of his faith, he is walking right before God. This is certainly neither to say that Abram was perfect -- lest we remember his lying about his wife, definitely an issue of unbelief. But God is faithful, and Abram, though perhaps hiccups in faith, kept the faith. God's plan is revealed here for Israel, in fact. Through YOU, this is how it will work, through your generations. Make sure they know me. Make sure the trust me. That's critical. As a sign of that covenant, here's circumcision. Keep this going. (Israel turned it into ethnic elitism instead)

Abraham OBTAINED by obedience that which by God's grace he offered.... ?"THAT I MAY MAKE" why would the seed come about and be blessed....

Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh. As it is said to this day, In the mount of Jehovah it shall be provided.
Gen 22:15 And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven,
Gen 22:16 and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,
Gen 22:17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore. And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. LANGUAGE SOUNDS AWFUL FAMILIAR. TL!!!
Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because thou hast obeyed my voice.

This is the covenant "that I may make" God tells Isaac WHY it came about. Was it mental assent of promise which one was justified or the WORKS that justified Abraham by faith response? Friend, it's backwards. Mental ascent does not equal faith. So quit postulating that. I've conceded that I wont' call you a BR, to you can put away the mental ascent game. Faith and believing are deeper than cognitive chambers of reality.

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
So Gen 22 wasn't even the covenant, it wasn't until 26 now?


TO OBTAIN AND INHERIT LAND PROMISE!

To bring upon and confirm the promise by covenant are two different things.

concerning Paul.... he is talking about a certain aspect how a action of faith is "judged/considered" thus one stands turned to God and his heart be acceptable unto God. Abraham was considered righteous not simply by circumcision but well before circumcision. Was circumcision a righteous response? Yes but it in itself was not righteousing but God's judgment of action is what del Where do you get this from? Curious. "judged/considered?" "certian aspect? You said it and then backed up on it. He was considered righteous BEFORE the action. cares right or just. Not our works speaking "judgment" outside of God.

Very lengthy here... I couldn't respond to all.

I think it would help if you viewed this story as a story, which is how it was passed down generation to generation. It's a story of God's promise to Israel. It's not a legal document.

[TheLegalist]

First, he's about as antinomian as you are a pure, bona fide legalist.

:blah WOW, really... imagine that... I am legalist! the problem is that Word can mean and be taken many ways. It's all upon who is defining. Jesus was a legalist as was John James etc... To you baptism for remission is legalism.... oh poor me. I am a legalist.

Second, where did he say salvation did not require faith? If I recall, that's his entire argument.

Again READ THE COMMENT! I SAID COMPLETELY UNCONDITIONAL AND UNMERITED! Do you really understand that the depth of that?

You cannot enter into covenant unto OBTAINING SALVATION WITHOUT NEGATING ALL and accepting the cost. THAT IS NOT SIMPLE MENTAL BELIEF.

Third, I think our major disagreement is how you see Abraham's "being made right with God" and your absurd claim that Abraham's reckoned righteousness is not salvific (I'll get back to that later).
My point is within ITSELF it was about judging his response "faithful". You ignored what I said about it. What did i say? As usual you don't pay attention

2) Gen 15:6 is not directly about salvation WHICH IT IS NOT! Abraham was not asking about being saved no more than Phinehas was about salvation...

Psa 106:30 Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed.
Psa 106:31 And that was counted to him as righteousness ...

Again it's about God's justice applied toward action. You can ignore that all you want.


Finally, no one makes a mockery of doing his commandments, Legalist.

Yes, you do! Because salvation is not obtained without doing his commandments. YOU MOCK HIS WORDS AS NOT DOING TO OBTAIN! If that is not mockery I don't know what is.
For you to say obedience unto salvation is not intrinsic then you ignore what the covenant is. It's A CONTRACT to obtain. You must stand right at heart to ENTER COVENANT that means DOING SOMETHING! you are fulfilling his request to CAST ASIDE ALL TO OBTAIN! Until you can understand the basics it's pointless. Ignore the costs. It's not FREE it's FREELY GIVEN to those who OBEY UNTO FOLLOWING! You can say I have UNTIL YOU FOLLOW WHICH IS DOING!


You guys obsess with this. We are talking about initiation. Getting in the family. It's a faith family. That's the point.

and you still don't get it. Again you fail to understand the one cannot TAKE UPON ANYTHING WITHOUT GIVING UP! That is as much a work as anything could be to OBTAIN!

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. ESV

[TheLegalist]

Very lengthy here... I couldn't respond to all.

I think it would help if you viewed this story as a story, which is how it was passed down generation to generation. It's a story of God's promise to Israel. It's not a legal document.

HAHAHAHAHA now that is a new one! HAHAHAHAHA sheeesh I'm done it's pointless.

[mfblume]

Dude! Speak for yourself! Seriously!

lol

But, you know what I meant. As far as anything significant towards attaining righteousness is concerned, we cannot improve ourselves.

It was in the context of notofworks' words:

And I also really, really struggle with your theology that one can improve oneself and thereby, receive this "gift."

Why did you not say something when he said it? :p

[Jeffrey]

:blah WOW, really... imagine that... I am legalist! the problem is that Word can mean and be taken many ways. It's all upon who is defining. Jesus was a legalist as was John James etc... To you baptism for remission is legalism.... oh poor me. I am a legalist.



Perhaps you misunderstood my statement.

Calling him antinomian was like him calling you a legalist. Though I don't know enough about your theology to qualify such a statement, I'm in essence saying you are accusing him of something that is a polar extreme, just like legalism is.

Just playing fair with your word games.

[Jeffrey]

Again it's about God's justice applied toward action. You can ignore that all you want.

What was Abraham's action in Gen 15? How does Paul interpret that action?

You've yet to address that.

[Jeffrey]

Quote:
Finally, no one makes a mockery of doing his commandments, Legalist.
Yes, you do! Because salvation is not obtained without doing his commandments. YOU MOCK HIS WORDS AS NOT DOING TO OBTAIN! DO YOU SPEAK CAVE MAN? If that is not mockery I don't know what is.
For you to say obedience unto salvation is not intrinsic then you ignore what the covenant is. It's A CONTRACT to obtain. You must stand right at heart to ENTER COVENANT that means DOING SOMETHING! you are fulfilling his request to CAST ASIDE ALL TO OBTAIN! Until you can understand the basics it's pointless. Ignore the costs. It's not FREE it's FREELY GIVEN to those who OBEY UNTO FOLLOWING! You can say I have UNTIL YOU FOLLOW WHICH IS DOING!

Until I can find a way to differently articulate this to, herein is why we spin in circles. I can't even come close to agreeing with you on what you've said here.

You may as well change the word "obtain" to "attain."

Sometimes you speak in such broken English (KJV vernacular at that) that it's hard to keep up with you. You're much smarter than I, so that makes it all the more difficult.

We are not saved by doing, we are saved by believing. By believing, we follow his commandments. Even then, we are not guaranteed to never struggle with the influence of sin, or to perfectly comply with ALL of his commandments.

The Story of God for you is a contractual litigation over a love story of God and his creation. You don't realize how dramatic it is. You did nothing to deserve grace. It was both freely given and freely received. All he's asked for, and all he's asked for since Adam, was your trust, faith, belief. Those govern all other matters.

Further, you minimize faith into a box of mental ascent. Consequently, confession means nothing to you, except reciting of words ("say what you want, doing is obtaining").

I also NEVER said obedience was not intrinsic (you use your own vernacular "obedience unto salvation" at your own whims), in fact I explicitly made this clear. However, you believe this is your grand evidence, your AH HA moment that faith then is not faith until it's fully lived out. I couldn't disagree more adamantly. Jesus has accepted our faith. He's also offered us the promise of salvation now, not a pending, in-between until the Judgement Day, until our last breath to wait and see if we've screwed up along the way. We have in the present, a form of what we shall inherit in the future.

It bothers you to not have a way to earn the free gift. I believe it bothers God all the more for us to diminish his gift with some sort of merit on our own part, rather than accepting it and living in it.

In the end, this conversation does more than cover "when is a person saved?" I mean, both you and I lead new believers in confession (hopefully you do), repentance and to water baptism. We both tell the believers they can receive the Spirit baptism (though you and I have starkly contrasted viewpoints on this). But the "when" is almost a "Gospel issue" to me. It's the whole story. It affects missiology, church culture and the entire way we view our relationship with God. It's pretty darn critical.

God is faithful to his covenant, even where we didn't live up to the terms.

[Jeffrey]

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. ESV

Ah yes, TL. Let's talk about John's Gospel.

What is the theme of John's Gospel? Believing. 3:16-18 perhaps being the thesis.

As I referenced 3:36, I'm not sure where you get "obey" from, though I was prepared to interact with you on that.

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. KJV

34-36"The One that God sent speaks God's words. And don't think he rations out the Spirit in bits and pieces. The Father loves the Son extravagantly. He turned everything over to him so he could give it away—a lavish distribution of gifts. That is why whoever accepts and trusts the Son gets in on everything, life complete and forever! And that is also why the person who avoids and distrusts the Son is in the dark and doesn't see life. All he experiences of God is darkness, and an angry darkness at that." The Message

36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." NIV

34 For he is sent by God. He speaks God’s words, for God gives him the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves his Son and has put everything into his hands. 36 And anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn’t obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God’s angry judgment.” NLT -- appears some varying translations of this verse... I think "obey" misses the parallel of the verse, "if you believe this, if you don't believe this." That's the structure. But either way, I can accept "obedience to the Son." HELLO! I'm not against obedience! I'm just don't see salvation because of yours or my obedience.

The ENTIRE theme of John is BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE. Every story. Every parable. Every miracle. All the issues center on belief. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

[Jeffrey]

HAHAHAHAHA now that is a new one! HAHAHAHAHA sheeesh I'm done it's pointless.

Don't rush to judgement what I'm saying. Salvation is only fulfilled by Jesus because God has realized there are obligations to his Law. I get that. But your view of our relationship back to God is through a legal lens. That ends, when you realize the whole court room got interrupted. Someone innocent decided to take the blame for our crime, he pardoned us and let us go. That's the legal part of it. The metanarrative here is this: God loves us, saw that we deserved death and instead offered us life by faith. He paid the debt knowing we can't, in the process of time before us, never could. We continually screwed up. Fell short. Get it? So he paid that debt. All he's asked for, is what he's asked for all along, TRUST IN ME!

So your rushing to judgement is a little premature.

If you want to talk legalities here, this ........ about obeying commands means squat. You deserve to be beheaded and annihilated. How's that for justice.

[Jeffrey]

TL, also, let's talk Justification. I believe your view of justification gets clouded by esoteric language you enjoy "judging acts as just, etc" -- but I challenge you to articulate justification without being so near-sighted. What does it mean to be justified? What role does it play in conversion?

[pelathais]

I preached last Sunday on the cross. I love the preaching of the cross. ...

THE CROSS ALONE SAVES AND CONTINUES TO SAVE!

...
Quibble all you want Bro. I don't see you "coming down from the cross" any time soon. :thumbsup

[Michael The Disciple]

Someone may be interested in this teaching on the blood of Christ and holiness from the director of the International House Of Prayer Ministry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrO1-SoNepI&feature=related

[Timmy]

lol

But, you know what I meant. As far as anything significant towards attaining righteousness is concerned, we cannot improve ourselves.

It was in the context of notofworks' words:



Why did you not say something when he said it? :p

OK.

Hey, notofworks! Speak for yourself! Seriously! :lol

But actually, yes I knew what you meant, and, in terms of the theology you both accept (while arguing -- endlessly! :lol -- over the details), you are both right. You can't, on your own, be good enough for God to save you from His wrath. God insists on perfection. Any slip-up, no matter how tiny it might seem to us (in our limited minds), is punishable by death.

But, of course, that is exactly what bothers me about your theology. I summarized it in my list of things you believe (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=807207#post807207). Only the logic of faith allows you to believe both 1) God will punish people for not doing the impossible and 2) God is just. (Providing a way to escape that punishment doesn't help much, considering the small percentage of us that will hear it, and understand it, and believe it, and obey it, and keep it till the end of our lives.)

[notofworks]

OK.

Hey, notofworks! Speak for yourself! Seriously! :lol

But actually, yes I knew what you meant, and, in terms of the theology you both accept (while arguing -- endlessly! :lol -- over the details), you are both right. You can't, on your own, be good enough for God to save you from His wrath. God insists on perfection. Any slip-up, no matter how tiny it might seem to us (in our limited minds), is punishable by death.

But, of course, that is exactly what bothers me about your theology. I summarized it in my list of things you believe (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=807207#post807207). Only the logic of faith allows you to believe both 1) God will punish people for not doing the impossible and 2) God is just. (Providing a way to escape that punishment doesn't help much, considering the small percentage of us that will hear it, and understand it, and believe it, and obey it, and keep it till the end of our lives.)


I'm going to answer Bloomer's last heretical post to me, but I need to wait until I have a spare 4 hours or so. His flippin' posts are so flippin' long, I have to read them in sections and then answer when I've got the day off. I think he might be using the filibuster method.

Right now my life is centered around 12:30pm (my time). That, for you ungodly non-golf, non-Tiger fans, is when The Masters coverage comes on.

[Sam]

I "borrowed" this from someone's Face Book page:


"God neither asks nor accepts any other sacrifice than that which Christ offered once for all upon the cross. Go ye next to the foolish among your own countrymen...who think by their gifts and their gold, by their prayers and their vows, by their church-goings and their chapel-goings...by their baptisms and their confirmations, to make themselves fit for God; and say to them, 'Stop, "it is finished"; God needs not this of you. He has received enough; why will ye pin your rags to the fine linen of Christ's righteousness?... Why will you add your counterfeit farthing to the costly ransom which Christ has paid in to the treasure-house of God? Cease from your pains, your doings, your performances, for "it is finished"; Christ has done it all.'" --C. H. Spurgeon

[notofworks]

I "borrowed" this from someone's Face Book page:


"God neither asks nor accepts any other sacrifice than that which Christ offered once for all upon the cross. Go ye next to the foolish among your own countrymen...who think by their gifts and their gold, by their prayers and their vows, by their church-goings and their chapel-goings...by their baptisms and their confirmations, to make themselves fit for God; and say to them, 'Stop, "it is finished"; God needs not this of you. He has received enough; why will ye pin your rags to the fine linen of Christ's righteousness?... Why will you add your counterfeit farthing to the costly ransom which Christ has paid in to the treasure-house of God? Cease from your pains, your doings, your performances, for "it is finished"; Christ has done it all.'" --C. H. Spurgeon


Poor Charles Spurgeon. He was an idiot, I guess.





(sarcasm)

[Sam]

Poor Charles Spurgeon. He was an idiot, I guess.


(sarcasm)

not only an idiot, but a Baptist, a smoker, and a person who was never really saved or born again. He's gotta be in Hell right now.

[notofworks]

not only an idiot, but a Baptist, a smoker, and a person who was never really saved or born again. He's gotta be in Hell right now.


I've always heard the story that Moody would chide Spurgeon for his pipe-smoking and Spurgeon would answer by correcting Moody for his over-eating.

But you're right....poor suckers, they're both lost!:lol

[mfblume]

Quibble all you want Bro. I don't see you "coming down from the cross" any time soon. :thumbsup

Thew cross is the highest issue in the Word, and since I have come UP TO IT, no way am I GOING DOWN FROM IT! Awesome God! :thumbsup

[mfblume]

I'm going to answer Bloomer's last heretical post to me, but I need to wait until I have a spare 4 hours or so.

Heretical? What is heretical, or something like it (lol), is you claiming I believe we can earn salvation and we can improve on ourselves.

Like I said, righteousness is a gift and is REQUIRED! So what is wrong about the Holy Ghost being a gift and required?

You now are hereby granted three raspberries. :p :p :p

[notofworks]

Heretical? What is heretical, or something like it (lol), is you claiming I believe we can earn salvation and we can improve on ourselves.

Like I said, righteousness is a gift and is REQUIRED! So what is wrong about the Holy Ghost being a gift and required?

You now are hereby granted three raspberries. :p :p :p


You said it Mike, come on! Own it! :) I connected the dots of:

1) Tongues are required for salvation;
2) You couldn't speak in tongues for quite a while;
3) You "let go of sin";
4) And because you did, you spoke in tongues.

Sounds like to me you improved yourself and got saved because of it. Where am I wrong? Which one of those four points isn't true?

By my calculations, it's already Sunday, your time, and like the bible says, "If it can't be done by midnight, it can't be done!":lol You need to go to bed instead of fighting with me! :heeheehee

[revrandy]

AFF- Catholicism 101.....wow...

[pelathais]

AFF- Catholicism 101.....wow...
Really... all of this baptismal regenerationism is getting to you too?

[revrandy]

I'm just glad I wasn't left on the cross or in the tomb.....I'm glad I have experienced His Resurrection and can walk in the newness of life.....:)

[pelathais]

I'm just glad I wasn't left on the cross or in the tomb.....I'm glad I have experienced His Resurrection and can walk in the newness of life.....:)
Amen! Bro.

But you don't deny the efficacious work of the cross, do you? You do preach the cross of Jesus Christ? (1 Corinthians 1:17-18), Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).

You are in compliance with the UPC's Articles of Faith? That the act of sincere repentance and faith in Jesus Christ accomplishes "the remission of sins" and NOT water baptism?

[notofworks]

I'm just glad I wasn't left on the cross or in the tomb.....I'm glad I have experienced His Resurrection and can walk in the newness of life.....:)

Me too! Looks like we're theologically identical!

[mfblume]

You said it Mike, come on! Own it! :) I connected the dots of:

1) Tongues are required for salvation;
2) You couldn't speak in tongues for quite a while;
3) You "let go of sin";
4) And because you did, you spoke in tongues.

Sounds like to me you improved yourself and got saved because of it. Where am I wrong? Which one of those four points isn't true?

By my calculations, it's already Sunday, your time, and like the bible says, "If it can't be done by midnight, it can't be done!":lol You need to go to bed instead of fighting with me! :heeheehee

I honestly do not believe you realize what salvation by works is about. You consider the term "action" and immediately think of salvation by works, when that is only speaking about actions that merit righteousness without any reliance solely upon the work of the cross.

If you believe baptism and Spirit infilling being necessary are salvation by works, regardless of the all-important factor about whether or not they merit righteousness without reliance on the cross, then you contradict yourself in demand repentance and faith.

You are not reading what we are saying. Repentance is no less an act than baptism.

But I have said it enough that someone wanting to know what I believe would have gotten it by now.

[mfblume]

Really... all of this baptismal regenerationism is getting to you too?

How can honesty be wiped away so easily by you guys! lol. You do not understand what Paul referred to by salvation by works, and you do not understand what baptismal regeneration actually is, which is NOT what ANYONE HERE is espousing.

Read it ---- baptismal regeneration is done in order to CREATE FAITH, not because of faith. Baptismal regeneration is the reason catholics baptize infants. Do I agree with baptizing infants? No. Why? Because that is baptismal regeneration. One needs NO FAITH when baptized in baptismal regeneration. And the all important fact is that WE DO INDEED NEED FAITH when baptized since the ACTION DOES NOT SAVE.

Paul taught detailingly about baptism putting us into the death of Christ in Romans 6. Paul said that only so many of us who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. In other words, without baptism into Christ. His death is not counted as your deaths, and you are not saved.

Rom 6:3-6 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: (6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.


You can jump and splash in the puddles of the milk of the word and never get into this meat, but if you are going to really deal with the issue, you have to study Romans 6. And Romans 6 clearly shows that baptism into His death is absolutely necessary. Peter told us in his epistle that baptism saves, and rather than accuse people of prooftexting, explain how in the world Peter meant that if it did not mean it is part of salvation.

But this will be swept beneath the carpet, too.

[mfblume]

The efforts of anyone, including me in my baptism, are not actions that directly make me righteous. Saying someone preached to me so that I could be saved, and that without such a person I would not be saved, is not salvation by works that render us righteous in and of themselves. Everyone here is missing the point that salvation by works means works in and of themselves renders us righteous.

This was the all-erring problem of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Acquire a knowledge of what is good and what is evil and utilize that knowledge to make yourself righteous.

Folks, do a study on righteousness and how it is acquired, and realize that salvation by works is directly contradictory to the truth of how we become righteous. Action is fine so long as it does not propose to make us righteous in and of itself. Until people learn that, they will never get the truth of the picture. It seems people against baptism as part of salvation simply refuse to deal with that all-important and all-determining issue, and they miss it everytime we speak of it.
Changing your position as you've done is great!

