The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[TheLegalist]

Brethren, explain these passages:

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.

Mike they can't! The whole issue at hand is they have a paradigm of justificaton that makes the bible a total contradiction. Thus you get the war of faith vs baptism, faith vs works, gospel and law. It's the same old worn out issue that they cannot get past. We can accept faith for what it is and we see it as a whole. They have to skew and totaly distort clear scriptures on baptism. As works have to be misused and abused to fit the rest of scripture and whole lot of lumping has to go on. "works" don't justify.... they yell. Yet they fail to realize justification is more than just about atonement. The framework of covenant is clearly shown by Abraham and he didn't come into covenant to obtain by simply believing something was true with agreement at one point in time and everything was given to him. sorry didn't happen and still won't. god accounted his response as righteous. That is ALL Gen 15:6 is. It's not directly about salvation though it shows the most basic conecept of how God's jsutice works. That God responds to our response and considers/judges it just or not. Just as we do daily. Thus the context is ALL DETERMINING of whether God declares a just response or not.

[notofworks]

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.


Do you really want or need these verses explained? An in-depth exegesis of these verses would take pages and you're the only one, at this point, who's typing pages!:lol We could talk about how Jesus only applied the damnation in Mark 16:16 only to those who believed not but you've already heard that argument, haven't you?

I'm afraid that explaining a random list of verses that appear to back up your theology is a task in which I'm not would be productive. But if you like explaining random verses, try these:



1) Romans 10:4...For Christ has accomplished the whole purpose of the law. All who believe in him are made right with God.

2) Romans 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."

3) Romans 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.

4) Romans 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.

5) Romans 10:13...For anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

6) Acts 2:21...And anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

7) Acts 13:39...Everyone who believes in him is freed from all guilt and declared right with God–something the Jewish law could never do.

8) Acts 16:31...They replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with your entire household."

9) I Corinthians 1:21...Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe.

10) Romans 5:1...Therefore, since we have been made right in God's sight by faith, we have peace with God because of that Christ our Lord has done for us.

11) John 11:25...Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die like everyone else, will live again."

12) John 11:26...They are given eternal life for believing in me and will never perish.

13) John 3:15...So that everyone who believes in me will have eternal life.

14) John 3:16...For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

15) John 5:24...I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death to life.

16) I Timothy 1:16...But that is why God had mercy on me, so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others can realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.

17) Romans 3:25...For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us.

18) Romans 3:28...So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

19) I John 5:1...Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.

20) I John 4:15...All who proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God have God living in them, and they live in God.

21) II Timothy 3:15...You have been taught the holy Scriptures since childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.





Mike, let me ask you this: Here are 21 verses out of well over 50 that proclaim salvation comes when one believes. If it is not true that salvation comes when one believes, how does one reconcile all this?

If salvation doesn't come at belief/faith/repentance, does all this mean that one will be saved in the future, following his belief? Not everyone ends up following your steps after belief/faith/repentance so then would these verses be untrue? If your version is correct and you believe that they will be saved following belief, wouldn't it be better if all these statements had said, "They can be saved" rather than "They will be?"

Or, are you saying that all these authors...Paul, Jesus, John, etc.,...were summarizing all the steps and just reducing all the explanations down to "Belief"?

[pelathais]

AGAIN justification does not mean one has come into covenant! PERIOD!
The title of the thread is "The Cross Alone Can Save."

Justification, or salvation from the penalty of sin is what the cross does. Can you simply say, "As far as the topic goes, I agree - our faith in the cross alone justifies the believer...?"

[pelathais]

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.

I will do one post for each - to save your weary eyeballs...

Mark 16:9-20, represents the "longer ending to Mark." I'm not going to introduce a debate on this right now, but the fact that the passage is in doubt would tend to make reliance upon it inadvisable. From the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16) on this:

Hypotheses on how to explain the textual variations include:


Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (at an early date) wrote the concluding lines.
Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death), whereupon another person finished the work before it was released for church-use.
The Gospel originally contained a different (perhaps similar) ending that was lost, for one reason or another, whereafter the current ending was added.
Verses 16:9–20 are authentic, and were omitted or lost from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidental, perhaps intentional.
Verses 16:9–20 were added later to conform with the endings from the other Gospels.

James H. Charlesworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Charlesworth) pointed out that Codex Syriacus (a 5th-century translation), Codex Vaticanus (mid-4th century), and Codex Bobiensis (4th- or 5th-century Latin) are all early manuscripts that exclude the Marcan appendix. In addition to these, approximately 100 Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts, also omit the appendix. The Armenian Version was made in 411-450, and the Old Georgian Version was based mainly on the Armenian Version. One Armenian manuscript, made in 989, features a note, written between 16:8 and 16:9, Ariston eritzou, that is, "By Ariston the Elder/Priest." Ariston, or Aristion, is known from early traditions (preserved by Papias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias) and others) as a colleague of Peter and as a bishop of Smyrna in the first century.
There's more of course, such as the internal evidence within the authenticated portions of Mark do not appear to bear witness to this addition.

That being said, the passage may in fact be valid, thus one does have to fit it into their systems.

Jesus is reported as saying, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Notice that the two clauses are not in parallel. Jesus does not say, "he that is baptized not shall be damned..." The emphasis is upon belief and faith in the works of the resurrected Christ. Taken in toto, this does not appear to link the idea of salvation to the act of water baptism.

As an addendum, here are the NET Bible's notes on this passage:

Mark 16:9

9 tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armMSS Eus EusMSS HierMSS), including two of the most respected MSS (א B). The following shorter ending is found in some MSS; "They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen." This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most MSS include the longer ending (Mark 16:9-20) immediately after Mar_16:8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between Mark 16:14 and Mark 16:15] Θ À13 33 2427 œ lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek MSS that had this ending. Several MSS have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek MSS lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at Mark 16:8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at Mark 16:8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to Mark 16:9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at Mark 16:8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, Mark 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending Mark 16:8; (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the MS was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a Codex (only on a Codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the MS not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, "It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers" (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, "What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory."

sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

[mfblume]

Do you really want or need these verses explained? An in-depth exegesis of these verses would take pages and you're the only one, at this point, who's typing pages!:lol We could talk about how Jesus only applied the damnation in Mark 16:16 only to those who believed not but you've already heard that argument, haven't you?

I'm afraid that explaining a random list of verses that appear to back up your theology is a task in which I'm not would be productive. But if you like explaining random verses, try these:
Two-way street bro., You refuse then so do I.


Mike, let me ask you this: Here are 21 verses out of well over 50 that proclaim salvation comes when one believes. If it is not true that salvation comes when one believes, how does one reconcile all this?

Easy! Like I have said all along, FAITH THAT WORTS is the faith that saves. And if the works never follow, there never was saving faith. It's so simple. Why is that so hard to follow?

What is not simple is how righteousness is related to everything.

[notofworks]

Two-way street bro., You refuse then so do I.



Easy! Like I have said all along, FAITH THAT WORTS is the faith that saves. And if the works never follow, there never was saving faith. It's so simple. Why is that so hard to follow?

What is not simple is how righteousness is related to everything.


I didn't know "worts" were involved!:lol Compound W always worked for my warts!:lol (sorry, I know it was a typo, but it just struck me funny)

Mike, so you're saying someone that believes that doesn't follow it up with the works of baptism and tongues didn't really believe in the first place??? That sounds like my old pentecostal past that would beat someone over the head when they first walked in, watch them walk out, and then proclaim, "Well, they just weren't ready."


Why is it so hard to follow? I don't know that it's hard to follow, oh great teacher:lol, but it IS hard to fathom how such a simple thing can confound the wise.

[pelathais]

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.
Mike, are you seeking to equate circumcision as an OT type of baptism? I know (or at least I strongly suspect) TheLegalist would, due to his emphasis upon the covenantal aspects of circumcision. The idea of equating baptism with the OT sign of circumcision doesn't really work when you seek to apply that idea to other passages that discuss OT circumcision as a type of the new birth or salvation.

Ephesians 2:11-18, clearly identifies the NT "circumcision" with the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Context is also key here to understanding this passage. Consider: [Colossians 2:6-15 (NET)]

Col 2:6 Therefore, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him,
Col 2:7 rooted and built up in him and firm in your faith just as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
Col 2:8 Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form,
Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
Col 2:11 In him you also were circumcised — not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body,23 that is, through the circumcision done by Christ.
Col 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he nevertheless made you alive with him, having forgiven all your transgressions.
Col 2:14 He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:15 Disarming the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

How are we "forgiven all [our] trespasses?" By the cross: Romans 3:25.

The repeated appeal here is made to what Jesus Christ has done on the cross. A lot of folks like to introduce the idea that water baptism is the NT equivalent to OT circumcision - they dance right up and plop the idea down; then when you call them on it, they quickly dance away.

So, are you equating NT water baptism with the OT commands and covenants of circumcision?

[TheLegalist]

The title of the thread is "The Cross Alone Can Save."

Justification, or salvation from the penalty of sin is what the cross does. Can you simply say, "As far as the topic goes, I agree - our faith in the cross alone justifies the believer...?"

Does Faith in the cross include the resurrection? Then NO!

[pelathais]

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.

How are sins "washed away?" Are they washed away by the waters of baptism? NO!

Peter makes this abundantly clear: "...— not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

"Getting wet" does nothing, in and of itself. Peter is emphatic about this in the very proof text that "Three Steppers" like to bandy about.

How does "baptism now save us...?" It is clear - we are NOT saved by our obedience to the instruction to be baptized, rather, we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Whatever happened to that "guy who dies in the car on the way to get baptized..." Mike? How does baptism save him? You seem to me to be "alternating" again between "Three Stepper" rhetoric and your own good sense.

Paul's sins were "washed away" when he called "upon the name of the Lord" (Acts 2:21). Ananias of Damascus seems to have had Peter's sermon on Pentecost clearly in mind here.

We are baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ when we first believe - because of the cross! NOT, "instead of, or in addition to" the cross! We were identified with the "circumcision of Christ" in repentance (Ephesians 2:10-18), and our sins are "remitted," (Romans 3:25), "forgiven" (Colossians 2:13) and we are "redeemed" (Galatians 3:13) - - ALL THIS! BEFORE WE EVEN PUT ON THE BAPTISMAL GOWN.

[pelathais]

Does Faith in the cross include the resurrection? Then NO!
Good point, you ornery old quibbler... LOL!

By "cross" we mean everything that is associated with that rather terrible weekend our Lord suffered long ago and His triumph on the first day of the week. As I pointed out in another post - baptism doesn't save us because we get wet. Baptism saves us because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[TheLegalist]

Good point, you ornery old quibbler... LOL!

By "cross" we mean everything that is associated with that rather terrible weekend our Lord suffered long ago and His triumph on the first day of the week. As I pointed out in another post - baptism doesn't save us because we get wet. Baptism saves us because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

being that faith is contextual.......sure I could agree almost to anything HAHAHA! I would agree that all authority comes from the point of the cross unto the resurrection for salvation. Which is the point of Heb 5:9 He became the source.....

[augustianian]

just jumping in...haven't read everything in this thread.

Is a person justified before he does any deeds in James 2?

[TheLegalist]

just jumping in...haven't read everything in this thread.

Is a person justified before he does any deeds in James 2?

hmmmm define deed! I think work/deed/response all fall into the realm and I believe Blume has went over this many times as well.

When reading James please clarify these points...

1) when does justification take place.
2) Is the word "believed" in Gen 15:6 judged/considered as limited to that scripture or with all in view completed in Gen 22 at the offering of Isaac?
3) "Scritpure was fulfilled" please show how it relates to the whole of the text in James 2
4) What is teh clear statement of James about faith in James 2?

[mfblume]

Mike, so you're saying someone that believes that doesn't follow it up with the works of baptism and tongues didn't really believe in the first place??? That sounds like my old pentecostal past that would beat someone over the head when they first walked in, watch them walk out, and then proclaim, "Well, they just weren't ready."


Why is it so hard to follow? I don't know that it's hard to follow, oh great teacher:lol,

More digs?

but it IS hard to fathom how such a simple thing can confound the wise.

Bro., forget what so and so did and what so and so walked away from. Does the Bible teach anything about FAITH THAT WORKS?

James said faith is dead without works. Useless, iow.

[mfblume]

just jumping in...haven't read everything in this thread.

Is a person justified before he does any deeds in James 2?

Yes, if those deeds are deeds that are eventually done. Otherwise, the faith that works was not present.

[notofworks]

More digs?

Bro., forget what so and so did and what so and so walked away from. Does the Bible teach anything about FAITH THAT WORKS?

James said faith is dead without works. Useless, iow.


Oh calm down, Mike!:lol I put a laugh thinggy beside it. Aren't you aware that on AFF we can say anything, no matter how mean, if we put a laugh thinggy by it? It's in the official policy somewhere!:lol But I didn't really do the "dig" there. But the, "Why can't you people get this??" statement, kinda set me up for the spike!:D

BUT YES!!!!! We have finally found an area where we agree and consequently, where you are right!:lol (I put a laugh thinggy...don't criticize me) The bible definitely teaches faith that works and James 2 is revolutionary, in fact, the whole book is.

[mfblume]

How are sins "washed away?" Are they washed away by the waters of baptism? NO!

Amen, but it is not BY the waters, but AT the waters. Otherwise baptism would not be mentioned. :)

Look at it as though repentance SEPARATES the sins from us like the pillar of fire divided the Egyptians from the Israelites. Then the RED SEA wipes out the Egyptians as baptism eradicates the separated sins, only because of the BLOOD OF THE LAMB that occurred beforehand. Israel stood still and saw the salvation OF THE LORD, not of themselves. Boy, that is opening up a huge issue even moreso, but this shows the need to realize there is more to it than just seeing a lamb's blood shed.

Peter makes this abundantly clear: "...— not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

"Getting wet" does nothing, in and of itself. Peter is emphatic about this in the very proof text that "Three Steppers" like to bandy about.

No, you are misrepresenting three steppers. H20 does not cut it. But BAPTISM SAVES, Peter said. Not in the way you might think three steppers claim it does. The water does not wash flesh. The obedience fulfills the works in the saving FAITH THAT WORKS, though.

Despite all one steppers say, Peter said "baptism doth also now even save us". I do not think any one stepper would ever make such a statement. Think about it.

How does "baptism now save us...?" It is clear - we are NOT saved by our obedience to the instruction to be baptized, rather, we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No that is not what it says. See? You have the CHANGE THE TEXT to deal with it. You cannot take the text as is.

It actually says that Baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. You asked HOW baptism saves, and then you changed the text. Whereas you said we are saved by the resurrection, Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection. BIG DIFFERENCE.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. If baptism saved in and of itself, it would not add the clause "by the resurrection of Jesus." However, he said baptism saves and said it saves by the resurrection. He said two things one steppers would never say.

1) Baptism saves.

2) Resurrection is that by which baptism saves.

One steppers say what you said, but what Peter did not say: We are saved by the resurrection. That is an incomplete statement in regards to the truth of what saves.

Whatever happened to that "guy who dies in the car on the way to get baptized..." Mike? How does baptism save him? You seem to me to be "alternating" again between "Three Stepper" rhetoric and your own good sense.

No, your question is only evidence that you are not getting what I am saying. My example of the dying on the road to baptism is the entire explanation that answers it all. The reason the guy on his way to get baptized is saved is because the baptism in and of itself saves no one. I have always maintained that. Baptism only saves because it relies upon the resurrection of Christ showing the work of the cross actually saves. Since the FAITH THAT WORKS causes the man to intend to WORK the act of baptism, even though not baptized, the man is saved.

It's like saying Abraham was deemed righteous before he was circumcised, because GOD KNEW his faith would move him to be circumcised in obedience. God knows if your faith is one that works or not. If it is dead faith with no works to ever follow, God sees that nature of the dead faith, so He does not deem such a one righteous.

But we have to also understand the example of Noah. Baptism is the antitype of deliverance by water in Noah's day. God commanded the ark's contstruction as well as man's baptism. Not man. Just as the ark was mocked at in his day, baptism seems to be mocked at today. Noah and his family entered the ark like a sort of BURIAL with Christ. As the ark had waters above and waters below strike at it, baptism is by immersion.

But it is not a salvation by the CAUSE of baptism, and it does not cleanse FLESH but is involved in SINS washed as Acts 22:16 says. Only the blood of Jesus causes sins to be washed. But baptism saves BY the resurrection of Christ which alludes to the work of the cross that includes resurrection. Baptism saves because it is an answer of a good conscience. This is where it is intrinsically associated to FAITH. FAITH THAT WORKS is saving faith. If no works follow, as though one refuses baptism, one is not saved. But since faith THAT WORKS is what saves us, then if someone possesses that faith, intends on baptism, and is slain beforehand, one is saved because they had the faith THAT WORKS.

Paul's sins were "washed away" when he called "upon the name of the Lord" (Acts 2:21). ... during baptism.

Ananias of Damascus seems to have had Peter's sermon on Pentecost clearly in mind here.

We are baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ when we first believe - because of the cross! NOT, "instead of, or in addition to" the cross!RIGHT!! This is what I have been saying all along!

Baptism is not a replacement to the cross as though the cross need never have occurred for baptism to save us. It is totally reliant upon the cross.

We were identified with the "circumcision of Christ" in repentance (Ephesians 2:10-18), and our sins are "remitted," (Romans 3:25), "forgiven" (Colossians 2:13) and we are "redeemed" (Galatians 3:13) - - ALL THIS! BEFORE WE EVEN PUT ON THE BAPTISMAL GOWN.

That is only true if baptism definitely follows. If baptism never follows, then there has been no actual identification. Again, this is because FAITH THAT WORKS is what saves, before the works occur, but ONLY BECAUSE THE WORKS DO LATER OCCUR.

[augustianian]

Mf Blume,

Are you saying that justification is conditional on future deeds? Then at what time can I say that I am justified, before the deeds are done or as soon as I get them done?

Abraham in Genesis 15 knew nothing of Genesis 22 but yet he was justified in Genesis 15. Isn't it more accurate instead to say that a believer can know that he is justified before God WHEN he believes (apart from works either future or present)

Saving faith can be present in deeds, can be absent in deeds, and obviously can be present without deeds, and necessarily so at that, considering that faith without deeds IS the kind of faith that saves, otherwise it's not saving faith. Saving faith, which is the issue, is an inclination of the heart that is disheartened by deeds or works...otherwise if it were not such an inclination it would be presumptuous enough to have no need of a worker other than itself. Saving faith IS the acknowledgment of the inability of deeds to justify, whether past present or future, and the reliance on the ability of another to justify regardless, not on account of, deeds whether past, present or future.

If you are saying that saving faith will lead to good works, then I agree. However, saving faith and justification is NOT conditional upon future works. There is a difference between fruit and root.

James says we're justified by works...Paul says it's by faith apart from works. The only difference is the clause "before God." And since God gives faith, and since God justifies then no one can say a person is NOT justified because of the absence of works, and the opposite is true also...no one can say a person is justified because of the presence of works. God knows.

But I agree that it is faith that is the causal agent of salvation.

a

[Jeffrey]

AGAIN justification does not mean one has come into covenant! PERIOD!

Aside from what I believe is a very near-sided view of justification, which you've explained as "God judging an act/work," (granted you say one expressed in faith) -- is that the totality of your view of justification/justified? So when it is in scripture each time this is what you have in view? Just curious.

[Jeffrey]

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.

Indeed, we are at a loggerhead, brother.

First, you are jumping to call repentance a work to justify throwing everything you can that is similar enough to repentance to be counted. Second, we've conversed with you on the fundamental and unique differences of a repented heart and a later work (either hearing about baptism and choosing to be baptized or God choosing to baptize someone in the Spirit where they speak in glossolalia).

I frankly see your attempt quite honestly as an intellectual grasping of the straws. It falls woefully short. In form, it sounds okay, but when fleshed out, it just doesn't work.

Aside from how we want to try to compartmentalize repentance (which you believe is a directed act of the will to not be bad anymore, and I see that as a very minor dimension of repentance, if one at all), it's not easily compartmentalized at the moment of faith. At faith, our heart "turns" toward God. This is the earliest movement of repentance.

[Jeffrey]

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.

The repeated phrase omits and integral part of salvation. It is known that baptism is an act that joins hands with believing faith. It is part of the picture almost. Thus, it is often said in such context (including Acts 2:38)

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.
What does Paul say in Romans about circumcision -- particularly as it related to Abraham, and what we have in common with Abram? Romans 4. This scripture clearly draws a picture of Paul's picturesque analogy of "being in Christ." Both burial (going down in water) and resurrection (coming up from water) are seen here. None of which are systematic as a theological vice as much as they are a great demonstration of what is happening. Neither do I believe baptism to be "purely symbolic" as some on here do.


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.

"washing away sins" is not done by baptism.... we know this. If one asks he will forgive. By our faith in God we are seen justified, meaning we are pardoned ("washed") of our record of wrong -- and the second part of justification is reconciliation of relationship. Again, we limit Paul to literal speech, turning his every expression into a systematic theology, which it is not. We see here another picture of the life coming to Christ -- they are always baptized -- and what one pictures is someone stepping away from the past and "into Christ." Neither is confession the "way in."

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.
Doug Moo's thoughts/comments on this passage are incredible. Encourage you to read them. Paul is explaining a concept to Jews, using things Jews would understand. Again, he often uses baptism as being the most visible manifestation of what has happened. I say it again though that I don't believe it's "just symbolism" but that in baptism is a real awareness and presence of Jesus. It's a statement not just in flesh to others, but also in Spirit. But it's not the "way in."


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:

This verse has been treated with worthy commentary often on AFF.


Good for starters.

...

[Jeffrey]

Mike they can't! The whole issue at hand is they have a paradigm of justificaton that makes the bible a total contradiction. Thus you get the war of faith vs baptism, faith vs works, gospel and law. It's the same old worn out issue that they cannot get past. We can accept faith for what it is and we see it as a whole. They have to skew and totaly distort clear scriptures on baptism. As works have to be misused and abused to fit the rest of scripture and whole lot of lumping has to go on. "works" don't justify.... they yell. Yet they fail to realize justification is more than just about atonement. The framework of covenant is clearly shown by Abraham and he didn't come into covenant to obtain by simply believing something was true with agreement at one point in time and everything was given to him. sorry didn't happen and still won't. god accounted his response as righteous. That is ALL Gen 15:6 is. It's not directly about salvation though it shows the most basic conecept of how God's jsutice works. That God responds to our response and considers/judges it just or not. Just as we do daily. Thus the context is ALL DETERMINING of whether God declares a just response or not.

Who has waged the war of faith vs. baptism? Let's think about that. We believe in baptism, TL.

Don't be so pompous to suggest it's all "so clear" in your direction, when you hardly represent a speck of theological thought with your pseudo-BR theology.

You minimize justification -- that's clear. You don't understand it -- that's even more clear.

Your definition of believing lacks any substance, and only shows your one-dimensional view of it is a straw man for mental assent. God didn't say his "response" was righteous. You contort Paul's whole purpose in what he's saying to attempt to make that point. Why can't you see that? Your interpretation must still match Paul's purpose in Romans 3-6.

Responses/Works... how can you claim this is NOT a works theology? Does it end after baptism and tongues? Are our responses continually judged? Must we repent of all of them? If we forget? How secure is your faith? How can you make a claim other than fragile? What do you and I have in common with Abram -- faith. What is the most-used phrase in Gospel of John - believing. Why is "faith" and "believing" such a hard topic? Why so quick to drag your friends "works" and "credit" out to meet them. What an insult to His gift. You can't even obey God without already being covered by Grace. Don't you get it?

[Jeffrey]

The title of the thread is "The Cross Alone Can Save."

Justification, or salvation from the penalty of sin is what the cross does. Can you simply say, "As far as the topic goes, I agree - our faith in the cross alone justifies the believer...?"

On the one hand, I don't think he understands justification. I truly don't.

But on the other, he does, but qualifies the justification is of our works.

[Jeffrey]

Two-way street bro., You refuse then so do I.



Easy! Like I have said all along, FAITH THAT WORTS is the faith that saves. And if the works never follow, there never was saving faith. It's so simple. Why is that so hard to follow?

What is not simple is how righteousness is related to everything.

My faith does not even save me. It is the means by which I accept God's gift at a heart level. Jesus and His cross save us.

[Jeffrey]

Mike, are you seeking to equate circumcision as an OT type of baptism? I know (or at least I strongly suspect) TheLegalist would, due to his emphasis upon the covenantal aspects of circumcision. The idea of equating baptism with the OT sign of circumcision doesn't really work when you seek to apply that idea to other passages that discuss OT circumcision as a type of the new birth or salvation.

Ephesians 2:11-18, clearly identifies the NT "circumcision" with the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Context is also key here to understanding this passage. Consider: [Colossians 2:6-15 (NET)]

Col 2:6 Therefore, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him,
Col 2:7 rooted and built up in him and firm in your faith just as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
Col 2:8 Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form,
Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
Col 2:11 In him you also were circumcised — not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body,23 that is, through the circumcision done by Christ.
Col 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he nevertheless made you alive with him, having forgiven all your transgressions.
Col 2:14 He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:15 Disarming the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

How are we "forgiven all [our] trespasses?" By the cross: Romans 3:25.

The repeated appeal here is made to what Jesus Christ has done on the cross. A lot of folks like to introduce the idea that water baptism is the NT equivalent to OT circumcision - they dance right up and plop the idea down; then when you call them on it, they quickly dance away.

So, are you equating NT water baptism with the OT commands and covenants of circumcision?

Great point. Circumcision was used by Paul for more than Water Baptism as well. It was a relating point for Paul when speaking to his Jewish-Christian audience.

[Jeffrey]

Does Faith in the cross include the resurrection? Then NO!

The resurrection makes the cross valid. It's what is working in the heavenly. Our faith in Jesus as the Lamb of God, and as the one who died is what he refers to. Without the resurrection, the cross has no efficacy. We get that. It's understood.

[Jeffrey]

being that faith is contextual.......sure I could agree almost to anything HAHAHA! I would agree that all authority comes from the point of the cross unto the resurrection for salvation. Which is the point of Heb 5:9 He became the source.....

Sometimes I swear you speak the King's English even in your own home. :)

[Jeffrey]

just jumping in...haven't read everything in this thread.

Is a person justified before he does any deeds in James 2?

James 2 needs to be understood... gasp... in context.

Why is James telling his audience to have "good works." So that they know how to be saved? NO! That's a starting point...

[Jeffrey]

hmmmm define deed! I think work/deed/response all fall into the realm and I believe Blume has went over this many times as well.

When reading James please clarify these points...

1) when does justification take place. see Romans 4, and Gen 12 for starters
2) Is the word "believed" in Gen 15:6 judged/considered as limited to that scripture or with all in view completed in Gen 22 at the offering of Isaac? you get awfully creative with the Story so it fits your agenda. It's really stretching. Remove the word "judged" for a moment. True judgement would have met Abram with death. God "accounted" and "reckoned" more than he "judged"
3) "Scritpure was fulfilled" please show how it relates to the whole of the text in James 2 Good point. Why is James even talking to the church about "good works." As an exposition of salvation theology? Telling them how to be saved??? Or is he encouraging them to live as who they are - Christ followers/imitators? Be honest here.
4) What is teh clear statement of James about faith in James 2?