I missed this remark from you, Pelathais. I never changed position. I always believed this!

Honestly, I truly think you folks who call yourself one-steppers (contradicted by the fact you believe faith and repentance - two steps - are necessary for salvation, no matter how you slice it) do not have an inkling about what Paul meant about salvation by works as I explained it correctly above.

Study righteousness and its place in the Kingdom and study Paul's explanation of it, and you may get it. But after all our explanation, I doubt it. It seems you do not want to get it.

:p

[pelathais]

How can honesty be wiped away so easily by you guys! lol.

Thems fighting words, and you haven't proved yourself to possess the mettle to challenge my honesty. You really want to call me out? Son?

You do not understand what Paul referred to by salvation by works, and you do not understand what baptismal regeneration actually is, which is NOT what ANYONE HERE is espousing.

Read it ---- baptismal regeneration is done in order to CREATE FAITH, not because of faith.

But this will be swept beneath the carpet, too.
You know Mike, if you actually took time to pay attention to what is going on around you and also spent a bit more time in the Word than pompously pontificating you might begin to make a little sense.

You started out on this thread essentially denying that the cross saves us. Then, after a couple of days you suddenly pop up with 2 or 3 posts with a really nice explanation of justification through faith.

AND NOW... you've confused "baptismal regernationists" with paedobaptism. lol.

Do a little more book work and come back when you think you're tough enough. I'll school ya. Honestly.

[mfblume]

I'm just glad I wasn't left on the cross or in the tomb.....I'm glad I have experienced His Resurrection and can walk in the newness of life.....:)

That is only true for those baptized into Jesus Christ, according to Romans 6:3.

[pelathais]

I missed this remark from you, Pelathais. I never changed position. I always believed this!

Honestly, I truly think you folks who call yourself one-steppers (contradicted by the fact you believe faith and repentance - two steps - are necessary for salvation, no matter how you slice it) do not have an inkling about what Paul meant about salvation by works as I explained it correctly above.

Study righteousness and its place in the Kingdom and study Paul's explanation of it, and you may get it. But after all our explanation, I doubt it. It seems you do not want to get it.

:p
As we begin you school work here, Mike; let us first instruct you as to what a verb is. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verb

Next, we must point out that "works" are verbs, but NOT ALL VERBS are works.

D O

Y O U

U N D E R S T A N D ?

[mfblume]

Thems fighting words, and you haven't proved yourself to possess the mettle to challenge my honesty. You really want to call me out? Son?
I have displayed exactly where you were not honest. I delineate what baptismal regeneration is, and you continue to deny that explanation and false accuse me of the belief. You're called out, son.

You know Mike, if you actually took time to pay attention to what is going on around you and also spent a bit more time in the Word than pompously pontificating you might begin to make a little sense.

Nothing pompous about calling you out on the fact that you obfuscate the entire concept of baptism as per my explanation and claim I believe a doctrine I detailingly related is not what I believe and why it is not my belief.

You started out on this thread essentially denying that the cross saves us.
See? there you go again. Same thing! I explained over and over that the work of the cross saves, and that anything we have to do is what is done to apply the work of the cross to our lives, which things, in and of themselves, save NO ONE. But you dishonestly sweep that explanation beneath the carpet and continue the false accusation. Sorry, bro. That is the way it is.

Then, after a couple of days you suddenly pop up with 2 or 3 posts with a really nice explanation of justification through faith.

Which is the belief that caused me to say everything I did about baptism and Spirit infilling. And then you claim I =changed beliefs!

AND... you've confused "baptismal regernationists" with paedobaptism. lol.

No, they are involved with each other and baptismal regeneration is done without the need of faith. Seriously, do a study on the details of baptismal regeneration. I did.

It's like the only way you guys can put confidence in your words and make claims about our beliefs is to sweep all we say beneath the carpet and continue to repeat falsehoods about our beliefs that we cleared up as not what we believe at all. Typical. But, brethren, not honest! :(

[pelathais]

As we begin you school work here, Mike; let us first instruct you as to what a verb is. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verb

Next, we must point out that "works" are verbs, but NOT ALL VERBS are works.

D O

Y O U

U N D E R S T A N D ?
... so far?

[pelathais]

I have displayed exactly where you were not honest. I delineate what baptismal regeneration is, and you continue to deny that explanation and false accuse me of the belief. You're called out, son.
Okay, Pumpkinhead...

Show me some examples of "baptismal regenerationists" that fit your definition.

Nothing pompous about calling you out on the fact that you obfuscate the entire concept of baptism as per my explanation and claim I believe a doctrine I detailingly related is not what I believe and why it is not my belief.
You have impinged my morals. You support that charge with a sloppy hillbilly "definition" of baptismal regeneration."

Just what do you suppose the "regeneration" part is supposed to mean?

* - A New Birth! Yes!!! With the misapplication of John 3:5 we have baptismal regeneration - REGENERATION = "BORN AGAIN!"

You're just too think and arrogant to understand that.

See? there you go again. Same thing! I explained over and over that the work of the cross saves, and that anything we have to do is what is done to apply the work of the cross to our lives, which things, in and of themselves, save NO ONE. But you dishonestly sweep that explanation beneath the carpet and continue the false accusation. Sorry, bro. That is the way it is.
No. Your opening posts on this thread were this same type of cocky bologna. In time you came around, and I complimented you on it. Now, you're just back to the hillbilly school of arrogance.


Which is the belief that caused me to say everything I did about baptism and Spirit infilling. And then you claim I =changed beliefs!

No, they are involved with each other and baptismal regeneration is done without the need of faith. Seriously, do a study on the details of baptismal regeneration. I did.

It's like the only way you guys can put confidence in your words and make claims about our beliefs is to sweep all we say beneath the carpet and continue to repeat falsehoods about our beliefs that we cleared up as not what we believe at all. Typical. But, brethren, not honest! :(
You're the one who is false here, Mike. Baptismal regenerationalism goes hand-in-hand with the "Water & Spirit" doctrine a.k.a. "Three Stepper."

Read John 3:5 out loud to yourself right now. How did you say it?

[mfblume]

As we begin you school work here, Mike; let us first instruct you as to what a verb is. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verb

Next, we must point out that "works" are verbs, but NOT ALL VERBS are works.

D O

Y O U

U N D E R S T A N D ?

Brother, do not make it out like I am suddenly being unfair here. You are the one, along with notofworks, who falsely accused me of baptismal regeneration and salvation by works, and ignored my explanation.

Pulling you to some honesty as much as is possible, and indicating you are failing at being patronizing, let me repeat it... You do not understand the sort of works that Paul explained were part of the erring "salvation by works".

You take ANY ACTION and consider it salvation by works by sheer virtue of it being a physical action. You do not stop to consider what place such a work has in relationship faith. Explanations about that mean nothing to you. For some reason, in your assessment a physical action is more an action than a mental action of repentance. Such a conclusion can only come from an infatuation with fleshly issues, where for some reason fleshly physical action is considered different from mental action. You do not stop to ask yourself why you think that way. And I said it dozens of times, but repentance is as much an action of faith as is baptism. But since baptism is done physically, you immediately think of salvation by works. :lol.

Read, bro:

Joh 6:28-29 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


Did you see that? FAITH IS A WORK WE DO! Jesus said it, Himself. Read it again, please.

If baptism had been called a "work" like that in the bible, then you might have stopped to realize that such works are not part of the "salvation by works" category that Paul condemned. [b][u]But since your version of works is a flip-flop of that reasoning, and since you claim reference to "works" speaks of things that cannot possibly save us, you need to read this passage and notice that Jesus called it a work as much as you call baptism a work.

YOUR FAITH IS A WORK! And it is necessary for salvation. Jesus said it, Himself. And I trust you may just presently realize by reading Jesus here that there is a drastic difference between the sort of works that Paul condemned as "salvation by works", and works like faith and baptism. There is no other explanation in light of Christ's words.

[pelathais]

I have displayed exactly where you were not honest. I delineate what baptismal regeneration is, and you continue to deny that explanation and false accuse me of the belief. You're called out, son.
:(
Display it again. Call me "dishonest" again.

You didn't "display" anything the first time. Go back. Google it. Show it to me. Wave it under my nose.

But you HAVE TO ACTUALLY "DISPLAY" SOMETHING!!!

... otherwise, you'll be telling a fib when you say, "I have displayed exactly where you were not honest."

And THAT, is the height of irony.

Look up irony for yourself. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

[mfblume]

Okay, Pumpkinhead...

You support that charge with a sloppy hillbilly "definition" of baptismal regeneration."

You're just too think and arrogant to understand that.

No. Your opening posts on this thread were this same type of cocky bologna.

Now, you're just back to the hillbilly school of arrogance.

Read John 3:5 out loud to yourself right now. How did you say it?

No need to get childishly personal here, bro.

You falsely accuse me of erring doctrine, and then are taken back when I call you on it, and then resort to juvenile name-calling, as though I started the problem. This is what is always done when one has no actual argument.

Are you going to talk seriously and respectfully, or not? Please do not claim I believe baptismal regeneration when I lay forth a definition of it and prove it is not what I believe. I will garner some reference material again for you to realize your error of this false accusation. But please cease the juvenile name calling.

[TheLegalist]

What was Abraham's action in Gen 15? How does Paul interpret that action?

You've yet to address that.


ARE YOU JOKING? I have addressed this so many times it's crazy. THE NARRATOR IS SPEAKING WITH ABRAHAM'S LIFE IN VIEW. and he "believed" the lord. What is the narrator speaking about. He is speaking "believed" with Abraham's life in view not just a moment but the WHOLE. What do you have in the very next fuew verses... Abraham AGAIN doing what God commanded to "bring" to make covenant. Abraham ASKS God replies what to do and HE DOES thus again God is considering Abraham's response to his WORD.

Gen 15:8 But he said, "O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?" (WHAT IS HE ASKING TO OBTAIN?)

Gen 15:7 And he said to him, "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."

WAIT I thought it was a given already? NO! god says what he wants but it is not COVENANT YET! Thus Abraham askes how to "obtain" and what is God's response to "obtain"...

Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."
Gen 15:10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

What is Abraham's respons to God's Word to him which is "context" ... Is this response by Abraham "righteous"? YES! Which is exactly up UNTIL Gen 22 the narrator sees as ("believed" the Lord) as James says is fulfilled.

God comes into covenant because of obedience in Gen 22 and the continuance in Gen 12 and Gen 15:10 he is responding "righteously", "just"
thus God makes COVENANT to obtain the land.

[pelathais]

Brother, do not make it out like I am suddenly being unfair here. You are the one, along with notofworks, who falsely accused me of baptismal regeneration and salvation by works, and ignored my explanation.

Pulling you to some honesty as much as is possible, and indicating you are failing at being patronizing, let me repeat it... You do not understand the sort of works that Paul explained were part of the erring "salvation by works".

You take ANY ACTION and consider it salvation by works by sheer virtue of it being a physical action. You do not stop to consider what place such a work has in relationship faith. Explanations about that mean nothing to you. For some reason, in your assessment a physical action is more an action than a mental action of repentance. Such a conclusion can only come from an infatuation with fleshly issues, where for some reason fleshly physical action is considered different from mental action. You do not stop to ask yourself why you think that way. And I said it dozens of times, but repentance is as much an action of faith as is baptism. But since baptism is done physically, you immediately think of salvation by works. :lol.

Read, bro:
Joh 6:28-29 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Did you see that? FAITH IS A WORK WE DO! Jesus said it, Himself. Read it again, please.

If baptism had been called a "work" like that in the bible, then you might have stopped to realize that such works are not part of the "salvation by works" category that Paul condemned. [b][u]But since your version of works is a flip-flop of that reasoning, and since you claim reference to "works" speaks of things that cannot possibly save us, you need to read this passage and notice that Jesus called it a work as much as you call baptism a work.

YOUR FAITH IS A WORK! And it is necessary for salvation. Jesus said it, Himself. And I trust you may just presently realize by reading Jesus here that there is a drastic difference between the sort of works that Paul condemned as "salvation by works", and works like faith and baptism. There is no other explanation in light of Christ's words.
I sat the other night talking to Prax about just this thing (on the Matthew 28:19 thread). We explored different ways in which "works" is used in the NT and found examples of where it is strictly associated with "The Works of the Law" and other examples of extrapolations, you name it.

You're the one who is trying to be silly by claiming the act of "believing" is a "work." That's ridiculous, and you keep throwing it out as if you've stumbled upon something profound.

Why don't you take a look at the Venn Diagram I threw together as an aid for my discussion with Prax?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/4510608744_ca26bd7a9a.jpg

The simple fact of the matter is, the "Three Stepper" plan is "baptismal regenerationism" (Water & Spirit Doctrine). Whether you actually subscribe to this belief I can not really tell. You've been all over the place in this thread. Go back and reread your posts.

[pelathais]

No need to get childishly personal here, bro.
Just following your lead. I thought it was the theme for today or something.

You falsely accuse me of erring doctrine, and then are taken back when I call you on it, and then resort to juvenile name-calling, as though I started the problem. This is what is always done when one has no actual argument.
Hmmm... I wonder if you have found that post yet? The one where I "falsely accuse [-you-] of erring doctrine...?"

Are you going to talk seriously and respectfully, or not? Please do not claim I believe baptismal regeneration when I lay forth a definition of it and prove it is not what I believe. I will garner some reference material again for you to realize your error of this false accusation. But please cease the juvenile name calling.
You're a real piece of work this morning Mike. You come busting in here calling me a liar. Next you play the pity card and claim that I had been persecuting you as if you were "erring."

Grow up dude. Reread the thread. You look quite silly. Oh, and find that post for me too, will ya?

[mfblume]

WIKIPEDIA:

Baptismal regeneration, the literal meaning of which is "being generated again" (regeneration) "through baptism" (baptismal), is the doctrine within some Christian denominations that holds that salvation is dependent upon, or more precisely, mediated through, the act of baptism; in other words, baptismal regenerationists believe that it is ordinarily necessary for one to be baptized in order to be saved. Not as a denial that faith alone saves, but as a confession of a divinely-ordained means by which the Gospel comes and creates faith. Critics of the concept frequently allege that the concept of baptismal regeneration tends to emphasize form (including the role of water) instead of meaning; supporters of the concept may identify meaning with form and cite biblical passages such as Luke 6:46.[1]

DAVE HUNT'S STUDY ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved-- indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

...

Trent [COUNCIL OF TRENT] anathematizes all who deny that "the merit of Jesus Christ is applied ... to infants by the sacrament of baptism" or who deny that by baptism "the guilt of original sin is remitted,,." (5) Today's Code of Canon Law (Canon 849) declares that those baptized are thereby "freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God and .,. incorporated in the Church. "

...

For centuries before the Reformation, baptismal regeneration was rejected by Bible-believing Christians, whom the Roman Catholic Church therefore persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by the millions. Non-Catholics taught from Scripture that baptism was only for those who had believed the gospel: "teach all nations baptizing them [who have believed]" (Mt 28:19); "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2: 41); "[W]hat doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If thou believest [in Christ] with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:35-37). Infants can't believe in Christ.

"Is baptism regenerational" - by Mark Bonocore:

The vast majority of Christians (i.e. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) believe that Baptism is regenerational -- that is to say, that the Sacrament itself transforms the person by "water and the Word," (cf. Eph 5:26) thus adopting that person into the Body of Christ and making that person a participant in the very same Sonship which Christ Himself enjoys with the Father (Romans 8:15-17, Galatians 4:6-7).

Those who claim that the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation are actually proposing baptismal regeneration do err. They do not see the all-important issue that such a doctrine believes that baptism in and of itself does a work without the need for faith. When explanations are given about how baptism cannot be done without faith and, therefore, cannot really do anything for anyone, they are ignored such as we have seen on this thread.

It becomes a :lalala

Pel, when you can cool down and stop slurring me, and become a bit more objective, let's talk some more.

[mfblume]

Ignoring the juvenile slurs (you cannot stop, can you?), Pelathais, let me show you where you accused me of baptismal regeneration, which is what I meant by accusing me of erring doctrine:

Really... all of this baptismal regenerationism is getting to you too?

You came on here accusing me of something I distinctly proved I did not believe, and then when I respond and call you on it, showing you were faslely accusing me, you act as though I started this mess by saying you falsely accused me. Extrapolate a bit further, Pel.

[pelathais]

...

Read, bro:Joh 6:28-29 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Did you see that? FAITH IS A WORK WE DO! Jesus said it, Himself. Read it again, please.

If baptism had been called a "work" like that in the bible, then you might have stopped to realize that such works are not part of the "salvation by works" category that Paul condemned. [b]But since your version of works is a flip-flop of that reasoning, and since you claim reference to "works" speaks of things that cannot possibly save us, you need to read this passage and notice that Jesus called it a work as much as you call baptism a work.

YOUR FAITH IS A WORK! And it is necessary for salvation. Jesus said it, Himself. And I trust you may just presently realize by reading Jesus here that there is a drastic difference between the sort of works that Paul condemned as "salvation by works", and works like faith and baptism. There is no other explanation in light of Christ's words.
Theology can really be a difficult subject if we ignore the terminology that is used within the different systems. By simply using the same word, but with a different meaning we can end up having all kinds of confusion and we also may inadvertently end up making the Bible appear to contradict itself over and over again.

How can we avoid this snare?

Say, for example that we wanted to be a part of a church and wanted to know how a "Bible" church behaved. Well, the Greek word for "church" is "ekklesia." Turning in our Bibles we find that an "ekklesia" behaves like this:

"Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the [U]assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together." Acts 19:32

That's how a NT Church is supposed to act? I guess so. It says so in the Greek.

Words have general meanings, and they can have particular meanings when used in special cases.

Hoeing a row of beans is "work" - but nobody ever claimed it was the same kind of "work" as being circumcised under the Law of Moses. Mixing the two together, in fact, will make a person look rather silly.

[TheLegalist]

Ah yes, TL. Let's talk about John's Gospel.

What is the theme of John's Gospel? Believing. 3:16-18 perhaps being the thesis.

As I referenced 3:36, I'm not sure where you get "obey" from, though I was prepared to interact with you on that.

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. ESV

The reason why it is obey is because the KJV is HORRIBLE with the dealing with the word "pistis" and present participle active and context which has been shown by modern scholars and why the ESV shows OBEY. You really need to do some research on the failures in this areas of which James White even shows among many that the aspect of John and his use of and context of "pistis" is a aspect of "faithful or "obey." Also this would be consistent wiht John 15 concerning obedience and the whole of Jesus teaching.

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. KJV


34-36"The One that God sent speaks God's words. And don't think he rations out the Spirit in bits and pieces. The Father loves the Son extravagantly. He turned everything over to him so he could give it away—a lavish distribution of gifts. That is why whoever accepts and trusts the Son gets in on everything, life complete and forever! And that is also why the person who avoids and distrusts the Son is in the dark and doesn't see life. All he experiences of God is darkness, and an angry darkness at that." The Message

Point of note..... want to discuss scripture with me, don't ever use the lame paraphrase/commentary pieces of trash like the Message. Just saying...

36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." NIV

NIV is not a serious translation...

appears some varying translations of this verse... I think "obey" misses the parallel of the verse, "if you believe this, if you don't believe this." That's the structure. But either way, I can accept "obedience to the Son." HELLO! I'm not against obedience! I'm just don't see salvation because of yours or my obedience.

Then you simply miss the text and clear teaching of Jesus which is consistent for your own fallacy. JEsus view of believing is about response of doing. Giving up to obtain. Following him at the negation of others. Thus he does not see your belief until he judges the response. Just like Abraham. God's offering may come freely but he demands something. To say he doesn't negates the words of Christ. Want eternal life.... obey the commandments and follow me..... THAT IS THE GOSPEL!

The ENTIRE theme of John is BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE. Every story. Every parable. Every miracle. All the issues center on belief. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

Exactly believe which must be understood with what is meant not by POOR translation which you used and modern scholarship is revealing and showing the effects of LUTHER and his poor latin translating. The context of believe is unto following NOT simply mental assent. Which is the point of all of what Jesus says.

The present participle active in NT Greek reflects an “habitual behavior.” It signifies a “process [that is] continuous.” (This also is still true in modern Greek grammar. For example Adams, Essential Modern Greek Grammar (1987) on page 81....
This distinction has been recently confessed by a leading Calvinist who is yet a staunch faith-alone advocate. Dr. James White writes about the verb tense in John 6:35-45 as well as John 3:16 in "Drawn by the Father": A Summary of
John 6:35-45 pages 10-11:

"Throughout this passage an important truth is presented that again might be missed by many English translations. When Jesus describes the one who comes to him and who believes in him [3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 37, 40, 47, etc.], he uses the present tense to describe this coming, believing, or, in other passages, hearing or seeing. The present tense refers to a continuous, on-going action. The Greek contrasts this kind of action against the aorist tense, which is a point action, a single action in time that is not on-going.... The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not truly and continuously believe. The faith that saves is a living faith, a faith that always looks to Christ as Lord and Savior."

THus the "continous" view has the whole scope of the context in view not simply as James says "the devils also believe and tremble" but a view of doing unto context of believ"ing" or faithfulness. THus when Jesus talks about giving up one must do that before one obtains covenant JUST LIKE ABRAHAM LEAVING HOME TO OBTAIN! You cannot say I believe and not cast off they are seen withing the scope of believe. The message is about taking upon a yoke which is by contract to obtain.

[pelathais]

Ignoring the juvenile slurs (you cannot stop, can you?), Pelathais, let me show you where you accused me of baptismal regeneration, which is what I meant by accusing me of erring doctrine:



You came on here accusing me of something I distinctly proved I did not believe, and then when I respond and call you on it, showing you were faslely accusing me, you act as though I started this mess by saying you falsely accused me. Extrapolate a bit further, Pel.
I hope Rev Randy is having a real good laugh right now. Lemme see, did I say, "Hey Randy! Look at Mike Blume over there! He wears a hat just like Dagon the fish god!"

Or, did you pop in and pick up on an attempt on my part to get an infrequent poster to open up a bit in a conversation that had nothing to do with you?

What were my last two post TO YOU prior to that? Look carefully for some context here.

[mfblume]

I sat the other night talking to Prax about just this thing (on the Matthew 28:19 thread). We explored different ways in which "works" is used in the NT and found examples of where it is strictly associated with "The Works of the Law" and other examples of extrapolations, you name it.

You're the one who is trying to be silly by claiming the act of "believing" is a "work." That's ridiculous, and you keep throwing it out as if you've stumbled upon something profound.

Jesus said it, not me. I get my doctrines from the bible and such statements that Jesus made.

The simple fact of the matter is, the "Three Stepper" plan is "baptismal regenerationism" (Water & Spirit Doctrine). Whether you actually subscribe to this belief I can not really tell. You've been all over the place in this thread. Go back and reread your posts.

I really think you cannot get the concept of how salvation by works is the teaching that a work in and of itself makes us righteous without any dependence on the work of the cross.

My words only contradict if someone does not get that point. Like you said earlier, you know my position on salvation by works, and yet you cannot point your finger to the problem, which is because you really do not understand the relationship of righteousness in salvation by works, and where righteousness more correctly is understood as something God;s work alone provides.

Anyone who preaches this issue of righteousness correctly will receive the same confusion from people who cannot follow the point properly. Paul's words were always misunderstood for that very reason. He had to repeatedly clarify himself by posing hypothetical erring conclusions and saying "God forbid" in response, as in Romans 6. He knew people were getting this wrong all the time. He knew the pat responses that were simply caused by their lack of understanding the issue.

In fact, one wise teacher said that if people are not usually mistaking your position when you speak of righteousness, you are probably not preaching the truth of it like Paul was.

On the one hand, you got the law-keepers who thought Paul claimed Law was useless trash when he taught that we obtain righteousness apart from the law, and on the other hand we get good brethren like yourself who think we preach baptismal regeneration when we claim baptism is necessary for salvation, and you miss the all-important difference that the action in and of itself makes no one righteous.

I in no way feel superior to you or anyone else here. lol. Please cease with personal attacks, and deal with the issue objectively. I sense the same confusion in your accusation of my pride that I do in your reasoning that baptism is a necessity for salvation is salvation by works. Ironic as it is,. baptism is done to PUT AWAY ANY EFFORTS OF SELF THAT COULD EVER HOPE TO MAKE ITSELF RIGHTEOUS, rather than part of a salvation by works system. If anyone has a revelation on the importance of baptism, it is not because they, themselves, were so superior, but rather God was gracious enough to shed light into their spirits on the issue.

So, once again, please, please, please, stop the personal attacks. Let us reason together.

[pelathais]

Jesus said it, not me. I get my doctrines from the bible and such statements that Jesus made.


I really think you cannot get the concept of how salvation by works is the teaching that a work in and of itself makes us righteous without any dependence on the work of the cross.

My words only contradict if someone does not get that point. Like you said earlier, you know my position on salvation by works, and yet you cannot point your finger to the problem, which is because you really do not understand the relationship of righteousness in salvation by works, and where righteousness more correctly is understood as something God;s work alone provides.

Anyone who preaches this issue of righteousness correctly will receive the same confusion from people who cannot follow the point properly. Paul's words were always misunderstood for that very reason. He had to repeatedly clarify himself by posing hypothetical erring conclusions and saying "God forbid" in response, as in Romans 6. He knew people were getting this wrong all the time. He knew the pat responses that were simply caused by their lack of understanding the issue.

In fact, one wise teacher said that if people are not usually mistaking your position when you speak of righteousness, you are probably not preaching the truth of it like Paul was.

On the one hand, you got the law-keepers who thought Paul claimed Law was useless trash when he taught that we obtain righteousness apart from the law, and on the other hand we get good brethren like yourself who think we preach baptismal regeneration when we claim baptism is necessary for salvation, and you miss the all-important difference that the action in and of itself makes no one righteous.

I in no way feel superior to you or anyone else here. lol. Please cease with personal attacks, and deal with the issue objectively. I sense the same confusion in your accusation of my pride that I do in your reasoning that baptism as a necessity for salvation is salvation by works. Ironic as it is,. baptism is done to PUT AWAY ANY EFFORTS OF SELF THAT COULD EVER HOPE TO MAKE ITSELF RIGHTEOUS, rather than part of a salvation by works system. If anyone has a revelation on the importance of baptism, it is not because they, themselves, were so superior, but rather God was gracious enough to shed light into their spirits on the issue.

So, once again, please, please, please, stop the personal attacks. Let us reason together.
Uh... you ready to clear up your head and stop the personal attacks? You jumped right on line this morning and twisted a one liner conversation that I had with another poster into a personal attack on you.

Are you really that important in the grand scheme of the cosmos? Did you check Drudge this morning? That guy is really tearing you up. How can you take it?

[mfblume]

I hope Rev Randy is having a real good laugh right now. Lemme see, did I say, "Hey Randy! Look at Mike Blume over there! He wears a hat just like Dagon the fish god!"

Or, did you pop in and pick up on an attempt on my part to get an infrequent poster to open up a bit in a conversation that had nothing to do with you?

What were my last two post TO YOU prior to that? Look carefully for some context here.

Please. Do you or do you not propose I believe baptismal regeneration? That was the accusation I claimed you made that was false. You even said so yourself, here:

The simple fact of the matter is, the "Three Stepper" plan is "baptismal regenerationism" (Water & Spirit Doctrine).

You brethren call me a three stepper if I believe the three elements of Acts 2:38 are required for salvation. If I am incorrect, forgive me. And you say three steppers preach baptismal regeneration, despite my proofs that baptismal regeneration is belief that baptism in and of itself makes us righteous and creates faith rather than is done only DUE TO FAITH.

If you did not refer to what I believe, then I am sorry, but that is how I took it. You made that claim to Rev Randy in the midst of myself posting about baptism's necessity for salvation. What else am I to think? If you did not mean me, then I accept that and am sorry. But that is what stirred the issue of false accusation.

If you did not mean me, then who did you mean?

[pelathais]

I sat the other night talking to Prax about just this thing (on the Matthew 28:19 thread). We explored different ways in which "works" is used in the NT and found examples of where it is strictly associated with "The Works of the Law" and other examples of extrapolations, you name it.

You're the one who is trying to be silly by claiming the act of "believing" is a "work." That's ridiculous, and you keep throwing it out as if you've stumbled upon something profound.

Why don't you take a look at the Venn Diagram I threw together as an aid for my discussion with Prax?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/4510608744_ca26bd7a9a.jpg

The simple fact of the matter is, the "Three Stepper" plan is "baptismal regenerationism" (Water & Spirit Doctrine). Whether you actually subscribe to this belief I can not really tell. You've been all over the place in this thread. Go back and reread your posts.
:blah

[pelathais]

Theology can really be a difficult subject if we ignore the terminology that is used within the different systems. By simply using the same word, but with a different meaning we can end up having all kinds of confusion and we also may inadvertently end up making the Bible appear to contradict itself over and over again.

How can we avoid this snare?

Say, for example that we wanted to be a part of a church and wanted to know how a "Bible" church behaved. Well, the Greek word for "church" is "ekklesia." Turning in our Bibles we find that an "ekklesia" behaves like this:

"Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together." Acts 19:32

That's how a NT Church is supposed to act? I guess so. It says so in the Greek.

Words have general meanings, and they can have particular meanings when used in special cases.

Hoeing a row of beans is "work" - but nobody ever claimed it was the same kind of "work" as being circumcised under the Law of Moses. Mixing the two together, in fact, will make a person look rather silly.
:blah:blah

[mfblume]

Hoeing a row of beans is "work" - but nobody ever claimed it was the same kind of "work" as being circumcised under the Law of Moses. Mixing the two together, in fact, will make a person look rather silly.

Which is exactly why I said that salvation by works is not saying baptism is not necessary for salvation. Perhaps it is notofworks who needs to hear this more than anyone else here. He has been insisting I preach salvation by works and that we earn salvation and improve ourselves.

But that is very point i was making in saying Jesus claimed faith was a work. It is ridiculous to say something that is a work necessarily falls under the category of salvation by works.

But what exactly are you referring to in my posts when you repeat the idea of words and meanings. You are not quoting anything specifically that I said, but are just pointing these statements of yours at me. The reason I say this is because your very reasoning quoted above is the basis for my claim that baptism is not salvation by works.

[Sam]

That is only true for those baptized into Jesus Christ, according to Romans 6:3.

So, baptism into Jesus Christ in Romans 6 refers only to WATER baptism?

And allowing some one to immerse you in water, or to sprinkle or pour water on you, or to self-immerse puts you into Christ and into His death?

Could it not refer to an action by the Holy Spirit which has put you positionally into Christ and has happened before water baptism takes place?

[mfblume]

So, baptism into Jesus Christ in Romans 6 refers only to WATER baptism?

And allowing some one to immerse you in water, or to sprinkle or pour water on you, or to self-immerse puts you into Christ and into His death?

Could it not refer to an action by the Holy Spirit which has put you positionally into Christ and has happened before water baptism takes place?

It is referring to water baptism, yes. But it is not the immersion in to water that actually puts you into Christ's death. I know some propose this is not about water baptism at all. It is. But not in the way you described it.

Water baptism is an act of obedience that falls in the category of the works that are caused by faith. Faith that works is the saving faith. The works cannot save in and of themselves. But the faith that saves is faith that DEMANDS the following resultant work of baptism. Within that explanation is where Romans 6 is understood., I believe.

Faith that does not work, and never sees the person baptized as an integral result, does not save.

[mfblume]

Sam, I agree with Adam Clarke:

Rom 6:3
Know ye not, etc. - Every man who believes the Christian religion, and receives baptism as the proof that he believes it, and has taken up the profession of it, is bound thereby to a life of righteousness. To be baptized into Christ, is to receive the doctrine of Christ crucified, and to receive baptism as a proof of the genuineness of that faith, and the obligation to live according to its precepts.



Baptism is a planting into death. Spirit Baptism is not about that. No other baptism is. Water baptism alone is about that.

Romans 6 is about water baptism, but the water is not what we are planted into that does anything, but rather Christ's death.

Water Baptism as part of baptismal regeneration teaches that the planting is actually into the water. lol. But it is a planting into Christ's death. And since those who understand water baptism correctly realize that we are not physically lowered into Christ's physical death, but merely water, and yet burial into His death is the point of water baptism, realize that FAITH is required for this to effect anything. This denies baptismal regeneration.

The scholars of older days had it more correct than most today. Most today claim water baptism is not the theme of Romans 6. However, it is.

John Gill wisely noted:

were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death: and therefore must be dead to sin, and consequently ought not to live, nor can they live in sin. This does not suppose, that some of this church were baptized persons, and others not; but that some might be baptized in water who were not baptized into Christ

Modern scholarship makes no sense of Acts 22:16.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.

[pelathais]

Which is exactly why I said that salvation by works is not saying baptism is not necessary for salvation. Perhaps it is notofworks who needs to hear this more than anyone else here. He has been insisting I preach salvation by works and that we earn salvation and improve ourselves.

But that is very point i was making in saying Jesus claimed faith was a work. It is ridiculous to say something that is a work necessarily falls under the category of salvation by works.

But what exactly are you referring to in my posts when you repeat the idea of words and meanings. You are not quoting anything specifically that I said, but are just pointing these statements of yours at me. The reason I say this is because your very reasoning quoted above is the basis for my claim that baptism is not salvation by works.
The use of "works" in John 6:28-29, does not carry the same meaning as ... say for example, Romans 4:1-5.

In fact, in Romans 4:5, "works" (whatever they may be) are contrasted with belief.

In effect, Paul is saying that the "work of God" in John 6:29, is not really a "work" at all. How can he do this without contradicting the words of Jesus? He does it because he is using the word in a different sense and a different context than Jesus did.

(And just for the record, the underlying word in the original is the same as well).

When someone seriously says that "believing" is a "work" needed for salvation in a conversation about the cross, they are committing the same error as a person who says Acts 19:32 is an instruction for the church assembly.

[mfblume]

Just what do you suppose the "regeneration" part is supposed to mean?

* - A New Birth! Yes!!! With the misapplication of John 3:5 we have baptismal regeneration - REGENERATION = "BORN AGAIN!"

From words like this, Pel, it looks like you are accusing me of baptismal regeneration. See what I mean?

You seem to infer here, for it is not totally clear what you are saying, that those who believe Jesus involved water baptism in "born of the water and of the Spirit" propose baptismal regeneration. The point actually is that SOME who actually DO believe baptismal regeneration see no place of faith in all of this. Yes, they use this verse, but they claim FAITH is not involved with baptism in this reference.

But those of us who believe this is indeed speaking of water baptism, and are not baptismal regenerationists, claim that this water baptism is useless without faith. We believe that our obedience to be baptized is the work that makes "faith that works" a present reality. Our faith includes belief that God actually does a circumcision of the heart while we are baptized in water. The action of baptism is not the saving element, though. This is what we have been trying to say over and over again. Baptism is just the inseparable work that comes along with the "faith that works".

[mfblume]

The use of "works" in John 6:28-29, does not carry the same meaning as ... say for example, Romans 4:1-5.

Exactly! That is my point. The works of Romans 4 are works that in and of themselves are deemed to make us righteous. I do not look at baptism as such a work any more than I do faith. but baptism and faith are still works. BUT THEY DO NOT MAKE US RIGHTEOUS IN AND OF THEMSELVES. The "in and of themselves" clause seems to be the missing factor in your assessment here.

In fact, in Romans 4:5, "works" (whatever they may be) are contrasted with belief.

Again, EXACTLY MY POINT! But you seem to miss the fact that belief is a work, but not a work that in and of itself makes us righteous. We need works, brother. But those works are not inducing righteousness aside from the imputation of righteousness by God. THAT IS THE ISSUE. And I still think you are missing THAT point.

In effect, Paul is saying that the "work of God" in John 6:29, is not really a "work" at all. How can he do this without contradicting the words of Jesus? He does it because he is using the word in a different sense and a different context than Jesus did.

I disagree somewhat here, though. Faith is indeed a work. It is a work of our spirits that do exert effort. This is where people get confused since they think exactly the opposite of what you stated in the first two lines of your post.

Faith is a work. But it is not the works that in and of themselves make us righteous any more than baptism is. Works are found in the phrase "salvation by works". But we know those works in "salvation by works" are works that in and of themselves make us righteous.

Put it this way, the whole concept that we cannot do anything to make ourselves righteous. So long as one KNOWS THIS, then our insistence on baptism is not an erring insistence.

I cannot explain it better than that.

The works of Romans 4 are works that in and of themselves make us righteous. Period. Neither baptism nor faith fit that cetegory, although the two are still works.
(And just for the record, the underlying word in the original is the same as well).

When someone seriously says that "believing" is a "work" needed for salvation in a conversation about the cross, they are committing the same error as a person who says Acts 19:32 is an instruction for the church assembly.

Acts 19:32? Did you make a typo there? I cannot respond since I do not see the connection.

Saying that believing is a work for salvation is not at all wrong. The important distinction is that only works done to make ourselves righteous by sheer virtue of those works, and nothing at all from God, are the erring works. Works aside from that are not wrong. That means faith is indeed a work. I have tried getting that across when saying faith and repentance are no more part of "salvation by works" than baptism, although faith, repentance and baptism are still all actual works.

Notofworks does not seem to understand that, God bless him. And I humbly think you are missing it, too.

[Sam]

There are at least two different opinions of what "baptismal regeneration" is that are presented on this forum

1. born of water equals baptism in or with water

2. water baptism imparts or generates faith and therefore is regenerative

[mfblume]

There are at least two different opinions of what "baptismal regeneration" is that are presented on this forum

1. born of water equals baptism in or with water

2. water baptism imparts or generates faith and therefore is regenerative

I agree, though you may infer some things I do not. Those who are mistaken in defining baptismal regeneration think there is only one way to read John 3:5. They think it simply means water baptism is birth of the water and just by dipping in the water one is rendered righteous. But that is not altogether the only way to read that verse and still believe it is speaking of water baptism. I agree that baptismal regeneration is wrong. But I read it like this: Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us. Water baptism MUST HAVE THE FAITH that we are merely obeying the command of the Lord, and that through actual "faith that works" we are working in that sense alone. Not to get faith, but because of faith. And we are emptying hands, so to speak, of SELF and the OLD MAN that hinders us from receiving His righteousness. It is thereby the circumcision of the body of the sins of the flesh. And Col 2:11-12 is water baptism as well.

I have quoted sources to prove what baptismal regeneration is. And they have all stated the instance such as infant baptism is what makes it baptismal regeneration. Adults can be baptized as well as infants, of course, in baptismal regeneration. But because infant baptism demands acceptance of the thought that faith is not necessary for baptism to be effectual, an adult baptism in that concept requires no faith in the adult any more than is required of an infant.

So, when baptismal regenerationists read John 3:5, they filter it through their perceptual grid and think it means faith is not necessary. When folks like myself see water baptism in John 3:5, we know Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us.

[notofworks]

Sam, I agree with Adam Clarke:

Rom 6:3
Know ye not, etc. - Every man who believes the Christian religion, and receives baptism as the proof that he believes it, and has taken up the profession of it, is bound thereby to a life of righteousness. To be baptized into Christ, is to receive the doctrine of Christ crucified, and to receive baptism as a proof of the genuineness of that faith, and the obligation to live according to its precepts.



Baptism is a planting into death. Spirit Baptism is not about that. No other baptism is. Water baptism alone is about that.

Romans 6 is about water baptism, but the water is not what we are planted into that does anything, but rather Christ's death.

Water Baptism as part of baptismal regeneration teaches that the planting is actually into the water. lol. But it is a planting into Christ's death. And since those who understand water baptism correctly realize that we are not physically lowered into Christ's physical death, but merely water, and yet burial into His death is the point of water baptism, realize that FAITH is required for this to effect anything. This denies baptismal regeneration.

The scholars of older days had it more correct than most today. Most today claim water baptism is not the theme of Romans 6. However, it is.

John Gill wisely noted:

were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death: and therefore must be dead to sin, and consequently ought not to live, nor can they live in sin. This does not suppose, that some of this church were baptized persons, and others not; but that some might be baptized in water who were not baptized into Christ

Modern scholarship makes no sense of Acts 22:16.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.



Haven't read it all, but I'm surprised you'd agree with Adam Clarke, a trinitarian who trashes the validity of a large parts of the King James Version. I assume you're "eating the meat and spitting out the bones"?

I'll read more.