...

[Jeffrey]

Mf Blume,

Are you saying that justification is conditional on future deeds? Then at what time can I say that I am justified, before the deeds are done or as soon as I get them done?

Abraham in Genesis 15 knew nothing of Genesis 22 but yet he was justified in Genesis 15. Isn't it more accurate instead to say that a believer can know that he is justified before God WHEN he believes (apart from works either future or present)

Saving faith can be present in deeds, can be absent in deeds, and obviously can be present without deeds, and necessarily so at that, considering that faith without deeds IS the kind of faith that saves, otherwise it's not saving faith. Saving faith, which is the issue, is an inclination of the heart that is disheartened by deeds or works...otherwise if it were not such an inclination it would be presumptuous enough to have no need of a worker other than itself. Saving faith IS the acknowledgment of the inability of deeds to justify, whether past present or future, and the reliance on the ability of another to justify regardless, not on account of, deeds whether past, present or future.

If you are saying that saving faith will lead to good works, then I agree. However, saving faith and justification is NOT conditional upon future works. There is a difference between fruit and root.

James says we're justified by works...Paul says it's by faith apart from works. The only difference is the clause "before God." And since God gives faith, and since God justifies then no one can say a person is NOT justified because of the absence of works, and the opposite is true also...no one can say a person is justified because of the presence of works. God knows.

But I agree that it is faith that is the causal agent of salvation.

a

By TL's determination we are either justified a million times in this life (each deed) or not justified at all until we get to the Judgement Seat. A very poor understanding of justification in the view of eschatology especially.

[Jeffrey]

It's cool TL. Ignore all my comments from last night. Still not smart enough to deserve a response from you.

[notofworks]

James 2 needs to be understood... gasp... in context.

Why is James telling his audience to have "good works." So that they know how to be saved? NO! That's a starting point...


I will admit to scratching my head just a bit when James 2 has been referred to in the salvational discussion. I thought about throwing in a discussion of Daniel 3 and the fiery furnace, but that might add confusion to the confusion.

So what, exactly, does giving one's coat to a cold stranger rather than praying for him, have to do with salvation? I'll study for a while and see what I can come up with.

[Jeffrey]

I will admit to scratching my head just a bit when James 2 has been referred to in the salvational discussion. I thought about throwing in a discussion of Daniel 3 and the fiery furnace, but that might add confusion to the confusion.

So what, exactly, does giving one's coat to a cold stranger rather than praying for him, have to do with salvation? I'll study for a while and see what I can come up with.

:thumbsup

[Adino]

Because it didn't happen the same way for the men that Paul ran across in Ephesus. I think you're mistaken here, Pressing. In both Acts 10 and 19 faith in the Gospel of Christ brought the bestowal of the Spirit.

That shows me that either way - you must obey what Peter preached. We must obey 'the Gospel' Peter preached. How does one obey the Gospel? If one must be baptized in order to 'obey the Gospel,' then the command to 'be baptized' becomes part of the Gospel. The Gospel is news of the historic death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. While baptism dramatizes the Gospel, it is definitely NOT the Gospel, nor is it part of it.

Cornelius obeyed the Gospel prior to being baptized. God bore witness to his obedience of faith by giving him the Spirit.

That is exactly what Cornelius did. It didn't matter that he received the Holy Ghost after repentance, he still obeyed and was baptized.It matters that God only gives the Spirit to those who obey and that God gave Cornelius the Spirit for his obedience to the Gospel.

As I stated, using Cornelius alone isn't going to work. It didn't happen that way for the men in Ephesus.I believe you are wrong here. It most certainly did happen the same way at Ephesus. In each case, God gave them the Spirit as witness to their faith in Christ. In each case, Christ was preached, believed on, and the Spirit bore witness to their faith.

They did believe what Paul preached - they believed - but they did not receive the Holy Ghost until after they were baptized.Irrelevant. God bore witness to their faith by giving them the Spirit.

Was the "answer of a good conscience" after baptism what they needed to believe they could be filled? Maybe so.
Show me where someone must believe in an infilling. Faith is to be in the historic message of the Gospel. God gives the Spirit to those who obediently believe the Gospel. The disciples of John believed on Christ and were given the Spirit as Cornelius believed on Christ and was given the Spirit. God in each case bore witness to their faith in the Gospel by giving them the Spirit.

Maybe Cornelius only needed repentance and an understanding to believe and have faith enough to be filled. Apparently he did. I do know that God knows the heart of every man and I leave that in God's hands. Either way, the Gospel is preached. The repentant heart of Cornelius converted to Christ upon hearing the Gospel. God bore witness to his faith in the Gospel by giving him the Spirit as He does to all believers. The Spirit is given TO ALL who obediently believe (John 7:37-39; Acts 5:32). ALL who believe have been given the Spirit of eternal life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25,26).

When the death, burial and resurrection is preached, willing hearts will respond and be filled. It doesn't make any difference to me when they are filled. I want to make sure they know what Peter preached - repent, be baptized and you will be filled. The promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.You mistakenly think repentance, baptism, and being "filled" are part of the Gospel. They are not. The Gospel is a historic message to be believed by the heart. Those who obediently believe are given life. The account of Cornelius proves this obedience is of faith alone.

[Jeffrey]

Welcome to the party, Adino... 100 pages later! Sheesh!

[Adino]

God had already seen his life as a God-Fearer and he had a good report among the Jews. Irrelevant. In regard to Spirit reception, this doesn't matter in the least because the Spirit was not given as witness to his 'good life' but to his heart's conversion to faith 'in the Gospel' (Acts 15:7-8). The possibility for faith and Spirit reception DID NOT EXIST until the Gospel had been presented to Cornelius. Faith 'in the Gospel' could not exist until the Gospel had been preached and the Spirit was given to bear witness of faith. Only after someone hears the word of Truth can he have faith in that Truth and be spiritually 'born by that word' (1Peter 1:23) and/or 'sealed with the holy Spirit of promise' (Ephesians 1:13).

Since the opportunity for saving faith and Spirit reception did not even exist for Cornelius until he had been introduced to the Gospel message, anything performed by Cornelius prior to his hearing of the Gospel is completely IRRELEVANT in regard to receiving the Spirit given to those who obey. God gives the Spirit only to those who obey 'the Gospel,' so it must be concluded that upon hearing the word of faith from Peter Cornelius obeyed the Gospel to the point of Spirit reception simply by believing.

Thus God knew by his actions his heart.Your implication seems to attack the omniscience of God. You imply God doesn't know the heart of man until the heart is made externally manifest by action. The whole point that 'God knows the hearts' brought up by Peter was to emphasize that God knew the Gentiles had IN THEIR HEART believed THE GOSPEL. God bore witness to a faith which had not yet been externally demonstrated.

Cornelius' faith IN THE GOSPEL did not exist prior to hearing the preaching of Peter. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). Only after Peter shared the Gospel message did the opportunity for an obedience of faith exist:

1) Peter preached the Gospel
2) Cornelius heard the Gospel
3) Cornelius believed the Gospel
4) God, who knows the hearts, gave the Spirit to bear witness that the Gentiles had believed the Gospel (Acts 15:7-8).

Again, the only obedience Cornelius did upon hearing the Gospel was to believe. God, who gives the Spirit only to those who obey, gave the Spirit to Cornelius bearing witness to his obedient faith.

Peter preaching was simple SHOW UP start preaching the gospel and witness the acceptance of the Gentiles.Peter preached the Gospel, the Gentiles accepted it by faith, and God bore witness to their faith by giving them the Spirit.

Peter then brings them into covenant with Christ by baptism. Cornelius reaped the benefits of a covenantal relationship with God before he was baptized as do all who believe (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25,26).

[Adino]

Welcome to the party, Adino... 100 pages later! Sheesh!LOL..... I know, I know.... I need more hours in the day. Have to get up in about 3 hours as it is!!!! It'll probably be another hundred pages before I get back :( Cover for me until then, Bro!

[augustianian]

hmmmm define deed! I think work/deed/response all fall into the realm and I believe Blume has went over this many times as well.

When reading James please clarify these points...

1) when does justification take place.
2) Is the word "believed" in Gen 15:6 judged/considered as limited to that scripture or with all in view completed in Gen 22 at the offering of Isaac?
3) "Scritpure was fulfilled" please show how it relates to the whole of the text in James 2
4) What is teh clear statement of James about faith in James 2?

First of all, I'm sure that everything in this thread has been covered by plenty of people for a few years now, that doesn't mean, however, that I'm going to read EVERYTHING that has been posted here...I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so. I'll interlope where I can.

Second,

1. Justification takes place at the moment of faith
2. I think Paul establishes that Abraham's justification in Genesis 15 was a declaration by God that lasted Abraham's lifetime including before/after Genesis 22.
3. What are you talking about?
4. Dead faith cannot save. But since God gives faith, then the faith that God gives is NOT dead.

a

[TheLegalist]

First of all, I'm sure that everything in this thread has been covered by plenty of people for a few years now, that doesn't mean, however, that I'm going to read EVERYTHING that has been posted here...I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so. I'll interlope where I can.

that's fine.

Second,

1. Justification takes place at the moment of faith

So in James 2 he says justification take place "at" faith? I am strictly referring to James definition and context of "faith" in James 2.

2. I think Paul establishes that Abraham's justification in Genesis 15 was a declaration by God that lasted Abraham's lifetime including before/after Genesis 22.

You have ignored my questions. I am strictly talking about James and what he says.

3. What are you talking about?

Look at the text. How does in "the scripture was fulfilled" in James 2 interelate to the context of James points.

4. Dead faith cannot save. But since God gives faith, then the faith that God gives is NOT dead.


Well that's nice now you point to what James says but you have not answered the points concerning what I asked.

a[/QUOTE]

[pelathais]

just jumping in...haven't read everything in this thread.

Is a person justified before he does any deeds in James 2?
The apparent "contradiction" between Paul's discourse on Genesis 15:6 (found in Romans 4) and James' statements concerning Genesis 22, have caused a lot of people to think the two apostles were at odds with one another.

However, the fact that they are tackling a difficult and complex theological issue by making references to two different events in the life of Abraham should help us to untangle the "contradiction."

In answer to your question, I'd say "yes." James says that Abraham's "faith was made perfect" by his act of obedience in Genesis 22. James is kind of stepping back to get a broader picture than Paul's analysis of just Genesis 15:6, where Abraham is "justified."

The thing to understand is that Paul is often going back "to the foundation" by his constant appeals to Genesis 15:6, and justification by faith. It's as if Abraham had wavered in Genesis 22 (which he does not appear to have done, but if he had...), and then someone appeared to remind Abe of the events that had happened previously in his life and focused upon how God had declared him "righteous" just upon the basis of his belief. With the renewed faith in God's active participation in Abraham's life, the old patriarch them moves forward in greater confidence.

The Romans (and so many others) appear to have been experiencing some wavering of faith. They needed a boost. Paul provides that "boost" by pointing out that God Himself has already participated in their walk of faith and has done things for them that they could never do for themselves (justification). After touching bases with the cross again in Romans 4, Paul moves forward in Romans 5, and shows the continued need for faith, patience, hope and all the other things that will get them through their "Genesis 22" experiences.

[TheLegalist]

Who has waged the war of faith vs. baptism? Let's think about that. We believe in baptism, TL.

Yes you do wage war. You wage war against what until means.

Don't be so pompous to suggest it's all "so clear" in your direction, when you hardly represent a speck of theological thought with your pseudo-BR theology.



You minimize justification -- that's clear. You don't understand it -- that's even more clear.

no you make justification something contradictory to what Abraham said and what is meant by Paul and James. Justification IN NOT COVENANT!

Your definition of believing lacks any substance, and only shows your one-dimensional view of it is a straw man for mental assent. God didn't say his "response" was righteous. You contort Paul's whole purpose in what he's saying to attempt to make that point. Why can't you see that? Your interpretation must still match Paul's purpose in Romans 3-6.


Really. so what is "IT" in the Gen 15:6? If "it" was not a response you make James a liar and you are ignoring the text. You can't consider nothing! You are blinded and ingore the WHOLE teaching of what "châshab" means and how God is always doing justice toward our responses.

Responses/Works... how can you claim this is NOT a works theology? Does it end after baptism and tongues? Are our responses continually judged? Must we repent of all of them? If we forget? How secure is your faith? How can you make a claim other than fragile? What do you and I have in common with Abram -- faith. What is the most-used phrase in Gospel of John - believing. Why is "faith" and "believing" such a hard topic? Why so quick to drag your friends "works" and "credit" out to meet them. What an insult to His gift. You can't even obey God without already being covered by Grace. Don't you get it?

Again as pointed out above you don't understand works in relation to faith and never have. Yes we are consistently judged. LOL Ever read REvelations and the letters to the churches. God sees your response and heart. Ezekial 18 is clear on the very aspect of how God looks at the heart. We are always under his covenant but are w abiding by it's agreement and at peace and not at enmity with God? The Spirit bears witness with ours that we are his children. Either we are following or not.

Again you fail to realize the proper aspect of "believing" in John of which I have given support for it's meaning muliple times of which you ignore. Faith is about context. I have pointed out constantly James White and others on this very issue. Saving Faith is a continous aspect not a point in time in is based on the realization of the context. Faith is based on following and doing. ALways has been always will be. Faith must follow it;s context. what is the context of James view of Gen 15:6?

[pelathais]

Amen, but it is not BY the waters, but AT the waters. Otherwise baptism would not be mentioned. :)

Look at it as though repentance SEPARATES the sins from us like the pillar of fire divided the Egyptians from the Israelites. Then the RED SEA wipes out the Egyptians as baptism eradicates the separated sins, only because of the BLOOD OF THE LAMB that occurred beforehand. Israel stood still and saw the salvation OF THE LORD, not of themselves. Boy, that is opening up a huge issue even moreso, but this shows the need to realize there is more to it than just seeing a lamb's blood shed.
We pass "through the water" as an imitation of what Christ did, and also in "imitation" of what the children of Israel did at the Red Sea and the cleansing of the priests at the laver or "molten sea" in the Temple (as a kind I wondered once if that had lava in it [1 Kings 7:23]).

The Israelites were "all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea..." (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). The "cloud and the sea" seperated the Israelites from their previous life of bondage - (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) and these thing prevented them from turning back.

Baptism provides a "barrier" in one's life whereby the sins of the past cannot over take us, and we are prevented from going back as well. (We could "go back" - but it would take a more determined effort than following the path to safety).

[TheLegalist]

...

When reading James please clarify these points...

1) when does justification take place.

see Romans 4, and Gen 12 for starters

see again here is the problem YOU DON'T READ... SEe the line above that, that gives context to the questions? Let me point it out....

When reading James please clarify these points...


2) Is the word "believed" in Gen 15:6 judged/considered as limited to that scripture or with all in view completed in Gen 22 at the offering of Isaac?

you get awfully creative with the Story so it fits your agenda. It's really stretching. Remove the word "judged" for a moment. True judgement would have met Abram with death. God "accounted" and "reckoned" more than he "judged"

you don't even realize what God is doing in Gen 15:6 and you bring "death" into the discussion that is almost comical and totaly ignoring what is going on. How do you count, consider, reckon something? It's a process of judging that takes place. If you don't understand this most BASIC concept it's pointess to continue. reckoned, considered, counted, judged, all have the basic concept of God doing justice toward Abraham's response.

3) "Scritpure was fulfilled" please show how it relates to the whole of the text in James 2 Good point.

Why is James even talking to the church about "good works." As an exposition of salvation theology? Telling them how to be saved??? Or is he encouraging them to live as who they are - Christ followers/imitators? Be honest here.

Because salvation is not about one point in time he is also dealing with how justification works which is very simple and how God does justice toward our actions. The theme from beginning to the end is the same. Simply having faith does not mean you are in covenant. Also coming into covenant does not mean you have obtained eternal life as it is still something we hope for and to be found worthy/faithful. That will not happen until the end and you have been judged faithful. James point to the meaning of Gen 15:6 just as Paul and gives depth to what "believed" is a reference to. James clearly says justification is not by faith alone but is the context to completion. Which is why "believed" is not a moment in time but the whole in view of narrator in Gen 15:6. FAITH IS CONTEXTUAL!

[pelathais]

Lost track of the time here... gotta BRB! I have more of a response for you, Mike, in case pop in along the way this morn.

[pelathais]

When reading James please clarify these points...

1) when does justification take place.
Justification takes place when God, "the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus..." does the act of justifying (See Romans 3:26). For Abraham, the inspired Word of God declares this to have been in Genesis 15:6 and NOT in Genesis 22, when Abraham's "works made his faith perfect" (or complete) as per James 2.


see again here is the problem YOU DON'T READ... SEe the line above that, that gives context to the questions? Let me point it out....

When reading James please clarify these points...


2) Is the word "believed" in Gen 15:6 judged/considered as limited to that scripture or with all in view completed in Gen 22 at the offering of Isaac?
Why don't you have on the kids around there read you Genesis 15:6, and Romans 4, from one of those comic book picture Bibles. The KJV seems to be way over your head.

you don't even realize what God is doing in Gen 15:6 and you bring "death" into the discussion that is almost comical and totaly ignoring what is going on. How do you count, consider, reckon something? It's a process of judging that takes place. If you don't understand this most BASIC concept it's pointess to continue. reckoned, considered, counted, judged, all have the basic concept of God doing justice toward Abraham's response.

And just what was Abraham's "response" here in Genesis 15:6? "Abraham believed God."

Abraham didn't speak in "tongues." Abraham didn't care for the lepers and orphans of Calcutta. Abraham didn't give a dime to your building fund. The only time Abraham is ever said to have "paid tithes" - he did so with another guy's money!

So, how was Abraham "justified?" ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD. How does this apply to us 3:26

3) "Scritpure was fulfilled" please show how it relates to the whole of the text in James 2 Good point.

Because salvation is not about one point in time. The theme from beginning to the end is the same. Simply having faith does not mean you are in covenant. Also coming into covenant does not mean you have obtained eternal life as it is still something we hope for and to be found worthy/faithful. That will not happen until the end and you have been judged faithful. James point to the meaning of Gen 15:6 just as Paul and gives depth to what "believed" is a reference to. James clearly says justification is not by faith alone but is the context to completion. Which is why "believed" is not a moment in time but the whole in view of narrator in Gen 15:6. FAITH IS CONTEXTUAL!
Justification IS "about one point in time." Genesis 15:6, Romans 3:26.

Salvation itself could be seen in the way you intend - "I am saved" (Past tense - Romans 3:26); I am being saved (Present tense - Romans 5:10) and I will be saved (Future tense - Romans 5:9).

But we have to understand that the work of Jesus Christ at the cross accomplished something that you neither you nor I could do for ourselves!

Ephesians 2:4-10.

HE "hath quickened us..." (made us alive). We are HIS "workmanship." The life I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God! (Galatians 2:20).

[mfblume]

Indeed, we are at a loggerhead, brother.

First, you are jumping to call repentance a work to justify throwing everything you can that is similar enough to repentance to be counted.

That is not my intention at all. Here is how it went down in my mind to begin with: Baptism is being alleged as part of salvation by works if someone says people must be baptized to be saved. All along I have stated that FAITH THAT WORKS is what God requires in order to save us. I compounded that clarification by saying that if someone never gets baptized before being killed in a hypothetical situation while enroute to be baptized, then that one is saved. How can baptism be salvation by works in such a concept? With such a FAITH THAT WORKS concept in mind, I explained repentance is exactly the same thing. No matter how anyone tries to slice it, repentance is a work since it is a conscious action done in obedience, whether or not it is a physical action.

Second, we've conversed with you on the fundamental and unique differences of a repented heart and a later work (either hearing about baptism and choosing to be baptized or God choosing to baptize someone in the Spirit where they speak in glossolalia).

You seem to be stuck on the issue that since repentance is an act of the heart it is not an act. It matters not if it is an act of the heart or of the physical. It is something we do in obedience as much as baptism is. The only real fundamental difference between repentance and something like baptism is that one action of choice is inward and the other is outward. Even if repentance occurs before baptism, as it does, it still is an act of volition in obedience.

Also, FAITH is not an action. It is something we have or don't have in response to the hearing of the Word. Faith is totally different from repentance or baptism. But baptism and repentance are works, but not "salvation by works" type of works.

I frankly see your attempt quite honestly as an intellectual grasping of the straws. It falls woefully short. In form, it sounds okay, but when fleshed out, it just doesn't work.

I respectfully disagree. It's common sense, as I see it. It avoids the trap of thinking something is not a work just because it is not physically accomplished.

Aside from how we want to try to compartmentalize repentance (which you believe is a directed act of the will to not be bad anymore, and I see that as a very minor dimension of repentance, if one at all), it's not easily compartmentalized at the moment of faith. At faith, our heart "turns" toward God. This is the earliest movement of repentance.

I disagree. One can have faith and refuse to repent. I already noted that I had faith when I heard the gospel, but I refused to repent at first. I did not want to release some sins.

[mfblume]

Mf Blume,

Are you saying that justification is conditional on future deeds? Then at what time can I say that I am justified, before the deeds are done or as soon as I get them done?

I thought I explained this, but evidently I need your questions to clarify myself. So, thanks!

Justification is not conditional on future deeds. Faith is what God looks for to save us, but it is only a living and actual faith if it is faith THAT WORKS. The emphasis is not upon the works that such a faith produces. It's just that the sort of faith that is real and actual is faith THAT WORKS. James was simply saying REAL FAITH will always have action to follow it, and I think James is mocking people's claims of faith who never have any works that follow by calling it dead faith, when he is actually saying it is not faith at all.

God is simply looking for ACTUAL FAITH, and when He sees ACTUAL faith in the work of the cross, He justifies us. And it just so happens that ACTUAL faith always has actions and works that WILL follow since it is only found in such a heart that genuinely is sincere enough and faithful enough to obey anything the Word commands, such as baptism.

Abraham in Genesis 15 knew nothing of Genesis 22 but yet he was justified in Genesis 15.

Right! But his faith was evidence of a completely obedient and open-to-anything-God requires faith. Real faith is just like that. He would have pointed his tents with purple spots if God required it. But God required circumcision.

Isn't it more accurate instead to say that a believer can know that he is justified before God WHEN he believes (apart from works either future or present)

I have no problem with that. We know when we REALLY believe or not. :) But such a belief will follow with works.

Saving faith can be present in deeds, can be absent in deeds, and obviously can be present without deeds, and necessarily so at that, considering that faith without deeds IS the kind of faith that saves, otherwise it's not saving faith.

Again, it is FAITH THAT WORKS that saves, since only faith that works is actual faith.

If you are saying that saving faith will lead to good works, then I agree. However, saving faith and justification is NOT conditional upon future works. There is a difference between fruit and root.

I never said that faith is conditional upon future works. It is conditional upon being the sort of faith that WILL work.

[pelathais]

No, you are misrepresenting three steppers. H20 does not cut it. But BAPTISM SAVES, Peter said. Not in the way you might think three steppers claim it does. The water does not wash flesh. The obedience fulfills the works in the saving FAITH THAT WORKS, though.

Despite all one steppers say, Peter said "baptism doth also now even save us". I do not think any one stepper would ever make such a statement. Think about it.
As a "one Stepper" I ask, "How does baptism 'save' me?" Peter's answer is: "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I don't think I have ever heard a "Three Stepper" quote Peter on that. Instead we have the partial quotation of 1 Peter 3:21, thrown at us - "baptism doth now save us!!!" and few can even quote the entire verse.

To the charge that I am "misrepresenting the 'Three Steppers'" - I can cite a number of examples where water baptism is described as being a fundamental part of "Regeneration."

This article (http://www.acts238lady.com/page20.html) contains a number of errors and states:

"If believing in Jesus Christ is the same as “accepting Jesus”, it is important to notice that at no time in the scripture was a person told they were saved only by the act of believing or accepting Jesus. A believer must also “be born again” of water and the spirit, (John 3:5-8). When we read the examples of salvation in the Bible, this proves this very point."

Nowhere will we find the phrase "born again of the water" - in fact, we never even find the word "water" in the same verse as "born again."

In DKB's "Essentials of the New Birth" page 17, it says: "Baptism is part of the new birth (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)." The appeal to both those verses to make his point is a classic sign of "Baptismal Regenerationalism." We may agree or disagree with DKB on this, however since neither verse even refers to water baptism, those making that stretch are indeed "Baptismal Regenerationalists."

The list goes on.

[mfblume]

We pass "through the water" as an imitation of what Christ did, and also in "imitation" of what the children of Israel did at the Red Sea and the cleansing of the priests at the laver or "molten sea" in the Temple (as a kind I wondered once if that had lava in it [1 Kings 7:23]).

I do not think of it that way. Israel passed through the Red Sea in IMITATION of our baptism, and same with the laver issue. Minor point, but yet important.

The Egyptian soldiers represent our sins. Our sins tormented us in the Egypt of "sin". And just as God said Let there be Light, and then separated light from darkness, the pillar of cloud came and stood between the Egyptians and Israelites as we receive truth and believe it and repent as God separates our sins from our lives.

Then the dividing of waters occurred the second day as baptism occurs after repentance. At the Red Sea, God divided the waters and Israel went through the sea. It was in this act that God was able to take the Egyptians and drown them out leaving not one alive. Not one sin survives after repentance and baptism. The picture clearly shows ALL SINS are eradicated in the BLOOD ("Red" Sea) which is why Baptism is said to be burial into Christ's death.

Did the Red Sea stand as an absolute necessity for Israel's freedom from Egypt and the soldiers? It sure was. So is baptism.

The Israelites were "all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea..." (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). The "cloud and the sea" seperated the Israelites from their previous life of bondage - (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) and these thing prevented them from turning back.

Exactly. They were required in the DELIVERANCE/SALVATION of Israel.

Baptism provides a "barrier" in one's life whereby the sins of the past cannot over take us, and we are prevented from going back as well. (We could "go back" - but it would take a more determined effort than following the path to safety).

Exactly!

[mfblume]

As a "one Stepper" I ask, "How does baptism 'save' me?" Peter's answer is: "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

You said initially that the resurrection of Christ saves us. I pointed out that this is not what Peter said. I said Peter told us that baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ. Difference.

I don't think I have ever heard a "Three Stepper" quote Peter on that. Instead we have the partial quotation of 1 Peter 3:21, thrown at us - "baptism doth now save us!!!" and few can even quote the entire verse.

I think that is why you seem to miss our point in how baptism is involved in salvation. No one is dumb enough to believe baptism in and of itself saves. Since it is a work that follows actual saving faith, it saves BY the resurrection of Jesus. This is the same thing as saying baptism baptizes us into the death of Christ. The death of Christ followed by His resurrection, obviously (since death is useless and not unlike our own without resurrection) saves us.