[TheLegalist]

I agree, though you may infer some things I do not. Those who are mistaken in defining baptismal regeneration think there is only one way to read John 3:5. They think it simply means water baptism is birth of the water and just by dipping in the water one is rendered righteous. But that is not altogether the only way to read that verse and still believe it is speaking of water baptism. I agree that baptismal regeneration wrong. But I read it like this: Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us. Water baptism MUST HAVE THE FAITH that we are merely obeying the command of the Lord, and that through actual "faith that works" we are working in that sense alone. Not to get faith, but because of faith. And we are emptying hands, so to speak, of SELF and the OLD MAN that hinders us from receiving His righteousness. It is thereby the circumcision of the body of hte sins of the flesh. And Col 2:11-12 is water baptism as well.

I have quoted sources to prove what baptismal regeneration is. And they have all stated the instance such as infant baptism is what makes it baptismal regeneration. Adults can be baptized as well as infants, of course, in baptismal regeneration. But because infant baptism demands acceptance of the thought that faith is not necessary for baptism to be effectual, an adult baptism in that concept requires no faith in the adult any more than is required of an infant.

So, when baptismal regenerationists read John 3:5, they filter it through their perceptual grid and think it means faith is not necessary. When folks like myself see water baptism in John 3:5, we know Jesus implied faith is necessary and that the lowering into water does not directly create faith in us.


Mike the point is Abraham entered every covenant because of a "previous and continued" response. Gen 12 and Gen 15:8-10 We do not enter Covenant at mental belief of something that is true. Because God judges a response just doesn't mean covenant is made. Nowhere is there any covenant given in Gen 15:6. God is simply considering the response of "it", just. God can present something or speak of what he wants to come to past. It doesn't mean we have obtained it nor are in covenant. Just as Abraham in Gen 15:8. "how do I possess/obtain it" God offers and is the source to those who obey that ask the question. Just like the person asked Jesus "what must I do to obtain eternal life" God's coming into covenant is always a result of response.

If we say anything else James is a liar that "faith alone" does not bring about God's judgment/consideration of our response to the context of his Word. Faith must be ajudged "right" "complete" "just" God judged cornelius and his household well before Peter came. God considered there hearts right toward him. Peter simply became the mouth piece to allow the "hearing" of which God showed there heart was already acceptable for entering covenant by manifesting his Spirit. Thus he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized saying
""Can anyone withhold water..." They had not entered covenant yet an obtained unification with Christ. THough God had already judged there heart.

[notofworks]

Are you kidding? I can hardly get things out in an hour! lol :lol

••Whew!! What's the average length of your sermons?! I try to max out at 30 min, but it doesn't always work.

I am only going by the terms that folks on this forum have used. But that repentance you believe in is no more a work for salvation than baptism is.

••Oh, yes it is! And, it's recorded in the New Testament over FIFTY times!

Why? Righteousness is a gift, and also a requirement!

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

••Tongues is righteousness?? What does speaking in tongues have to do with righteousness??

One CANNOT improve oneself. That is my point. Improving oneself is making oneself righteous. All we can do is empty ourselves of what is wrong. But we cannot give ourselves anything that is good.

The problem is that, I think, you are trying to find fault in what I am saying rather than actually hearing me out. personally, I think you do not want to agree with me, which makes you find SOMETHING wrong in my words, so you remain confused in my words when you cannot find something.

••Well Mike, you said that you "Let go of sin" and then you received "The Holy Ghost." You said it didn't happen until you did something. I'm not sure what else to call it. Did "Letting go of sin" improve you or not? If you don't want to say you "Improved yourself", at the very least we'd have to say you "Did something" and received "The Holy Ghost."

See? this is what I mean. I never said anything about earning anything. But5 you are putting words in my mouth at every turn. First you say it is improving oneself to be baptized, and now you say we are earning righteousness.

Anyway, you are right about earning gifts! But if they had something in their hands that hindered you from handing them a gift, they cannot hold your gift.

No, you didn't directly say it. No one does and no one will. But you still said that you let go of sin and only then, received the Holy Ghost. Am I wrong about that? That is what you said, right?

Of course, it is, but I do not believe what you claimed I do.

••Well, we're at an impasse there because it sure sounds like you do.

NO I am not saying that. Had you read my words with more intention o n actually getting my point, than pushing your patience to the limit, you would have seen that good bro.

What does repentance do?

••Saves us.

You still have not acknowledged that no one can speak in tongues unless God gives the utterance.

••There's not much about "tongues" that I do acknowledge. I'm not, at all, convinced that the "tongues" we see in modern pentecostalism is what the bible was talking about when it described "tongues." But that's another discussion, I suppose.

I do not have prooftexts. Do you know hat a prooftext is? I said that was MY experience. And I may not even know all the reasons why others do not receive the Spirit. The fact is, God gives the Spirit, and we cannot contrive it.

••God gave me the Spirit when I believed. And, the bible is incredibly clear about that. As for your experience, it's very important that we develop belief systems based on sound theology, not our experiences.

Until you actually look for good in my words, you will not get my words, for it seems clear you are looking for fault and not actually hearing me.

I can only go by what you're saying, Mike. Do I have to really "figure out" what you're saying? I'm just taking your words for what they are. I use the same methodology when I read the bible. I don't try to insert anything into it, I just accept it for what it is and I eliminate my past, my background, my training, my old notes, my classes, my heritage, my traditions, and my opinions, and just take it for what it says. The bible changed a LOT when I started using that approach.

[mfblume]

I am only going by the terms that folks on this forum have used. But that repentance you believe in is no more a work for salvation than baptism is.

••Oh, yes it is! And, it's recorded in the New Testament over FIFTY times!

You are not even reading my words. lol. Your words are actually saying repentance is MORE "salvation by works" than baptism is. If you actually were reading what I am saying, you would not say "YES". I said repentance is not a part of "salvation by works." I said it is no more a part of salvation by works than baptism is.

Anyway, you are clearly not reading my words enough, but anyway the term "Baptized" is mentioned 48 verses and 56 instances, if you want to talk about occurrences as you just did. Go figure.

You are not hearing this single most important part I have said again and again. Please read it this time and get it. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves.

Read it again, please. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves.

Baptism does not fit make us righteous in and of itself any more than repentance does that. And when you say repentance saves, do you mean it is part of "salvation by works? Of course not. The place you put repentance in with salvation is exactly how I put baptism in with salvation. NEITHER ARE SALVATION BY WORKS, because netiher make us righteous in and of themselves.

Did you get it this time?

Why? Righteousness is a gift, and also a requirement!

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

••Tongues is righteousness?? What does speaking in tongues have to do with righteousness??

Lol. brother. I hope this is not A.D.D. hindering you here.

Tongues are not righteousness. lol. My point is that righteousness is a gift and it is a required gift. Tongues is also a gift and is required. Your point was that you said you could not understand how something could be a gift and yet still be required. I proved it makes perfect sense when we realize that righteousness is a gift and still something required. I did not say tongues is righteousness. I said tongues is similar to righteousness because BOTH ARE GIFTS AND BOTH ARE REQUIREMENTS.

[mfblume]

One CANNOT improve oneself. That is my point. Improving oneself is making oneself righteous. All we can do is empty ourselves of what is wrong. But we cannot give ourselves anything that is good.

The problem is that, I think, you are trying to find fault in what I am saying rather than actually hearing me out. personally, I think you do not want to agree with me, which makes you find SOMETHING wrong in my words, so you remain confused in my words when you cannot find something.

••Well Mike, you said that you "Let go of sin" and then you received "The Holy Ghost." You said it didn't happen until you did something.

But I tried saying to more than once now that that is only true in the sense that you have to get rid of some junk in your hands so that God can give you a gift you require. Baptism is ridding ourselves of junk, but the ridding of junk is only done so GOD CAN GIVE US THE GIFT he wants to give us.

Brother , if you cannot understand the difference in that...

To you, salvation by works means we do something and we are saved. Well, for the love of Pete, you claimed we have to repent to be saved! IF that is not doing something to be saved, then what is it?

The problem you fail to see is that salvation by works is more than just doing something to get saved. It is doing something IN ORDER TO MAKE ONESELF RIGHTEOUS WITHOUT GOD GIVING US RIGHTEOUSNESS. If you do not know that, then you do not know the first thing about New Testament salvation at all.

If you disagree with that, then you disagree with the demand we repent. For repentance is all that I am saying when I said I did not get the Holy Ghost until I actually admitted sin was sin and got rid of that sin by repentance. What I was trying to say was that I had not really repented. And do you think one can get the Holy Ghost without repenting? If so, then you must have totally missed what I said, for I said nothing different.

You already said repentance saves. If baptism for salvation is "salvation by works," whether or not one has faith, then you preach salvation by works if you preach repentance saves.

Anyway, you are right about earning gifts! But if they had something in their hands that hindered you from handing them a gift, they cannot hold your gift.

No, you didn't directly say it. No one does and no one will. But you still said that you let go of sin and only then, received the Holy Ghost. Am I wrong about that? That is what you said, right?

LETTING GO OF SIN IS REPENTING, brother! Can you get it this time? lol.

What does repentance do?

••Saves us.

Then you must believe in salvation by works, because repentance is SOMETHING WE DO. That is your own argument against baptism! Your proof of salvation by works is as follows:

You said it didn't happen until you did something.

So if you think my view of baptism is part of "salvation by works" ON THAT BASIS, and that my idea that Spirit baptism could not come until I got rid of sin is "salvation by works", then you preach salvation by works when you say repentance saves.

But the all-important distinction you APPLY in your assessment of the need for repentance, that you FAIL TO APPLY TO BAPTISM as I believe baptism, is that WORKS THAT DO NOT MAKE US RIGHTEOUS IN AND OF THEMSELVES are not categorized as "salvation by works."

[mfblume]

Haven't read it all, but I'm surprised you'd agree with Adam Clarke, a trinitarian who trashes the validity of a large parts of the King James Version. I assume you're "eating the meat and spitting out the bones"?

I'll read more.

Even you say some good things amongst other errors. :)

That is beside the point, though.

The point is Romans 6 is talking about WATER BAPTISM.

Notofworks, until you acknowledge a particular point I am repeating a dozen times, you will not get what we are saying.




Please respond to this point, if none others: Salvation by works IS ONLY PROPOSED when someone claims ANY GIVEN WORK makes us righteous in and of itself. Do you agree?

[TheLegalist]

You are not even reading my words. lol. Your words are actually saying repentance is MORE "salvation by works" than baptism is. If you actually were reading what I am saying, you would not say "YES". I said repentance is not a part of "salvation by works." I said it is no more a part of salvation by works than baptism is.

Anyway, you are clearly not reading my words enough, but anyway the term "Baptized" is mentioned 48 verses and 56 instances, if you want to talk about occurrences as you just did. Go figure.

You are not hearing this single most important part I have said again and again. Please read it this time and get it. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves.

Read it again, please. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves.

Baptism does not fit make us righteous in and of itself any more than repentance does that. And when you say repentance saves, do you mean it is part of "salvation by works? Of course not. The place you put repentance in with salvation is exactly how I put baptism in with salvation. NEITHER ARE SALVATION BY WORKS, because netiher make us righteous in and of themselves.

Did you get it this time?



Lol. brother. I hope this is not A.D.D. hindering you here.

Tongues are not righteousness. lol. My point is that righteousness is a gift and it is a required gift. Tongues is also a gift and is required. Your point was that you said you could not understand how something could be a gift and yet still be required. I proved it makes perfect sense when we realize that righteousness is a gift and still something required. I did not say tongues is righteousness. I said tongues is similar to righteousness because BOTH ARE GIFTS AND BOTH ARE REQUIREMENTS.

my friend... this has been the issue the whole time. They only see through a fogged lense of interpretation. They make you say what they want it to be, to able to deal with what you are saying. cognitive dissonance :thumbsup Just like points I have made multiple times with indepth points..... then they say.... "you have not dealt with XYZ..." only thing I can do is shake my head. In all my years of teaching, witnessing, debating it blows me away at the ingoring that goes on here. Basically let's reform the argument in the image they want so they can deal with it. Which in the end is relabeling everything to make it not what it is like belief, repentance, confession and whatever... ( Thus oh no I do nothing.... he did it for me. salvation is not based on anything I do. ) which is so far from the truth it makes a mockery of what "faith" is and Jesus Words to obtain eternal life.

[mfblume]

my friend... this has been the issue the whole time. They only see through a fogged lense of interpretation. They make you say what they want it to be, to able to deal with what you are saying. cognitive dissonance :thumbsup Just like points I have made multiple times with indepth points..... you have not dealt with XYZ... only thing I can do is shake my head. In all my years of teaching, witnessing, debating it blows me away at the ingoring that goes on here. Basically let's reform the argument in the image they want so they can deal with it. Which in the end is relabeling everything to make it not what it is like belief, repentance, confession and whatever... ( Thus oh no I do nothing.... he did it for me. salvation is not based on anything I do. ) which is so far from the truth it makes a mockery of what "faith" is and Jesus Words to obtain eternal life.

Amen, and yet they say they have to repent to be saved. Whatever... they are not able to see contradiction in their own words.

[TheLegalist]

Amen, and yet they say they have to repent to be saved. Whatever... they are not able to see contradiction in their own words.

which flows to the whole view of salvation and it gets skewed so badly it basically is antinomian salvation. Which is salvation without regards to law. Which John 15 clearly teaches against along with

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

[notofworks]

I just glanced through and copied and pasted these statements you made:




You are not even reading my words. lol.

Anyway, you are clearly not reading my words

You are not hearing this single most important part I have said again and again.

Did you get it this time?

Lol. brother. I hope this is not A.D.D. hindering you here.

Can you get it this time? lol.


I think the problem is, I AM reading what you write and that's what bothers me so much!

But Mike, tearing me down doesn't really do much to build up your position. The first time we talked you accused me of having a "Passive-Aggressive" personality disorder, so I suppose I'll take your verbal shots for what they're worth.

And, when there's more time to parse all those separated quotes, I'll answer.

[mfblume]

I just glanced through and copied and pasted these statements you made:




You are not even reading my words. lol.

Anyway, you are clearly not reading my words

You are not hearing this single most important part I have said again and again.

Did you get it this time?

Lol. brother. I hope this is not A.D.D. hindering you here.

Can you get it this time? lol.


I think the problem is, I AM reading what you write and that's what bothers me so much!

But Mike, tearing me down doesn't really do much to build up your position. The first time we talked you accused me of having a "Passive-Aggressive" personality disorder, so I suppose I'll take your verbal shots for what they're worth.

And, when there's more time to parse all those separated quotes, I'll answer.


Brother, I am grasping for words to get you to NOTE THE ALL IMPORTANT POINT I am making, that I honestly feel you are not getting, due to the way you are answering me. I intend no put-down. However, you are claiming I preach salvation by works, and do not even respond to my clarifications on what "salvation by works" actually is. And you continue to repeat that accusation. What else can a person do than ya you are not reading what I am saying?

[notofworks]

Even you say some good things amongst other errors. :)

That is beside the point, though.

The point is Romans 6 is talking about WATER BAPTISM.

Notofworks, until you acknowledge a particular point I am repeating a dozen times, you will not get what we are saying.




Please respond to this point, if none others: Salvation by works IS ONLY PROPOSED when someone claims ANY GIVEN WORK makes us righteous in and of itself. Do you agree?


...and until you respond to the fact that you said you couldn't receive the Holy Ghost (ultimately, salvation), until you "let go of sin", that you did so, and as a result, received the "Holy Ghost" (ultimately, salvation), then I suppose you won't really get what I'm saying, either.

As for your final question....No, I do NOT agree. It's a SMALL meaning of a small phrase that you're attempting to make, but ultimately, it adds up to the same thing. Do works MAKE one righteous? No, of course not. But you claimed that works led you to righteousness.

For me, it's the same thing.

[TheLegalist]

I just glanced through and copied and pasted these statements you made:




You are not even reading my words. lol.

Anyway, you are clearly not reading my words

You are not hearing this single most important part I have said again and again.

Did you get it this time?

Lol. brother. I hope this is not A.D.D. hindering you here.

Can you get it this time? lol.


I think the problem is, I AM reading what you write and that's what bothers me so much!

But Mike, tearing me down doesn't really do much to build up your position. The first time we talked you accused me of having a "Passive-Aggressive" personality disorder, so I suppose I'll take your verbal shots for what they're worth.

And, when there's more time to parse all those separated quotes, I'll answer.


well... sorry but you do not read what we say and you ignore the paradigm you create saying one thing then cutting your theological throat with the end result. It's been the same issue for a very long time when dealing with this subject. It's not just you but a theological community... Works(context) to you are forensic conerning salvation and not intrinsic. Jesus clearly teaches "to enter" life we are going to be judged of having done his will. PERIOD END OF STORY thus FAITH IN CONTEXT is the WHOLE not a isolate point in time. As I said earlier and showed even a Calvinist like James White even has to admit what "believe/faith" etc... mean. It not about a point but continous thus the "whole" is in view of what salvation is. We are saved from our sins by ABIDING not by one single moment in time and HAVE OBTAINED. "Eternal Salvation" is a future sense when judged a good and faithful servant while being saved from our sins is a present reality based on CONTINUALLY ABIDING(FAITH).

[notofworks]

Brother, I am grasping for words to get you to NOTE THE ALL IMPORTANT POINT I am making, that I honestly feel you are not getting, due to the way you are answering me. I intend no put-down. However, you are claiming I preach salvation by works, and do not even respond to my clarifications on what "salvation by works" actually is. And you continue to repeat that accusation. What else can a person do than ya you are not reading what I am saying?


You don't intend the "put-downs" but you're sure as heck using them!:lol I didn't like it at all when you called me "passive-aggressive" way back when and I thought it was uncalled for and unfair. Why insert that malarkey into a bible discussion??

Interestingly, I think it's similar now...you don't INTEND to say "Salvation by works" but that's what is there underneath what you're saying...in my opinion.

Tell me this...is there ANYONE in Christianity that preaches "Salvation by works?" Anyone? I would bet you think there is. So the next question would be....do THEY SAY they're preaching salvation by works? I've never heard anyone, in orthodox Christianity claim to preach "Salvation by works", as in, "Our works save us."

[mfblume]

...and until you respond to the fact that you said you couldn't receive the Holy Ghost (ultimately, salvation), until you "let go of sin", that you did so, and as a result, received the "Holy Ghost" (ultimately, salvation), then I suppose you won't really get what I'm saying, either.

I did respond. I said I HAD NOT REALLY REPENTED, and that is why I could not get the Holy Ghost.

As for your final question....No, I do NOT agree.

Then you do not understand what salvation by works really was when Paul condemned it. My opinion.

It's a SMALL meaning of a small phrase that you're attempting to make, but ultimately, it adds up to the same thing. Do works MAKE one righteous? No, of course not. But you claimed that works led you to righteousness.

For me, it's the same thing.

Then you preach salvation by works when you demand repentance. The way it has to be, bro. If not, why not?

[mfblume]

You don't intend the "put-downs" but you're sure as heck using them!:lol I didn't like it at all when you called me "passive-aggressive" way back when and I thought it was uncalled for and unfair. Why insert that malarkey into a bible discussion??

Interestingly, I think it's similar now...you don't INTEND to say "Salvation by works" but that's what is there underneath what you're saying...in my opinion.

Tell me this...is there ANYONE in Christianity that preaches "Salvation by works?" Anyone? I would bet you think there is. So the next question would be....do THEY SAY they're preaching salvation by works? I've never heard anyone, in orthodox Christianity claim to preach "Salvation by works", as in, "Our works save us."

Yes there are. ROMAN CATHOLICS blatantly told me they are saved by works. You should read what they say about James 2.

the issue is far more complicated than you believe it, bro. It's far more than "you do something and you're saved," for you yourself believe you must repent to be saved. What is the difference? You refuse to say.

And man alive, I mentioned "passive aggression" ONCE, and you think of it everytime you read a post of mine. Ironically, obsessing over that is actually passive aggression

[TheLegalist]

...and until you respond to the fact that you said you couldn't receive the Holy Ghost (ultimately, salvation), until you "let go of sin", that you did so, and as a result, received the "Holy Ghost" (ultimately, salvation), then I suppose you won't really get what I'm saying, either.

As for your final question....No, I do NOT agree. It's a SMALL meaning of a small phrase that you're attempting to make, but ultimately, it adds up to the same thing. Do works MAKE one righteous? No, of course not. But you claimed that works led you to righteousness.

For me, it's the same thing.

In what sense do you mean "make one righteous"

1) do works have authority in themselves or have righteousing power outside of God's justice/judgment/consideration? NO!
2) do works bring about God's justicing power to declare one just or not? Yes they do! James says so. God either declares us faithful or not TO HIS WORD.

there is no judgment of righteousness outside of God's judgment. Thus to obtain eternal salvation God always is judging our response. Thus whether we are "abiding" in him.

Now conerning "righteousness" in the sense of sin and payment it is all seen through the offering of Christ for the Penalty of sin. How is our "justice" served for sin? Only by the power of his offering to make payment that was due. That is "grace" the "offering" of Christ or God's "favour"! We are saved by "grace" (source of salvation for justice done on our behalf) through "faith" (to them that obey) Heb 5:9. cf Ephesian 2:8

[mfblume]

Do works MAKE one righteous? No, of course not. But you claimed that works led you to righteousness.

Why can you not see that your belief of how repentance saves is the same thing as saying something we do leads us to righteousness? You're avoiding that like a hot potato.

[notofworks]

Yes there are. ROMAN CATHOLICS blatantly told me they are saved by works. You should read what they say about James 2.

the issue is far more complicated than you believe it, bro. It's far more than "you do something and you're saved," for you yourself believe you must repent to be saved. What is the difference? You refuse to say.

And man alive, I mentioned "passive aggression" ONCE, and you think of it everytime you read a post of mine.


Speaking of not reading what one is saying.......I said, "In Orthodox Christianity". You're a smart guy and I think you're aware that Catholicism is NOT Orthodox Christianity.

So again, is there anyone in Orthodox Christianity that teaches "Salvation by works" in your opinion? Second, is there anyone in Orthodox Christianity who, themselves, claim to teach "Salvation by works"?

No, I only think of the "Passive-Aggressive" thing when you start putting me down again. When you do it, I just try to remember that it's part of your pattern and try to not to take it too seriously.

[TheLegalist]

Speaking of not reading what one is saying.......I said, "In Orthodox Christianity". You're a smart guy and I think you're aware that Catholicism is NOT Orthodox Christianity.

So again, is there anyone in Orthodox Christianity that teaches "Salvation by works" in your opinion? Second, is there anyone in Orthodox Christianity who, themselves, claim to teach "Salvation by works"?

No, I only think of the "Passive-Aggressive" thing when you start putting me down again. When you do it, I just try to remember that it's part of your pattern and try to not to take it too seriously.

WOW... hmmm I would say "easter orthodox" would disagree with your view of works and they have been around much longer than your reformed brethren...

[notofworks]

I did respond. I said I HAD NOT REALLY REPENTED, and that is why I could not get the Holy Ghost.



Then you do not understand what salvation by works really was when Paul condemned it. My opinion.



Then you preach salvation by works when you demand repentance. The way it has to be, bro. If not, why not?


...and how many people have you seen "Speak in tongues" without doing anything? Are you saying it's impossible for a person to "Speak in tongues" without "Turning"...repenting? And how many people "speak in tongues" for the first time and head straight out the door and live like the devil? What happened to their "Turn"? Or, maybe they didn't turn?

There are just way too many holes in your attempt to slither out of your original statement.

Repentance is not a "Work". It is simply an acceptance of God's place as leader of one's life. It is a turn. A "Work" is the action of good works in one's life, such as helping enough old ladies across the street, giving food to hungry people, working to eliminate sin from one's life....those are works. Turning to Christ and allowing Him to lead one's life is NOT a work. It is a decision and the trust to allow Christ to do the work!

[mfblume]

Speaking of not reading what one is saying.......I said, "In Orthodox Christianity". You're a smart guy and I think you're aware that Catholicism is NOT Orthodox Christianity.

So again, is there anyone in Orthodox Christianity that teaches "Salvation by works" in your opinion? Second, is there anyone in Orthodox Christianity who, themselves, claim to teach "Salvation by works"?

Catholics are indeed considered orthodox. Not by me, of course. But neither do I consider Eastern Orthodox churches to be orthodox.

But you are missing the question. The issue is far more complicated than you believe it, bro. It's far more than "you do something and you're saved," for you yourself believe you must repent to be saved. What is the difference? You refuse to say.

No, I only think of the "Passive-Aggressive" thing when you start putting me down again. When you do it, I just try to remember that it's part of your pattern and try to not to take it too seriously.

Bro., you need to know that accusing me of something I detailingly explain is not what I believe, as though I never explained anything, is no different than your concern here. But did I say it's just your pattern, and murmur about it?

[mfblume]

...and how many people have you seen "Speak in tongues" without doing anything? Are you saying it's impossible for a person to "Speak in tongues" without "Turning"...repenting?

Yes!

And how many people "speak in tongues" for the first time and head straight out the door and live like the devil? What happened to their "Turn"? Or, maybe they didn't turn?

They turned back again.

Now, answer me. Do you believe people get the actual Holy Ghost baptism without ever having repented?

There are just way too many holes in your attempt to slither out of your original statement.

No, you are simply not getting my point.

For you to say salvation by works is not proposing that works in and of themselves make us righteous, then you are so far offbase in your thought about the issue, it makes our reference points too far apart to even communicate.

Repentance is not a "Work". It is simply an acceptance of God's place as leader of one's life. It is a turn. Why is that not a work?

You make empty claims and do not prove them.


A "Work" is the action of good works in one's life, such as helping enough old ladies across the street, giving food to hungry people, working to eliminate sin from one's life....those are works.

You are oversimplifying the entire issue. What religious merit do those who accomplish such "works" as you listed have in the minds of the doers? I feel the answer will get you to my point.

Turning to Christ and allowing Him to lead one's life is NOT a work. It is a decision and the trust to allow Christ to do the work!

A decision is a work. Again, you seem to think that a physical action is more a work than a mental action. Bro., they are BOTH WORKS. WORKS are not wrong.

Titus 3:8 Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men:


But the reason people think these things have salvational merit is because they think such things make them righteous in and of themselves. Until you see that, it is no wonder you don not understand how repentance and baptism are precisely the same sort of work.

[TheLegalist]

Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. ASV

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. ESV

John 3:36 "He who (A)believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who (B)does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." NASB


Works are not simply forensic external evidence but intrinsic to OBTAINING eternal life. Obedience is synonymous with "belief" or more correctly "believing on" which is a continous aspect, not a isolate of point in time per Jesus.

[notofworks]

Catholics are indeed considered orthodox. Not by me, of course. But neither do I consider Eastern Orthodox churches to be orthodox.

••This is a side issue, but who in the world considers Catholics to be a part of "Orthodox Christianity"?? I've never heard that in my life.

But you are missing the question. The issue is far more complicated than you believe it, bro. It's far more than "you do something and you're saved," for you yourself believe you must repent to be saved. What is the difference? You refuse to say.

••Yes, for you it's much more complicated. Whenever the legalistic ideals of man are added to the simple message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, things get very complicated.

Bro., you need to know that accusing me of something I detailingly explain is not what I believe, as though I never explained anything, is no different than your concern here. But did I say it's just your pattern, and murmur about it?

••If my "accusing" is too strong, I'll just simply quote what you said:

"I personally know from experience that I sought the Spirit baptism for six months. The trouble was, that I knew I was not letting go of some sins, and when I let go of them I got the Spirit right away! I can only go by my experience. It is not hard. Letting go of sin may be what is hard." (Page 69, post 682)

I think that says it all. Mike there's NOTHING hard about getting saved. Jesus has done everything in our place, He did everything that was hard and now we walk freely in His grace. he bore the sins of the world, took the crushing blows of Calvary, and Gethsemane, so that we can simply believe and be saved.

Jesus said his "yoke is EASY and His burden is light." Mike, nothing about this is hard. It's been made very simple by the cross of Jesus Christ.

FURTHERMORE....it is the power of the Holy Spirit that enables us to rid ourselves of sinful habits. Galatians 5:16 tells us that we walk in the Spirit and the result is, we do not fulfill the desires of the flesh. You're telling me that you found power outside the Holy Spirit to rid yourself of sin. But in reality, the opposite is true. Christ fills us and in so doing, gives us the power to avoid sinful pitfalls.

[notofworks]

Now, answer me. Do you believe people get the actual Holy Ghost baptism without ever having repented?

••I do see the Holy Ghost baptism the way you do. I follow the more literal statements of the bible that say I am filled with the Holy Spirit when I believe. Repentance and the gift of the Holy Spirit are one and the same. (I John 4:15, John 7:39, Ephesians 1:13)

No, you are simply not getting my point.

For you to say salvation by works is not proposing that works in and of themselves make us righteous, then you are so far offbase in your thought about the issue, it makes our reference points too far apart to even communicate.

Why is that not a work?

••Repentance is not a work. I think I've explained this already.

You make empty claims and do not prove them.

••You may wanna look in the mirror for that one!:lol

You are oversimplifying the entire issue.

••Paul kept things very simple. He was determined to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified.

A decision is a work.

••No it's not. It is an acceptance of God's grace. Saying "yes" to God is NOT a work.

But the reason people think these things have salvational merit is because they think such things make them righteous in and of themselves. Until you see that, it is no wonder you don not understand how repentance and baptism are precisely the same sort of work.

We've gotten a bit off-track, but the original question that was raised in this discussion was, why does one "seek for the Holy Ghost" and not get it? In Luke 11:13, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be given to everyone who asks. Are you telling me that someone might ask, and God might say, "No, you have sin in your life"? I don't see that provision in the promise of Jesus.

[Jason B]

Oh, great! 93 pages I'll never catch up. Why didn't I catch this thread earlier? :doh

[Jeffrey]

Quick break. Check out the Romans thread regarding Jacob and Esau. I need to play "catch up" on this thread :)

[pelathais]

From words like this, Pel, it looks like you are accusing me of baptismal regeneration. See what I mean?

You seem to infer here, for it is not totally clear what you are saying, that those who believe Jesus involved water baptism in "born of the water and of the Spirit" propose baptismal regeneration. The point actually is that SOME who actually DO believe baptismal regeneration see no place of faith in all of this. Yes, they use this verse, but they claim FAITH is not involved with baptism in this reference.

But those of us who believe this is indeed speaking of water baptism, and are not baptismal regenerationists, claim that this water baptism is useless without faith. We believe that our obedience to be baptized is the work that makes "faith that works" a present reality. Our faith includes belief that God actually does a circumcision of the heart while we are baptized in water. The action of baptism is not the saving element, though. This is what we have been trying to say over and over again. Baptism is just the inseparable work that comes along with the "faith that works".
It's honestly a bit difficult to pin you down on this - and I haven't really even concerned myself with hanging any kind of tag on you anyway.

However: If some one were to say that water baptism is "essential" to the New Birth, then they are at least a "baptismal regenerationalist" in part and maybe in whole, such as the Campbellite groups.

Campbellites hold to the idea that God imparts the Spirit at the time a believer is baptized. They of course don't see "tongues" as an evidence of this. They do hold to the idea though, that the Holy Spirit comes upon an individual at the time of water baptism. This is perhaps one of the more extreme examples of baptismal regenerationalism in the Protestant world.

The RCC teaches that a "grace" is given with each sacrament bestowed by the Church. Baptism being one of those sacraments, a "grace" is bestowed that covers original sin (and sins that are "past" is the person is an adult) and "seals" the individual into the Body of Christ. There is much more, but the RCC practice isn't completely equivalent to the Campbellite doctrine. The Holy Spirit is "passed on" in the RCC directly through the laying on of hands from an ordained bishop who claims a direct apostolic descent from Jesus Christ and His apostles. It's sort of like a relay race with the Spirit of God in place of the baton. (This is one reason many bishops felt compelled to tolerate pedophile priests - because they need to whole system of "hand offs" intact for the Church to exist in the next generation. But that's a different matter).

So, those who do insist upon water baptism as a component or as the "complete package" of the New Birth (like the Campbellites) are to varying degrees, "baptismal regenerationalists."

Where you stand is completely up to you.

[mfblume]

Bro notofworks,

Righteousness is a complex issue whether anyone agrees or not. I have studied it out and it took me a few years to get a handle on it, which is how I came out of legalism in the mid 80's.

It's the same idea as studying Romans. If you think Paul's words are easy, then why did Peter speak of Paul's words of righteousness and say they are hard to be understood and are therefore so often wrestled with?

Once I took to studying Paul, I realized Peter was right. You can believe Peter was wrong if you wish, though. ;)

But righteousness is a complicated issue.

2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


If you think my few paragraphs are too much to read, you will be unable to study Paul's teachings on righteousness, for he writes and writes and writes about it.

I taught righteousness as soon as I started pastoring, and showing folks that we cannot do anything to merit righteousness. Immediately, people began misunderstanding me, just as they did Paul. I later learned from some awesome teachers that if a person is not commonly misunderstood, then they are probably not teaching the truth. Paul was so misunderstood that folks thought he meant Law was useless trash, and others thought he meant you can use righteousness as a cloak for sin. He had to always list clarifiers and disclaimers.

One brother mistook me as saying we do not need to live right after we are saved, and we do not have to pray and study the bible. He thought we do NOTHING according to my teaching and could not follow it. I explained to him that doing anything TO GET RIGHTEOUSNESS was the all-important difference. We do not live right in order to get righteous. We live right because we should align our lives to our position as being righteous.

I do not think he ever did get that.

No, righteousness is not a simple subject.

[mfblume]

••If my "accusing" is too strong, I'll just simply quote what you said:

"I personally know from experience that I sought the Spirit baptism for six months. The trouble was, that I knew I was not letting go of some sins, and when I let go of them I got the Spirit right away! I can only go by my experience. It is not hard. Letting go of sin may be what is hard." (Page 69, post 682)

I think that says it all. Mike there's NOTHING hard about getting saved.

Brother, lol, the way of a transgressor is hard. Not the way of salvation. I refused to acknowledge some sins as sins. I said that if something is wrong with what I am doing, then when God fills me with His Spirit He can tell me then. I had idols in my life. I refused to let them go.

And for you to take my words and claim I am legalistic is for you to say one does not need to get rid of idols in one's life in order for God to bless them.

Unfortunately, teaching people there is no need to let go of their idols, which is basically what you are saying to me since that was my problem, is an all too common trend in many religious circles today.

So, I think you may now better realize where I am coming from when I said what you quoted.

Jesus has done everything in our place, He did everything that was hard and now we walk freely in His grace. he bore the sins of the world, took the crushing blows of Calvary, and Gethsemane, so that we can simply believe and be saved.

He did not let go of our idols for us, so that we have no letting go to perform.

And baptism is no more a work than repentance, since it is how we approach His grace and receive from His grace. It does not EARN grace nor WORK for it. Baptism is no more a work for salvation than walking up to daddy and receiving a gift from him is a work to earn that gift. Baptism to me is just walking up to receive a gift. Walking to get a gift is not a work that earns a gift.

Jesus said his "yoke is EASY and His burden is light." Mike, nothing about this is hard. It's been made very simple by the cross of Jesus Christ.

I agree. But you distorted my words, for whatever reason, though I think unintentionally, and claimed I said something I never said. You misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that letting go of sin is losing your idols willingly, which I was not doing. Maybe the idolatry example can better show you what I mean.

FURTHERMORE....it is the power of the Holy Spirit that enables us to rid ourselves of sinful habits.
IF WE ARE WILLING.

Galatians 5:16 tells us that we walk in the Spirit and the result is, we do not fulfill the desires of the flesh. You're telling me that you found power outside the Holy Spirit to rid yourself of sin. But in reality, the opposite is true. Christ fills us and in so doing, gives us the power to avoid sinful pitfalls.

No, I am not telling you I had power outside the Spirit to rid myself of sin. The truth of the matter was that God had all the power I would ever need, but I WAS NOT WANTING THAT POWER to rid me of particular sins. My will was not in agreement with what God said was sin. Only when one ACKNOWLEDGES what God says is sin, will one ALLOW the power of God to rid it from us.

If you disagree with this, then we might as well agree to disagree, since I doubt we can ever agree on this in that case.

[mfblume]

One more thing, notofoworks,

Repentance IS A WORK. You have never delineated why helping an old lady across the street is a work but repentance is not. They are both works. But one may be done to award oneself righteousness, while the other is not done for that purpose at all.

The reason you listed helping old ladies across the street, is because it is commonly known that some people think doing good deeds gets them the glory, and that God will weigh out those good deeds compared with the bad, and if there are more good than bad, they hope to get saved.

That is done without any connection to the cross of Jesus and any faith towards God whatsoever.

But that is error since it is the concept of salvation by works in order to do something to make oneself righteous.

When I asked you WHY repentance was not a work but helping old ladies across the street, you did not answer me. It's not enough to say walking ladies across the street is a work and repentance is not. lol. WHY is one a work and the other not?

Repentance is not a "Work". It is simply an acceptance of God's place as leader of one's life. It is a turn. A "Work" is the action of good works in one's life, such as helping enough old ladies across the street, giving food to hungry people, working to eliminate sin from one's life....those are works. Turning to Christ and allowing Him to lead one's life is NOT a work. It is a decision and the trust to allow Christ to do the work!

How a "turn" is not a work is beyond me. lolol. A work is an action whether it is the action of turning or not. IT IS A WORK. Period. You do not turn automatically without EFFORT> If something requires EFFORT, IT IS A WORK. If something is done by us that God does not do for us, then it is a work. But if you insist turning is not an action and is something we do that God does not do for us, and is somehow therefore not a work, then you and I are on two different planets. lol

Despite your claims to the contrary, you did not differentiate as to WHY repentance is not a work and walking old ladies across the street is. You just claimed one is a work and one is not. All you said was "A "Work" is the action of good works in one's life, such as helping enough old ladies across the street, giving food to hungry people, working to eliminate sin from one's life....those are works. Turning to Christ and allowing Him to lead one's life is NOT a work."

How is repentance not a good work in one's life? Is it GOOD to repent? Yes. Is it done with one's life? Yes. Repentance is a good work done in one's life. How is turning to God and letting Him lead our lives not a good work? Is it good to turn our lives to God? Yes. Is it done in one's life? Yes. It is a good work done in one's life! Does God turn us around and we exert no effort to do so? no. We exert the effort.

You do indeed have some sort of REASON you claim repentance is not a work, while walking old ladies across the street is, but you are not writing it out. Your explanation of WHY is not a WHY at all. That is why I said you made empty claims without proving them. You only CLAIMED walking ladies is a good work and CLAIMED turning to God is not. Why, though? WHY WHY WHY?

Your problem is in not realizing that A WORK is anything don e BY OUR EFFORT THAT GOD DOES NOT DO FOR US. God does not MAKE YOU turn. You CHOOSE TO TURN as much as YOU CHOOSE to walk an old lady across the street. And I think you would truly agree with me if you actually got my point when I say that ANY EFFORT WE CHOOSE TO DO, including repentance, IS A WORK, but only when those works are done to make us righteous by sheer virtue of doing that work, without any reliance on the justifying Cross of Christ, is salvation by works.

In other words, if A HEATHEN KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE CROSS, and heard about ones need to TURN TO CHRIST, having never heard of Jesus dying and rising again to make atonement for us, having no faith in the cross' salvation and without any concept of seeing God rescue him'her, and turns to Christ expecting to go to heaven, that turning would be salvation by works.

Again, and I am ending my part in our fine chats together, you and I, on this subject after this, since I think we are simply at loggerheads forevermore if we still do not agree lol. ... but the bible teaches salvation by works are turns to Christ, walking ladies across to street, or dressing a certain way in order to obtain righteousness WITHOUT GOD LOOKING TO THE WORKS OF THE CROSS ALONE TO MAKE US RIGHTEOUS.


Anyway, notofworks, don't walk away like an angel having done nothing out of the way, bro. I explained again and again that I do not believe salvation by works, and I explained why, and that I do not believe anyone earns their salvation and you continued to accuse me of preaching it as though you never read my explanations as to why I am not, you passive aggressionist, you. :lol.

{PS the reason I write so much, is that I saw how you took a statement I made about tongues and thought I meant tongues is righteousness. So to avoid you making such mistakes of my words, I think of every angle to explain myself lest you do that again. :thumbsup)

[mfblume]

It's honestly a bit difficult to pin you down on this - and I haven't really even concerned myself with hanging any kind of tag on you anyway.

However: If some one were to say that water baptism is "essential" to the New Birth, then they are at least a "baptismal regenerationalist" in part and maybe in whole, such as the Campbellite groups.