Again what one stepper has ever said baptism saves by the resurrection? They do what you did... they say the resurrection saves. Look back at your initial words about this.

To the charge that I am "misrepresenting the 'Three Steppers'" - I can cite a number of examples where water baptism is described as being a fundamental part of "Regeneration."

This article (http://www.acts238lady.com/page20.html) contains a number of errors and states:

"If believing in Jesus Christ is the same as “accepting Jesus”, it is important to notice that at no time in the scripture was a person told they were saved only by the act of believing or accepting Jesus. A believer must also “be born again” of water and the spirit, (John 3:5-8). When we read the examples of salvation in the Bible, this proves this very point."

Nowhere will we find the phrase "born again of the water" - in fact, we never even find the word "water" in the same verse as "born again."

You claim that BORN AGAIN is not the same as BORN OF THE WATER AND SPIRIT?

In DKB's "Essentials of the New Birth" page 17, it says: "Baptism is part of the new birth (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)." The appeal to both those verses to make his point is a classic sign of "Baptismal Regenerationalism." We may agree or disagree with DKB on this, however since neither verse even refers to water baptism, those making that stretch are indeed "Baptismal Regenerationalists."

The list goes on.

I think you read predetermined errors of what you think we actually believe into things too much, personally.

[TheLegalist]

I do not think of it that way. Israel passed through the Red Sea in IMITATION of our baptism, and same with the laver issue. Minor point, but yet important.

The Egyptian soldiers represent our sins. Our sins tormented us in the Egypt of "sin". And just as God said Let there be Light, and then separated light from darkness, the pillar of cloud came and stood between the Egyptians and Israelites as we receive truth and believe it and repent as God separates our sins from our lives.

Then the dividing of waters occurred the second day as baptism occurs after repentance. At the Red Sea, God divided the waters and Israel went through the sea. It was in this act that God was able to take the Egyptians and drown them out leaving not one alive. Not one sin survives after repentance and baptism. The picture clearly shows ALL SINS are eradicated in the BLOOD ("Red" Sea) which is why Baptism is said to be burial into Christ's death.

Did the Red Sea stand as an absolute necessity for Israel's freedom from Egypt and the soldiers? It sure was. So is baptism.



Exactly. They were required in the DELIVERANCE/SALVATION of Israel.



Exactly!


Now MR. BLUME!!! They received deliverance by believing it was true.... not by actually by crossing the Red Sea. God told them what he wanted to happen and they received deliverance right then. They obtained deliverance from the armies of Egypt before they crossed didn't you know that..... LOL! God forbid that doing anything actually to cross would be considered works. God seperating the waters... You know he provides the way. Us giving the good ol wink to God I believe is what actually delivered them.... Mike at some point it gets pointless. :nah

[pelathais]

No that is not what it says. See? You have the CHANGE THE TEXT to deal with it. You cannot take the text as is.
YES. THAT IS EXACTLY what the text says. You have to deny the inspiration of the Bible and offer a goat sacrifice on the altar of Ninhursag- Ki while simultaneously converting to Mormonism and handing out Watchtower tracts to read it any other way.

1 Peter 3:21:

"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."

Now, read it without the parenthentical clause that Peter adds to avoid having people think that the water is somehow "magical."

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Re-adding and temporarily lifting the parenthetical clause does nothing to change the meaning of Peter's simple statement. Baptism can only be said to "save us" - "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ!"

It actually says that Baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. You asked HOW baptism saves, and then you changed the text. Whereas you said we are saved by the resurrection, Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection. BIG DIFFERENCE.
You make a goofy and false accusation against me just so that you can say the same thing that I did? Whatever dude. I clearly DID NOT "change the text" and everyone who reads this will question your integrity from this point forward.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say.
If you have been "trying to say" exactly what I have been saying, why don't you say THAT instead of beating that poor camel with a beam from your own eye to get it out of your throat and through the eye of a needle?


If baptism saved in and of itself, it would not add the clause "by the resurrection of Jesus." However, he said baptism saves and said it saves by the resurrection. He said two things one steppers would never say.

1) Baptism saves.

2) Resurrection is that by which baptism saves.
Are you on drugs???? You just said that I had to "change the text" to say what you just repeated me as saying. Now, you repeat me - a notorious "One Stepper" - and claim that I would "never say" what you just quoted me as saying.

You just want to argue here, Mike. You make no sense at all. Get some coffee, clear your head and maybe we can try again later.

One steppers say what you said, but what Peter did not say: We are saved by the resurrection. That is an incomplete statement in regards to the truth of what saves.
I asked, "How does baptism save us?"

I answered, "Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21).

You have both agreed with me and disagreed with me. This is what I meant when I said earlier that I don't even try to "pin a tag" on you. You're all over the place.

[pelathais]

No, your question is only evidence that you are not getting what I am saying. My example of the dying on the road to baptism is the entire explanation that answers it all. The reason the guy on his way to get baptized is saved is because the baptism in and of itself saves no one. I have always maintained that. Baptism only saves because it relies upon the resurrection of Christ showing the work of the cross actually saves. Since the FAITH THAT WORKS causes the man to intend to WORK the act of baptism, even though not baptized, the man is saved.
How can you say that without "changing the text?"

Easy. You simply say that.

It's like saying Abraham was deemed righteous before he was circumcised, because GOD KNEW his faith would move him to be circumcised in obedience. God knows if your faith is one that works or not. If it is dead faith with no works to ever follow, God sees that nature of the dead faith, so He does not deem such a one righteous.
Now you quote me on Genesis 15:6 - just to argue with me?

But we have to also understand the example of Noah. Baptism is the antitype of deliverance by water in Noah's day. God commanded the ark's contstruction as well as man's baptism. Not man. Just as the ark was mocked at in his day, baptism seems to be mocked at today. Noah and his family entered the ark like a sort of BURIAL with Christ. As the ark had waters above and waters below strike at it, baptism is by immersion.
You have to change a lot of texts to get, "Just as the ark was mocked at in his day, baptism seems to be mocked at today."

The Bible offers us no information that Noah was "mocked" nor is there any evidence that anyone has "mocked" baptism here. You're just making things up.

[pelathais]

It's cool TL. Ignore all my comments from last night. Still not smart enough to deserve a response from you.
If T.L. would repent and convert to some form of behavior whereby he actually cared about human beings and tried to communicate with them, I suspect that he would have a lot of great things to say.

You just have to work too hard to dig out the gems from from his staccato posts and weed through too much arrogance and name calling.

[pelathais]

I will admit to scratching my head just a bit when James 2 has been referred to in the salvational discussion. I thought about throwing in a discussion of Daniel 3 and the fiery furnace, but that might add confusion to the confusion.

So what, exactly, does giving one's coat to a cold stranger rather than praying for him, have to do with salvation? I'll study for a while and see what I can come up with.
The cross of Christ really does create a lot of division among those who claim to believe. You just bring it up and suddenly people jump from the woodwork thrashing themselves apart in an attempt to obscure our vision of the greatest gift of all.

[mfblume]

How can you say that without "changing the text?"

Easy. You simply say that.

Now you quote me on Genesis 15:6 - just to argue with me?

You have to change a lot of texts to get, "Just as the ark was mocked at in his day, baptism seems to be mocked at today."

The Bible offers us no information that Noah was "mocked" nor is there any evidence that anyone has "mocked" baptism here. You're just making things up.


1 Peter 3:20 KJV Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

[pelathais]

I do not think of it that way. Israel passed through the Red Sea in IMITATION of our baptism, and same with the laver issue. Minor point, but yet important.
I was just quoting 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 - "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" - a major point and, I think, essential.

The Egyptian soldiers represent our sins. Our sins tormented us in the Egypt of "sin". And just as God said Let there be Light, and then separated light from darkness, the pillar of cloud came and stood between the Egyptians and Israelites as we receive truth and believe it and repent as God separates our sins from our lives.
The Egyptians represented the consequences and the penalty for our sins. Genesis 15:13, for example.

Then the dividing of waters occurred the second day as baptism occurs after repentance.
Not certain how the creation account got in here.

At the Red Sea, God divided the waters and Israel went through the sea. It was in this act that God was able to take the Egyptians and drown them out leaving not one alive. Not one sin survives after repentance and baptism. The picture clearly shows ALL SINS are eradicated in the BLOOD ("Red" Sea) which is why Baptism is said to be burial into Christ's death.
Well again, the "not one alive" thing is a bit of addition to the text. I remember see Yul Brenner get away.

Did the Red Sea stand as an absolute necessity for Israel's freedom from Egypt and the soldiers? It sure was. So is baptism.
No one has said that baptism is NOT essential - except YOU perhaps with your "guy in the car analogy."

Exactly. They were required in the DELIVERANCE/SALVATION of Israel.



Exactly!

[mfblume]

1 Peter 3:21:

"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."

Now, read it without the parenthentical clause that Peter adds to avoid having people think that the water is somehow "magical."

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Re-adding and temporarily lifting the parenthetical clause does nothing to change the meaning of Peter's simple statement. Baptism can only be said to "save us" - "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ!"

You make a goofy and false accusation against me just so that you can say the same thing that I did? Whatever dude. I clearly DID NOT "change the text" and everyone who reads this will question your integrity from this point forward.

Oh please. lol.

I took YOUR WORDS as follows:

How does "baptism now save us...?" It is clear - we are NOT saved by our obedience to the instruction to be baptized, rather, we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Instead of saying "we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." you should have said "baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Gripe all you want, but I showed what you said and what you did not say. Now, you either MEANT what you said or you were mistaken in what you wrote and actually meant baptism saves by resurrection of Jesus. It's like you cannot get yourself to say baptism saves as Peter said it, is my point.

[mfblume]

I was just quoting 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 - "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" - a major point and, I think, essential.

The Egyptians represented the consequences and the penalty for our sins.

So sins are not in view, just consequence of sins and penalty for sins? Paul stated sins are washed away, not mere consequences.

Not certain how the creation account got in here.

The pattern of NEW creation is the same as Genesis 1, involving dividing of waters, exact same language used in reference to the Red Sea in Exodus, is my point.

Well again, the "not one alive" thing is a bit of addition to the text. I remember see Yul Brenner get away.

Exodus 14:28 KJV And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.

No one has said that baptism is NOT essential - except YOU perhaps with your "guy in the car analogy."

Nice try. :)

[pelathais]

1 Peter 3:20 KJV Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
And the idea of Noah being "mocked" appears where in this verse? We're just told that God is longsuffering. That's great, but was He the one "mocking" Noah?

"Hurry up! You're not building a piano, there!"

[mfblume]

Mike at some point it gets pointless. :nah

Yes, with bypassing covenantal conditions and glossing over explanations of faith THAT works... whatever.

[mfblume]

And the idea of Noah being "mocked" appears where in this verse? We're just told that God is longsuffering. That's great, but was He the one "mocking" Noah?

"Hurry up! You're not building a piano, there!"

The people did not believe Noah's entire ark thing. He was a preacher of righteousness. What did he preach? How did he preach it? He may not have audibly told them about the flood, but even his actions preached a message. The point is God PUT UP WITH JUNK while Noah built the ark and people refused. Any tone of mockery towards truth is present when truth is not obeyed nor believed.

The concept is the point, and you're splitting hairs now.

[pelathais]

Oh please. lol.

I took YOUR WORDS as follows:



Instead of saying "we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." you should have said "baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Gripe all you want, but I showed what you said and what you did not say. Now, you either MEANT what you said or you were mistaken in what you wrote and actually meant baptism saves by resurrection of Jesus. It's like you cannot get yourself to say baptism saves as Peter said it, is my point.
Your "showing" of what I said was a disingenuous twisting and this post proves it. T.L. arrogance has sadly rubbed off on you and pride has caused you to become blind to the plain words in front of you.

[notofworks]

Your "showing" of what I said was a disingenuous twisting and this post proves it. T.L. arrogance has sadly rubbed off on you and pride has caused you to become blind to the plain words in front of you.


Pel, you better be careful saying that people are "arrogant". I got in big trouble for that!:lol

[mfblume]

Your "showing" of what I said was a disingenuous twisting and this post proves it. T.L. arrogance has sadly rubbed off on you and pride has caused you to become blind to the plain words in front of you.

Pel, pause a moment. lol I watched how NO ONE STEPPER ever said "Baptism saves" whether it is a complete statement or not. So I looked to see if you would AT LEAST say baptism saves by the resurrection, and I was stunned that you did not. You had to say we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus, and not say baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus. So I asked, why? Why did he USE THOSE WORDS?

Sorry if it exposed something. But if you claim you IN NO WAY MEANT what it looked like to anyone who would read "we are saved by the resurrection", then okay. Get over it. Chalk it up to lack of clarity, but do not say pride caused me to become blind to what is plainly written. lol (whew) (PS. Pride also causes us to forget overall issues at hand any time that something personal is hinted at, and spends all its time defending self. We've all fallen victim to that!). Honestly, who's trying to be more objective here? At least trying?

[mfblume]

Pel, maybe you definitely believe baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus, but it's just that I was wondering if you would make that statement, since I never saw a one stepper say it. Look at your INITIAL words about that issue. Consider my question. Maybe you flubbed in not clearly saying you MEANT baptism saves us by resurrection, but you said we are saved by resurrection. If you looked for a particular statement and did not find it, thinking it confirmed your hypothesis, what would you say?

Anyway, the discussion is getting away from being objective. Thanks, brethren.

[pelathais]

So sins are not in view, just consequence of sins and penalty for sins? Paul stated sins are washed away, not mere consequences.
Paul never said, "your sins are washed away just like the Egyptians..." He said the people were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea."

And, the "mere" consequences of sin are torment (1 John 4:17-18) and death (Romans 6:23). That's a pretty big deal. Christ has delivered us from sin, and the consequences of sin (Isaiah 25:8).

The pattern of NEW creation is the same as Genesis 1, involving dividing of waters, exact same language used in reference to the Red Sea in Exodus, is my point.
The restraint of Tiamat - The Abyss or The Deep, brought some order to the cosmos. And, we are "new creations" in Christ. But, I don't see the "second day" as being directly linked to the concept of water baptism.

Exodus 14:28 KJV And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.



Nice try. :)
Exodus 14:28 KJV And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.
If you had been paying attention, Yul Brenner didn't "go after them." He stood in his chariot in a regal pose on the shore and was spared.

The Egyptians who were drowned (or crushed) were the ones who were foolish enough to try and make the passage themselves.

[mfblume]

Typology can be argued all DAY. Again, we're both getting away from the point.

Paul never said, "your sins are washed away just like the Egyptians..." He said the people were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea."

And, the "mere" consequences of sin are torment (1 John 4:17-18) and death (Romans 6:23). That's a pretty big deal. Christ has delivered us from sin, and the consequences of sin (Isaiah 25:8).

The restraint of Tiamat - The Abyss or The Deep, brought some order to the cosmos. And, we are "new creations" in Christ. But, I don't see the "second day" as being directly linked to the concept of water baptism.

Exodus 14:28 KJV And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.
If you had been paying attention, Yul Brenner didn't "go after them." He stood in his chariot in a regal pose on the shore and was spared.

The Egyptians who were drowned (or crushed) were the ones who were foolish enough to try and make the passage themselves.

[pelathais]

The people did not believe Noah's entire ark thing. He was a preacher of righteousness. What did he preach? How did he preach it? He may not have audibly told them about the flood, but even his actions preached a message. The point is God PUT UP WITH JUNK while Noah built the ark and people refused. Any tone of mockery towards truth is present when truth is not obeyed nor believed.

The concept is the point, and you're splitting hairs now.
My point is that you accuse me of "changing the text" of 1 Peter 3:21, and then you say the same thing I had just said on the subject, almost repeating me verbatim. Then, you add all sorts of things to the text yourself.

You just want to argue and not have a discussion on the Scripture.

[pelathais]

Pel, maybe you definitely believe baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus, but it's just that I was wondering if you would make that statement, since I never saw a one stepper say it. Look at your INITIAL words about that issue. Consider my question. Maybe you flubbed in not clearly saying you MEANT baptism saves us by resurrection, but you said we are saved by resurrection. If you looked for a particular statement and did not find it, thinking it confirmed your hypothesis, what would you say?

Anyway, the discussion is getting away from being objective. Thanks, brethren.
The "guy who died in the car" ... was he saved by baptism or by the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Passive/ aggressive. You follow this pattern all the time. You launch into a bunch of name calling, you slip-slide back and forth halting between two opinions - and then you denigrate everyone on both sides of the issue.

[mfblume]

The "guy who died in the car" ... was he saved by baptism or by the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Passive/ aggressive. You follow this pattern all the time. You launch into a bunch of name calling, you slip-slide back and forth halting between two opinions - and then you denigrate everyone on both sides of the issue.


You won't stop will you?

(Useless words I originally typed deleted)

Anyone else want to actually discuss?

[pelathais]

You won't stop will you?

(Useless words I originally typed deleted)

Anyone else want to actually discuss?
Case in point. Grow up Mike.

You came barreling into this thread with your name calling and making accusations. You flew off the handle when you totally misread an exchange I was having with Rev. Randy - probably to Randy's great delight.

Then, your mind splits in two as you say that I'm not quoting the text and your "proof" is that you agree with me!

[augustianian]

THE LEGALIST:
So in James 2 he says justification take place "at" faith? I am strictly referring to James definition and context of "faith" in James 2.

Well that wasn't the questioned you asked.
James is not concerned with that which justifies a person before God but rather that which justifies a person before men, i.e. deeds. However, being justified before men cannot save, by works...being alone without faith. I also think that ignoring the troubles of the early Christian church in Jerusalem is fatal when interpreting James.

But...in reality my answer was consistent with what you asked. You asked me "when reading James..." with "you" (or me) being the assumed subject. In other words you were in essence asking me "When you're reading James..." and I consistently answered in light of how you prefaced your questions. When I'm reading James I assume (safely, I think) that he is quite aware of Paul, especially considering the council of Jerusalem, and justification apart from works "Before God" has to be assumed also for James' argument to be valid, an argument against a dead faith not against justification by faith alone.

I guess I could answer your questions according to the way you read James but I assumed that that was not what you were asking me.


You have ignored my questions. I am strictly talking about James and what he says.
Again, you asked me "When reading James..." (meaning when I read James) and then the questions following...which I answered. Let me say it like this

1."When I read James I take into account that justification takes place at the moment of faith"

And...

2."When I read James I already know that Paul establishes the fact that Abraham's justification in Genesis 15 was a declaration by God that lasted Abraham's lifetime before/after Genesis 22."

Hope that helps.




Look at the text. How does in "the scripture was fulfilled" in James 2 interelate to the context of James points.
Of course when I asked "what are you talking about" I meant it with some incredulity. But I did want to know if you thought that God needed deeds done by man to fulfill His declaration of justification? There's no argument that there is a declaration of righteousness made by God in Genesis 15 and in Romans 3, the issue then becomes what meaning are deeds done given, after such a declaration, in accordance to that declaration? What is the relationship between works after justification, and justification itself. The deeds cannot add to the justification declared, nor take away from it, all they can do is display it. That's it. So the fulfillment is NOT nor can it be a fulfillment or completion of God's activity of justification, for the believer is justified apart from works before God already, consequently making the fulfillment seen and witnessed before men.

Well that's nice now you point to what James says but you have not answered the points concerning what I asked
Actually I have.

augustianian

[TheLegalist]

THE LEGALIST:


Well that wasn't the questioned you asked.
James is not concerned with that which justifies a person before God but rather that which justifies a person before men, i.e. deeds. However, being justified before men cannot save, by works...being alone without faith. I also think that ignoring the troubles of the early Christian church in Jerusalem is fatal when interpreting James.


sigh... oh yeah James is only talking about how look before men. Seriously that is one of the weakest arguments ever.

1) James argument is not about presentation before men of justification. His bringing up of Isaac has NOTHING to do with men and Gen 15:6.
2) Is this about saving before men?

Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

I don't think men are saving him... Thus he is not talking about standing before men but God.


3) Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

hmmm is he talking about what good is that before men? NO! He is talking about the meaning of faith realized or not. The very aspect of it.

Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Though James uses and employs argumentation as a tool he is not talking about in context before men for justification but how it is realized.

what does he follow through with next? does it allow for context before men or before God?

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!

hmmm doesn't sound like a continued argument about before men thus the context never was about before men but a argument about realization of faith to the context. Also what is the point of "even" the demons believe if it is about before men? You making the whole context about before men makes the rest of the text ignorant.

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

hmmmm wait how in the world can he talk about "faith" apart from works is useless if it's only about before men especially following the context verse 19. Paul also says faith without love he is nothing... hmmm sounds like salt of the earth losing it's savor. Oh wait it's men that taste/judge.consider our losing purpose and not God.... right? lol

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

oh yes... abraham and the big crowd and being justified before them.... I was wondering who said.... today I swear! I thought it was God.

Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

wait what is James doing dissecting how faith is completed if it's just about how it looks before men.. must have lost track of his thoughts.

Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.

Yep... we went off on a tangent... Brought up scripture of being considered just before God. Not a friend before men that thought he was right.

Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

HOW in the world can James use this scripture per Genesis 15:6 and it be a referenced just before men?

Jas 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way

that's right the men kept her wall up it's wasn't God's judgment.

[mfblume]

Case in point. Grow up Mike.

You came barreling into this thread with your name calling and making accusations. You flew off the handle when you totally misread an exchange I was having with Rev. Randy - probably to Randy's great delight.

Then, your mind splits in two as you say that I'm not quoting the text and your "proof" is that you agree with me!

AGAIN!!! (sigh) Let me know when you are going to discuss something.

Anyway, so interesting why one steppers will not say baptism saves by Christ's resurrection, unless forced to quote scripture. Meanwhile alleged "three steppers" use these passages all the time, as well as those that seem to one steppers to promote only faith.

So many passages like this will only be repeated by onestep believers when someone points them out to them. The language of the scriptures in these cases is otherwise absent. Be baptized and wash away thy sins. No one stepper would use those words unless reading Acts 22:16. One steppers will not respond to questions of how to be saved with Acts 2:38. The question has not changed but somehow the answer did.

No question by one steppers would be given to someone as Paul asked about Spirit and Water Baptism in Acts 19.

This is my point. The emphasis upon no need for baptism in salvation simply leaves these folks void of speaking the same thing the early church ministers spoke about.

We get SOME one steppers thinking they get your point, when they do not stop to consider maybe they MISSED your point, and have ASSUMED that a box for your thoughts is your actual box that they have emphasized as being error, when not at all. And when actual beliefs are presented, the ears are closed and accusations of self contradiction fly.

The fact is that baptism is part of salvation if Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. It's right there in black and white! Had baptism never been intended as PART of salvation, the two words "baptism saves" would never be associated as they are in Peter's words.

People quote Peter saying "baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus" and then say baptism does not save. Bottom line: If baptism had no part at all in salvation, then Peter would not have said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus.

[Adino]

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.Hmm... :hmmm

:snapout

[mfblume]

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.

Amen. Only what God did can make anyone righteous. People do not realize that contriving enough good deeds to award oneself righteousness is the entire error that Paul had in mind when speaking against salvation by works. Somehow that contrivance issue got lost with many.

I am referring to what Paul said was the gift of righteousness. God deemed Abraham righteous when Abraham believed God.

Paul stated that this sort of righteousness did not come by law. People thought Law's deeds of obedience would make one righteous without any such work of the cross that Paul preached is the sole cause of righteousness. The only WORK anyone can do to be righteous is the work GOD DID in in the work of the cross. Today many do not even know that the work of the cross speaks of the vicarious nature of Christ's death, with His death, burial, resurrection, ascension and even seating at the right hand throne, and so they wonder what you mean by work of the cross. But, the point is only God can do a work that is responsible for the righteousness given to us as a gift.

Instead of righteousness coming by deeds of law, which Jews tried to attain by law keeping, Paul stated righteousness is available aside from any concept of deeds of the Law.

Romans 3:21-22 KJV But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Two roads led to righteousness. Had humanity not had sin in us all, we could attain righteousness by the law. We would not need the cross. However, the law could not accomplish that for us due to the sins of the flesh. We clashed with law.

Romans 8:3-4 KJV 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.


Law was intended to make us righteous.

1 Timothy 1:5 KJV Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

Galatians 3:12 KJV And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.


One had to DO all the law's requirements in order to be righteous.

The goal of law to produce charity from a pure heart, a good conscience and true faith could not be accomplished by law keeping, but it was granted by grace.

1 Timothy 1:14 KJV And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

This is where Romans 8:3-4 comes in and says what the law could not accomplish in us, God did through the cross. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. But it is not by works of the law or walking after the flesh to make self righteous by deeds. It is accomplished by walking after the Spirit, or believing in the power of God to instill it into us because of the work God did with the cross.

We believe as Abraham believed, and God makes us righteous. It's a gift.

Romans 5:17 KJV 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.)

The cross is the only work directly related to righteousness and justification. But any faith that is real is faith that obeys covenantal requirements stipulated by God. James informs us that true faith that is alive and real is faith that works. And when that faith is present, God sees it and justifies the person as well as makes them righteous. And if it is not such a faith, there never follows obedience to the requirements of the covenant.

How does that fit in with your thoughts, Legalist?

[Jeffrey]

I disagree. One can have faith and refuse to repent. I already noted that I had faith when I heard the gospel, but I refused to repent at first. I did not want to release some sins.

Mike, I really don't believe that that's even possible.

How do you define faith? And what does that mean for a person who "has faith" to you?

[Jeffrey]

TL responded to ONE of my posts, so I'm grateful, but I'm late getting back and it appears Pel and Adino have adequately jumped in here. I don't see any TL response to Adino or Pel at this point. *crickets*

In catching up, it appears some progress has been made in the thread though. And TL, surely the James issue is resolved now -- or are we still looking to James 2 with the view of "being saved" in mind?

[NotforSale]

You know folks, we can argue all day long on who's saved and who isn't, but the bottom line is, none of us really know, period!

I haven't been there and neither has anyone on this Forum. The "Other Side" will remain a mystery until the old Ticker stops ticking.

People will fight and bicker over this until the end of time. We can say the Bible is clear, but that is an out and out LIE! If the Bible was clear, we wouldn't be succumbed to this eternal debate.

The Good Book can say what we want it to say, and that is why there are thousands of denominations who claim they are SAVED. Why don't we just admit we DON'T KNOW, because that is the real Truth??

Someone will probably counter my post with a million Scriptures to prove they know, but it still comes down to this; YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, and, someone else will disagree with you! The unknown realms of life (current and after death) can only be validated by experiencing them. We are doing this World an injustice by building dogmas based upon a group’s interpretation of what's going to happen, even though we really aren't sure.

We've seen in History where claims were made about the unseen, solid factual claims, until the door was truly opened. When the Earth was seen from outer space, many past beliefs were put to rest forever, including beliefs by those who had FAITH. The unseen will always be used to manipulate people by those who can't see what they are talking about. If you can't question something, you can't validate it, leaving all the room in the universe to paint a FALSE picture.

There are so many holes in this topic, leaving me to want more proof about life, not more of the same of "I know" but can't confirm. Think about it; If we can't confirm something, the door is WIDE open to say whatever we want, believe what we want, tell people what God is like, isn't like, and how He will treat us when we die.

Why would God place us here with a body and mind that validates by what it sees and experiences, then turn around and produce a World we can't see or prove with the senses we are born with? This doesn't appear to be logical, or fair in our attempt to conceive what is really important, especially concerning Eternity.

We are supposed to prepare for this afterlife where time is no more, but we can't even prove its real, using a Book that has nothing but one missing link after another. Like I've stated in previous threads, Hell (Eternal Damnation) didn't even appear in the teachings of the Bible until recently (1000-1500 years ago). This unseen place is used to strike fear into people, but we can't even validate its existence, and don't know why it can't be found in the Old Testament. We just assume it’s real, ignoring that for some strange reason, Hell mysteriously appears in God’s Word just a few centuries ago.

To be honest, people are growing tired of the guess work. They want real answers. They want something that will keep their family together, not destroy it. I’ve seen so much divorce in the Church, it’s beyond sad. We tell people, “Come, God will mend your Family. God will heal your diseases. God will save your children”. After these things don’t happen, the most important thing regarding Faith, is LOST; TRUST. They only way to restore Trust, is to stop giving people false hopes, and give them answers that can be proven to be true.

Something to think about.

[mfblume]

You know folks, we can argue all day long on who's saved and who isn't, but the bottom line is, none of us really know, period!

Put a period where you wish, but I think that if we cannot know we are saved, then this whole thing is nonsense. And I do not think it is nonsense. The bible teaches WE CAN KNOW we have eternal life.

1 John 5:13 KJV These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

[Timmy]

Put a period where you wish, but I think that if we cannot know we are saved, then this whole thing is nonsense. And I do not think it is nonsense. The bible teaches WE CAN KNOW we have eternal life.

1 John 5:13 KJV These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

It also says there will be some who think they are saved, but are not.

[Jeffrey]

You know folks, we can argue all day long on who's saved and who isn't, but the bottom line is, none of us really know, period!
Speak for yourself bro.
I haven't been there and neither has anyone on this Forum. The "Other Side" will remain a mystery until the old Ticker stops ticking.

People will fight and bicker over this until the end of time. We can say the Bible is clear, but that is an out and out LIE! If the Bible was clear, we wouldn't be succumbed to this eternal debate. It's not just this perceived "lack of clarity" that is in question, it is reading an archaic document in the lens of modern-day history that has arrived at the heels of multiple theological movements. That's more important than "the Bible is unclear."

The Good Book can say what we want it to say, and that is why there are thousands of denominations who claim they are SAVED. Why don't we just admit we DON'T KNOW, because that is the real Truth?? NFS, the majority of us don't argue much on "when are you saved." True that the denominations argue more on other matters -- and these discussions, like the Mishnah (read: midrash) of old, is a good thing. Many of these problems go back to (again) trying to read back to the Text as objective as we can (though quite sure pure objectivity is impossible).

Someone will probably counter my post with a million Scriptures to prove they know, but it still comes down to this; YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, and, someone else will disagree with you! That's doesn't mean one doesn't know. Your case is that we can only "know" if we've empirically witnessed death and resurrection. I disagree. Since we are at least both speaking in terms of assumptions -- like salvation exists, God exists, etc... there is empirical evidence of our salvation found in the Special Revelation that is scripture. "How can I be saved" is a fundamental question of the Story. The unknown realms of life (current and after death) can only be validated by experiencing them. Very existential of youWe are doing this World an injustice by building dogmas based upon a group’s interpretation of what's going to happen, even though we really aren't sure. I don't think it's injustice, I think it's great. Is there concrete, objective reality and truth about what God said, about what Jesus said and about what the Apostles said? What did they originally mean? Sure, we can come to the question with more humility, but that only invigorates once to contend for the truth of the matter.

We've seen in History where claims were made about the unseen, solid factual claims, until the door was truly opened. When the Earth was seen from outer space, many past beliefs were put to rest forever, including beliefs by those who had FAITH. The unseen will always be used to manipulate people by those who can't see what they are talking about. If you can't question something, you can't validate it, leaving all the room in the universe to paint a FALSE picture.

There are so many holes in this topic, leaving me to want more proof about life, not more of the same of "I know" but can't confirm. Think about it; If we can't confirm something, the door is WIDE open to say whatever we want, believe what we want, tell people what God is like, isn't like, and how He will treat us when we die.

Why would God place us here with a body and mind that validates by what it sees and experiences, then turn around and produce a World we can't see or prove with the senses we are born with? Great question. What's your response? Or is the question wrong perhaps? Can we not see the World he's created? This doesn't appear to be logical, or fair in our attempt to conceive what is really important, especially concerning Eternity.

We are supposed to prepare for this afterlife where time is no more, but we can't even prove its real, using a Book that has nothing but one missing link after another. Like I've stated in previous threads, Hell (Eternal Damnation) didn't even appear in the teachings of the Bible until recently (1000-1500 years ago). The idea of hellfire was certainly not that recently, if you are referring to Dante's Inferno. But I catch your drift. Hell has evolved in that time period. But disregard that, and understand hell as an absence of God, and heaven as the ultimate awareness of God. THat may help. This unseen place is used to strike fear into people, but we can't even validate its existence, and don't know why it can't be found in the Old Testament. We just assume it’s real, ignoring that for some strange reason, Hell mysteriously appears in God’s Word just a few centuries ago. Again, Hades, Sheoul, etc are all not "recent appearances" in God's Word. Where did you get that from?

To be honest, people are growing tired of the guess work. They want real answers. They want something that will keep their family together, not destroy it. That's nobleI’ve seen so much divorce in the Church, it’s beyond sad. We tell people, “Come, God will mend your Family. God will heal your diseases. God will save your children”. After these things don’t happen, the most important thing regarding Faith, is LOST; TRUST. They only way to restore Trust, is to stop giving people false hopes, and give them answers that can be proven to be true.

People want their needs met. They want to point back to them. We see this as the ultimate of nobility, but in reality, it's the disguise of sin. The STory of our Creator God trying to reconcile us is a beautiful one, and He's trying to get us to stop worshipping us, and worshipping Him.

In the end, I can fill books of "evidence" as to there being a God, and that evidence can be categorically different in every regard. But, the truth is, by human science, I can't "prove" there is a God, neither can I prove there is no God. So your words are broad. We must identify what we do believe. God? Do you believe in Jesus? Is what He said true? Start from there. Unbelief is a human reality, but the ultimate goal of God (John). So I want to interact with your question/statement, but need to know where to start. In reality, I feel you were just venting more than trying to go somewhere with it, but if I'm wrong, let me know.

Something to think about.

Let's avoid a thread hijack as well.

[Jeffrey]

Put a period where you wish, but I think that if we cannot know we are saved, then this whole thing is nonsense. And I do not think it is nonsense. The bible teaches WE CAN KNOW we have eternal life.

1 John 5:13 KJV These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

:thumbsup

[NotforSale]

Let's avoid a thread hijack as well.

Jeff, your response for the most part is more of the same. Just admit it, you and I don't know and much of what you say is assumed.

My referral to Hell is the Eternal Damnation spoken of in the New Testament. I've studied Scripture intensely for over 30 years, and Eternal Fire, burning the lost for Eternity is not found in the Old Testament.

This is an important fact that we cannot, nor must not, ignore. This unseen place of doom has the Catholic Church written all over it and appears to be "More of the same". Just accept it because "It is Written". Forget the proof and just have blind Faith.

[pelathais]

...
I disagree. One can have faith and refuse to repent. I already noted that I had faith when I heard the gospel, but I refused to repent at first. I did not want to release some sins.
This would not be an example of Hebrews 11:6, faith. You apparently did not think that it was worth your while to "seek" God. Since it does not fit the Biblical definition of faith I have a hard time seeing how, "One can have faith and refuse to repent."

[Jeffrey]

Jeff, your response for the most part is more of the same. Just admit it, you and I don't know and much of what you say is assumed.

My referral to Hell is the Eternal Damnation spoken of in the New Testament. I've studied Scripture intensely for over 30 years, and Eternal Fire, burning the lost for Eternity is not found in the Old Testament.

This is an important fact that we cannot, nor must not, ignore. This unseen place of doom has the Catholic Church written all over it and appears to be "More of the same". Just accept it because "It is Written". Forget the proof and just have blind Faith.

Give me a chance... ha. Sheesh.

Not to discount your questions, but is this a current crisis you are in? I've read words from you in the past that propped you as just as much a fundamentalist stooge as I :)

So let me ask you then... what's your answer? What's your solution to this crisis here?

The question is not what I don't know, it's what I do know. This topic can't be handled universally, to be fair. If you want to discuss the existence of God, which I can't prove to you, but which he has proven to me, that's a place to start. If you want me to discuss the credibility of the Bible, we can do that as well. I'll admit some vulnerabilities in my position, and admit to even some holes, but at the end of the day there's enough evidence that leads me to believe. If we want to talk about Jesus and if he is who he claimed, that's a starting point (and a great one).

So... I will actually agree with you. I don't know! But I am persuaded, and persuaded by cognitive evidence, by my heart and soul and by empirical, existential means.

So... if you want to talk about Hell and it's validity in the scriptures, that's a GREAT discussion. But I kindly ask you to start a new thread for it. I'll chip in however I can. At the end of the day, I won't answer every lingering doubt. Neither will you or anyone else. We are all fellow men on a journey through this. I'm not afraid of your questions or doubt, because I have and had my own. But... I believe! Not with cognitive dissonance either. I fully believe in the most essential of cases. I am persuaded by others, and have doubt about others. There's room for us all. Imagine that. We don't have to have it all figured out.

[NotforSale]

Give me a chance... ha. Sheesh.

Not to discount your questions, but is this a current crisis you are in? I've read words from you in the past that propped you as just as much a fundamentalist stooge as I :)

So let me ask you then... what's your answer? What's your solution to this crisis here?

The question is not what I don't know, it's what I do know. This topic can't be handled universally, to be fair. If you want to discuss the existence of God, which I can't prove to you, but which he has proven to me, that's a place to start. If you want me to discuss the credibility of the Bible, we can do that as well. I'll admit some vulnerabilities in my position, and admit to even some holes, but at the end of the day there's enough evidence that leads me to believe. If we want to talk about Jesus and if he is who he claimed, that's a starting point (and a great one).

So... I will actually agree with you. I don't know! But I am persuaded, and persuaded by cognitive evidence, by my heart and soul and by empirical, existential means.

So... if you want to talk about Hell and it's validity in the scriptures, that's a GREAT discussion. But I kindly ask you to start a new thread for it. I'll chip in however I can. At the end of the day, I won't answer every lingering doubt. Neither will you or anyone else. We are all fellow men on a journey through this. I'm not afraid of your questions or doubt, because I have and had my own. But... I believe! Not with cognitive dissonance either. I fully believe in the most essential of cases. I am persuaded by others, and have doubt about others. There's room for us all. Imagine that. We don't have to have it all figured out.

Awesome post! I'll revisit this tomorrow. It's been one long day. LOL

Again, many great thoughts here, worthy of response.

NFS ;)

[notofworks]

Awesome post! I'll revisit this tomorrow. It's been one long day. LOL

Again, many great thoughts here, worthy of response.

NFS ;)


I, for one, would be interested in your "hell thoughts", for this is a troubling subject for me, personally. As for me, I don't care where you talk about it...here or its own thread...but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts concerning hell AND heaven and their differentiating concepts in the Testaments.

Jeffrey's points are well-spoken and completely valid...we can't "prove" but we can "believe" and ultimately, that's what we've chosen to do. Yes, I have personal experiences that prove God completely to me.

I know this may irk some of the bible-thumpers, but the bible doesn't prove God to me. It confirms it. But with the bible's confirmation of God, come the verses that make me scratch my head.

NFS, you're one here who seems to type out very well my heart...my heart that was unable to properly verbalize it. So I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

[mfblume]

It also says there will be some who think they are saved, but are not.

That is true! Deception is possible, but, still, we can know we are saved.

[Timmy]

That is true! Deception is possible, but, still, we can know we are saved.

Yep. Unless you're wrong. :heeheehee

[pelathais]

AGAIN!!! (sigh) Let me know when you are going to discuss something.

Anyway, so interesting why one steppers will not say baptism saves by Christ's resurrection, unless forced to quote scripture.
No one "forced" me to quote 1 Peter 3:21 - I brought it up to show how "getting wet" saves no one. It is clearly the "resurrection of Jesus Christ" that saves us in 1 Peter 3:21. You said as much yourself.

Meanwhile alleged "three steppers" use these passages all the time, as well as those that seem to one steppers to promote only faith.

So many passages like this will only be repeated by onestep believers when someone points them out to them. The language of the scriptures in these cases is otherwise absent. Be baptized and wash away thy sins. No one stepper would use those words unless reading Acts 22:16. One steppers will not respond to questions of how to be saved with Acts 2:38. The question has not changed but somehow the answer did.
Empty rhetoric. I brought up 1 Peter 3:21 in this thread, not you and not any of the other "3 Steppers."

No question by one steppers would be given to someone as Paul asked about Spirit and Water Baptism in Acts 19.
And yet your 3rd grade English teacher might have some questions about that sentence. What are you trying to say?

This is my point. The emphasis upon no need for baptism in salvation simply leaves these folks void of speaking the same thing the early church ministers spoke about.
uh... you okay? The "early church ministers" clearly emphasized the cross and the work of Jesus Christ as being the Gospel and the means of salvation. You have not even attempted to to engage the many, many citations I have made to Scripture. And, when I responded to your list of Scripture passages - rather thoroughly demolishing your arguments - you completely ignored me except to start in with the taunting and name calling.

We get SOME one steppers thinking they get your point, when they do not stop to consider maybe they MISSED your point, and have ASSUMED that a box for your thoughts is your actual box that they have emphasized as being error, when not at all. And when actual beliefs are presented, the ears are closed and accusations of self contradiction fly.
uh... what?

Maybe only "SOME" people get my point, however I don't think ANYONE would be capable of getting that last one by you.

The fact is that baptism is part of salvation if Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. It's right there in black and white! Had baptism never been intended as PART of salvation, the two words "baptism saves" would never be associated as they are in Peter's words.

People quote Peter saying "baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus" and then say baptism does not save. Bottom line: If baptism had no part at all in salvation, then Peter would not have said baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus.
Well, I am glad that you at least are one of those who did somehow manage to get my point. Thanks! :thumbsup

[NotforSale]

I, for one, would be interested in your "hell thoughts", for this is a troubling subject for me, personally. As for me, I don't care where you talk about it...here or its own thread...but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts concerning hell AND heaven and their differentiating concepts in the Testaments.

Jeffrey's points are well-spoken and completely valid...we can't "prove" but we can "believe" and ultimately, that's what we've chosen to do. Yes, I have personal experiences that prove God completely to me.

I know this may irk some of the bible-thumpers, but the bible doesn't prove God to me. It confirms it. But with the bible's confirmation of God, come the verses that make me scratch my head.

NFS, you're one here who seems to type out very well my heart...my heart that was unable to properly verbalize it. So I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

NOW and Jeff,

I've debated the Hell issue thoroughly and it appears to me, somewhere within the realm of translating, copying, and the Religious getting their dirty little fingers upon Scripture, we now have this unfathomable place of torment for all who choose another "Way" or plan of Salvation. Of course, this depends on what Church you go to.

Think about it; if you remove Hell from the Plan of Salvation, what happens?

1. A person no longer follows the idea or plan of redemption because of the consequence. This is HUGE! So many are afraid to question or change because Hell awaits those who do. So, Faith actually becomes bondage. A prison of fear.

2. The heart of man/woman would approach God from an entirely different perspective. The preacher could no longer use this "Heavy" to keep the sheep under submission, and, we would no longer tell others that "Unless you repent, you will BURN". I see this as an antidote to our concept and Faith in God. People would begin to develop a loving relationship with God based upon the Family structure that we can see. For instance, how can we relate to a Father that torches His very own Creation, not for one day, but forever? We can't, so the distance between us and the Lord grows because that's the only way we accept Hell and its ferocity.

3. Life, love, and compassion for people would change. No longer would backsliders be considered doomed. Hope becomes more real and honest because deep down we know, all fail, some at the point of death. WE don't use the unseen dimensions to inflict fear, releasing us from manipulating people which is absolute freedom. We stop the torturous mind games, and begin to base our love for God on REAL LIFE. What we can see.

When Hell is in the equation, we are WAY more judgmental. Those "SINNERS" are heading for what they deserve. Notice, the extreme Religions and power hungry cults will pound the pulpit with Hell Fire. Obey or burn. Fear is the permeating result of this place, and the perfect ploy to program our minds to NEVER question.

IMO, Hell puts God in not only a bad light, but an abusive one. As a father, I would never send my children to a place where they would burn for eternity, no matter what they did. This life is tough, and many things can come our way that might lead us astray. Human beings are weak, and the Church is not exempt from weak people. Man gets into trouble on every level of life, and His only Hope is mercy from a Creator who see's clearly that we all fail, cry, and wish for a body that can't be tempted.

I see on this Forum debate after debate on subjects you would think would be concluded by now. But man will argue till he dies, from politics to Religion, where our culture molds us into individuals that are unique and different. It really makes me laugh when we say, "God is not the Author of confusion", yet we are all confused about our Faith. To me the reason for the confusion is simple; we can't let go of the "Unseen". As long as the unseen is documented as a fact, the arguing will never cease because how can we prove what we can't see, feel or touch.

As far as Scripture is concerned, many things MUST be considered when talking about Hell. Like I’ve said, Eternal Damnation is NOT in the Old Testament, PERIOD. If God wanted the World to know that they are going to Hell, the Book of Genesis would have clearly pointed this out. Also, none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament exist. They are ALL copies, written in Greek, the official language of Rome during all this “Translating” and the development of the Catholic Church.

I’m so deeply bothered by the fact that we are expected to believe in extreme and diabololical things that we can’t see. If God wanted this to be so, it would seem apparent that proof of such places could be validated somehow. We are fallible enough with what we can see, let alone with Worlds we can’t.

An answer to this crisis? Not sure I have one. One thing that has helped me with understanding is to simply validate by experience. Be more fact oriented. If I’m going to call God my Father, how do I see and feel about this role in life? If we are His Children, how do I love and care for my own children? To be honest, developing a relationship with Someone I can’t see, touch, or talk to is more than difficult. But when I hold my wife tightly when she is hurting, or we spend an evening under candlelight, I try with everything that is inside of me to think of God.

Hell makes absolutely no sense, and if God is all knowing, to allow man to populate this World so he can simply die within a few years and then spend eternity screaming in torment is beyond crazy. Hell just doesn’t fit, and I think we need to admit that.

[Adino]

Since baptism saves (and btw, I believe it does)......

Can we all agree that ALL who have faith in Christ and are baptized are saved whether or not they have spoken in tongues?

MFBlume?

[Jason B]

Since baptism saves (and btw, I believe it does)......

Can we all agree that ALL who have faith in Christ and are baptized are saved whether or not they have spoken in tongues?

MFBlume?

Simon-Acts 8?

[Adino]

Simon-Acts 8?Hi ya, Jason. Some would say that although Simon was wrong in attempting to purchase the ability to impart some aspect of the Spirit, this shortcoming had no bearing on his condition as a believer. Others would question whether he ever truly had faith in something other than the exhibition of signs and wonders. If Simon truly had faith in Christ, then he was saved. If his faith was ultimately in something other than Christ, then he was not.

My question deals with those who truly do have a genuine faith in Christ and who are baptized. I would consider ALL these as being saved. In fact, I consider ALL who truly believe as saved in the eyes of God even before they are baptized - How this does not contradict what I've said earlier I will explain after a while.

Again, for those who believe 'baptism saves'.... will you agree that ALL who truly believe and are baptized ARE SAVED whether or not they have spoken in tongues?

[Jason B]

Again, for those who believe 'baptism saves'.... will you agree that ALL who truly believe and are baptized ARE SAVED whether or not they have spoken in tongues?
Basically yes. I believe the proper response to Acts 2:38 is repentance and water baptism (Acts 2:41)

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=28567

[mfblume]

Will get to other posts as time permits.

Yep. Unless you're wrong. :heeheehee

My good friend, T. When a person is mistaken it is because they are deceived. And if they are deceived it is because their hearts were not right as far as sincerity goes at a point in time, which moved God to allow one to be given over. God only lets those be given over when they are in a normal state of being, as everyone is, but then for some reason as some given point in time they maneuver their own thinking to dishonesty or something blatantly awry. Read Romans 1. Those who remain honest with themselves and with God are not given over to deception. One has to personally and willingly change one's thoughts to God-dishonouring ones or wicked and dishonest ones.

Romans 1:18-26 KJV For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

[Timmy]

Will get to other posts as time permits.



My good friend, T. When a person is mistaken it is because they are deceived. And if they are deceived it is because their hearts were not right as far as sincerity goes at a point in time, which moved God to allow one to be given over. God only lets those be given over when they are in a normal state of being, as everyone is, but then for some reason as some given point in time they maneuver their own thinking to dishonesty or something blatantly awry. Read Romans 1. Those who remain honest with themselves and with God are not given over to deception. One has to personally and willingly change one's thoughts to God-dishonouring ones or wicked and dishonest ones.

Romans 1:18-26 KJV For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


So. Are you deceived? Well, let's see. You are sincere, of course. You haven't maneuvered your thinking to dishonesty, or something blatantly awry, of course. So, by your reasoning, you can rest assured that you are not deceived. But here's the problem: nobody who sees things differently from you (me, for example) will ever think they are dishonest, either! I, for example, am 100% sincere in my quest for truth. And yet, here I am. Utterly deceived. And do you think any of those who cry "Lord, Lord" and are sent away will think they were dishonest?

[Adino]

MFBlume, since baptism saves are all who are baptized saved in God's eyes?

[augustianian]

Legalist,

WOW ! Not sure where to start on this one.

I guess I'll make an overall observation about your "debating" skills...not in a sense to ridicule you but just trying to be helpful. Then I'll take you point by point and then end with an alternative argument.

Let me start here...
sigh... oh yeah James is only talking about how look before men.

You can sigh so deep that it bleeds but that doesn't save your basic argument which is obviously negated by the very fact that you and I are having this conversation. We are "men" (I don't know, you may be a woman, but that doesn't really matter) so at the outset my contention is established that James has others in mind when he wrote this. In fact, it's obvious that ALL the epistles are written with others in mind, so let's not try to make a point that is invalid. By the very word "works" there is an underlying assumption of "others" in the very word itself,

You state the following...

1) James argument is not about presentation before men of justification. His bringing up of Isaac has NOTHING to do with men and Gen 15:6.

Since I'm making the case that James is specifically talking about justification before men (i.e. works that prove and display faith) I would like to point out that there are two men here, obviously, Abraham and Isaac, but beyond that the very fact that James is bringing up Abraham and Isaac points to the validity of my argument because James is using this event as an example of a faith that is not dead. If you've read James then you've made my case also, meaning this event PROVES Abraham's faith AND God's declaration, to you and to me (before men).

2) Is this about saving before men?


At last, we agree. No this is not about "saving before men." But since I can sense your incredulity at what you think I'm saying, I would like to point out something to you. You might be thinking that I'm using the word justification here in James in the same sense that Paul uses it elsewhere. I'm not. But since you are taking me wrong, I think, your definition of the word justification is rather enlightening. You know, instinctively, that the word justification has a causal connection to salvation, which explains your incredulity, because that would be weird, not to mention unscriptural, for someone to connect justification, in the salvific sense, with performance before men. However, since I think you know this, why would you contend that Abraham's justification in Genesis 15 is an unfulfilled justification? Does God need deeds to prove, what He has already declared, to Himself?


Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

The difference is between what someone says and what someone is. James 2: 18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
SHOW ME YOUR FAITH WITHOUT DEEDS, AND I WILL SHOW YOU MY FAITH BY WHAT I DO.

That's why I said it was justification before men and NOT God...or a living faith that produces good works...works which in and of themselves have no saving power whatsoever. Also works that are not needed for faith to be a living faith, but rather works that PROVE that the faith possessed is a living faith to others (hence the justification before men) but not before God. He doesn't need validation for a gift He gives.

I don't think men are saving him... Thus he is not talking about standing before men but God.


But does God need works to prove your faith to Him? Since He is the one who gives faith (John 6) why would He?

3) Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

Again, faith is the causal agent that God uses, and gives, to justify a person. Necessarily works come after to prove the validity of that faith to men not to God. Also, the use of the words...brother, sister and the existence of a reader proves my contention that James point is faith on display, or justification on display (i.e. God's declaration that a person is righteous before Him), to others meaning that what God has declared (the sinner is righteous) is a right declaration.

hmmm is he talking about what good is that before men? NO! He is talking about the meaning of faith realized or not. The very aspect of it.

But it is a realization that God, whom justifies, does not need. The only one's whom would need such a validation would be men, which is James' whole argument..."Show me"


hmmm is he talking about what good is that before men? NO! He is talking about the meaning of faith realized or not. The very aspect of it.


But it is a realization that God, whom justifies, does not need. The only one's whom would need such a validation would be men, which is James' whole argument..."Show me"

hmmm doesn't sound like a continued argument about before men thus the context never was about before men but a argument about realization of faith to the context.

A little difficult to understand what you're saying but are you giving tacit approval to my point when you say "doesn't sound like a continued argument about before men" at least up to verse 19? If it's not a continued argument, we'll see, then at the least you admit that what preceded verse 19 at least "sounds" like the argument that I've been making. We're making progress. I guess we're halfway there.


Also what is the point of "even" the demons believe if it is about before men? You making the whole context about before men makes the rest of the text ignorant.

Well if demons had saving/living faith then WE (men) would know it by what they did and their faith would be justified (declared righteous) BY US. But that would be a declaration of agreement NOT a declaration of salvation.


Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

hmmmm wait how in the world can he talk about "faith" apart from works is useless if it's only about before men especially following the context verse 19. Paul also says faith without love he is nothing... hmmm sounds like salt of the earth losing it's savor. Oh wait it's men that taste/judge.consider our losing purpose and not God.... right? lol

Again, you're disagreement hints at an astonishing admission. Since you state that these deeds are not intended to prove living faith before men, and since God justifies a sinner "apart from works" (meaning the deeds or works in question are not needed for a man to be justified "before God"), then you're either admitting that God doesn't need these works, and you and I would be in agreement and would make our discussion useless, or that God needs these works to validate His declaration of righteousness to Himself, in which case, would make the epistles of Paul useless. We would need to, then, redefine a whole host of words (grace, forgiveness, propitiation, the cross, vicarious atonement etc...etc...) or we would need to redefine God. Which is it? I don't see any other alternative than to agree with my assessment that James is talking about a faith being justified before men but NOT God.