Campbellites hold to the idea that God imparts the Spirit at the time a believer is baptized.

Thanks for your clarification. I honestly thought you were slurring me with accusations of catholic baptismal doctrine.

But I personally disagree entirely with your definition of what baptismal regeneration involves. And to prove it to you, which may throw another wrench altogether in your assessment of my thoughts... (Whatever... matters not to me.) let me say that my concept of baptism as part of salvation involves the all-important element of FAITH THAT WORKS. And I believe this so strongly, that if someone repented and agreed to be baptized, indicating to God a real and present "FAITH THAT WORKS" (God knows the intents of the heart), and such a person DIED before getting baptized, THAT PERSON IS SAVED.

And before you throw out a huge, YOU ARE A ONE STEPPER (!!) accusation, let me say that if the person DID NOT DIE and DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, they are not saved. They did not have the OBEDIENT HEART of FAITH THAT WORKS. It is the HEART INTENT that shows God if the person has FAITH THAT WORKS. And since God saw the heart fully ready to obey, that shows the "faith that works" was indeed present in such a life.

And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.


Now, try to chew that one up and spit it out. :lol

I think you agree, but the issue is far more complicated than good men like notofworks think it is.

People can throw around, "Yeah, but if God saw they WOULD get baptized, He would not allow them to die," or "God would send someone to a heart whom He knew would get baptized had they known of it." But I am not dealing with those sorts of hypotheticals, but the hypotheticals that concern the state of the heart and how God sees it in relation to the works that faith produces. I do not believe an iota of baptismal regeneration because it is done in that concept in order to to create faith.

[revrandy]

I'm thankful I repented of my sins, was baptized in Jesus Name and was filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues...like the thousands who have had the same experience beginning at the day of Pentecost until now...:)

[rgcraig]

I'm thankful I repented of my sins, was baptized in Jesus Name and was filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues...like the thousands who have had the same experience beginning at the day of Pentecost until now...:)

I'm thankful for that same experience!

[mfblume]

I'm thankful I repented of my sins, was baptized in Jesus Name and was filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues...like the thousands who have had the same experience beginning at the day of Pentecost until now...:)

One thousand amens!

[notofworks]

Bro notofworks,

Righteousness is a complex issue whether anyone agrees or not. I have studied it out and it took me a few years to get a handle on it, which is how I came out of legalism in the mid 80's.

It's the same idea as studying Romans. If you think Paul's words are easy, then why did Peter speak of Paul's words of righteousness and say they are hard to be understood and are therefore so often wrestled with?

Once I took to studying Paul, I realized Peter was right. You can believe Peter was wrong if you wish, though. ;)

But righteousness is a complicated issue.

2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


If you think my few paragraphs are too much to read, you will be unable to study Paul's teachings on righteousness, for he writes and writes and writes about it.

I taught righteousness as soon as I started pastoring, and showing folks that we cannot do anything to merit righteousness. Immediately, people began misunderstanding me, just as they did Paul. I later learned from some awesome teachers that if a person is not commonly misunderstood, then they are probably not teaching the truth. Paul was so misunderstood that folks thought he meant Law was useless trash, and others thought he meant you can use righteousness as a cloak for sin. He had to always list clarifiers and disclaimers.

One brother mistook me as saying we do not need to live right after we are saved, and we do not have to pray and study the bible. He thought we do NOTHING according to my teaching and could not follow it. I explained to him that doing anything TO GET RIGHTEOUSNESS was the all-important difference. We do not live right in order to get righteous. We live right because we should align our lives to our position as being righteous.

I do not think he ever did get that.

No, righteousness is not a simple subject.


The one thing that's more complicated than righteousness is YOU!:lol

Are you equivocating salvation and righteousness? Maybe you are. I spent my time in the post to which you are responding, proclaiming that SALVATION is easy. You spent your 5,000 word response saying, "No, Righteousness is not easy, Peter said so." So unless you're saying that salvation and righteousness are identical, what's happening is, I'm saying, "Hey those Giants are gonna be great this year", and you're saying, "Nuh uh, Chevys are WAY better than Fords".

[mfblume]

The one thing that's more complicated than righteousness is YOU!:lol

Are you equivocating salvation and righteousness? Maybe you are. I spent my time in the post to which you are responding, proclaiming that SALVATION is easy. You spent your 5,000 word response saying, "No, Righteousness is not easy, Peter said so." So unless you're saying that salvation and righteousness are identical, what's happening is, I'm saying, "Hey those Giants are gonna be great this year", and you're saying, "Nuh uh, Chevys are WAY better than Fords".

Salvation is only gained when God gives us righteousness. I thought we all knew that!

No, it is not an easy theology. Again, ask Peter.

Bro., our ticket to glory is righteousness. Gaining righteousness is salvation. It's a very basic Bible concept.

My calling is a bible teacher, who also pastors. Maybe yours is pastor. There is a difference, you know. lol What is complex is how righteousness is related to anything we do.

BUT AGAIN, I write so much since you have been known to think I once said tongues is righteousness. I write so much to avoid seeing you mistaken my thoughts. really.

[notofworks]

Salvation is only gained when God gives us righteousness. I thought we all knew that!

No, it is not an easy theology. Again, ask Peter.

Bro., our ticket to glory is righteousness. Gaining righteousness is salvation. It's a very basic Bible concept.

My calling is a bible teacher, who also pastors. Maybe yours is pastor. There is a difference, you know. .lol



:ursofunnyWow.


Well, since you're such a teacher, I'm sure you understand that the word "and" is a conjunction when ministries are named in Ephesians...."Pastors AND teachers."

I'm a pastor and teacher.

But whichever, I hear the smugness in your statement. I've acknowledged that you know MORE about the bible than I. But I haven't acknowledged that you understand it better.:lol

Simply knowing the bible's content doesn't make one a great teacher. Just ask Harold Camping.

If you're going to weave righteousness and salvation together and claim that salvation is a hard thing, or that walking away from sin is a hard thing and only then can we be saved, then I don't think you understand the bible, and specifically, Calvary, as much as you know the bible.

[TheLegalist]

Again, and I am ending my part in our fine chats together, you and I, on this subject after this, since I think we are simply at loggerheads forevermore if we still do not agree lol. ... but the bible teaches salvation by works are turns to Christ, walking ladies across to street, or dressing a certain way in order to obtain righteousness WITHOUT GOD LOOKING TO THE WORKS OF THE CROSS ALONE TO MAKE US RIGHTEOUS.


I think this is the problem many have... God's righteousness toward us is seen in several ways. The righteousness that saves in the sense of what brought about salvation or the offering of it is not of "anything" we can do or did. Christ purchased salvation with his life so that he could "offer" it. Yet at the same time the "grace" or "offering" of God that was God's righteousness manifested toward us by which we are saved does not include the righteousness to obtain salvation. We are asked for a proper response to obtain. God's righteousness/justice is seen as...

1) Christ dies for us (God's love and a evidence of the greatness of God's righteousness)
2) Christ death is a satisfaction to the debt that needs to be paid. Thus Christ was "justice" done or "righteousness" as in the Hebrew it has a constant aspect of "justice" toward something. Thus it is not by satisfaction of the law that brought righteousness DIRECTLY by us but Christ death by which the law attested to him being a perfect sacrifice for atoning that we are saved. Thus he is the "source" or "author" of salvation.
3) Christs "justice" done by his passion toward us is to be returned likewise just as he did the will of the Father. Thus we negate all to obtain life and count the cost BEFOREHAND before endeavoring on our journey to obtain eternal life. To do so is the only satisfaction we can offer to obtain true repentance to gaining unification with Christ in covenant. Thus as Peter and the rest left all to follow, so do we. Thus the cost which is part of the contract/covenant at the beginning are the same considerations throughout the journey to obtain. If you abide, he will abide and you will be judged faithful or friend if you continue in him. This the teaching of Middah Keneged Middah.. measure for measure or consideration for consideration. Thus he has to offer FOR considerations or measure to obtain.

2 kinds of righteousness.

1) Righteousness done by Christ to obtain salvation and right to judge which was made available by Christs atonement and resurrection.

2) Righteousness which we are required to respond with to obtain the atonement by covenant. What is the righteousness required to obtain covenant to abide in Christ which is to abide in contract with him...

To enter

Repent (turn from all to be united with him)
Be Baptized (which flows from repentance. As Baptism is seen as the realization of the work of Christ in which we are turning to Christ to be unified in his death and arising to abiding in life of covenant in Christ.
receive the HS which is the empowering of God unto salvation and God's approval.

Covenant life to obtain eternal life.... All the below are the same things to enter seen in repentance.

1) continue to follow Him(turned from the world started at the very beginning)
2) Negate all for him to obtain
3) Faithfulness to the end
4) Faith (living reliance on him) which relates to #3
5) Do his will which in part is #1 and John 15 and the commandments etc...
so that we will be found blameless and have presented our bodies as living sacrifices which are holy and acceptable that which we will be found WORTHY of our calling and thus chosen in the end.


If we fail....

2 righteousness aspects or acts of justice are seen.

1) We are to be righteous in our failure and turn from it toward him and ask for forgiveness with our whole heart to be considered "just" and "alive." Eze 18. and to be abiding in him John 15.
2) He is righteous/faithful to forgive us of our sins SEEING our response of turning and by contract/right we are forgiven because he has obtained authority by the cross to forgive sin by his passion on the cross once and forever.

3) a righteous man falls seven times but it's not about the down but are you staying down(unrepentant and turned toward the flesh vs God)

[mfblume]

:ursofunnyWow.


Well, since you're such a teacher, I'm sure you understand that the word "and" is a conjunction when ministries are named in Ephesians...."Pastors AND teachers."

I'm a pastor and teacher.

But whichever, I hear the smugness in your statement. I've acknowledged that you know MORE about the bible than I. But I haven't acknowledged that you understand it better.:lol

Simply knowing the bible's content doesn't make one a great teacher. Just ask Harold Camping.

If you're going to weave righteousness and salvation together and claim that salvation is a hard thing, or that walking away from sin is a hard thing and only then can we be saved, then I don't think you understand the bible, and specifically, Calvary, as much as you know the bible.

It's just you said, "Are you equivocating salvation and righteousness?". Says a lot, bro.

But at any rate, chats like this always get away from the issue and become personally oriented. Don't let that happen. It's not a competition thing. The issue if passive aggression was tongue in cheek to begin with, as well. Let the personal side go, bro.

Let's reason together. Self is not that important.

We can debate on what difference a four-fold or five-fold ministry concept is. But even that is not the issue. :D

[TheLegalist]

Salvation is only gained when God gives us righteousness. I thought we all knew that!

Well depends on what is meant as notofworks clearly has a totaly different view. God giving "righteousness" is more correctly termed giving "justice" or having "justice done." We only have access through the blood of Christ for justice done toward sin. Which we only can have access by faith which is our reliance and turning from sin to holiness for forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Eze 18 same principle even now.

No, it is not an easy theology. Again, ask Peter.

yep... Paul is very confusing TO PEOPLE'S DESTRUCTION!

Bro., our ticket to glory is righteousness. Gaining righteousness is salvation. It's a very basic Bible concept.

AMEN AMEN AMEN!


BUT AGAIN, I write so much since you have been known to think I once said tongues is righteousness. I write so much to avoid seeing you mistaken my thoughts. really.


blows me away how something God does is considered a work of ours that we expect him to do. LOL!

[mfblume]

I think this is the problem many have... God's righteousness toward us is seen in several ways. This righteousness that saves in the sense of what brought about salvation or the offering of it. It is not of "anything" we can do or did. Christ purchased salvation with his life so that he could "offer" it. Yet at the same time the "grace" or "offering" of God that was God's righteousness manifested toward us by which we are saved does not include the righteousness to obtain salvation. We are asked for a proper response to obtain.

Amen! Bravo, that's it!

ANY CONSCIOUS CHOICE made is actually a WORK whether folks admit it or not. Bias often blinds people to the obvious. Focus on the personal shows this when it is present. They'd sooner not admit error than know truth.

Repentance is a conscious choice that WE MAKE, not God. And there is nothing wrong with that. But the reason people refuse to call it a work is because they think ANY WORK is wrong, and not to be done. So they somehow reinvent the idea of repentance to dismiss it from a work, but actually use a synonym of what a work is and apply it to repentance, and claim they did not say "works"!

Baptism is no more a work of salvation than repentance is. Salvation by works means that God has nothing to do with GIVING US THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. Righteousness is a gift! Earning something is working for something that is not a gift. And repentance and baptism BOTH do not earn righteousness, because if they did they would not require the cross to have occurred, and be efforts that, in themselves, God looks towards in order to see WHY He should PAY us righteousness.

Righteousness has been bought and paid for, alright. But by the cross alone, and not any baptism or repentance we exert. But you cannot take righteousness freely from the Lord IF THERE IS SOMETHING IN YOUR HANDS CALLED SIN. Notofworks will not acknowledge the "SOMETHING IN YOUR HANDS" example to see my real point. Whatever...

[mfblume]

Here is why righteousness needs to be studied.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

WHOA!, Lord. Pick me off the floor and explain that to me!


Rom 4:3-7 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


What does Paul mean by "works of righteousness"?

What does imputing righteousness without works mean?

Are works out the window? Evidently not.

Tit 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

Tit 3:14 And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.


Lookie at James:

Jas 2:17-24 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (19) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (20) But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? (21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (22) Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? (23) And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (24) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


People think James was right and Paul was wrong when they read James 2 and then compare that with Paul:

James 2:24 (24) ...Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Paul said a lot about righteousness related to salvation, and works.

Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom 8:3-4 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.



And someone said the issue of righteousness is not complicated.

What is complicated about it is that its relationship with works determines whether or not those works are exerted erringly.

People told me that works justify the believer according to James, but Paul said we are not justified by works.

People need to be able to reconcile James with Paul. There is no contradiction, when one realizes that James meant justifying OUR CLAIMS, not the states of ourselves for salvation, whereas Paul spoke of justifying the state of self for salvation, there is no contradiction.

When RIGHTEOUSNESS is an odd addition to the concept of salvation, a person NEEDS TO STUDY the issue of RIGHTEOUSNESS in the bible, and what place it has in relation to salvation, a little more. They never taught me THAT one in bible school. I wish they did! What embarrassment I experienced! Whew! :blush

Still think it is not complex, notofworks? I am still trying to get a better handle on James.

[jfrog]

Amen! Bravo, that's it!

ANY CONSCIOUS CHOICE made is actually a WORK whether folks admit it or not. Bias often blinds people to the obvious. Focus on the personal shows this when it is present. They'd sooner not admit error than know truth.

Repentance is a conscious choice that WE MAKE, not God. And there is nothing wrong with that. But the reason people refuse to call it a work is because they think ANY WORK is wrong, and not to be done. So they somehow reinvent the idea of repentance to dismiss it from a work, but actually use a synonym of what a work is and apply it to repentance, and claim they did not say "works"!

Baptism is no more a work of salvation than repentance is. Salvation by works means that God has nothing to do with GIVING US THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. Righteousness is a gift! Earning something is working for something that is not a gift. And repentance and baptism BOTH do not earn righteousness, because if they did they would not require the cross to have occurred, and be efforts that, in themselves, God looks towards in order to see WHY He should PAY us righteousness.

Righteousness has been bought and paid for, alright. But by the cross alone, and not any baptism or repentance we exert. But you cannot take righteousness freely from the Lord IF THERE IS SOMETHING IN YOUR HANDS CALLED SIN. Notofworks will not acknowledge the "SOMETHING IN YOUR HANDS" example to see my real point. Whatever...

You make a great argument for repentance being a work. However, faith or belief in Christ and what he did is not a work. Belief is not a choice. You could no more choose to cease believing in God than an atheist could choose to begin believing in God. Does this mean that an atheist can never begin believing in God or that a Christian can never cease believing in God? No. It simply means that they cannot choose to. Now a person can choose to either ignore the evidence that there is a God or ignore the evidence that there isn't a God, in which case they could be said to have chosen to beleive in God or not to. But in the case that a person is not just ignoring the evidence but hasn't seen or doesn't understand the evidence then that person has no choice of whether he will ever see that evidence or whether he will be able to understand that evidence.

[mfblume]

J,

Choice of any kind is a work. Anything done that God does not do instead of us is a work. Now, how that is related to righteousness is another thing. And we can choose to believe. I am no calvinist. :) We choose to believe the cross saves us or not.

[pelathais]

Thanks for your clarification. I honestly thought you were slurring me with accusations of catholic baptismal doctrine.

But I personally disagree entirely with your definition of what baptismal regeneration involves. And to prove it to you, which may throw another wrench altogether in your assessment of my thoughts... (Whatever... matters not to me.) let me say that my concept of baptism as part of salvation involves the all-important element of FAITH THAT WORKS. And I believe this so strongly, that if someone repented and agreed to be baptized, indicating to God a real and present "FAITH THAT WORKS" (God knows the intents of the heart), and such a person DIED before getting baptized, THAT PERSON IS SAVED.
Yes, I remember your "guy who dies in the car" analogy now.

And before you throw out a huge, YOU ARE A ONE STEPPER (!!) accusation, let me say that if the person DID NOT DIE and DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, they are not saved. They did not have the OBEDIENT HEART of FAITH THAT WORKS. It is the HEART INTENT that shows God if the person has FAITH THAT WORKS. And since God saw the heart fully ready to obey, that shows the "faith that works" was indeed present in such a life.
Why does agreement have to be an "accusation?"

And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.


Now, try to chew that one up and spit it out. :lol
Say, for example, Apollos and the disciples of John? We don't know at what point they "dropped out" of the action that was going down in Israel at the time; but let's say John had communicated enough to them that they understood the coming Messiah was "The Lamb of God" who takes away the sin of the world..." Obviously whatever experience with water baptism that they had would be irrelevant to entering into the Christian community (I say this because Paul would later rebaptize them). So, they were "saved" - at least from the penalty of sin by their belief and repentance. If anyone had died in the car on the way to Ephesus, their eternal life was still secure?

I think you agree, but the issue is far more complicated than good men like notofworks think it is.

People can throw around, "Yeah, but if God saw they WOULD get baptized, He would not allow them to die," or "God would send someone to a heart whom He knew would get baptized had they known of it." But I am not dealing with those sorts of hypotheticals, but the hypotheticals that concern the state of the heart and how God sees it in relation to the works that faith produces. I do not believe an iota of baptismal regeneration because it is done in that concept in order to to create faith.
There is an element of predestination to all of our lives. Whoever is going to be saved is already saved in the foreknowledge of God. None of us will show up at the Supper and surprise our Host with our presence.

"Whoa! Mike and Pel made it?" says the Almighty. "I didn't see that one coming..."

I don't envision such a scene. Instead, I see a welcome prepared for our expected arrival. "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world!" Matthew 25:34.

[pelathais]

J,

Choice of any kind is a work. Anything done that God does not do instead of us is a work. Now, how that is related to righteousness is another thing. And we can choose to believe. I am no calvinist. :) We choose to believe the cross saves us or not.
Ephesians 2:9 (and many other verses) makes it clear that however we are saved, we are NOT saved by anything that is called "works" within the realm of NT theology.

[pelathais]

I'm thankful I repented of my sins, was baptized in Jesus Name and was filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues...like the thousands who have had the same experience beginning at the day of Pentecost until now...:)
Can you name one that had that experiance between the years 200 A.D. and 1900 A.D.?

[TheLegalist]

Ephesians 2:9 (and many other verses) makes it clear that however we are saved, we are NOT saved by anything that is called "works" within the realm of NT theology.

AGAIN it is about SOURCE of salvation not that obedience is not needed to obtain eternal life. We cannot nor ever be our own source. He is the source of salvation to those who do his will.

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,


Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him

[TheLegalist]

Ephesians 2:9 (and many other verses) makes it clear that however we are saved, we are NOT saved by anything that is called "works" within the realm of NT theology.



Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

1) what is the "grace" of God in v8?
2) What is not of my own doing?
3) v9 not a result of works.... ok what is not a result of works?

Answer 1) christ atonement was the favor shown for salvation and is the grace manifested.
Answer 2) the Grace or "source" of salvation. Notice he is talking about the source of atonement that can BRING or OFFER salvation. THAT IS NOT OF MY DOING!
Answer 3) the source or possibility of atonement/salvation is not of my own doing but Christ' perfect sacrifice is. My works are not the source!