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

oh yes... abraham and the big crowd and being justified before them.... I was wondering who said.... today I swear! I thought it was God.


Again there are two men there, Abraham and Isaac, not to mention James' readers down through the centuries.

Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

wait what is James doing dissecting how faith is completed if it's just about how it looks before men.. must have lost track of his thoughts.

Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.

Ok. James', according to you, says that faith completed by works justifies. Paul says that faith apart from works justifies. The only way to reconcile both is to make a distinction in a way that makes Paul talking about being justified before God, and James talking about being justified before men. Paul talking about the root of justification and James talking about the fruit of justification. The root witnessed by God, and the fruit witnessed by men proving the root.

Again, notice the first two words in James 2:22: YOU SEE...is James talking about ducks? Dogs? Cats? No, he's talking about men.

Completed for who's benefit? God's? Then we have to redefine certain words, as I've noted earlier. (Ephesians 2 is the best grid to use to interpret James 2. Saved by grace through faith, not works or you're going to brag. But you are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works but set in a category apart from salvation so the dead man made alive still can't brag about his/her works. Works add nothing to the "dead man's" resurrection, and they're not needed by God to prove to Him that the "dead man" is resurrected, they are just what "dead men made alive in Christ" do....and those works are works that are witnessed by other men to prove that this "dead man" is now "alive in Christ")

Yep... we went off on a tangent... Brought up scripture of being considered just before God. Not a friend before men that thought he was right.

Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Again, since you reject my conclusion that should be so obvious, please reconcile James 2 and Romans 4: 4, 5.

a

[augustianian]

continued,

HOW in the world can James use this scripture per Genesis 15:6 and it be a referenced just before men?

Jas 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way

Well, there's you reading it...the messengers...the city of Jericho...and all of Israel. Seems like there are plenty of witnesses around to see that God had converted her. How would they know that? By what she did. How would God know that? By her faith apart from her works.

Now I would like to make an alternative point. Let's, for argument's sake, allow your argument to stand. Since James' speaks about Abraham's faith being "complete" or "fulfilled" in verse 22, could Abraham finally say that he was justified and saved at that point? If not then what meaning are we to give to the words "complete" and "fulfilled" if Abraham is to continue to "complete" and "fulfill" his faith? Is he to continuously offer up his son in order to continuously "complete" his faith? Or is this event a onetime occurrence that was needed to "complete" his faith and he needed no more works or deeds because his faith was already "complete"? If the previous questions seem ridiculous to you then you should probably revisit the interpretation you give to verse 22. The only interpretation that works, without reducing James' argument to silliness, is that James' is not making an argument about justication before God but rather before men....hence the words "YOU SEE..."

You see?

a

[pelathais]

continued,

Well, there's you reading it...the messengers...the city of Jericho...and all of Israel. Seems like there are plenty of witnesses around to see that God had converted her. How would they know that? By what she did. How would God know that? By her faith apart from her works.

Now I would like to make an alternative point. Let's, for argument's sake, allow your argument to stand. Since James' speaks about Abraham's faith being "complete" or "fulfilled" in verse 22, could Abraham finally say that he was justified and saved at that point? If not then what meaning are we to give to the words "complete" and "fulfilled" if Abraham is to continue to "complete" and "fulfill" his faith? Is he to continuously offer up his son in order to continuously "complete" his faith? Or is this event a onetime occurrence that was needed to "complete" his faith and he needed no more works or deeds because his faith was already "complete"? If the previous questions seem ridiculous to you then you should probably revisit the interpretation you give to verse 22. The only interpretation that works, without reducing James' argument to silliness, is that James' is not making an argument about justication before God but rather before men....hence the words "YOU SEE..."

You see?

a
Many people would hate to see that fear and uncertainty leave their Christian lives. They thrive on compelling others to continuously strive for uncertain outcomes and hold these poor souls forever in a condition of debt.

The pastor won't have a horse farm to retire to unless he manipulates other souls into striving to pay a debt that was in fact paid for each of us long ago.

Thus, each of us are required to "offer up" our sons and daughters each and every day to sustain the money flow. It's barbarous. It's the linchpin in a stratified class system that seeks to maintain the flow of wealth from families and into one man's coffers.

This same system existed in another form in the Middle Ages. Vast hoards of gold and silver were siphoned from Northern Europe and into Italy and Rome. It was while one of those Northern Europeans, an Augustinian monk from Germany, was crawling on his hands and knees up the "Scala Santa" in Rome that he heard a voice speaking to him: "The just shall live by faith!"

The culmination of that "revelation" was that the flow of gold and silver ceased and the Renaissance and the Reformation spread throughout the world.

[Jeffrey]

I, for one, would be interested in your "hell thoughts", for this is a troubling subject for me, personally. As for me, I don't care where you talk about it...here or its own thread...but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts concerning hell AND heaven and their differentiating concepts in the Testaments.

Jeffrey's points are well-spoken and completely valid...we can't "prove" but we can "believe" and ultimately, that's what we've chosen to do. Yes, I have personal experiences that prove God completely to me.

I know this may irk some of the bible-thumpers, but the bible doesn't prove God to me. It confirms it. But with the bible's confirmation of God, come the verses that make me scratch my head.

NFS, you're one here who seems to type out very well my heart...my heart that was unable to properly verbalize it. So I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Yes. Because the Bible isn't a science book. It's not about "proving," it's about sharing the Story of a God who interacted with His creation. We are part of that story, and we wrestle with the details.

[Jeffrey]

No one "forced" me to quote 1 Peter 3:21 - I brought it up to show how "getting wet" saves no one. It is clearly the "resurrection of Jesus Christ" that saves us in 1 Peter 3:21. You said as much yourself.



Pel, Mike is saying Baptism saves us, so long as in view of the resurrection and done in faith. It's not a direct link, or an exclusive device. That's the way I'm understanding him.

Of course, I believe the Bible that we are saved by faith -- those things which follow are "because of" faith, and not "for faith" or "for salvation." Nor are they to "prove something to God."

[Jeffrey]

BUMP for Blume on Adino's question.

[pelathais]

Pel, Mike is saying Baptism saves us, so long as in view of the resurrection and done in faith. It's not a direct link, or an exclusive device. That's the way I'm understanding him.

Of course, I believe the Bible that we are saved by faith -- those things which follow are "because of" faith, and not "for faith" or "for salvation." Nor are they to "prove something to God."
Mike appears to inhabit a "middle ground" on this. Much of his rhetoric however appears to have been devoted to almost aligning himself with baptismal regenerationalism - but at least one of his examples and several caveats do appear to exclude him from that category.

What would happen if "our side" were to develop a hypothetical situation like Mike's "Guy Who Dies in the Car on the Way to be Baptized?" What would we have? A "Guy Who Sincerely Repents and Believes in Christ with Saving Faith But Refuses to be Baptized?" That stretches credulity.

Clearly, saving faith will involve the individual "Leaving the Land of Haran," so to speak. Saving faith is the start of a life long journey of trials, test, triumphs and if we were to be completely honest - even some failures. But this is a journey. Saving faith enables us to make that journey.

We must never forget that at the start of the journey something took place that we simply could not do for ourselves. And, we continue on this journey - NOT as a payment for some debt - but because the journey itself is also a free gift.

[Jeffrey]

Mike appears to inhabit a "middle ground" on this. Much of his rhetoric however appears to have been devoted to almost aligning himself with baptismal regenerationalism - but at least one of his examples and several caveats do appear to exclude him from that category.

What would happen if "our side" were to develop a hypothetical situation like Mike's "Guy Who Dies in the Car on the Way to be Baptized?" What would we have? A "Guy Who Sincerely Repents and Believes in Christ with Saving Faith But Refuses to be Baptized?" That stretches credulity.

Clearly, saving faith will involve the individual "Leaving the Land of Haran," so to speak. Saving faith is the start of a life long journey of trials, test, triumphs and if we were to be completely honest - even some failures. But this is a journey. Saving faith enables us to make that journey.

We must never forget that at the start of the journey something took place that we simply could not do for ourselves. And, we continue on this journey - NOT as a payment for some debt - but because the journey itself is also a free gift.

:thumbsup

We've really turned the "Word" into a legal document, and have lost sight of its value as a Story.

In fact, when people read "God's Word" in Scripture they are really thinking of their red letter KJV. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

[BeenThinkin]

BUMP for Blume on Adino's question.

What does it mean when you say BUMP on a post? :grampa

BT

[Adino]

What does it mean when you say BUMP on a post? :grampa BTIt is a way to remind someone of a previous post not addressed.

In this case it was previously asked,
"MFBlume, since baptism saves are all who are baptized saved in God's eyes?"

[augustianian]

Many people would hate to see that fear and uncertainty leave their Christian lives. They thrive on compelling others to continuously strive for uncertain outcomes and hold these poor souls forever in a condition of debt.

The pastor won't have a horse farm to retire to unless he manipulates other souls into striving to pay a debt that was in fact paid for each of us long ago.

Thus, each of us are required to "offer up" our sons and daughters each and every day to sustain the money flow. It's barbarous. It's the linchpin in a stratified class system that seeks to maintain the flow of wealth from families and into one man's coffers.

This same system existed in another form in the Middle Ages. Vast hoards of gold and silver were siphoned from Northern Europe and into Italy and Rome. It was while one of those Northern Europeans, an Augustinian monk from Germany, was crawling on his hands and knees up the "Scala Santa" in Rome that he heard a voice speaking to him: "The just shall live by faith!"

The culmination of that "revelation" was that the flow of gold and silver ceased and the Renaissance and the Reformation spread throughout the world.

Hmmmm...interesting. Not to mention the whole Catholic's church idea of indulgences which prompted the Reformation.

[pelathais]

Hmmmm...interesting. Not to mention the whole Catholic's church idea of indulgences which prompted the Reformation.
That was just another way to move the gold and silver south.

[mfblume]

So. Are you deceived? Well, let's see. You are sincere, of course. You haven't maneuvered your thinking to dishonesty, or something blatantly awry, of course. So, by your reasoning, you can rest assured that you are not deceived. But here's the problem: nobody who sees things differently from you (me, for example) will ever think they are dishonest, either! I, for example, am 100% sincere in my quest for truth. And yet, here I am. Utterly deceived. And do you think any of those who cry "Lord, Lord" and are sent away will think they were dishonest?

It is pointless to take this subjectively and analyze each other and compare notes. Deceived people were dishonest at some point that moved God to give them over. So you and I cannot tell who they are by their words. You cannot tell if I am deceived, neither I you. But, even the Lord's prayer gives a remedy. We are to forever pray that God keep us on the narrow way and not let us go into the broad way, in as sincere a prayer as we can muster.

Another thing, though. If the Bible is true, then you are deceived. Right?

Pel, Mike is saying Baptism saves us, so long as in view of the resurrection and done in faith. It's not a direct link, or an exclusive device. That's the way I'm understanding him.

Of course, I believe the Bible that we are saved by faith -- those things which follow are "because of" faith, and not "for faith" or "for salvation." Nor are they to "prove something to God."

Then how would you say baptism saves by the resurrection?

I agree baptism is not done FOR faith or "to prove something to God". But it is part of salvation nonetheless. As I stated, as soon as Peter said baptism saves by Christ's resurrection, baptism was made part of salvation. I see no other way to look at it.

MFBlume, since baptism saves are all who are baptized saved in God's eyes?

No. Some were baptized as a work for salvation, and that doesn't work, no pun intended.

Only those who experience a baptism as a result of genuine faith THAT WORKS are saved.

[mfblume]

Mike, I really don't believe that that's even possible.

How do you define faith? And what does that mean for a person who "has faith" to you?

Why then does the book of Revelation say plagues will strike people and, for all that, they would still not repent? Why even comment on their refusal to repent if one cannot choose to repent or not of one's own volition? If one gets true faith and has no choice but to repent, removing it from a personal decision (ironic), then there is no reason in noting some do not repent. It should say God refused to give them true faith. But it put the onus on their shoulders and said they refused to repent.

We get SOME one steppers thinking they get your point, when they do not stop to consider maybe they MISSED your point, and have ASSUMED that a box for your thoughts is your actual box that they have emphasized as being error, when not at all. And when actual beliefs are presented, the ears are closed and accusations of self contradiction fly.

uh... what?

Maybe only "SOME" people get my point, however I don't think ANYONE would be capable of getting that last one by you.

When I said YOU, I did not mean Pelathais. I actually meant three steppers. It was a generalization from a "three stepper" perspective..

IOW, you (Pelathais, a one stepper) misunderstood my point, and I claimed you assumed you knew it due to a boxing-in concept you think I engaged in with my beliefs. When I actually clarified my point and spoke of the man driving in the car to church to be baptized, you claimed I contradicted myself. I was explaining that there is no contradiction if you actually got my point. Neither of us are stupid, bro. It's just that it is sometimes hard to relate viewpoints, and when that occurs the recipient of the explanation thinks contradiction abounds where there actually is none. For some reason you think I am insulting you when I claim you cannot get my point. Notofoworks is touchy that way, too. ;)

Anyway, I would like to get notofworks to responds to my days old post of righteousness and how it really can get complex. He won't answer.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=898478&postcount=992

[mfblume]

Some more catch-up posts.

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.

The repeated phrase omits and integral part of salvation. It is known that baptism is an act that joins hands with believing faith. It is part of the picture almost. Thus, it is often said in such context (including Acts 2:38)

I believe Mark 16:16 is a verse that perfectly shows the example of how faith THAT works is what saves. Baptism in such an instance is not a work of salvation. But the text does not say He that believeth and is sagved shall be baptized. It says belief PLUS baptism saves. I believe repentance PLUS baptism remits sins, being the same message. Acts 2:38. If one does not believe, then one will not be baptized, hence, the lack of mentioning baptism in the damnation reference.

Baptism defintiely joins hands with faith. And without faith it is useless, answering Adino's question as to whether or not I think all baptized people are saved.

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.
What does Paul say in Romans about circumcision -- particularly as it related to Abraham, and what we have in common with Abram? Romans 4. This scripture clearly draws a picture of Paul's picturesque analogy of "being in Christ." Both burial (going down in water) and resurrection (coming up from water) are seen here. None of which are systematic as a theological vice as much as they are a great demonstration of what is happening. Neither do I believe baptism to be "purely symbolic" as some on here do.

Circumcision is something done as a result of faith THAT works in Abraham's case. Righteousness is indeed present in true unfeigned faith before circumcision in Abraham's day. But the faith Abraham had was faith THAT WOULD WORK. Imagine, as we have tried to explain so many times, Abraham refusing circumcision after he "believed". Such a "faith" would be dead faith, and God would not have made him righteous in seeing that workless faith.

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.

"washing away sins" is not done by baptism....

But it is done AT baptism.

we know this. If one asks he will forgive. By our faith in God we are seen justified, meaning we are pardoned ("washed") of our record of wrong -- and the second part of justification is reconciliation of relationship. Again, we limit Paul to literal speech, turning his every expression into a systematic theology, which it is not.

No, that is not the point I make. Paul is simply saying his baptism was a part of his sins being washed away. Why else would he even mention baptism if this was not the case? No one was there except Paul and Anannias and God, which was the same case with the Ethiopian Eunuch. It had to be done for more than a show.

We see here another picture of the life coming to Christ -- they are always baptized -- and what one pictures is someone stepping away from the past and "into Christ." Neither is confession the "way in." Why be baptized in such demanding requirements? Why even mention this if baptism is NOT SOMEHOW PART of salvation and washing away sins? We can say that there is systematic theology presented, but pelase explain why baptism is mentioned here, then. I am not getting answers from you as to WHY.


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.
Doug Moo's thoughts/comments on this passage are incredible. Encourage you to read them. Paul is explaining a concept to Jews, using things Jews would understand. Again, he often uses baptism as being the most visible manifestation of what has happened. I say it again though that I don't believe it's "just symbolism" but that in baptism is a real awareness and presence of Jesus. It's a statement not just in flesh to others, but also in Spirit. But it's not the "way in."

You are closer here than anyone else who claims to be a onestepper, I think. I am not saying baptism in and of itself is the "way in". But WITH FAITH from a heart acting in faithful obeidence, IT IS PART OF THE "WAY IN".

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:
This verse has been treated with worthy commentary often on AFF.

I really do not want to hunt around the entire forum to find those thoughts.

Thanks!

[Timmy]

It is pointless to take this subjectively and analyze each other and compare notes. Deceived people were dishonest at some point that moved God to give them over. So you and I cannot tell who they are by their words. You cannot tell if I am deceived, neither I you.

You don't know if I'm deceived? :blink

But, even the Lord's prayer gives a remedy. We are to forever pray that God keep us on the narrow way and not let us go into the broad way, in as sincere a prayer as we can muster.

Another thing, though. If the Bible is true, then you are deceived. Right?


Yes.

[Timmy]

It is pointless to take this subjectively and analyze each other and compare notes. Deceived people were dishonest at some point that moved God to give them over. So you and I cannot tell who they are by their words. You cannot tell if I am deceived, neither I you. But, even the Lord's prayer gives a remedy. We are to forever pray that God keep us on the narrow way and not let us go into the broad way, in as sincere a prayer as we can muster.

. . .You don't know if I'm deceived? :blink

. . .

Anyway, I didn't ask if you thought I was deceived. And I didn't offer my opinion on whether you are deceived. The analysis I did was based on your claims of how to know you are not deceived. So, never mind my analysis:

Are you deceived?

[Timmy]

Anyway, I didn't ask if you thought I was deceived. And I didn't offer my opinion on whether you are deceived. The analysis I did was based on your claims of how to know you are not deceived. So, never mind my analysis:

Are you deceived?

Oh, wait. I sorta did. Well, I said I was utterly deceived, which would be (should be?) your opinion of me. :thumbsup

[Adino]

No. Some were baptized as a work for salvation, and that doesn't work, no pun intended.

Only those who experience a baptism as a result of genuine faith THAT WORKS are saved.Then you agree those with "genuine faith" who are baptized are saved whether they've spoken in tongues or not, corrrect?

Also....

"With the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10).

Does confession save?

[Adino]

Btw, that would be .....

Does confession engendered by "genuine faith" save?

[mfblume]

Then you agree those with "genuine faith" who are baptized are saved whether they've spoken in tongues or not, corrrect?

Also....

"With the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10).

Does confession save?

Salvation is "a deliverance from". And Spirit baptism involves a "receiving of" moreso than "deliverance from". But the picture is just that it is God's will for us all to experience Spirit baptism -- all of us. So without splitting hairs I simply preach for everyone to experience Acts 2:38. And the promise of the Spirit baptism is for everyone whom the Lord shall call, v. 39. Why subdivide it and analyze it beyond that?

Flesh is flesh and people tend to want to get away with the least amount of spirituality they can and hope to be "saved". I refuse to give into that spirit, not saying you are of that spirit, lol. So I always emphasize GO ALL THE WAY! Never settle for less than everything God has for us.

As far as readiness for glory, I think that if a person is on their journey towards all of Acts 2:38, fully intent on experiencing it all and moving towards it, they are on their way to glory. Someone once referred to it as a sort of life before birth situation. In the Law a woman with child who was wounded and saw the child's life lost was also able to see eye for eye, tooth for tooth and life for life. The unborn child's life was just as much a life as the adult man who caused its death, therefore, the adult's life was taken. I can see how this applies to the spiritual "fetus" that is as much of a life before actual NEW BIRTH as a matured born again believer.

Now THAT should open a can of worms for some! lol

[Adino]

Salvation is "a deliverance from". And Spirit baptism involves a "receiving of" moreso than "deliverance from". But the picture is just that it is God's will for us all to experience Spirit baptism -- all of us. So without splitting hairs I simply preach for everyone to experience Acts 2:38. And the promise of the Spirit baptism is for everyone whom the Lord shall call, v. 39. Why subdivide it and analyze it beyond that? I agree salvation is "a deliverance from" something. You say Spirit baptism involves a "receiving of" moreso than a "deliverance from." Without getting into the 'Spirit baptism' vs 'Spirit infilling' vs 'Spirit birth' issue, I must strongly point out that it is in 'receiving the Spirit [of life]' that we are delivered from spiritual death. The man who has received the Spirit has received life. Having been reconciled by Christ's death we are saved by his life (Romans 5:10). The receiving of Christ's life is salvation from our condition of spiritual death.

We agree that baptism 'saves' (though we differ on what that means)....

I ask again in light of Romans 10:10
"With the mouth confession is made unto salvation"

Does confession engendered by "genuine faith" save?

[mfblume]

I agree salvation is "a deliverance from" something. You say Spirit baptism involves a "receiving of" moreso than a "deliverance from." Without getting into the 'Spirit baptism' vs 'Spirit infilling' vs 'Spirit birth' issue, I must strongly point out that it is in 'receiving the Spirit [of life]' that we are delivered from spiritual death. The man who has received the Spirit has received life. Having been reconciled by Christ's death we are saved by his life (Romans 5:10). The receiving of Christ's life is salvation from our condition of spiritual death.

We agree that baptism 'saves' (though we differ on what that means)....

Good points! I would alter my thoughts then to say Spirit baptism delivers us from a state of death. I also believe I can prove filling, pouring out and baptism are all one and the same. But anyway...

I ask again in light of Romans 10:10
"With the mouth confession is made unto salvation"

Does confession engendered by "genuine faith" save?

Romans 10 must be understood in light of its context. It is citing Deuteronomy 30 that Jews might stand upon in hopes of emphasizing they need not Christ. Paul showed that true fulfillment of the promise in Deut 30 of being regathered to the "land" when obedience to a command is given is faith in Christ and confession of it. The mouth and heart aspects are found in Deut 30:14. And Paul said it is the word of faith Paul preached. So, really, we have to go into all the word of faith Paul preached to get the full picture, because the full picture is not in Deut 30. Paul generalized the issue to have the jews and gentiles in the church realize that Jesus Christ is still the answer even when it comes to the promise of Deut 30!

It is like someone said, it is not systematic theology. It is a reference to Deut 30 in light of Jews and their relationship with God since Christ came. So I would never use Romans 10 as a finalized description of how to be saved as I would Acts 2:38.

[mfblume]

Notofworks, I guess I will not get a reply about the need to realize righteousness is not a simple issue from you.

I guess my post was too long for your attention span, as per your words, no insult intended.

Well, anyway, how is baptism a work like walking an old lady across the street to get to heave by works, anyway. :)

[DAII]

Good points! I would alter my thoughts then to say Spirit baptism delivers us from a state of death. I also believe I can prove filling, pouring out and baptism are all one and the same. But anyway...



Romans 10 must be understood in light of its context. It is citing Deuteronomy 30 that Jews might stand upon in hopes of emphasizing they need not Christ. Paul showed that true fulfillment of the promise in Deut 30 of being regathered to the "land" when obedience to a command is given is faith in Christ and confession of it. The mouth and heart aspects are found in Deut 30:14. And Paul said it is the word of faith Paul preached. So, really, we have to go into all the word of faith Paul preached to get the full picture, because the full picture is not in Deut 30. Paul generalized the issue to have the jews and gentiles in the church realize that Jesus Christ is still the answer even when it comes to the promise of Deut 30!

It is like someone said, it is not systematic theology. It is a reference to Deut 30 in light of Jews and their relationship with God since Christ came. So I would never use Romans 10 as a finalized description of how to be saved as I would Acts 2:38.


The reference in Romans 10:11 -13


That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.


to how we, Jew and Gentile are saved is more directly a reference to God's Word through the prophet Joel in Chapter 2, and his call for His people, saved by His name to repent and return to Him BY CALLING UPON HIM FOR OUR SALVATION

Verse 13
Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity.

And God's promise to pour out his Spirit, or breathe of life, to all who believe or "call on His name"

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

29And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

30And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

31The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.

32And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Why 3 stepper OP's refuse to ignore that the Sermon of Pentecost is based on this foundational message of repentance, or turning to God, to be saved is mind boggling as Peter begins his message appealing to Joel 2, in response to the direct question, "What meaneth this?"

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Peter and Paul, apostles, reiterate and echo this promise in Romans 10 and Acts 2.

More importantly, why we do not focus on the prophetic manifestation that Joel writes about .... that His sons and daughters would prophesy .... is now replaced with glossalia, which some separate from the "gift of prophesy" to establish a doctrine of a single, universal sign of Spirit quickening and baptism.

The promise of eternal life coupled with wonders (plural) in which His people would experience is expressed in magnifying or prophesying the wonders of God ... why this has been reduced only to tongues is puzzling.

In Acts 2, we are witnessing the fulfillment of salvation to those who call upon the name of the Lord and a manifestation of prophesying or magnifying the works of the Lord through Christ ... who made a way back to God.

What they saw and heard was a manifestation of the Spirit ... the charismata were given for the purpose of expressing the wonders of God ...

We find those in the house of Cornelius speaking in tongues and magnifying God

We find John's disciples speaking in tongues and PROPHESYING.

The way to God is to return to Him, turning to Him in repentance.

This was the bulk of Christ's message ....

Matthew 4:17

From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

It is what prompted Peter in a subsequent message to say what will wipe away our sins ... in Acts 3:19

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

It is calling on the name of the Lord which Ananias says will wash Paul's sin in Acts 22.

The issue is calling on the name of the Lord ..... Systematic enough?

[mfblume]

The reference in Romans 10:12 -13 to how we, Jew and Gentile are saved is more directly a reference to God's Word through the prophet Joel in Chapter 2, and his call for His people, saved by His name to repent and return to Him.

I disagree, bro.

Rom 10:5-10 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. (6) But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: ) (7) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) (8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; (9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


Deu 30:1-3 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, (2) And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; (3) That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.

Deu 30:11-14 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. (12) It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? (13) Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? (14) But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.


Paul introduced Deut 30 as the source of the mouth and heart issue, the issue in hand in this chat.

[DAII]

I disagree, bro.

Rom 10:5-10 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. (6) But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: ) (7) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) (8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; (9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


Deu 30:1-3 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, (2) And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; (3) That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.

Deu 30:11-14 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. (12) It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? (13) Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? (14) But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.


You are prooftexting rather than examining what God says about the relationsip between calling on the name of the Lord means throughout scripture with the many witnesses ... including Apostolic ones ...

Calling on His name ... has a specific significance in the OT and NT .... and you choose to ignore this powerful phrase which means to have a total reliance on the testator.

[mfblume]

You are prooftexting rather than examining what God says about the relationsip between calling on the name of the Lord means throughout scripture with the many witnesses ... including Apostolic ones ...

Calling on His name ... has a specific significance in the OT and NT .... and you choose to ignore this powerful phrase which means to have a total reliance on the testator.

It is not prooftexting when I cite the very place Paul quoted his passage in regards to bringing up the issue of mouth and heart that one steppers claim is a systematic theology of how to be saved. Paul quoted Moses. I agree calling on his name is a great issue in scripture, in Deut 30 and elsewhere. But Paul directly is citing Deut 30, and that is the reason he mentions mouth and heart together here. Prooftexting is taking text out of context. How can I do that with citing Deut 30 when Paul literally quoted Deut 30 and stated it was the reason he told Jews to believe with heart and confess with mouth?

[DAII]

It is not prooftexting when I cite the very place Paul quoted his passage in regards to bringing up the issue of mouth and heart that one steppers claim is a systematic theology of how to be saved. Paul quoted Moses. I agree calling on his name is a great issue in scripture, in Deut 30 and elsewhere. But Paul directly is citing Deut 30, and that is the reason he mentions mouth and heart together here. Prooftexting is taking text out of context. How can I do that with citing Deut 30 when Paul literally quoted Deut 30 and stated it was the reason he told Jews to believe with heart and confess with mouth?

To ignore that Paul says this is a promise to all and not just Jews is wreckless and/or convenient ... not systematic.

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

If you want to micromanage and ignore the greater context ... shoot for it.

See Joel 2 this is referenced as well by Paul ... then harmonize ... that is what Peter and Paul did.

[mfblume]

To ignore that Paul says this is a promise to all and not just Jews is wreckless and/or convenient ... not systematic.

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

If you want to micromanage and ignore the greater context ... shoot for it.

See Joel 2 this is referenced as well by Paul ... then harmonize

I agree Joel 2 is referenced. And I am not saying this is not a promise to all. But I am saying Paul is speaking generally and not detailingly, using the basic concept that Deut 30 presented, since all Jews knew Deut 30 and held it dear to their hearts, having it come from Moses. But we are not going to find details of salvation from either Deut 30 or Joel 2. Otherwise Paul did not need to say anything. The details are in instances like Acts 2:38.

[DAII]

I agree Joel 2 is referenced. And I am not saying this is not a promise to all. But I am saying Paul is speaking generally and not detailingly, using the basic concept that Deut 30 presented, since all Jews knew Deut 30 and held it dear to their hearts, having it come from Moses. But we are not going to find details of salvation from either Deut 30 or Joel 2. Otherwise Paul did not need to say anything. The details are in instances like Acts 2:38.

That's interesting because Peter's sermon text comes directly from Joel 2 ... you have confused the effects with the causes .... and Joel 2 and Peter's message both have everything to do with God's plan of salvation and deliverance.

Salvation in the entire biblical context has always been through calling on His name ...

[mfblume]

That's interesting because Peter's sermon text comes directly from Joel 2 ... you have confused the effects with the causes .... and Joel 2 and Peter's message both have everything to do with God's plan of salvation and deliverance.

Salvation in the entire biblical context has always been though calling on His name ...

Peter quoted Joel 2 but did not leave it with Joel 2. Joel was only used in verses 14-21. But from vv. 22-36 he spoke of David's words about that Lord. He told them what they specifically must do WELL AFTER explaining to them Joel's association with that day's events. He detailingly taught them about Christ, using also David. And the major point of citing Joel was to show them what was happening since the tongues was their initial question. Had Peter left them with citing Joel 2, that would be one thing. Stopping at Acts 2:21 did not occur. It was not enough to know one must call on the Lord. Peter explained that this Lord was Jesus and explained to them the crucifixion and the resurrection. He used David to show what further truth they had to know aside from Joel 2 regarding the Lord that Joel 2 mentioned. In fact, he spoke more of David's words than Joel's. David's words had more involved in salvation than Joel described. As if to answer the question of just who this Lord is that Joel told us to call upon, Acts 2L36 speaks of the resurrection info gained from David to explain Jesus.

Had Peter left them with Joel 2 and the need to call upon the Lord, the Jews would know nothing about the cross and its relevance. The reals message started coming through after Peter used David to show who the Lord is. And THAT pricked their hearts.

Had Joel's message been "it", then they would already know they must call on the Lord. Peter quoted Joel saying it! There was no need to ask what to do if that was the message as folks claim Romans 10 is the message. Peter went on to explain the work of the cross using David, and then the people knowing there was more to it than calling on the name of the Lord, asked Peter what to do!

Salvation is indeed through calling on the name of the Lord. Amen.

[notofworks]

NOW and Jeff,

I've debated the Hell issue thoroughly and it appears to me, somewhere within the realm of translating, copying, and the Religious getting their dirty little fingers upon Scripture, we now have this unfathomable place of torment for all who choose another "Way" or plan of Salvation. Of course, this depends on what Church you go to.

Think about it; if you remove Hell from the Plan of Salvation, what happens?

1. A person no longer follows the idea or plan of redemption because of the consequence. This is HUGE! So many are afraid to question or change because Hell awaits those who do. So, Faith actually becomes bondage. A prison of fear.

2. The heart of man/woman would approach God from an entirely different perspective. The preacher could no longer use this "Heavy" to keep the sheep under submission, and, we would no longer tell others that "Unless you repent, you will BURN". I see this as an antidote to our concept and Faith in God. People would begin to develop a loving relationship with God based upon the Family structure that we can see. For instance, how can we relate to a Father that torches His very own Creation, not for one day, but forever? We can't, so the distance between us and the Lord grows because that's the only way we accept Hell and its ferocity.

3. Life, love, and compassion for people would change. No longer would backsliders be considered doomed. Hope becomes more real and honest because deep down we know, all fail, some at the point of death. WE don't use the unseen dimensions to inflict fear, releasing us from manipulating people which is absolute freedom. We stop the torturous mind games, and begin to base our love for God on REAL LIFE. What we can see.

When Hell is in the equation, we are WAY more judgmental. Those "SINNERS" are heading for what they deserve. Notice, the extreme Religions and power hungry cults will pound the pulpit with Hell Fire. Obey or burn. Fear is the permeating result of this place, and the perfect ploy to program our minds to NEVER question.

IMO, Hell puts God in not only a bad light, but an abusive one. As a father, I would never send my children to a place where they would burn for eternity, no matter what they did. This life is tough, and many things can come our way that might lead us astray. Human beings are weak, and the Church is not exempt from weak people. Man gets into trouble on every level of life, and His only Hope is mercy from a Creator who see's clearly that we all fail, cry, and wish for a body that can't be tempted.

I see on this Forum debate after debate on subjects you would think would be concluded by now. But man will argue till he dies, from politics to Religion, where our culture molds us into individuals that are unique and different. It really makes me laugh when we say, "God is not the Author of confusion", yet we are all confused about our Faith. To me the reason for the confusion is simple; we can't let go of the "Unseen". As long as the unseen is documented as a fact, the arguing will never cease because how can we prove what we can't see, feel or touch.

As far as Scripture is concerned, many things MUST be considered when talking about Hell. Like I’ve said, Eternal Damnation is NOT in the Old Testament, PERIOD. If God wanted the World to know that they are going to Hell, the Book of Genesis would have clearly pointed this out. Also, none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament exist. They are ALL copies, written in Greek, the official language of Rome during all this “Translating” and the development of the Catholic Church.

I’m so deeply bothered by the fact that we are expected to believe in extreme and diabololical things that we can’t see. If God wanted this to be so, it would seem apparent that proof of such places could be validated somehow. We are fallible enough with what we can see, let alone with Worlds we can’t.

An answer to this crisis? Not sure I have one. One thing that has helped me with understanding is to simply validate by experience. Be more fact oriented. If I’m going to call God my Father, how do I see and feel about this role in life? If we are His Children, how do I love and care for my own children? To be honest, developing a relationship with Someone I can’t see, touch, or talk to is more than difficult. But when I hold my wife tightly when she is hurting, or we spend an evening under candlelight, I try with everything that is inside of me to think of God.

Hell makes absolutely no sense, and if God is all knowing, to allow man to populate this World so he can simply die within a few years and then spend eternity screaming in torment is beyond crazy. Hell just doesn’t fit, and I think we need to admit that.


VERY informative. You are a great resource for reason and study. Hell is a great struggle for me and I despise the years of childhood that I would end every single day with the bedtime prayer, "...and God, please don't let me die and go to hell". Being liberated from that emotional dagger radically changed my life. "Scribal additions" MUST be considered when we're being honest about our bible. They're mostly likely there. Now, did God want them added? We could debate that, I suppose.

I know this....I DO NOT want a church full of people who are there only because they don't want to go to hell. They'll never reproduce and evangelize and will never fulfill their purpose which was described greatly when Jesus said, "As the Father has sent me, so I send you."

Thanks for risking the stating of your beliefs. They're certainly not status-quo beliefs.

[DAII]

Peter quoted Joel 2 but did not leave it with Joel 2. Joel was only used in verses 14-21. But from vv. 22-36 he spoke of David's words about that Lord. He told them what they specifically must do WELL AFTER explaining to them Joel's association with that day's events. He detailingly taught them about Christ, using also David. And the major point of citing Joel was to show them what was happening since the tongues was their initial question. Had Peter left them with citing Joel 2, that would be one thing. Stopping at Acts 2:21 did not occur. It was not enough to know one must call on the Lord. Peter explained that this Lord was Jesus and explained to them the crucifixion and the resurrection. He used David to show what further truth they had to know aside from Joel 2 regarding the Lord that Joel 2 mentioned. In fact, he spoke more of David's words than Joel's. David's words had more involved in salvation than Joel described. As if to answer the question of just who this Lord is that Joel told us to call upon, Acts 2L36 speaks of the resurrection info gained from David to explain Jesus.

Had Peter left them with Joel 2 and the need to call upon the Lord, the Jews would know nothing about the cross and its relevance. The reals message started coming through after Peter used David to show who the Lord is. And THAT pricked their hearts.

Had Joel's message been "it", then they would already know they must call on the Lord. Peter quoted Joel saying it! There was no need to ask what to do if that was the message as folks claim Romans 10 is the message. Peter went on to explain the work of the cross using David, and then the people knowing there was more to it than calling on the name of the Lord, asked Peter what to do!

Salvation is indeed through calling on the name of the Lord. Amen.

I totally agree on the Gospel being presented ... and the revelation of the Christ and His Work as the Lamb being the better promise as the ultimate end of Peter's message... but to ignore that the salvational message is rooted in the idea of calling on the name of the Lord through Christ.... and that it is repentance/faith IN THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST ... together that washes our sin ... as witnessed by Joel, Peter and Paul as to how we are saved as opposed to the biblical response of those who have fully trusted and are regenerated by His Spirit .... still remains the basis of our disagreement. Once again, confusing the fruit for the root.

Eternal life is granted to those who believe on His name.
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

For a non-dispensationalist, like yourself, to ignore some of the links between the day of the Lord and what God expressed as His plan of salvation from the prophets to the apostles through true biblical faith and repentance (which go hand in hand) .... for both the Jew and Gentile.... is curious to me to say the least when you seek to add a properly administered baptism as a salvific requirement to cause salvation or a universal intitial sign of Spirit outpouring being glossalia ... when the promise was to prophesy His wonders ... along with other manifestations.

[notofworks]

I totally agree on the Gospel being presented ... and the revelation of the Christ and His Work as the Lamb being the better promise as the ultimate end of Peter's message... but to ignore that the salvational message is rooted in the idea of calling on the name of the Lord through Christ.... and that it is repentance/faith together that washes our sin ... as witnessed by Joel, Peter and Paul as to how we are saved as opposed to the biblical response of those who have fully trusted and are regenerated by His Spirit .... still remains the basis of our disagreement.

Eternal life granted to those who believe on His name.


For a non-dispensationalist, like yourself, to ignore some of the links between the day of the Lord and what God expressed as His plan of salvation from the prophets to the apostles through true biblical faith and repentance (which go hand in hand) .... for both the Jew and Gentile.... is curious to me to say the least when you seek to add a properly administered baptism as a salvific requirement to cause salvation or a universal intitial sign of Spirit outpouring being glossalia ... when the promise was to prophesy His wonders ... along with other manifestations.


I once heard Pastor Cymbala speak about "Calling on the name of the Lord" and it rocked my world. I'll never look at that statement the same again.

[pelathais]

Notofworks, I guess I will not get a reply about the need to realize righteousness is not a simple issue from you.
Mike, with respect, that sentence is not a simple issue.

I guess my post was too long for your attention span, as per your words, no insult intended.

Well, anyway, how is baptism a work like walking an old lady across the street to get to heave by works, anyway. :)
If the "old lady" needs to "heave" it's best she do it in the street and not on the side walk.

Baptism becomes a "work" when dogmatic literalists professing to have some sort of "revealed" insight demand that all Christians baptize according to their rite or find themselves abandoned and "heaving" in the flaming streets of hell.

Alternately, baptism is not a "work" when a sincere believer, leaving a life of sin behind, is buried with Christ and rises to a new life, walking in the Spirit.

[DAII]

I once heard Pastor Cymbala speak about "Calling on the name of the Lord" and it rocked my world. I'll never look at that statement the same again.

The idiomatic express has profound biblical significance throughout Scripture ... and it has nothing to do with a doctrine of invocation in baptism ... and it meant something of import to the Jewish believer, especially.

[notofworks]

Notofworks, I guess I will not get a reply about the need to realize righteousness is not a simple issue from you.

I guess my post was too long for your attention span, as per your words, no insult intended.

Well, anyway, how is baptism a work like walking an old lady across the street to get to heave by works, anyway. :)


Oh, I didn't take it as an insult. You're correct...my attention span gets pretty short at times, especially when the content is incorrect, misapplied, or boring.

I've kinda stopped reading your stuff, but happened to notice my "name" so I read this one. I stopped reading because, mostly, it's just the same stuff over and over and over again. And you take a different subject and attempt to throw it into the discussion of salvation. You're wanting to talk about "righteousness" and if you do, start a thread and see what happens. If you want to throw in the process or "righteousness" into the discussion of salvation, then go ahead. I'm sure someone will argue with you. I won't. I'm trying to get Derek to sign up, though, so if I'm ever successful, I'll let you two go at it!:lol

And your last sentence....."Well, anyway, how is baptism a work like walking an old lady across the street to get to heave by works, anyway.", doesn't make any sense to me. Is there a typo or something?

[TheLegalist]

I totally agree on the Gospel being presented ... and the revelation of the Christ and His Work as the Lamb being the better promise as the ultimate end of Peter's message... but to ignore that the salvational message is rooted in the idea of calling on the name of the Lord through Christ.... and that it is repentance/faith IN THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST ... together that washes our sin ... as witnessed by Joel, Peter and Paul as to how we are saved as opposed to the biblical response of those who have fully trusted and are regenerated by His Spirit .... still remains the basis of our disagreement. Once again, confusing the fruit for the root.

Eternal life is granted to those who believe on His name.


For a non-dispensationalist, like yourself, to ignore some of the links between the day of the Lord and what God expressed as His plan of salvation from the prophets to the apostles through true biblical faith and repentance (which go hand in hand) .... for both the Jew and Gentile.... is curious to me to say the least when you seek to add a properly administered baptism as a salvific requirement to cause salvation or a universal intitial sign of Spirit outpouring being glossalia ... when the promise was to prophesy His wonders ... along with other manifestations.

and as usual you don't understand covenant entry and you make baptism spiritually meaningless. Sure your point of faith/repentance etc.. are good but you ignore the differences in what baptism is for. Instead of seeing it is part of salvation and coming to abide in Christ you make it worthless.

[notofworks]

The idiomatic express has profound biblical significance throughout Scripture ... and it has nothing to do with a doctrine of invocation in baptism ... and it meant something of import to the Jewish believer, especially.

Exactly!! He started it with Genesis 4..."Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." Whew, I get chills remembering it. Incredible. I had always heard the "calling upon the name of the Lord" as some doctrinal argument. Never again.

[mfblume]

Baptism becomes a "work" when dogmatic literalists professing to have some sort of "revealed" insight demand that all Christians baptize according to their rite or find themselves abandoned and "heaving" in the flaming streets of hell.

Alternately, baptism is not a "work" when a sincere believer, leaving a life of sin behind, is buried with Christ and rises to a new life, walking in the Spirit.

I find no problem with what you stated here.

[mfblume]

And your last sentence....."Well, anyway, how is baptism a work like walking an old lady across the street to get to heave by works, anyway.", doesn't make any sense to me. Is there a typo or something?

Let me rephrase it. You said a "work" is something like helping an old lady cross the street. So, I asked how is water baptism such a work.

I stopped reading because, mostly, it's just the same stuff over and over and over again.Also, I am not interested in arguing something with you. I just wanted to know where righteousness fits into your theology. Let me make it shorter to read. If righteousness is so simple an issue, what is your thought about these verses:

Matthew 5:20 KJV 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.

Romans 5:17 KJV 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.)


How does righteousness fit into salvation in your mind?

[mfblume]

I totally agree on the Gospel being presented ... and the revelation of the Christ and His Work as the Lamb being the better promise as the ultimate end of Peter's message...

That was not my point. My point was that Peter already told them to call on the name of the Lord using Joel. Why did the people hearing him ask him what should they do if calling on the name of the Lord was already mentioned?

but to ignore that the salvational message is rooted in the idea of calling on the name of the Lord through Christ....

I never said salvation is not ROOTED in calling on the name of the Lord.

and that it is repentance/faith IN THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST ... together that washes our sin ... as witnessed by Joel, Peter and Paul as to how we are saved as opposed to the biblical response of those who have fully trusted and are regenerated by His Spirit .... still remains the basis of our disagreement. Once again, confusing the fruit for the root.

I would be interested in your response to my thread about Baptism, Infilling, Poured Upon, etc. I see all instances of receiving the Spirit in Acts as something that did not occur before Spirit baptism, since they are one and the same experience as shown in the aforementioned thread.

Eternal life is granted to those who believe on His name.

For a non-dispensationalist, like yourself, to ignore some of the links between the day of the Lord and what God expressed as His plan of salvation from the prophets to the apostles through true biblical faith and repentance (which go hand in hand) .... for both the Jew and Gentile.... is curious to me to say the least

I never said there was no link, nor did I ignore some links. lol The day of the Lord is the wrath upon Israel, and Peter spoke from Joel of events from Pentecost to Holocaust. What is your point?

when you seek to add a properly administered baptism as a salvific requirement to cause salvation or a universal intitial sign of Spirit outpouring being glossalia ... when the promise was to prophesy His wonders ... along with other manifestations.

The overall New Testament teaches baptism is part of salvation. Again, no amount of writing can change the fact that salvation is tied with baptism as PART of the process when Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection. And again, Peter cited instructions from Joel about calling on the name of the Lord, but the people still asked him what to do.

Also, what would be your response to my claim that true baptism is no more a work for salvation than repentance is?

[pelathais]

I find no problem with what you stated here.

Also, I am not interested in arguing something with you. I just wanted to know where righteousness fits into your theology. Let me make it shorter to read. If righteousness is so simple an issue, what is your thought about these verses:
Matthew 5:20 KJV 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.

Romans 5:17 KJV 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.)
How does righteousness fit into salvation in your mind?
"Righteousness" begins as a free gift to those who believe (Genesis 15:6 and Revelation 19:8). It is a robe that is "granted" to us.

Once having received this gift, it becomes our duty to "wear" the "robe" or "armor" that righteousness represents: Matthew 22:11-14 and Ephesians 6:14-17.

By my own personal conduct I can either "put on" or "put off" this garment that I received as a free gift.

[mfblume]

"Righteousness" begins as a free gift to those who believe (Genesis 15:6 and Revelation 19:8). It is a robe that is "granted" to us.

Once having received this gift, it becomes our duty to "wear" the "robe" or "armor" that righteousness represents: Matthew 22:11-14 and Ephesians 6:14-17.

By my own personal conduct I can either "put on" or "put off" this garment that I received as a free gift.

Oops, I mistakenly typed words about righteousness to you that I meant for notofworks.

Anyway, I agree with you.

[notofworks]

Let me rephrase it. You said a "work" is something like helping an old lady cross the street. So, I asked how is water baptism such a work.

Also, I am not interested in arguing something with you. I just wanted to know where righteousness fits into your theology. Let me make it shorter to read. If righteousness is so simple an issue, what is your thought about these verses:

Matthew 5:20 KJV 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.

Romans 5:17 KJV 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.)


How does righteousness fit into salvation in your mind?

The word "Righteous" can cover a lot of territory. The "Just" in the Old Testament and the word "Righteous" in the New Testament can be interchangeable. Righteousness can be obedience. Romans 5:17 seems to point to a right standing with God while the Matthew 5 reference seems to have more to do with obedience.

So what is your point? You keep coming back to "Righteousness", so go ahead and make your point because I'm not figuring out your code.

I'm not sure that I said that "works are something like helping an old lady across the street" as a blanket all-inclusive statement. I believe I was talking about the concept of works bettering our position with God for salvation. I'm not sure what helping an old lady across the street has to do with baptism.

[TheLegalist]

The word "Righteous" can cover a lot of territory. The "Just" in the Old Testament and the word "Righteous" in the New Testament can be interchangeable. Righteousness can be obedience. Romans 5:17 seems to point to a right standing with God while the Matthew 5 reference seems to have more to do with obedience.

It also means justice done toward a individual. Which is counting.... considering something aright/just or wrong/unrighteous. The usage in the OT is clear on it is usd this way many times. In general it is always in response TO something. God's grace is always a response to something. GOd gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. Why? Because justice is done toward the condition. God responds in perfect justice and is judging always to respond to people in a righteous way.

[notofworks]

It also means justice done toward a individual. Which is counting.... considering something aright/just or wrong/unrighteous. The usage in the OT is clear on it is usd this way many times. In general it is always in response TO something. God's grace is always a response to something. GOd gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. Why? Because justice is done toward the condition. God responds in perfect justice and is judging always to respond to people in a righteous way.


Wonderful thoughts about righteousness. I'm still just wanting to know why Mike is stuck on getting me, or others, to define and discuss righteousness. Why is this being weaved into the discussion of works, helping old ladies across the street, and the fact that works cannot save.

Legalist...do you believe that works of any kind are involved in salvation, and I'm not speaking of the work of Christ?

[Adino]

and as usual you don't understand covenant entry and you make baptism spiritually meaningless. Sure your point of faith/repentance etc.. are good but you ignore the differences in what baptism is for. Instead of seeing it is part of salvation and coming to abide in Christ you make it worthless.Cornelius received the benefits of a covenental relationship with God prior to being baptized.

If God recognized faith alone as obedience enough to the Gospel to bestow covenental benefit then why do you require more?

Baptism was the event at which a baptizand gave his confession of Christ and was to be accepted into the Church as being saved. Neither baptism nor confession saved him in the eyes of God. It was at this time he was accepted as saved in the eyes of his peers.

[Adino]

DAII, good to see you, Bro. Good job. You saw where I was about to go by bringing up the 'calling on the Lord' issue.

[Adino]

Good points! I would alter my thoughts then to say Spirit baptism delivers us from a state of death. If Spirit reception saves us from spiritual death, what does baptism save us from?

If your answer is "SIN," then how can it be theologically sound to say God grants spiritual life to those who still have the cause of spiritual death imputed to them? Case in point.... Cornelius or anyone else gifted the Spirit of life prior to baptism (which, btw, I would say includes everyone who believes).

Romans 10 must be understood in light of its context.Agreed.

It is citing Deuteronomy 30 ....Agreed. I've been pointing this connection to Deuteronomy 30 out for years concerning Romans 10. I stress that Paul inserts Christ as the commandment/word set before us for choosing life or death (Deuteronomy 30:15). He that believes has life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25,26). He that doesn't shall not see life (John 3:36).

Paul makes very clear distinction between an internal believing with the heart and an external confession with the mouth. With the heart man believes unto righteousness. I understand this to be a righteousness God alone sees because he alone knows the heart of man. Those who believe are justified of all things and God who knows the heart gives the Spirit to those who believe bearing witness to their faith in the Gospel (Acts 13:38-39; Acts 15:7-9).

Those who have faith in the Gospel preached confess with their mouth their faith and are to be considered as saved by the Church community at large.

Again, if Spirit reception saves us from spiritual death, what does baptism save us from?

[mfblume]

The word "Righteous" can cover a lot of territory. The "Just" in the Old Testament and the word "Righteous" in the New Testament can be interchangeable.

Right.

Righteousness can be obedience. Romans 5:17 seems to point to a right standing with God while the Matthew 5 reference seems to have more to do with obedience.

Actually I think Matt 54's reference is fulfilled in Romans 5's experience of receiving this gift.

So what is your point? You keep coming back to "Righteousness", so go ahead and make your point because I'm not figuring out your code.

You wondered what I meant earlier in associating righteousness with salvation, making it seem you did not have a concept of how righteousness is involved in salvation -- or at least you never said what relationship the two have together. It was just that you looked as though I was from Mars when speaking about righteousness and salvation together. So I am trying to determine what relationship you think righteousness has at all.

Here is what inspired this thought from http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=897508&postcount=937:

Are you equivocating salvation and righteousness? Maybe you are.

You give hints of something you are thinking, but do not explain your beliefs on it in such statements.

I'm not sure that I said that "works are something like helping an old lady across the street" as a blanket all-inclusive statement. I believe I was talking about the concept of works bettering our position with God for salvation. I'm not sure what helping an old lady across the street has to do with baptism.

Well you mentioned salvational baptism is salvation by works, and then you said "works" are like walking an old lady across the street when you claimed repentance is not a "work"..

[mfblume]

If Spirit reception saves us from spiritual death, what does baptism save us from?

This departs from the traditional UPC idea, but baptism is not just burial. It is death. We are baptized into Christ's death. And it also involves resurrection. Col 2:11-12 shows that baptism has us both circumcised from the body of sins of the flesh as well as being risen with Him. Baptism saves us from the OLD MAN, technically. It causes us to be DEAD TO SIN through Christ. How can baptism play a part in death to sin if it is not required for salvation? But God still grants righteousness before baptism since faith THAT WORKS will have us baptized, and I think that is what it means by syaing baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus. This gets back to the old debate about what the baptism in Romans 6 is all about.

If your answer is "SIN," then how can it be theologically sound to say God grants spiritual life to those who still have the cause of spiritual death imputed to them? Case in point.... Cornelius or anyone else gifted the Spirit of life prior to baptism (which, btw, I would say includes everyone who believes).

The only way I see this makes any sense is that it is contractual. God's seal is Spirit baptism -- that is, it's His signature on the contract. Ours is water baptism, analagous to circumcision in the OT. The gentiles received His Spirit BEFORE water baptism, as you indicate. But they were still in need of water baptism as per Peter's COMMAND. It was no option whatsoever. And since I already stated adamantly that God imputes righteousness to us upon our FAITH THAT WORKS, baptism can in no way be regenerational, despite Pel's accusation that I believe a form of baptismal regeneration, when such a thing like Cornelius' Spirit baptism occurred before he was water baptized. God sees the FAITH THAT WORKS in men like Cornleius, and allows for Spirit baptism due to having imputed Cornelius with righteousness upon such faith, and water baptism must still be carried out, though, leaving Peter unable to depart from them without having baptized them since it is partly contractual as well as something that manifests faith that works.

It's hard to get this into words.

Agreed. I've been pointing this connection to Deuteronomy 30 out for years concerning Romans 10. I stress that Paul inserts Christ as the commandment/word set before us for choosing life or death (Deuteronomy 30:15). He that believes has life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25,26). He that doesn't shall not see life (John 3:36).