How is the salvation realized FROM it's SOURCE! FAITH which is a conintous sense and is based upon knowledge of what is required or Word given which DEFINES IT! Faith is a simple word used FOR a BROAD CONTEXT of application!

[pelathais]

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

1) what is the "grace" of God in v8?
2) What is not of my own doing?
3) v9 not a result of works.... ok what is not a result of works?

Answer 1) christ atonement was the favor shown for salvation and is the grace manifested.
Answer 2) the Grace or "source" of salvation. Notice he is talking about the source of atonement that can BRING or OFFER salvation. THAT IS NOT OF MY DOING!
Answer 3) the source or possibility of atonement/salvation is not of my own doing but Christ' perfect sacrifice is. My works are not the source!

How is the salvation realized FROM it's SOURCE! FAITH which is a conintous sense and is based upon knowledge of what is required or Word given which DEFINES IT! Faith is a simple word used FOR a BROAD CONTEXT of application!
You know, I agree 100% with what I think you've said, however could you restate that last part (bolded above)?

[TheLegalist]

You know, I agree 100% with what I think you've said, however could you restate that last part (bolded above)?

Saying we are saved by faith simply is a short form for a lot larger context.

Am I simply saved by mental assent? No!
Am I saved by simply being baptized? No!
Am I saved by speaking in tongues? No!
Am I saved by trusting in him? Yes!

Why does the answer change expecially between "mental assent" and "trust"?

Because trust observes and controls a much larger view of what is needed. Thus Faith which is trust does the same thing. God says he that believes will never die! Yes, this is true but the context is not mental assent but a continous aspect of knowing the will of God and doing. What is the initial aspect and context of faith. JEsus died and rose again! Does that save me? No! Knowing and simply believing and agreeing that happened does not do ONE THING for salvation. It does not bring me into covenant nor is his blood realized toward me. Faith is contextual and based on the Word known UNTO receive something. How do we receive by faith. Repent(turn) and be baptized(be united) everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the remission of sins... Remission is not simply not just about forgiveness but the cutting away of that which we are attached. (old man of death) As we now are made anew by coming for unto a new purpose or in this case new covenant and servanthood. I place my trust in God's working BY FAITH at baptism to be united in covenant. That is teh context of faith UNTO covenant.

Now does baptism in itself save me completely? NO! Why? Faith is a broader context than initial entry INTO covenant. It's about doing the will of God and abiding by the terms of the covenant to obtain. Thus he is the source/mediator/author/administrator of the covenant/salvation to those who obey. Thus to abide in covenant is to be in agreement with the contract. Soem would say at peace with it or on good terms which is realized by faith.


Note added... Abraham "belief" in Gen 15:6 is not about simply mental assent or he is saying ok God great. Abraham had ALREADY MOVED IN TRUST which was RISK! simply abraham believing that this is true is the very essence of mental assent. IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY! Which is James point of "fulfilled" was realized in Gen 15:6 concerning Abraham "believed" at the offering of Isaac. Thus "faith" in Gen 15:6 is a broad context not just the moment in time. Paul is still correct but smaller in scope and point concerning circumcision and is pointing to the fact of believed as being realized before Gen 17. Which is true read the following verses after Gen 15:6 God goes into covenant with Abraham as he asks what must I do to obtain his land promise. Thus the outlook of "believed" in Gen 15:6 includes the proceding verses all the way to Gen 22. Abraham was considered righteous BEFORE Gen 15:6 even.

gotta go sorry... will discuss later. Have a good one!

[notofworks]

But at any rate, chats like this always get away from the issue and become personally oriented. Don't let that happen. It's not a competition thing. The issue if passive aggression was tongue in cheek to begin with, as well. Let the personal side go, bro.




Mike, I'd be happy to do that. But inevitably, you throw in either personal accusations, like the original personality disorder thing your threw at me, or here where you're flaunting your knowledge and insinuating that I'm not a capable teacher, or the repeated (and at one point I listed them) barbs that I wasn't able to understand what you're saying or wasn't reading anything you wrote.

So I'm more than happy to leave out the personal digs. But so far, I've never had an in-depth conversation without you throwing them.

You throw them, I answer, and then you say, "Hey, let's not make it personal." Mike, you can't have it both ways. So yeah, please, drop this silly stuff. I'd love that.

[mfblume]

Ephesians 2:9 (and many other verses) makes it clear that however we are saved, we are NOT saved by anything that is called "works" within the realm of NT theology.

Faith is a work, Jesus said. But not a work from "salvation by works." that is how I would agree with your words.

[mfblume]

Pel and n.o.w.,

How can I believe in salvation by works if I claimed this?

If a person repented and agreed to be baptized, having the faith that works, and died before getting baptized, THEY ARE SAVED. If the person DID NOT DIE and DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, they are not saved. They did not have the OBEDIENT HEART of FAITH THAT WORKS. It is the HEART INTENT that shows God if the person has FAITH THAT WORKS. And since God saw the heart fully ready to obey, that shows the "faith that works" was indeed present in such a life.

And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.

[Sam]

Pel and n.o.w.,
...
And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.[/indent]

I think (not sure) the Roman Catholics call that the "baptism of desire." In other words that person would get baptized if he knew about it.

[mfblume]

I think (not sure) the Roman Catholics call that the "baptism of desire." In other words that person would get baptized if he knew about it.

Interesting. Never heard that one before.

After research I found this from a catholic site:

What does it mean to belong to the Church by desire’ or ‘longing’?

St. Thomas Aquinas states that" a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence, it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shall you be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable." [11] He also states "Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. Moreover, such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that works by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." [12]

It seems they strongly lean towards personal suffering to take the place of baptism. Which is error.

Funny that this ties in with futurism. I heard this in many dispensationalistic circles, though. They teach that during the future tribulation since the church is gone due to the rapture souls are saved by shedding THEIR OWN BLOOD. Heinous, I think! THAT is salvation by work. But then again, some futurists believe seven years of law were never paid for by the cross, and hence the reason for a seven year tribulation where law of Moses is once again in effect. Progressive dispensationalism is getting away from that thought, though.

[pelathais]

Pel and n.o.w.,

How can I believe in salvation by works if I claimed this?
If a person repented and agreed to be baptized, having the faith that works, and died before getting baptized, THEY ARE SAVED. If the person DID NOT DIE and DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, they are not saved. They did not have the OBEDIENT HEART of FAITH THAT WORKS. It is the HEART INTENT that shows God if the person has FAITH THAT WORKS. And since God saw the heart fully ready to obey, that shows the "faith that works" was indeed present in such a life.

And let me give another scenario. I always leave these things up to God and leave Him to judge the issue when dealing with gray areas that the Word does not talk about, but my best educated guess would be that if someone never had anyone tell them about baptism, and truly learned of Jesus and the true concept of how the work of the cross saves, and genuinely repented, not getting baptized (totally due to lack of awareness of it), God knows if their heart WOULD GET BAPTIZED SHOULD THEY LEARN OF IT, they are saved if they have the heart to indeed get baptized had they learned of it.
Like I said Mike, I really haven't "hung a tag on you." Like DKB, you back up and take a run at the topic of salvation making certain to touch bases at the cross. I respect that.

There are others however, who just jump right in with a list of "you gotta do's" and who make granny's knickers a matter of salvation. They are the ones who at least appear to have forgotten about the cross. And when the cross and salvation by grace through faith is brought up they have the predictable knee jerk reactions.

[pelathais]

Like I said Mike, I really haven't "hung a tag on you." Like DKB, you back up and take a run at the topic of salvation making certain to touch bases at the cross. I respect that.

There are others however, who just jump right in with a list of "you gotta do's" and who make granny's knickers a matter of salvation. They are the ones who at least appear to have forgotten about the cross. And when the cross and salvation by grace through faith is brought up they have the predictable knee jerk reactions.
... case in point: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=897693#post897693

If you don't follow the dress code it will "cost you your soul." It's folks like this who appear to have forgotten about the cross.

[Timmy]

... case in point: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=897693#post897693

If you don't follow the dress code it will "cost you your soul." It's folks like this who appear to have forgotten about the cross.

I have the solution that will bring unity for you guys. Interested? Here ya go: http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=898155#post898155.

[Jeffrey]

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. ESV

The reason why it is obey is because the KJV is HORRIBLE with the dealing with the word "pistis" and present participle active and context which has been shown by modern scholars and why the ESV shows OBEY. You really need to do some research on the failures in this areas of which James White even shows among many that the aspect of John and his use of and context of "pistis" is a aspect of "faithful or "obey." Also this would be consistent wiht John 15 concerning obedience and the whole of Jesus teaching.

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. KJV




Point of note..... want to discuss scripture with me, don't ever use the lame paraphrase/commentary pieces of trash like the Message. Just saying...



NIV is not a serious translation...

I get it, all translations except ESV suck. :)

Seriously, I don't use The Message for lexical or word-study value, but I wouldn't call Peterson's skills with Bible languages/translations trash. At the least, you could consider his interpretative opinions on particular passages. He approaches the Bible asking "what's the message" -- for with that broad question in mind are we able to rightly interpret the specifics which scholars wrestle over.

I don't believe the NIV is garbage any more than the ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV or NLT. They are translations with changes in degree along the interpretative spectrum. And all the scholars exceed yours and my training in Greek.

Then you simply miss the text and clear teaching of Jesus which is consistent for your own fallacy. JEsus view of believing is about response of doing. Giving up to obtain. Following him at the negation of others. Thus he does not see your belief until he judges the response. I get your general point, but I think this statement is your BIGGEST fallacy, TL. God doesn't see your faith until your works come???? That is categorically false, and I really believe you know it. Just like Abraham. God's offering may come freely but he demands something. Our trust and faith :) To say he doesn't negates the words of Christ. Want eternal life.... obey the commandments and follow me..... THAT IS THE GOSPEL! Aren't we missing something in this discussion of eternal life? Maybe check the sentence again. Read John 3 as well.



Exactly believe which must be understood with what is meant not by POOR translation which you used and modern scholarship is revealing and showing the effects of LUTHER and his poor latin translating. You prefer RCC over Luther? Luther's failures are hotly debated today even among Reformed theologians, but his theology pointed in the right direction. He was very close. The context of believe is unto following NOT simply mental assent. Which is the point of all of what Jesus says. For the 5th time, no one here has advocated mental assent. To continue to do that despite that is dishonest.

The present participle active in NT Greek reflects an “habitual behavior.” It signifies a “process [that is] continuous.” (This also is still true in modern Greek grammar. For example Adams, Essential Modern Greek Grammar (1987) on page 81....
This distinction has been recently confessed by a leading Calvinist who is yet a staunch faith-alone advocate. Dr. James White writes about the verb tense in John 6:35-45 as well as John 3:16 in "Drawn by the Father": A Summary of
John 6:35-45 pages 10-11:

"Throughout this passage an important truth is presented that again might be missed by many English translations. When Jesus describes the one who comes to him and who believes in him [3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 37, 40, 47, etc.], he uses the present tense to describe this coming, believing, or, in other passages, hearing or seeing. The present tense refers to a continuous, on-going action. The Greek contrasts this kind of action against the aorist tense, which is a point action, a single action in time that is not on-going.... The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not truly and continuously believe. The faith that saves is a living faith, a faith that always looks to Christ as Lord and Savior." You're preaching to the choir, TL. I'm not a OSAS. I believe faith must be continual.

THus the "continous" view has the whole scope of the context in view not simply as James says "the devils also believe and tremble" but a view of doing unto context of believ"ing" or faithfulness. THus when Jesus talks about giving up one must do that before one obtains covenant JUST LIKE ABRAHAM LEAVING HOME TO OBTAIN! You cannot say I believe and not cast off they are seen withing the scope of believe. Abraham's actions were a result of his believing. The message is about taking upon a yoke which is by contract to obtain.

...

[Jeffrey]

Anyone who preaches this issue of righteousness correctly will receive the same confusion from people who cannot follow the point properly. Paul's words were always misunderstood for that very reason. He had to repeatedly clarify himself by posing hypothetical erring conclusions and saying "God forbid" in response, as in Romans 6. He knew people were getting this wrong all the time. He knew the pat responses that were simply caused by their lack of understanding the issue. Paul was misunderstood by Jews and Judaizers mostly who heard him preach the Gospel to such an extent that they imagined he DIDN'T believe in good works. That's a picture of how he preached grace. Paul, of course, elaborating in Epistles talks about sanctification and the believer's lifestyle in response many times -- none substituting his view of salvation. The lack of understanding was (mostly) not the Gentiles but the Jews. Food for thought. Paul qualified his remarks constantly for their sakes.

.

...

[Jeffrey]

Please. Do you or do you not propose I believe baptismal regeneration? That was the accusation I claimed you made that was false. You even said so yourself, here:



You brethren call me a three stepper if I believe the three elements of Acts 2:38 are required for salvation. If I am incorrect, forgive me. And you say three steppers preach baptismal regeneration, despite my proofs that baptismal regeneration is belief that baptism in and of itself makes us righteous and creates faith rather than is done only DUE TO FAITH.

If you did not refer to what I believe, then I am sorry, but that is how I took it. You made that claim to Rev Randy in the midst of myself posting about baptism's necessity for salvation. What else am I to think? If you did not mean me, then I accept that and am sorry. But that is what stirred the issue of false accusation.

If you did not mean me, then who did you mean?

You may not believe BR the way the infant baptismal fans do, but it's the same in type. Salvation by faith + some other things required before God can consider you righteous (including remission of sins by baptism).

[Jeffrey]

:blah

That diagram sums it up well.

[Jeffrey]

Which is exactly why I said that salvation by works is not saying baptism is not necessary for salvation. Perhaps it is notofworks who needs to hear this more than anyone else here. He has been insisting I preach salvation by works and that we earn salvation and improve ourselves.

But that is very point i was making in saying Jesus claimed faith was a work. It is ridiculous to say something that is a work necessarily falls under the category of salvation by works.

But what exactly are you referring to in my posts when you repeat the idea of words and meanings. You are not quoting anything specifically that I said, but are just pointing these statements of yours at me. The reason I say this is because your very reasoning quoted above is the basis for my claim that baptism is not salvation by works.

Mike, I still haven't heard from you or TL a good response to how Paul points to circumcision never being some "realized" way salvation came. In fact, Paul is explicit about Abraham's faith and accounted righteousness. It just seems we do for water baptism what Jews did for circumcision -- perhaps a requirement of the law, but not the way in.

[Jeffrey]

So, baptism into Jesus Christ in Romans 6 refers only to WATER baptism?

And allowing some one to immerse you in water, or to sprinkle or pour water on you, or to self-immerse puts you into Christ and into His death?

Could it not refer to an action by the Holy Spirit which has put you positionally into Christ and has happened before water baptism takes place?

After reviewing the evidence, I agree with Blume that Rom 6 is about water baptism... or at least that's what is in view and what the Romans would have thought/.

[Jeffrey]

The use of "works" in John 6:28-29, does not carry the same meaning as ... say for example, Romans 4:1-5.

In fact, in Romans 4:5, "works" (whatever they may be) are contrasted with belief.

In effect, Paul is saying that the "work of God" in John 6:29, is not really a "work" at all. How can he do this without contradicting the words of Jesus? He does it because he is using the word in a different sense and a different context than Jesus did.

(And just for the record, the underlying word in the original is the same as well).

When someone seriously says that "believing" is a "work" needed for salvation in a conversation about the cross, they are committing the same error as a person who says Acts 19:32 is an instruction for the church assembly.

:thumbsup

[Jeffrey]

my friend... this has been the issue the whole time. They only see through a fogged lense of interpretation. They make you say what they want it to be, to able to deal with what you are saying. cognitive dissonance :thumbsup Just like points I have made multiple times with indepth points..... then they say.... "you have not dealt with XYZ..." only thing I can do is shake my head. In all my years of teaching, witnessing, debating it blows me away at the ingoring that goes on here. Basically let's reform the argument in the image they want so they can deal with it. Which in the end is relabeling everything to make it not what it is like belief, repentance, confession and whatever... ( Thus oh no I do nothing.... he did it for me. salvation is not based on anything I do. ) which is so far from the truth it makes a mockery of what "faith" is and Jesus Words to obtain eternal life.

"Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves. "Salvation by works" means works make us righteous in and of themselves.

It's clever. I'll give it to you. Add an addendum that these works are saving us, but that it's only because of faith behind these works. Why not strip away the works and admit it's the faith. That's the fuel? The rest is secondary.

And TL, your bolded part -- that's exactly it! HE PAID IT ALL!!!! Accept that. Look how beautiful the cross is. Look how desperate his sending of His Son was! What love! That only makes me want to serve Him all the more faithfully!

[Jeffrey]

Amen, and yet they say they have to repent to be saved. Whatever... they are not able to see contradiction in their own words.

I'm see repentance, the "turning toward God" as a component inseparable with faith, and if it is, the turning is 'because of' faith. Both are at a heart level.

[Jeffrey]

which flows to the whole view of salvation and it gets skewed so badly it basically is antinomian salvation. Which is salvation without regards to law. Which John 15 clearly teaches against along with

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Now you are claiming salvation is tied to the Law?

Wow. Unbelievable.

Shall I post the scores of Scriptures otherwise? Perhaps I'll start with Galatians, throw in some Romans, mix in some Hebrews.... nevermind. Let me pick my jaw up.

Abiding in Him, then fruit come. We don't produce fruit to abide in Him.

Your FAVORITE translation/paraphrase (beautifully stated I might add):

4"Live in me. Make your home in me just as I do in you. In the same way that a branch can't bear grapes by itself but only by being joined to the vine, you can't bear fruit unless you are joined with me.

5-8"I am the Vine, you are the branches. When you're joined with me and I with you, the relation intimate and organic, the harvest is sure to be abundant. Separated, you can't produce a thing. Anyone who separates from me is deadwood, gathered up and thrown on the bonfire. But if you make yourselves at home with me and my words are at home in you, you can be sure that whatever you ask will be listened to and acted upon. This is how my Father shows who he is—when you produce grapes, when you mature as my disciples.

9-10"I've loved you the way my Father has loved me. Make yourselves at home in my love. If you keep my commands, you'll remain intimately at home in my love. That's what I've done—kept my Father's commands and made myself at home in his love.

11-15"I've told you these things for a purpose: that my joy might be your joy, and your joy wholly mature. This is my command: Love one another the way I loved you. This is the very best way to love. Put your life on the line for your friends. You are my friends when you do the things I command you. I'm no longer calling you servants because servants don't understand what their master is thinking and planning. No, I've named you friends because I've let you in on everything I've heard from the Father.

[Jeffrey]

well... sorry but you do not read what we say and you ignore the paradigm you create saying one thing then cutting your theological throat with the end result. It's been the same issue for a very long time when dealing with this subject. It's not just you but a theological community... Works(context) to you are forensic conerning salvation and not intrinsic. Jesus clearly teaches "to enter" life we are going to be judged of having done his will. PERIOD END OF STORY thus FAITH IN CONTEXT is the WHOLE not a isolate point in time. As I said earlier and showed even a Calvinist like James White even has to admit what "believe/faith" etc... mean. It not about a point but continous thus the "whole" is in view of what salvation is. We are saved from our sins by ABIDING not by one single moment in time and HAVE OBTAINED. "Eternal Salvation" is a future sense when judged a good and faithful servant while being saved from our sins is a present reality based on CONTINUALLY ABIDING(FAITH).

Your Forensic-Intrisic argument loses water quickly. You've ignored those objections though and prefer to sound smart to the Sheeple.

Your view of salvation is so brittle bro. It truly does make me sad.

[mfblume]

I'm see repentance, the "turning toward God" as a component inseparable with faith, and if it is, the turning is 'because of' faith. Both are at a heart level.

Agreed. But yet a work. And this is the kicker. This heart level work is not something we do in order to replace any work of God to make us righteous. Same with baptism.

[mfblume]

You may not believe BR the way the infant baptismal fans do, but it's the same in type. Salvation by faith + some other things required before God can consider you righteous (including remission of sins by baptism).

No, you did not see my point on this. We are deemed righteous BEFORE baptism, sure. But only because the faith we have that God counts for righteousness is faith that works, or faith that will get baptized.

[Jeffrey]

Agreed. But yet a work. And this is the kicker. This heart level work is not something we do in order to replace any work of God to make us righteous. Same with baptism.