Paul makes very clear distinction between an internal believing with the heart and an external confession with the mouth. With the heart man believes unto righteousness. I understand this to be a righteousness God alone sees because he alone knows the heart of man. Those who believe are justified of all things and God who knows the heart gives the Spirit to those who believe bearing witness to their faith in the Gospel (Acts 13:38-39; Acts 15:7-9).

Amen, but Paul is not giving systematic theology in Romans 10.

If Acts 2 is not systematic theology, then we have none!

[Timmy]

I don't follow all this about righteousness (haven't even read it all), but I know this much: it's nasty! Evil horrible stuff. Righteousness. Eeew.

[Timmy]

Oh, one more thing:

:heeheehee

[mfblume]

The most immediate recent posts somehow make me think of demons in cuddly, teddy bear costumes. lol :bliss

[notofworks]

Right.



Actually I think Matt 54's reference is fulfilled in Romans 5's experience of receiving this gift.



You wondered what I meant earlier in associating righteousness with salvation, making it seem you did not have a concept of how righteousness is involved in salvation -- or at least you never said what relationship the two have together. It was just that you looked as though I was from Mars when speaking about righteousness and salvation together. So I am trying to determine what relationship you think righteousness has at all.

Here is what inspired this thought from http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=897508&postcount=937:



You give hints of something you are thinking, but do not explain your beliefs on it in such statements.



Well you mentioned salvational baptism is salvation by works, and then you said "works" are like walking an old lady across the street when you claimed repentance is not a "work"..


I'm confused a little by this...In one place you referred to Matthew 54 and I can't find it, and also, my "handle", "NotofWorks" appears as "Notofowrks" and I have no idea how that could happen. Weird. And I still haven't figured out how to do the multiple quotes. But anyway:

This is probably a little too bottom-lineish, but I love the bottom line...saves time. I believe salvation brings righteousness, but righteousness does not bring us salvation, i.e., we can't improve ourselves in order to get saved, for example, "I quitting sinning, therefore I spoke in tongues." Our righteousness is as filthy rags.

[deadeye]

I'm confused a little by this...In one place you referred to Matthew 54 and I can't find it, and also, my "handle", "NotofWorks" appears as "Notofowrks" and I have no idea how that could happen. Weird. And I still haven't figured out how to do the multiple quotes. But anyway:

This is probably a little too bottom-lineish, but I love the bottom line...saves time. I believe salvation brings righteousness, but righteousness does not bring us salvation, i.e., we can't improve ourselves in order to get saved, for example, "I quitting sinning, therefore I spoke in tongues." Our righteousness is as filthy rags.

I have come to a conclusion,

After observing you (notofworks) and realizing that you don't even really believe the Bible, (you said yourself that it is not the Infallible Word of God) ...why do folks like Blume (of course Blume spiritualizes everything..) and others (myself included) even bother discussing the Bible with you....it is like trying to argue with a Mormon or a JW...they don't believe the Bible either and it is a waste of time to try to prove something to them out of a book they discount.

[notofworks]

I have come to a conclusion,

After observing you (notofworks) and realizing that you don't even really believe the Bible, (you said yourself that it is not the Infallible Word of God) ...why do folks like Blume (of course Blume spiritualizes everything..) and others (myself included) even bother discussing the Bible with you....it is like trying to argue with a Mormon or a JW...they don't believe the Bible either and it is a waste of time to try to prove something to them out of a book they discount.


Deadeye, I wish you posted more because you're fun. But when did I say the bible was not the infallible Word of God?

[mfblume]

I'm confused a little by this...In one place you referred to Matthew 54 and I can't find it,...

From an earlier post to which I referred in using a typo...

Righteousness can be obedience. Romans 5:17 seems to point to a right standing with God while the Matthew 5 reference seems to have more to do with obedience.

Anyway, the righteousness that exceeds that of the pharisees is God's righteousness.

This is probably a little too bottom-lineish, but I love the bottom line...saves time. I believe salvation brings righteousness, but righteousness does not bring us salvation, i.e., we can't improve ourselves in order to get saved, for example, "I quitting sinning, therefore I spoke in tongues." Our righteousness is as filthy rags.

There is a missing factor there, though. Righteousness brings salvation if it is God's righteousness being imputed to us. I mean, right standing with God (righteousness) saves us! It's just that self cannot produce that kind of righteousness, for as you stated, self righteousness is as filthy rags.

[deadeye]

Deadeye, I wish you posted more because you're fun. But when did I say the bible was not the infallible Word of God?

Here we are....


Originally Posted by notofworks
I disagree. Pelathias explained it very well. Inspired? Yes. Infallible? No.

For it to be "Infallible" we are believing that translators are as inspired as the original authors. At that point, which translators were inspired and which weren't? The KJV people? The NIV? The NLT? There's a long list. Did ALL the translators get it right? Some of them? Who's completely inspired and who isn't?

And there are the scribal additions that are almost certainly a part of the bible we have. Were those additions inspired that made their way into the manuscripts?

I accept the bible, as a whole, that we have. My favorite translation is the original New Living Translation. I don't care as much for the Second Edition, but it's getting hard to find the original.

[notofworks]

Here we are....


Yes, I was speaking of translations. Are you saying that our current translations are "Infallible"? If so, which one? All of them? One of them? A few of them? How did you come to that decision? If you believe that one or all of our current translations are "Infallible" you are putting yourself in the right-wing wacko fringe groups that live in Montana or maybe Steven Anderson from Phoenix (look him up, you might enjoy him).

I believe the writings themselves were infallible. We don't have them.

[notofworks]

From an earlier post to which I referred in using a typo...



Anyway, the righteousness that exceeds that of the pharisees is God's righteousness.



There is a missing factor there, though. Righteousness brings salvation if it is God's righteousness being imputed to us. I mean, right standing with God (righteousness) saves us! It's just that self cannot produce that kind of righteousness, for as you stated, self righteousness is as filthy rags.


So are you implying that the example you gave, which was "getting rid of sin in your life" so that you could "Get the Holy Ghost" (your view of the completed process of salvation), was a righteousness that God imputed to you? Would that eliminating of sin been a "right standing with God"?

[mfblume]

So are you implying that the example you gave, which was "getting rid of sin in your life" so that you could "Get the Holy Ghost" (your view of the completed process of salvation), was a righteousness that God imputed to you?

Not at all. There is no way getting rid of sin can give me God's righteousness by that act alone and no other factor. But the truth is God refuses to give us His righteousness if we are unwilling to release sin.

Would that eliminating of sin been a "right standing with God"? No. But it allows for God to grant us right standing. That is what I was trying to say about our hands being full disabling us from receiving something from another person. In this case if our hands hold sin, they are not open to receive the gift of righteousness from God. Emptying our hands does not make us righteous. Emptying our hands allows God to give us the free gift of righteousness.

This is a basic principle. God will not impute righteousness while we desire and are involved in sin. That is the reason that after Adam ate the forbidden fruit God said, Adam had to leave the Garden LEST HE ALSO take of the fruit of life. We cannot mingle unrighteousness with righteousness. Romans 1 says wrath is reserved for those who hold truth in unrighteousness.

Ridding ourselves of sin is in no way a manner of working our way to righteousness. If it were, then it would not be a case of God imputing righteousness top us, but us contriving SELF righteousness.

[deadeye]

Yes, I was speaking of translations. Are you saying that our current translations are "Infallible"? If so, which one? All of them? One of them? A few of them? How did you come to that decision? If you believe that one or all of our current translations are "Infallible" you are putting yourself in the right-wing wacko fringe groups that live in Montana or maybe Steven Anderson from Phoenix (look him up, you might enjoy him).

I believe the writings themselves were infallible. We don't have them.

I realize that there are variations and differences in translations.....and i also realize that some are better than others. However i believe that what has been delivered to us is the Infallible Word of God, and that it is our responsibility to "rightly divide the Word"
Sure there are things and scriptures that need research to have a better understanding, but when we start questioning the Flood, sun standing still, etc...we might as well throw the whole thing out....we can strive to understand it better but to selectively discount portions of the Bible is a slippery slope that ends in apostasy.

[Timmy]

I realize that there are variations and differences in translations.....and i also realize that some are better than others. However i believe that what has been delivered to us is the Infallible Word of God, and that it is our responsibility to "rightly divide the Word"
Sure there are things and scriptures that need research to have a better understanding, but when we start questioning the Flood, sun standing still, etc...we might as well throw the whole thing out....we can strive to understand it better but to selectively discount portions of the Bible is a slippery slope that ends in apostasy.

Which Bible is infallible?

[mfblume]

Which Bible is infallible?

The strain of the Received Text, or Textus Receptus for the NT, and the Massoretic text of the OT, I believe, personally.

[Timmy]

The strain of the Received Text, or Textus Receptus for the NT, and the Massoretic text of the OT, I believe, personally.

Infallibly copied and translated from the originals? :hmmm

(Translated? Maybe they're both in the original languages, so not translations, dunno. But, if so, are they infallible copies?)

[mfblume]

Infallibly copied and translated from the originals? :hmmm

From the originals to the Greek TR and Hebrew OT, yes.

[Timmy]

From the originals to the Greek TR and Hebrew OT, yes.

No mistakes at all? They are identical to the original manuscripts?

[mfblume]

No mistakes at all? They are identical to the original manuscripts?

From what I specified, I believe so. But I am not perfect, either, so...

[Timmy]

From what I specified, I believe so. But I am not perfect, either, so...

So you could be wrong. Maybe there are copyist errors. I've never heard, that I can recall, anyone claim there were none. But, if there are copyist errors, no matter how small they may be, I guess you would have to throw out the whole thing! :hmmm

[mfblume]

So you could be wrong. Maybe there are copyist errors. I've never heard, that I can recall, anyone claim there were none. But, if there are copyist errors, no matter how small they may be, I guess you would have to throw out the whole thing! :hmmm

I believe there were copyist errors in the ENGLISH translations. But they're obvious, like EASTER in Acts. I guess that is a translation issue, though. And, no, I do not throw it out. :)

[Timmy]

I believe there were copyist errors in the ENGLISH translations.

Oh. I would have called those translation errors, but OK.

So, back to the TR and the MT: do you believe that they both are exact, word-for-word copies of each and every one of the original manuscripts?

[mfblume]

Oh. I would have called those translation errors, but OK.

So, back to the TR and the MT: do you believe that they both are exact, word-for-word copies of each and every one of the original manuscripts?

One has to know the nature of the TR. It is a work of gaining the NT text from several Gr. MSS. So the question does not fit. MT is much simpler, and yes to the MT.

[Timmy]

One has to know the nature of the TR. It is a work of gaining the NT text from several Gr. MSS. So the question does not fit. MT is much simpler, and yes to the MT.

What do you mean by "the question does not fit"?

[NotforSale]

I realize that there are variations and differences in translations.....and i also realize that some are better than others. However i believe that what has been delivered to us is the Infallible Word of God, and that it is our responsibility to "rightly divide the Word"

Sure there are things and scriptures that need research to have a better understanding, but when we start questioning the Flood, sun standing still, etc...we might as well throw the whole thing out....we can strive to understand it better but to selectively discount portions of the Bible is a slippery slope that ends in apostasy.

Deadeye, one question for you. The current Bible we possess was mass distributed starting in the early 1800's, as modern day printing presses had not been invented yet. This means, mankind as a whole never had a "Bible".

So, how did mankind in the context of all time conceive God and His will before the Bible became a part of mainstay reading by the common people?

I believe we are guilty of drawing vain conclusions by stating we will fall into apostasy without a Bible, when humanity as a whole on this Planet never even knew what a Bible was.

[Timmy]

One has to know the nature of the TR. It is a work of gaining the NT text from several Gr. MSS. So the question does not fit. MT is much simpler, and yes to the MT.

What do you mean by "the question does not fit"?

Bump for Blume.

[mfblume]

Bump for Blume.

Come on, Timmy. lol. These agnostic hijackings are getting a bit much. lol

Read THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, as noted before. :)

[Timmy]

Come on, Timmy. lol. These agnostic hijackings are getting a bit much. lol

Read THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, as noted before. :)

It's on my list. :)

[mfblume]

It's on my list. :)

I agree with the author on this issue, and he really answers the questions you raise in a very indepth manner.

[Timmy]

I agree with the author on this issue, and he really answers the questions you raise in a very indepth manner.

Uhhh, remind me, how did you send it to me, again? Email? Link in PM? Looks like it's another victim of my hard drive crash.

[deadeye]

Deadeye, one question for you. The current Bible we possess was mass distributed starting in the early 1800's, as modern day printing presses had not been invented yet. This means, mankind as a whole never had a "Bible".

So, how did mankind in the context of all time conceive God and His will before the Bible became a part of mainstay reading by the common people?

I believe we are guilty of drawing vain conclusions by stating we will fall into apostasy without a Bible, when humanity as a whole on this Planet never even knew what a Bible was.


I didn't say we are in danger of falling into apostasy in the absence of the availability of a Bible...my point was that selectively discounting, or discrediting parts of the Bible will lead to apostasy....lot of difference there.

[deadeye]

It's on my list. :)

The smiley there tends to bring your sincerity into question...

[Timmy]

The smiley there tends to bring your sincerity into question...

:blink

[notofworks]

I realize that there are variations and differences in translations.....and i also realize that some are better than others. However i believe that what has been delivered to us is the Infallible Word of God, and that it is our responsibility to "rightly divide the Word"
Sure there are things and scriptures that need research to have a better understanding, but when we start questioning the Flood, sun standing still, etc...we might as well throw the whole thing out....we can strive to understand it better but to selectively discount portions of the Bible is a slippery slope that ends in apostasy.

So which translation is perfect? Which one isn't? Is The NIV perfect? The NIV includes footnotes that claim certain passages shouldn't be there, including Mark 16:8-20 which includes several verses that are foundational for pentecostals. Considering this, is the NIV infallible?

I disagree with the second bolded statement, although maybe, not totally. I don't like it when people want to selectively discount certain verses BASED on their theology. For example, many in your camp want to discredit Matthew 28:19 and I John 5:7 ONLY because it doesn't fit into the Search For Truth Home bible Study, or the best General Conference sermons. I think that's ridiculous.

But deadeye...scribal additions are, fairly well, certain to have taken place. There's also the issue of language. Have you ever read a Spanish bible or had it translated to you? In some places, it's completely different than what we have because of language-translational problems. "Rightly dividing" the "Word of Truth" can, and certainly should, include being honest about the authenticity of certain areas of the bible.

Honestly, the only "SELECTIVE" discrediting of passages in the bible, is being done by YOUR camp...those that either can't, or don't want to bother with, explaining troublesome passages like those I mentioned.

[Timmy]

Uhhh, remind me, how did you send it to me, again? Email? Link in PM? Looks like it's another victim of my hard drive crash.

Found it. :thumbsup I'll bump it up on my list of things to read/view. (Sorry, Miz. ;)) I can't wait to find out that the MT and the TR are perfect word-for-word copies of the original manuscripts! Er, well, the MT is, I mean. I want to find out why the question doesn't fit, for the TR. :thumbsup

[mfblume]

You beat me to it, Timmy. I just recalled I emailed it to you. :)

[Timmy]

You beat me to it, Timmy. I just recalled I emailed it to you. :)

I'm reading the Introduction now.

BTW, does bug you, like it does me, that a lot of people skip the intro? There's usually a lot of good stuff in there! Hey, I just thought of a solution! From now on, book writers should just call it Chapter 1 instead of Introduction, and shift all the other chapter numbers accordingly! :lol

[Timmy]

I'm reading the Introduction now.

. . .

And, BTW:

The smiley there tends to bring your sincerity into question...

:nahnah

:lol

[notofworks]

I'm reading the Introduction now.

BTW, does bug you, like it does me, that a lot of people skip the intro? There's usually a lot of good stuff in there! Hey, I just thought of a solution! From now on, book writers should just call it Chapter 1 instead of Introduction, and shift all the other chapter numbers accordingly! :lol


I'm currently writing a book that will, of course, rival "Purpose Driven Life" in sales. Blume will use it as a textbook for teaching, I'm sure. But anyway, it has no intro, for exactly that purpose. I never read intros. I just wanna get it over with. So my intro is chapter one.

[Timmy]

I'm currently writing a book that will, of course, rival "Purpose Driven Life" in sales. Blume will use it as a textbook for teaching, I'm sure. But anyway, it has no intro, for exactly that purpose. I never read intros. I just wanna get it over with. So my intro is chapter one.

:thumbsup

:toofunny

[NotforSale]

I didn't say we are in danger of falling into apostasy in the absence of the availability of a Bible...my point was that selectively discounting, or discrediting parts of the Bible will lead to apostasy....lot of difference there

Originally Posted by deadeye
I realize that there are variations and differences in translations.....and i also realize that some are better than others. However i believe that what has been delivered to us is the Infallible Word of God, and that it is our responsibility to "rightly divide the Word".

Sure there are things and scriptures that need research to have a better understanding, but when we start questioning the Flood, sun standing still, etc...we might as well throw the whole thing out....we can strive to understand it better but to selectively discount portions of the Bible is a slippery slope that ends in apostasy.

Ok, here is your post. Here is mine;

Originally Posted by NotforSale
Deadeye, one question for you. The current Bible we possess was mass distributed starting in the early 1800's, as modern day printing presses had not been invented yet. This means, mankind as a whole never had a "Bible".

So, how did mankind in the context of all time conceive God and His will before the Bible became a part of mainstay reading by the common people?

I believe we are guilty of drawing vain conclusions by stating we will fall into apostasy without a Bible, when humanity as a whole on this Planet never even knew what a Bible was.

Maybe we both need to refine our comments or responses. But, I can't help ask you again; What did people do before the Bible became the mainstay Book of the Religious World?

Access to the Bible was primarily in the hands of the Catholic Church. In fact, even Catholics in my family were forbidden to own a Bible. The Church felt that is was their responsibility to handle this Divine Word, and that the laity needed to accept that or pay the price. I went to Catholic school for 6 years and not once did I see a Bible.

"The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally suppressed, opposed, and forbidden the open use of the Bible. It was first officially forbidden to the people and placed on the index of Forbidden Books List by the Council of Valencia in 1229 A.D. The Council of Trent (1545-63 A.D.) also prohibited its use and pronounced a curse upon anyone who would dare oppose this decree. Many popes have issued decrees forbidding Bible reading in the common language of the people, condemning Bible societies and banning its possession and translation under penalty of mortal sin and death. The Roman Catholic Church has openly burned Bibles and those who translated it or promoted its study, reading, and use (John Hus, 1415 A.D.; William Tyndale, 1536 A.D.)

Though external pressures have caused Rome to relax its restrictions and opposition against Bible reading in America, the Bible is still widely withheld and its distribution and free use discouraged in many countries which are heavily influenced by Roman Catholicism."

With this and other facts in mind regarding limited understanding of stories in the Bible, such as the Great Flood of Noah, which we dissect down to the last letter because we can, please tell me what human beings did before this current age of total access to Scripture?

I feel we are guilty today of placing everyone into our Box or Idea without a deep consideration of other generations who had to define God by more of an instinct, rather than our tabled Idea that if we dare question something from this Book we will face the consequences.

Think about it Deadeye, in all honesty, the 20th Century is the only Century in Time where man truly opened the pages of a Bible. Why is it that we are now responsible to put God in there without question or rebuttal? Hey, the Book says it, so I believe it!! This is not only wrong, but puts the entire human race at risk of being lost if we take this Book literally from the Apostolic Church's perspective.

I find it a big mistake that the unlearned and ignorant took this Book, claiming it's validity without proving its authenticity. It's simple. Just accept it. The Church say's "That's the Book for me, the B I B L E", and that settles it. In the past this worked. Men stood behind pulpits making the laity feel as if they would be struck by lightning if they ever questioned this Holy Oracle.

But today, we are capable of understanding much of past cultures, peoples, and Nations. We no longer comprehend our Planet from distant or made up ideas, we can go there if we want to and put our fingers into their soil. We don't observe War, Disease, Corrupt Governments, Natural Disasters, and many other things from a clouded lens anymore. In the last 50 years, our ability to understand the realities of nature and Human life is changing the way we all think. "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" theology is waning under the microscope of the Facts, which is leading us away from being manipulated by a spectral world that cannot be questioned.

We also see today the array of Religions on this Earth coming from this one Book. Where there used to be just a handful of Faith's, we now have 1000's all claiming their divine "Take". They had a revelation. God spoke to them. And, this Forum is no different. We have our "Take", and if we're not careful, those who don't agree with us will be deemed as destined to the Lake of Fire, the exact mindset that filled the Dark Ages of few Centuries ago.

Peoples and Nations who stop questioning Authority will end up being ruled by Tyrants, and Religion is included in this debauched ending by demanding the acceptance of things that cannot be proven.

[notofworks]

Not at all. There is no way getting rid of sin can give me God's righteousness by that act alone and no other factor. But the truth is God refuses to give us His righteousness if we are unwilling to release sin.

No. But it allows for God to grant us right standing. That is what I was trying to say about our hands being full disabling us from receiving something from another person. In this case if our hands hold sin, they are not open to receive the gift of righteousness from God. Emptying our hands does not make us righteous. Emptying our hands allows God to give us the free gift of righteousness.

This is a basic principle. God will not impute righteousness while we desire and are involved in sin. That is the reason that after Adam ate the forbidden fruit God said, Adam had to leave the Garden LEST HE ALSO take of the fruit of life. We cannot mingle unrighteousness with righteousness. Romans 1 says wrath is reserved for those who hold truth in unrighteousness.

Ridding ourselves of sin is in no way a manner of working our way to righteousness. If it were, then it would not be a case of God imputing righteousness top us, but us contriving SELF righteousness.


Hey Mike, I'd like to read this article you're referring to. Does it need to be emailed? I can PM the address to you.

But on the "Cross Alone" topic, I guess we're at an impasse. The topic has been hashed, rehashed, and overhashed. The main point I jumped in with was when you claimed you eliminated sin from your life, and as a result, received "The Holy Ghost" as you see receiving it, which is, as you see it, a necessary part of salvation. That, to me, is a system of bettering yourself in order to be saved. I'm sorry, I've tried to hear your heart, what you're saying, and how you're saying it, and it still just all adds up to you improving yourself in order to obtain God's grace.

Obviously, you disagree. I guess we'll let it go at that. For me, "Grace" that depends on us getting better, isn't grace. That would be more like a reward, not grace. Sorry Mike, I just can't get around this one.

[mfblume]

Hey Mike, I'd like to read this article you're referring to. Does it need to be emailed? I can PM the address to you.

But on the "Cross Alone" topic, I guess we're at an impasse. The topic has been hashed, rehashed, and overhashed. The main point I jumped in with was when you claimed you eliminated sin from your life, and as a result, received "The Holy Ghost" as you see receiving it, which is, as you see it, a necessary part of salvation. That, to me, is a system of bettering yourself in order to be saved. I'm sorry, I've tried to hear your heart, what you're saying, and how you're saying it, and it still just all adds up to you improving yourself in order to obtain God's grace.

Obviously, you disagree. I guess we'll let it go at that. For me, "Grace" that depends on us getting better, isn't grace. That would be more like a reward, not grace. Sorry Mike, I just can't get around this one.

There is no article. It's a full book. HUGE file. You can read it online here: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm

Regarding ridding self of sin, and our disagreement, whatever. Ridding self of sin, as I described it, is simply admitting it is wrong and refusing to hold onto it any more. In short, repentance. You claim we need repentance to be saved, and that it is not a work. It is a work, but not to make us righteous. And unless you can see what I described is repentance, then we indeed are at an impasse.

Only God can remove sin from us, when WE REPENT, and only God can give the Holy Ghost. So I do not know how you make that something categorized as improving ourselves. :) To disagree is to say God does not mind us holding onto sin. Since I cannot accept that, then you and I cannot agree. I will never preach that God lets us hold onto sin and saves us anyway. But if I should say, "So, I do not think you got what I was trying to say," since I could not imagine you believing God lets us retain sin, you would shut me down again. So I will leave it as disagreement. :thumbsup

[notofworks]

There is no article. It's a full book. HUGE file.

Regarding ridding self of sin, and our disagreement, whatever. Ridding self of sin, as I described it, is simply admitting it is wrong and refusing to hold onto it any more. In short, repentance. You claim we need repentance to be saved, and that it is not a work. It is a work, but not to make us righteous. And unless you can see what I described is repentance, then we indeed are at an impasse.

Only God can remove sin from us, when WE REPENT, and only God can give the Holy Ghost. So I do not know how you make that something categorized as improving ourselves. :) To disagree is to say God does not mind us holding onto sin. Since I cannot accept that, then you and I cannot agree. I will never preach that God lets us hold onto sin and saves us anyway.



Well, I read an ENTIRE book one time....well, almost, got a little bored....ok, about half of a book, once....fine, I read the introduction....but really, I'd love to read it.

Good grief...just wanted to wrap this up and then you go and say something like only you can say. So if I disagree with your take on salvation, I'm saying that God does not mind us holding onto sin????? Mike, I'd sure like to call you a name right now but it's against AFF rules!:toofunny

So Mike, if you disagree with me, you're saying that the Pope is the final authority on all things and the Catholic Church rules. Whatever. Way to stretch it there, Mike.

But I must say, you've changed your tune since your original post I called you on. You now say...."Ridding self of sin, as I described it, is simply admitting it is wrong and refusing to hold onto it any more. In short, repentance." That's about a galaxy from what you originally said.

Here's that quote:(Post 682, page 69)..."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."


So we don't have to do all this again, but if you're going to have the audacity to say that if I don't agree with you then I believe God wants us to hold on to sin, then you're a........................oops, there's that rule again!:lol

[mfblume]

Well, I read an ENTIRE book one time....well, almost, got a little bored....ok, about half of a book, once....fine, I read the introduction....but really, I'd love to read it.

Good grief...just wanted to wrap this up and then you go and say something like only you can say. So if I disagree with your take on salvation, I'm saying that God does not mind us holding onto sin????? Mike, I'd sure like to call you a name right now but it's against AFF rules!:toofunny

Well I tried explaining that to you at the start, and you could not get any further than reading "You are not getting what I am saying." That is why I said you surely do not agree with God condoning sin. How else can I tell you that you must not have gotten my point than saying you must not have gotten my point? lol

So Mike, if you disagree with me, you're saying that the Pope is the final authority on all things and the Catholic Church rules.

No. I am saying you must think God condones sin.

Whatever. Way to stretch it there, Mike.

No stretch at all. It's just you will not let me explain myself to you.

But I must say, you've changed your tune since your original post I called you on. You now say...."Ridding self of sin, as I described it, is simply admitting it is wrong and refusing to hold onto it any more. In short, repentance." That's about a galaxy from what you originally said.