I can't see how baptism is at a "heart level" at all, and it's clearly separable from believing/trusting. When I trust someone, my heart is instantly turned toward them. Baptism doesn't fit these category, Mike.

[mfblume]

I can't see how baptism is at a "heart level" at all, and it's clearly separable from believing/trusting. When I trust someone, my heart is instantly turned toward them. Baptism doesn't fit these category, Mike.

I stated this before, but although baptism involves a physical act, and repentance is a heart act, both are still acts. Acts are works. People seem to think that because repentance is done in the heart that it does not make it a work. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not ANY WORK, even repentance, depends SOLELY upon the cross for the actual work that makes us righteous in and of itself, and not the repentance or the baptism.

That is why I have been saying for days now, to no avail it seems, that baptism (as I see baptism) is no more a work than repentance is. Baptism is not something I do that in and of itself makes me righteous. Same with repentance. In fact, before I am baptized, I am deemed righteous due to my faith. But that faith is a "faith that works" kind of faith. It does not matter if the heart works or the flesh works, a work is a work. But the ONLY issue the bible takes with works is that they cannot be used as though they make us righteous without any inkling of the cross.

This is also why I say that if someone has the FAITH that they NEED to be baptized to obey the Lord, and they die before they get baptized, THEY ARE SAVED.

It's not the water or the lowering into the water that does anything. It is the faith I have in me that obeys God that moves God to circumcise my heart from the body of sins of the flesh WHEN BAPTIZED.

It seems those who espouse never a need for baptism circumvent these passages, which NO EARLY CHURCH WRITINGS after the bible ever espoused, let alone the bible!

If baptism is not at the heart level, then IT IS INVALID!

[Jeffrey]

I stated this before, but although baptism involves a physical act, and repentance is a heart act, both are still acts. Acts are works. People seem to think that because repentance is done in the heart that it does not make it a work. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not ANY WORK, even repentance, depends SOLELY upon the cross for the actual work that makes us righteous in and of itself, and not the repentance or the baptism.

That is why I have been saying for days now, to no avail it seems, that baptism (as I see baptism) is no more a work than repentance is. Baptism is not something I do that in and of itself makes me righteous. Same with repentance. In fact, before I am baptized, I am deemed righteous due to my faith. But that faith is a "faith that works" kind of faith. It does not matter if the heart works or the flesh works, a work is a work. But the ONLY issue the bible takes with works is that they cannot be used as though they make us righteous without any inkling of the cross.

This is also why I say that if someone has the FAITH that they NEED to be baptized to obey the Lord, and they die before they get baptized, THEY ARE SAVED.

It's not the water or the lowering into the water that does anything. It is the faith I have in me that obeys God that moves God to circumcise my heart from the body of sins of the flesh WHEN BAPTIZED.

It seems those who espouse never a need for baptism circumvent these passages, which NO EARLY CHURCH WRITINGS after the bible ever espoused, let alone the bible!

If baptism is not at the heart level, then IT IS INVALID!

I should clarify, it is not, as faith, inseparable from a heart level, simultaneous response. In no way was I questioning anyone's baptism as not being "toward Christ" or "in Christ." A heart turned toward God in repentance, and a heart consecrated in Christ at baptism. I understanding these are expressions of heart, but they are now expressions of a regenerated heart... a heart that was turned toward God upon faith. It is not a conscious effort. It is not a labored action. It is instantaneous, New Birth, new life and righteous accounting by God by the one who simply believed and accepted the marvelous gift of God.

That's a misnomer to suggest I intended otherwise, Mike. I have no doubt that you believe baptism is a heart level response to God -- though as you can see above, it does not fit the category of faith. To say they are apples-to-apples only contradicts what you are saying. Baptism is a result of faith, not a parallel to faith.

[mfblume]

I should clarify, it is not, as faith, inseparable from a heart level, simultaneous response. In no way was I questioning anyone's baptism as not being "toward Christ" or "in Christ." A heart turned toward God in repentance, and a heart consecrated in Christ at baptism. I understanding these are expressions of heart, but they are now expressions of a regenerated heart... a heart that was turned toward God upon faith. It is not a conscious effort. It is not a labored action. It is instantaneous, New Birth, new life and righteous accounting by God by the one who simply believed and accepted the marvelous gift of God.

That's a misnomer to suggest I intended otherwise, Mike. I have no doubt that you believe baptism is a heart level response to God -- though as you can see above, it does not fit the category of faith. To say they are apples-to-apples only contradicts what you are saying. Baptism is a result of faith, not a parallel to faith.

I was speaking more of REPENTANCE, though I did mention faith once. Repentance is a conscious action of the heart that requires faith like baptism does.

[Jeffrey]

I was speaking more of REPENTANCE, though I did mention faith once. Repentance is a conscious action of the heart that requires faith like baptism does.

Yeah... we could compare someone going to be baptized and a heart turned toward God in the finest of detail. I see repentance more inseparably tied to the New Birth experience of belief and faith. It's not external to it. Both are immediate at a heart level. Repentance is not even, in its birth, about quitting sin as much as it is about turning TOWARD God, and trusting God. (Sin is a consequence of a unbelief, and a turning back FROM God).

Trying to fit these together in categories is grasping for straws IMO, Mike. It really is.

[notofworks]

Agreed. But yet a work. And this is the kicker. This heart level work is not something we do in order to replace any work of God to make us righteous. Same with baptism.

To bottom line it, there are a bunch of really smart theologians that see repentance as a "Work" and a bunch of really smart theologians that scoff at the notion of repentance being a "Work."

So you're gonna have your view and I'm gonna have mine (the correct view that God agrees with, of course!). But when repentance is purely defined and we see it as it really is, I am baffled how it could be a "Work".

Repentance takes place the moment we allow God to walk through the door of our heart and occupy the position of "First place." It is the realization that God is the one who should control us, that His will is greater than ours, that His way is better than ours, and that His sacrifice was the ONLY work that could ever be beneficial for the betterment of our souls.

A "Work" is an effort on our parts that would help us obtain salvation. I'm sorry, Mike, I know you don't like it when I raise this issue, but it still is what it is. In your description of how you "received the Holy Ghost" I cannot see it as anything but a "Work" in order to receive a "gift." You set aside sin so that you could receive a necessary element of salvation (necessary in your view, anyway). In that description you gave us, you told us something that you did. That, in my view, constitutes a, "Work."

But salvation is a complete gift, It is our as soon as we grant Christ permission to be "Lord."

Romans 4:2 Was it because of his good deeds that God accepted him? If so, he would have had something to boast about. But from God's point of view Abraham had no basis at all for pride.


Romans 4:3 For the Scriptures tell us, "Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous."


Romans 4:4 When people work, their wages are not a gift. Workers earn what they receive.


Romans 4:5 But people are declared righteous because of their faith, not because of their work.




Is belief a "Work"? Here in Romans, belief is directly separated from a "Work", and repentance is belief in Christ as Lord.

[notofworks]

To bottom line it, there are a bunch of really smart theologians that see repentance as a "Work" and a bunch of really smart theologians that scoff at the notion of repentance being a "Work."

So you're gonna have your view and I'm gonna have mine (the correct view that God agrees with, of course!). But when repentance is purely defined and we see it as it really is, I am baffled how it could be a "Work".

Repentance takes place the moment we allow God to walk through the door of our heart and occupy the position of "First place." It is the realization that God is the one who should control us, that His will is greater than ours, that His way is better than ours, and that His sacrifice was the ONLY work that could ever be beneficial for the betterment of our souls.

A "Work" is an effort on our parts that would help us obtain salvation. I'm sorry, Mike, I know you don't like it when I raise this issue, but it still is what it is. In your description of how you "received the Holy Ghost" I cannot see it as anything but a "Work" in order to receive a "gift." You set aside sin so that you could receive a necessary element of salvation (necessary in your view, anyway). In that description you gave us, you told us something that you did. That, in my view, constitutes a, "Work."

But salvation is a complete gift, It is our as soon as we grant Christ permission to be "Lord."

Romans 4:2 Was it because of his good deeds that God accepted him? If so, he would have had something to boast about. But from God's point of view Abraham had no basis at all for pride.


Romans 4:3 For the Scriptures tell us, "Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous."


Romans 4:4 When people work, their wages are not a gift. Workers earn what they receive.


Romans 4:5 But people are declared righteous because of their faith, not because of their work.




Is belief a "Work"? Here in Romans, belief is directly separated from a "Work", and repentance is belief in Christ as Lord.


4:4...."When people work".....

Verse 5, "But people are declared righteous BECAUSE of the faith, NOT because of their work.


Belief clearly isn't a "work" in this context! It's ALL HIM!!! All of the grace that has covered my life is completely on HIS behalf!!! It's ALL HIM!!!

[Jeffrey]

Romans 10

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'[b]" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

[notofworks]

Romans 10

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'[b]" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."



So clearly, Jeffrey, "Belief" in this context is NOT a work, correct?



I particularly love the above passage from the NLT:



Rom 10:4 For Christ has accomplished the whole purpose of the law. All who believe in him are made right with God.


Rom 10:5 For Moses wrote that the law's way of making a person right with God requires obedience to all of its commands.


Rom 10:6 But the way of getting right with God through faith says, "You don't need to go to heaven" (to find Christ and bring him down to help you).


Rom 10:7 And it says, "You don't need to go to the place of the dead" (to bring Christ back to life again).


Rom 10:8 Salvation that comes from trusting Christ--which is the message we preach--is already within easy reach. In fact, the Scriptures say, "The message is close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart."


Rom 10:9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


Rom 10:10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.


Rom 10:11 As the Scriptures tell us, "Anyone who believes in him will not be disappointed. "


Rom 10:12 Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect. They all have the same Lord, who generously gives his riches to all who ask for them.


Rom 10:13 For "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

[Jeffrey]

Mike/TL,
what are your views of human depravity? :)

[mfblume]

Repentance is belief????

Repentance is a work, guys. Anything we do, that God does not do for us, is a work on our behalf.

Also, the bible clearly specifies the issue of what makes us righteous when it speaks of salvation by works. Nothing else. It matters not whether repentance is tied to faith or not, since repentance is a conscious act that God cannot do for us automatically. Sorry, bros, that is the issue when it comes to works in the bible.

Repentance IS NOT BELIEF, but is done BECAUSE OF BELIEF. It is a choice to ask God to forgive us and is a conscious decision to remove ourselves from the sinful activity we were headed in.

Also, Jesus said BELIEF is a work. Can't deny the bible.

Joh 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[notofworks]

Repentance is belief????



Repentance is the turn, the acknowledgement that Christ is Lord, the placing of our faith in Christ, belief.


"But people are declared righteous because of their faith, not because of their work." Romans 4:5

[Jeffrey]

Repentance is belief????

Repentance is a work, guys. Anything we do, that God does not do for us, is a work on our behalf.

Also, the bible clearly specifies the issue of what makes us righteous when it speaks of salvation by works. Nothing else. It matters not whether repentance is tied to faith or not, since repentance is a conscious act that God cannot do for us automatically. Sorry, bros, that is the issue when it comes to works in the bible.

Repentance IS NOT BELIEF, but is done BECAUSE OF BELIEF. It is a choice to ask God to forgive us and is a conscious decision to remove ourselves from the sinful activity we were headed in.

Also, Jesus said BELIEF is a work. Can't deny the bible.

Joh 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Who said it was the same as belief?

Repentance is what happens after faith, and I think one could argue, simultaneous with faith. In fact, it is inseparable, indivisible even. It's hard to tear it apart into components. It's a wild and crazy New Birth.

I'm not sure we can even obey God's commands to repent except by His grace.

But we must see repentance as primarily a heart turned towards God before we see it as a confession on our knees in tears that we promise not to be bad people anymore. As a matter of fact, the latter definition is the most skewed of repentance and has caused much damage.

"Repent" - "turn your heart toward God" - "trust in Him!"

[mfblume]

Repentance is the turn, the acknowledgement that Christ is Lord, the placing of our faith in Christ, belief.


"But people are declared righteous because of their faith, not because of their work." Romans 4:5

Repentance is not belief. It is something we do once we have belief. We believe Jesus is correct when He said He is the way, the truth and the life, and that the work of the cross (eating his flesh and drinking his blood) grants eternal life. And he said except we repent we will perish. So, we CHOOSE TO REPENT BECAUSE WE ALREADY BELIEVED THE GOSPEL FIRST. Repentance is NOT belief.

And the WORK of Romans 4:5 is a work that is done in and of itself to make us righteous. That is the all important stipulation and distinction.

Show me one dictionary definition that says repentance is belief. One cannot provide one!

[Jeffrey]

Repentance is not belief. It is something we do once we have belief. We believe Jesus is correct when He said He is the way, the truth and the life, and that the work of the cross (eating his flesh and drinking his blood) grants eternal life. And he said except we repent we will perish. So, we CHOOSE TO REPENT BECAUSE WE ALREADY BELIEVED THE GOSPEL FIRST. Repentance is NOT belief.

And the WORK of Romans 4:5 is a work that is done in and of itself to make us righteous. That is the all important stipulation and distinction.

Show me one dictionary definition that says repentance is belief. One cannot provide one!

I agree with the bolded. But since we are debating the semantics of such, we are trying to define how one repents. I argue that it's almost inseparable from belief. It's an osmosis of faith.

[mfblume]

Who said it was the same as belief?

Notofworks said it.

Here:

Is belief a "Work"? Here in Romans, belief is directly separated from a "Work", and repentance is belief in Christ as Lord.

Repentance is what happens after faith, and I think one could argue, simultaneous with faith. In fact, it is inseparable, indivisible even. It's hard to tear it apart into components. It's a wild and crazy New Birth.

It is not inseparable, because one can c;actually believe in Christ's salvation and refuse to repent. This occurred with me before I got saved for a period.

I'm not sure we can even obey God's commands to repent except by His grace.

But we must see repentance as primarily a heart turned towards God before we see it as a confession on our knees in tears that we promise not to be bad people anymore. As a matter of fact, the latter definition is the most skewed of repentance and has caused much damage.

"Repent" - "turn your heart toward God" - "trust in Him!"

No, repent means to TURN FROM SIN also. Consciously DO THE CORRECT WORK, but repentance is not a work that makes us righteous in and of itself. Sorry guys, I am going to repeat "repentance is not a work that makes us righteous in and of itself," so long as this issue is something I choose to remain interested in discussing. lol

[mfblume]

I agree with the bolded. But since we are debating the semantics of such, we are trying to define how one repents. I argue that it's almost inseparable from belief. It's an osmosis of faith.

So is anything, for that matter, that is a work in the context of FAITH THAT WORKS. That is my point. Correct baptism is a work in the same category of FAITH THAT WORKS. The "work" in faith that "works" is inseparable from faith, since it would not occur if the faith did not exist.

[mfblume]

BUMP for notofworks

Here is why righteousness needs to be studied.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

WHOA!, Lord. Pick me off the floor and explain that to me!


Rom 4:3-7 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


What does Paul mean by "works of righteousness"?

What does imputing righteousness without works mean?

Are works out the window? Evidently not.

Tit 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

Tit 3:14 And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.


Lookie at James:

Jas 2:17-24 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (19) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (20) But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? (21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (22) Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? (23) And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (24) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


People think James was right and Paul was wrong when they read James 2 and then compare that with Paul:

James 2:24 (24) ...Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Paul said a lot about righteousness related to salvation, and works.

Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom 8:3-4 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.



And someone said the issue of righteousness is not complicated.

What is complicated about it is that its relationship with works determines whether or not those works are exerted erringly.

People told me that works justify the believer according to James, but Paul said we are not justified by works.

People need to be able to reconcile James with Paul. There is no contradiction, when one realizes that James meant justifying OUR CLAIMS, not the states of ourselves for salvation, whereas Paul spoke of justifying the state of self for salvation, there is no contradiction.

When RIGHTEOUSNESS is an odd addition to the concept of salvation, a person NEEDS TO STUDY the issue of RIGHTEOUSNESS in the bible, and what place it has in relation to salvation, a little more. They never taught me THAT one in bible school. I wish they did! What embarrassment I experienced! Whew! :blush

Still think it is not complex, notofworks? I am still trying to get a better handle on James, too.

[Jeffrey]

Notofworks said it.

Here:





It is not inseparable, because one can c;actually believe in Christ's salvation and refuse to repent. TRULY believing that Jesus is who He said He is, that He is the source of life, wellspring of truth, a provider, powerful, glorious, gracious, etc... TRULY believing can produce only repentance. Nothing else. Otherwise, it was, as you and TL often say, just mental assent. Belief is a deep, heart-level thing. It's a new birth. This occurred with me before I got saved for a period.



No, repent means to TURN FROM SIN also. Consciously DO THE CORRECT WORK, but repentance is not a work that makes us righteous in and of itself. Sorry guys, I am going to repeat "repentance is not a work that makes us righteous in and of itself," so long as this issue is something I choose to remain interested in discussing. lol

I refer back to my comments on repentance for your latter paragraph. Otherwise, it's pure moralism.

[Jeffrey]

So is anything, for that matter, that is a work in the context of FAITH THAT WORKS. That is my point. Correct baptism is a work in the same category of FAITH THAT WORKS. The "work" in faith that "works" is inseparable from faith, since it would not occur if the faith did not exist.

Be hearing I need to be baptized, agreeing to it, changing my clothes and participating in a baptism service is simply not in the same remote category as believing and turning my heart toward Christ.

It's silly I have to insist on that. It's so obvious, Mike. You MUST insist to support your entire theory about "works." I just don't see it as a very sound theory.

[notofworks]

No, repent means to TURN FROM SIN also.


The TURN FROM SIN is the TURN TO CHRIST. I understand your objection to the equivocation of repentance to belief and we can dissect words and their meanings 'til the cows come home and argue over terminologies.

But I'm talking about our salvation coming at the point of repentance, salvation that comes when we believe. Is repentance completely belief? I'm not saying that it is and I don't really think it's an enormous point in the dialogue. If you need to separate faith and repentance and call them completely different things, I'm not gonna yell and scream about it and I'm not terribly interested in arguing about it.

My point is, belief, the turn, faith, repentance....these are not works. We are declared righteous because of our faith and it is faith...belief...confesses Jesus as Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead.

[Jeffrey]

“Sinners still reject the righteousness of God because they cannot earn it. It is absolutely free They stumble over the offer because it deprives them of any proprietary involvement in their own salvation. It is pride that brings people down. How deeply ingrained is our rebellious self-esteem! Too proud to accept God’s willingness to forgive, sinners stumble headlong into eternity with their stubborn sinfulness intact” (Mounce 206). The “stumbling stone” of 9:32 is the message of justification by faith alone. “The (person) who seeks to establish his own righteousness, however virtuous he may be, can be only a rebellious creature of God” (C.K. Barrett, quoted by Mounce, 207).

[Jeffrey]

Yeah. What he said.
http://yourjourney.typepad.com/mark_johnston/2010/04/this-may-set-you-free.html#comments

[TheLegalist]

The TURN FROM SIN is the TURN TO CHRIST. I understand your objection to the equivocation of repentance to belief and we can dissect words and their meanings 'til the cows come home and argue over terminologies.

But I'm talking about our salvation coming at the point of repentance, salvation that comes when we believe. Is repentance completely belief? I'm not saying that it is and I don't really think it's an enormous point in the dialogue. If you need to separate faith and repentance and call them completely different things, I'm not gonna yell and scream about it and I'm not terribly interested in arguing about it.

My point is, belief, the turn, faith, repentance....these are not works. We are declared righteous because of our faith and it is faith...belief...confesses Jesus as Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead.

AGAIN justification does not mean one has come into covenant! PERIOD!

[mfblume]

Brethren, if you cannot see how repentance is a work in the sense that we choose to do it, and we may or may not do it once we have faith, and if you choose to believe there is no all-important difference between faith THAT WORKS and works that make us righteous in and of themselves, then I can only conclude you have not studied the issue of righteousness in the bible adequately enough. IMHO, that is. Hence, we're at loggerheads.

And that is why you care less if someone really ever gets baptized and how the New Testament is so insistent on it by contrast. Until you realize mental turning to Christ and from sin is an action, and say more than "walking old ladies across the street is a work, but turning the heart is not," we get no where. But I have enjoyed the chat.

[mfblume]

Brethren, explain these passages:

Mark 16:16 KJV He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Colossians 2:11-12 KJV In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: (12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Acts 22:16 KJV And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3-4 KJV Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1 Peter 3:21 KJV The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


Good for starters.