No, it's just you would not read past, "You're not getting my point," when I said the same thing in every explanation I tried to give you. Your A.D.D. hindered you from reading that far. :lol

So we don't have to do all this again, but if you're going to have the audacity to say that if I don't agree with you then I believe God wants us to hold on to sin, then you're a........................oops, there's that rule again!:lol

Well, if you would read all I explained, you would know that I only described repentance. I said in my first explanation that I MEANT I WOULD NOT REPENT. And its a two way street. You can have audacity, and no one else can? You had the audacity to say I preach salvation by works when I was only describing repentance. Let's all say "OOOPS!" :)

[notofworks]

Well I tried explaining that to you at the start, and you could not get any further than reading "You are not getting what I am saying." That is why I said you surely do not agree with God condoning sin. How else can I tell you that you must not have gotten my point than saying you must not have gotten my point? lol

No. I am saying you must think God condones sin.

No stretch at all. It's just you will not let me explain myself to you.

No, it's just you would not read past, "You're not getting my point," when I said the same thing in every explanation I tried to give you. Your A.D.D. hindered you from reading that far. :lol

Well, if you would read all I explained, you would know that I only described repentance. I said in my first explanation that I MEANT I WOULD NOT REPENT. And its a two way street. You can have audacity, and no one else can? You had the audacity to say I preach salvation by works when I was only describing repentance. Let's all say "OOOPS!" :)


As Ronald Reagan said to several time to then-President Carter, "There you go again." In my attempt to wrap it up, we've entered the theological twilight zone again.

Yes, you are correct that I believe that you believe in salvation by works and you don't believe that you believe that. You can deny 'til the cows come home, and I believe I hear them mooing, but if you believe that you get rid of sin, and then and ONLY then, get saved you believe what you believe, and that is, salvation by works. Like I said before, I don't know of an orthodox Christian denomination that proclaims in their statement of faith, "We believe in salvation by works" so it's ok, Mike....no one thinks they believe it. But if one says that HE did something and as a result, got saved....well, it just is what it is. Sorry.

[Baron1710]

Not at all. There is no way getting rid of sin can give me God's righteousness by that act alone and no other factor. But the truth is God refuses to give us His righteousness if we are unwilling to release sin.

No. But it allows for God to grant us right standing. That is what I was trying to say about our hands being full disabling us from receiving something from another person. In this case if our hands hold sin, they are not open to receive the gift of righteousness from God. Emptying our hands does not make us righteous. Emptying our hands allows God to give us the free gift of righteousness.

This is a basic principle. God will not impute righteousness while we desire and are involved in sin. That is the reason that after Adam ate the forbidden fruit God said, Adam had to leave the Garden LEST HE ALSO take of the fruit of life. We cannot mingle unrighteousness with righteousness. Romans 1 says wrath is reserved for those who hold truth in unrighteousness.

Ridding ourselves of sin is in no way a manner of working our way to righteousness. If it were, then it would not be a case of God imputing righteousness top us, but us contriving SELF righteousness.

This is odd. You seem to bounce between being declared righteous, and earning righteousness or becoming righteous. Righteousness is a position we have in Christ, not something we earn through our own efforts to release sin.

[pelathais]

So you could be wrong. Maybe there are copyist errors. I've never heard, that I can recall, anyone claim there were none. But, if there are copyist errors, no matter how small they may be, I guess you would have to throw out the whole thing! :hmmm
There are standard copyist errors that are seen in the ancient manuscripts. These were expected and various systems were developed to help avoid them. Some common errors include repeating a word that ends a line as the first word on the next line, repeating a word in succession, dropping a word, misspelling a word or replacing it with a word that has a similar spelling - the variants run the whole gamut of copying errors that we still make today.

There were also different systems of abbreviation used at different times. The common Jewish practice of spelling "God" as "G-d" also had some parallels in Greek manuscripts where the "nomina sacra" (words like God, Lord, Jesus and Christ) were not spelled out in the early centuries but were spelled out in latter Medieval times. All of these changes in custom would be considered "variants."

There are many such "variants" used in the handwritten systems over the centuries that today allow a scholar of texts to be able to put the "clues" together and to identify the approximate date of a particular manuscript.

The important thing however, is that we have literally thousands of manuscripts to compare. When taken as a whole, it's comparatively easy to sort out the gaffs and omissions. In fact, the correction is usually provided by the same scribe or another (an "editor") in the margin.

The message of the Gospel story is clearly proclaimed throughout. No important doctrines (nor even "unimportant" ones) are affected by the copyist errors. It may be that all of these manuscripts are simply repeating a legend - that is up to the individual reader to decide; but they all clearly testify to the same story, and that story is preserved with a remarkable number of consistent witnesses. More manuscript witnesses than any other story in the history of mankind.

[notofworks]

This is odd. You seem to bounce between being declared righteous, and earning righteousness or becoming righteous. Righteousness is a position we have in Christ, not something we earn through our own efforts to release sin.


Exact-a-luciolo!!! It's frustrating. Those two statements I compared are TOTALLY different, correct? I've been wishing you were around for this discussion. And by the way, I LOVE your tag-line "Cross-examine it".

[Jason B]

"Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting. Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised are doing it for just one reason. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.


This thread won't go away. I wasn't going to read it b/c I was way to far behind to catch up, but I'm curious what could be said for 120 pages. It will take me a few days to go through it.

But I will start with this questiong for NOW. If the cross of Christ ALONE can/does save, are you not implying the very same argument used by universalists to defend their teaching?

[mfblume]

This is odd. You seem to bounce between being declared righteous, and earning righteousness or becoming righteous. Righteousness is a position we have in Christ, not something we earn through our own efforts to release sin.

You're listening to notofworks' distortion of my words. Read what I said, myself, throughout the last several days.

I never said righteousness is earned. Somehow, notofworks turned my description of repentance into earning righteousness. I tried saying for days now that when I spoke of releasing sin before I could get the Holy Ghost that it was an instance of me refusing to repent. I was holding ontpo sins that I had no desire to release. I knew deep inside they were wrong, but demanded God show me they were wrong after He filled me with His Spirit. So I continued on with those sins. IOW, I DID NOT ACTUALLY REPENT.

That is all I was saying to begin with, but n.o.w. refused to accept that explanation and for some reason does not want to believe I only described my lack of repentance.

Without repentance, God cannot give us anything, let alone the Holy Ghost. In other words, I cannot get IN CHRIST with sin in my life. And I cannot get rid of sin except by repentance.

Of course righteousness is a state of being we obtain just by being in Christ and it is a gift to us that cannot be earned.

1 John 1 said it well. If we SAY we walk in the light, and commit sin or walk in darkness, we lie. We must confess our sin, which I was not willing to do at the point I described, and God is faithful to wash and cleanse us from all sin. That is REPENTANCE. I refused to so much as confess that some sins were indeed sins. So God could not wash them from me. Get it? lol How you guys make that a concept of earning righteousness is beyond me.

Why do you take EFFORTS TO RELEASE SIN to be something more than repentance? I am only explaining what REPENTANCE is.

[mfblume]

But if one says that HE did something and as a result, got saved....well, it just is what it is. Sorry.

Yeah, like he REPENTED, and got saved. Salvation by works. Riigghhht.

Sorry, there is DO we must DO.

Acts 2:37-38 KJV Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 10:6 KJV He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.


The problem is some cannot distinguish between "saving works" to get faith, and SAVING FAITH "THAT WORKS".

Knowing that all that I have been trying to say was that I HAD TO REPENT before I could get the Holy Ghost, makes your words, as far as I am concerned, sound like you believe repentance does not have to be done in order to be saved. God saves us in our sins, and those sins do not have to be repented of. If repentance does not involve letting go of sins on our parts, then I have no clue what you think repentance actually is.

Sorry. :) I do not accept a "repentless" Gospel.

If repentance is not something that involves a releasing of sins, then what is it? lol

That idea sounds like the idea that an Assembly of God pastor proposed when he was shocked to think people still believed they had to repent in order to be saved.

So we're at loggerheads. You will not believe I deny salvation by works, and I will not believe you deny a repentless gospel. So let's carry on from here. Case closed between us! :thumbsup

[mfblume]

But I will start with this questiong for NOW. If the cross of Christ ALONE can/does save, are you not implying the very same argument used by universalists to defend their teaching?

The only people who claim there is NOTHING we must do to be saved, apart from any distinction of erring salvation by works and correct faith THAT WORKS, are the universal reconciliationists. You're right. Repentance is a WORK, but since it is not done to earn righteousness, it is not part of "salvation by works."

As LIGHT said, there are folks who have no concept of covenants and responsibilities of both parties entering a covenant. It's like God signs His name and we sign nothing, and yet somehow we are in covenant. lol

I already proved where Jesus said BELIEF is a WORK in John 6. But it is not a WORK that earns righteousness.

So, when folks come along and say baptism as part of salvation is "salvation by works", they really do not understand what the bible teaches about what sort of works are involved in "salvation by works". And you just cannot tell them, either.

You just get :lalala

[Baron1710]

You're listening to notofworks' distortion of my words. Read what I said, myself, throughout the last several days.

I never said righteousness is earned. Somehow, notofworks turned my description of repentance into earning righteousness. I tried saying for days now that when I spoke of releasing sin before I could get the Holy Ghost that it was an instance of me refusing to repent. I was holding ontpo sins that I had no desire to release. I knew deep inside they were wrong, but demanded God show me they were wrong after He filled me with His Spirit. So I continued on with those sins. IOW, I DID NOT ACTUALLY REPENT.

That is all I was saying to begin with, but n.o.w. refused to accept that explanation and for some reason does not want to believe I only described my lack of repentance.

Without repentance, God cannot give us anything, let alone the Holy Ghost. In other words, I cannot get IN CHRIST with sin in my life. And I cannot get rid of sin except by repentance.

Of course righteousness is a state of being we obtain just by being in Christ and it is a gift to us that cannot be earned.

1 John 1 said it well. If we SAY we walk in the light, and commit sin or walk in darkness, we lie. We must confess our sin, which I was not willing to do at the point I described, and God is faithful to wash and cleanse us from all sin. That is REPENTANCE. I refused to so much as confess that some sins were indeed sins. So God could not wash them from me. Get it? lol How you guys make that a concept of earning righteousness is beyond me.

Why do you take EFFORTS TO RELEASE SIN to be something more than repentance? I am only explaining what REPENTANCE is.

Actually I didn't read NOW's stuff, I read the post one of yours that I quoted so NOW didn't poison the water hole at all.

I could not disagree with the above bolded statement more. Repentance is not me becoming perfect or getting all the sin out of my life. It is me accepting the fact that He paid for my sins, will forgive them and begins the process of cleaning me up and removing the result of sin from my life. I might walk out the door and light up a cigarette and it may be decades or more before that is removed from my life, if ever.

I might struggle and fail many times in many areas, in fact I don't believe I will ever eradicate sin from my being in this life.

You seem to saying that you have to get good to get God. That somehow I can clean myself up enough for God to accept me.

I say the Scripture teaches the exact opposite that we have nothing to offer Him and all our righteousness, the very best we can do, is equivalent to a pile of used maxi-pads.

[mfblume]

Actually I didn't read NOW's stuff, I read the post one of yours that I quoted so NOW didn't poison the water hole at all.


Ok, sorry to NOW for that thought.

I could not disagree with the above bolded statement more. Repentance is not me becoming perfect or getting all the sin out of my life. It is me accepting the fact that He paid for my sins, will forgive them and begins the process of cleaning me up and removing the result of sin from my life. I might walk out the door and light up a cigarette and it may be decades or more before that is removed from my life, if ever.

But repentance is also CONFESSION that sin is sin, and that is what I had not done.

I might struggle and fail many times in many areas, in fact I don't believe I will ever eradicate sin from my being in this life.

Christ died so we could experience that death in God's eyes, and not see sin have dominion any more. I think that means we can get to the place by faith that we actually walk after the Spirit and not sin. But anyway, stumbling and falling was not the point I made in releasing sin. It was my refusal to confess it was sin, and refusal to recognize it as sin.

You seem to saying that you have to get good to get God. That somehow I can clean myself up enough for God to accept me.

No. We do not get washed up before jumping in the bathtub. But I have been trying to say over and over again that I was not confessing sin was sin, and desired to hold onto it, not convinced it was indeed sin at all, when it was. I cannot free my self from sin any more than anyone else can. But when I talked of getting rid of sin, I meant doing the only thing we can do, which is confess it is sin and admit it AND WANT FREEDOM FROM IT. That's all.

I did not want freedom from it and refused to call it sin. And y'all have to take it up with God, but when I finally confessed it and THEREBY RELEASED IT, I was filled with the Holy Ghost! THAT IS WHAT I MEANT BY LETTING GO OF SIN.

Does that make more sense now? lol

You're preaching to the choir. I agree with you. But somehow my words are being turned into something I never meant by everyone here. lol I only blame myself for lack of clarity.

I say the Scripture teaches the exact opposite that we have nothing to offer Him and all our righteousness, the very best we can do, is equivalent to a pile of used maxi-pads.

I agree! However, I was only saying I DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE SIN AS SIN. That is what I meant, and no matter how much I try to clarify that, it seems no one is getting it.

If I said it once, I said it a hundred times... REPENTANCE is what I lacked. That is all.

Whew!

[Jason B]

but i will start with this questiong for now. If the cross of christ alone can/does save, are you not implying the very same argument used by universalists to defend their teaching?
exhibit a
that's what i been saying, so i agree with you!!!

[notofworks]

This thread won't go away. I wasn't going to read it b/c I was way to far behind to catch up, but I'm curious what could be said for 120 pages. It will take me a few days to go through it.

But I will start with this questiong for NOW. If the cross of Christ ALONE can/does save, are you not implying the very same argument used by universalists to defend their teaching?

Honestly, you raise an interesting point and one I won't run from. I believe you've questioned me previously (as have others) if I was a universalist and my answer then, as it is now, is no. But I hafta tell you...the way I see some on this forum speak to those who are universalists is usually very condescending and makes me sometimes hope the Unies are right.

But as to your question...I believe salvation is in the cross alone because the bible says it is. Plain and simple. And it's the verse that started this thread, and for the most part, it has stayed on topic. Is it something a universalist would use? Maybe. And to be honest Jason, if the universalists are right, it's not gonna bother me. I wouldn't be upset one bit.

Here's what I mean, and the bible means (in my opinion) when I, and it, says, "The cross of Christ alone can save".....all the work of salvation...ALL....was done on the cross. We do NOTHING. Period. It's completely available and ready without cost. Your part? Say "Yes" and saying "Yes" is not a work, not an accomplishment, not something you can do that others can't, it's not anything. At all. But that simple act of repentance...saying "yes"....turning....to the COMPLETE salvational work of the cross of Jesus Christ. That is what is meant when we see the statement, "The cross of Christ alone can save."

[notofworks]

Actually I didn't read NOW's stuff, I read the post one of yours that I quoted so NOW didn't poison the water hole at all.

I could not disagree with the above bolded statement more. Repentance is not me becoming perfect or getting all the sin out of my life. It is me accepting the fact that He paid for my sins, will forgive them and begins the process of cleaning me up and removing the result of sin from my life. I might walk out the door and light up a cigarette and it may be decades or more before that is removed from my life, if ever.

I might struggle and fail many times in many areas, in fact I don't believe I will ever eradicate sin from my being in this life.

You seem to saying that you have to get good to get God. That somehow I can clean myself up enough for God to accept me.

I say the Scripture teaches the exact opposite that we have nothing to offer Him and all our righteousness, the very best we can do, is equivalent to a pile of used maxi-pads.


Bolded....I just ran the aisles. Ok, I would NEVER run the aisles, but you get my drift. Well said. :rooting

This is why I just beat my head against the wall when Mike, and many others, really, say they got rid of sin in their life and THEN got saved.

[notofworks]

But repentance is also CONFESSION that sin is sin, and that is what I had not done.



Buried in the muck and mire of all the bloviating that's been going on, here is what I figured might emerge at some point.

Mike, can you expound on this some? (please, not an hour long sermon:lol) I'd like to know the theology behind this statement, specifically, your scriptural basis.

[mfblume]

But repentance is also CONFESSION that sin is sin, and that is what I had not done.Buried in the muck and mire of all the bloviating that's been going on, here is what I figured might emerge at some point.

Mike, can you expound on this some? (please, not an hour long sermon:lol) I'd like to know the theology behind this statement, specifically, your scriptural basis.

Repentance is:

WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY:
1. To feel pain, sorrow or regret for something done or spoken; as, to repent that we have lost much time in idleness or sensual pleasure; to repent that we have injured or wounded the feelings of a friend. A person repents only of what he himself has done or said.

Greek definition:

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.


Compunction is a "pricking of the heart". It is what the people who heard Peter preach experienced when we read their hearts were pricked in Acts 2:37.

When one is pricked in their hearts over sin, they want release from it.

1 John 1:9 KJV If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


Only God can pardon sin when we confess it to God. And confession of sin is caused by a heavy impression in our souls that produces a godly sorrow.

Adam Clarke explained that 1 John 1:9 as follows, and notice how he quotes 2 Cor 7:9-11, which I quote below Clarke's words:

...and a man that truly confesses his sin is one that the Spirit of God has convinced of it, and has shown him its exceeding sinfulness, and filled him with a godly sorrow for it, and given him repentance unto salvation, that needeth not to be repented of

2 Corinthians 7:9-11 KJV (9) Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. (10) For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. (11) For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.


Notice it is a godly sorrowing for sin. I HAD NOT DONE THAT, since I refused to accept that what I was doing was sin. I had no godly sorrow for some of the sins I was committing, but I did for other sins. So I would confess nothing for those particular sins, since I would not admit it was sin, although I knew inside it was.

To say more requires more words, so this is as brief as I can make it.

[notofworks]

Repentance is:

WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY:
1. To feel pain, sorrow or regret for something done or spoken; as, to repent that we have lost much time in idleness or sensual pleasure; to repent that we have injured or wounded the feelings of a friend. A person repents only of what he himself has done or said.

Greek definition:

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.


Compunction is a "pricking of the heart". It is what the people who heard Peter preach experienced when we read their hearts were pricked in Acts 2:37.

When one is pricked in their hearts over sin, they want release from it.

1 John 1:9 KJV If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


Only God can pardon sin when we confess it to God. And confession of sin is caused by a heavy impression in our souls that produces a godly sorrow.

Adam Clarke explained that 1 John 1:9 as follows, and notice how he quotes 2 Cor 7:9-11, which I quote below Clarke's words:

...and a man that truly confesses his sin is one that the Spirit of God has convinced of it, and has shown him its exceeding sinfulness, and filled him with a godly sorrow for it, and given him repentance unto salvation, that needeth not to be repented of

2 Corinthians 7:9-11 KJV (9) Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. (10) For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. (11) For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.


Notice it is a godly sorrowing for sin. I HAD NOT DONE THAT, since I refused to accept that what I was doing was sin. I had no godly sorrow for some of the sins I was committing, but I did for other sins. So I would confess nothing for those particular sins, since I would not admit it was sin, although I knew inside it was.

To say more requires more words, so this is as brief as I can make it.

Bolded....no, I don't believe it is. Repentance is NOT a Godly sorrow. Repentance is the RESULT of Godly sorrow.

Despite your very thorough explanation, and granted, it's ten times the explanation most could ever give, you still seem to have an element of belief that repentance is a spit & slobber session of begging God for forgiveness. And that's absolutely an element we don't see in scripture.

"Repent" still means "repent", and as you provided the Greek roots for the word we see in scripture, it is a "Turn", or "To think differently". Webster's is fine but that's not the core of the word we see in the bible, which does not mean "To feel pain, sorrow, or regret".

[mfblume]

Bolded....no, I don't believe it is. Repentance is NOT a Godly sorrow.

But the Greek definition says "(morally to feel compunction)"

Repentance is the RESULT of Godly sorrow.

Yes, I can agree with you, partly. But godly sorrow works repentance. But godly sorrow is PART of repentance, too. The Greek definition actually said it! From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.

That is the reason we read that the pricking of the heart in Acts 2:37 led to the command from Peter for the people to repent in Acts 2:38. First, the heart is pricked, and then the command to repent is to be fulfilled.

Acts 2:37-38 KJV Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, ...

How would you describe someone obeying the command to repent? What do they do when they repent? It is something we choose to do, otherwise neither John the Baptist, Jesus or Peter would tell people they must repent. So it is a work. The only way it is not a work is if we have no choice to accomplish it or not, and it just happens to us without our decision.


Despite your very thorough explanation, and granted, it's ten times the explanation most could ever give, you still seem to have an element of belief that repentance is a spit & slobber session of begging God for forgiveness. And that's absolutely an element we don't see in scripture.

"Repent" still means "repent", and as you provided the Greek roots for the word we see in scripture, it is a "Turn", or "To think differently". Webster's is fine but that's not the core of the word we see in the bible, which does not mean "To feel pain, sorrow, or regret".

Strong's did not even use the term TURN. But I agree turning is involved since it is thinking differently. But the Greek term included FEELING compunction, which is a sorrow. To feel sorrow and Strong's Greek flatly said that.

And that involves thinking differently about sins. I refused to think that the sin I was in was indeed sin. So the repentance element was to think differently and admit it was indeed sin.

[mfblume]

REPENTANCE (Easton):

Repentance

There are three Greek words used in the New Testament to denote repentance.

(1.) The verb metamelomai is used of a change of mind, such as to produce regret or even remorse on account of sin, but not necessarily a change of heart. This word is used with reference to the repentance of Judas (Mat_27:3).

(2.) Metanoeo, meaning to change one's mind and purpose, as the result of after knowledge.

(3.) This verb, with the cognate noun metanoia, is used of true repentance, a change of mind and purpose and life, to which remission of sin is promised.

Evangelical repentance consists of (1) a true sense of one's own guilt and sinfulness; (2) an apprehension of God's mercy in Christ; (3) an actual hatred of sin (Psa_119:128; Job_42:5, Job_42:6; 2Co_7:10) and turning from it to God; and (4) a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments.

The true penitent is conscious of guilt (Psa_51:4, Psa_51:9), of pollution (Psa_51:5, Psa_51:7, Psa_51:10), and of helplessness (Psa_51:11; Psa_109:21, Psa_109:22). Thus he apprehends himself to be just what God has always seen him to be and declares him to be. But repentance comprehends not only such a sense of sin, but also an apprehension of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance (Psa_51:1; Psa_130:4).


I had not done the emboldened in regards to certain sins, so I had to repent. And then God gave me His Spirit. :)

[notofworks]

REPENTANCE (Easton):

Repentance

There are three Greek words used in the New Testament to denote repentance.

(1.) The verb metamelomai is used of a change of mind, such as to produce regret or even remorse on account of sin, but not necessarily a change of heart. This word is used with reference to the repentance of Judas (Mat_27:3).

(2.) Metanoeo, meaning to change one's mind and purpose, as the result of after knowledge.

(3.) This verb, with the cognate noun metanoia, is used of true repentance, a change of mind and purpose and life, to which remission of sin is promised.

Evangelical repentance consists of (1) a true sense of one's own guilt and sinfulness; (2) an apprehension of God's mercy in Christ; (3) an actual hatred of sin (Psa_119:128; Job_42:5, Job_42:6; 2Co_7:10) and turning from it to God; and (4) a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments.

The true penitent is conscious of guilt (Psa_51:4, Psa_51:9), of pollution (Psa_51:5, Psa_51:7, Psa_51:10), and of helplessness (Psa_51:11; Psa_109:21, Psa_109:22). Thus he apprehends himself to be just what God has always seen him to be and declares him to be. But repentance comprehends not only such a sense of sin, but also an apprehension of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance (Psa_51:1; Psa_130:4).


I had not done the emboldened in regards to certain sins, so I had to repent. And then God gave me His Spirit. :)


So these last two posts would seem to contradict your previous statement that repentance is "A Godly sorrowing for sin." Correct?

And the statement..."It is a change of heart"....Exactly!!! That's what the non-three-steppers have been saying all along. The change of heart is the turning to Christ!

[mfblume]

So these last two post would seem to contradict your previous statement that repentance is "A Godly sorrowing for sin." Correct?

If so, then Strong's concordance contradicts this. Strong's greek deifnition said that repentance includes a feeling of sorrow.

"(morally to feel compunction)" Is that an incorrect Greek Definition, while Strong says it is not? Do you mean Easton is right and Strong is wrong?


And the statement..."It is a change of heart"....Exactly!!! That's what the non-three-steppers have been saying all along. The change of heart is the turning to Christ!

Three steppers have always said it is a change of heart, too.

What would be your response to saying people were commanded to repent? Does that mean people are commanded to have a change of heart? Do we choose to change our hearts or not? Why would Jesus, John the Baptist and Peter command people to repent?

Repentance is also a hatred of sin and turning from sin. THAT was what I was trying to describe when I said I did not release sin. You called that salvation by works.

The Hebrew word for repent (#5162 and 7725) have the connotation of being sorry, regret, and to return, turn back, to restore. It is a verb and indicates an active involvement.

H5162
נחם
nâcham
naw-kham'
A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): - comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).

H7725
שׁוּב
shûb
shoob
A primitive root; to turn back (hence, away) transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively (not necessarily with the idea of return to the starting point); generally to retreat; often adverbially again

[Pressing-On]

Read this in the Amplified this morning:

Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel (good news) of Christ; for it is God's power working unto salvation (for deliverance from eternal death) to every one who believes with a personal trust and a confident surrender and firm reliance, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,"

I like how that reads! :thumbsup

[notofworks]

Read this in the Amplified this morning:

Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel (good news) of Christ; for it is God's power working unto salvation (for deliverance from eternal death) to every one who believes with a personal trust and a confident surrender and firm reliance, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,"

I like how that reads! :thumbsup


Pressing-On, you can't use this verse. You can't use this verse. This one is in OUR playbook!! Look what it says..."Salvation to everyone who believes with a personal trust"!!!

Of course, this is just one of dozens of correlating statements in the New Testament.

[notofworks]

Repentance is:

WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY:
1. To feel pain, sorrow or regret for something done or spoken; as, to repent that we have lost much time in idleness or sensual pleasure; to repent that we have injured or wounded the feelings of a friend. A person repents only of what he himself has done or said.

Greek definition:

G3340
μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.


Compunction is a "pricking of the heart". It is what the people who heard Peter preach experienced when we read their hearts were pricked in Acts 2:37.

When one is pricked in their hearts over sin, they want release from it.

1 John 1:9 KJV If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


Only God can pardon sin when we confess it to God. And confession of sin is caused by a heavy impression in our souls that produces a godly sorrow.

Adam Clarke explained that 1 John 1:9 as follows, and notice how he quotes 2 Cor 7:9-11, which I quote below Clarke's words:

...and a man that truly confesses his sin is one that the Spirit of God has convinced of it, and has shown him its exceeding sinfulness, and filled him with a godly sorrow for it, and given him repentance unto salvation, that needeth not to be repented of

2 Corinthians 7:9-11 KJV (9) Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. (10) For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. (11) For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.


Notice it is a godly sorrowing for sin. I HAD NOT DONE THAT, since I refused to accept that what I was doing was sin. I had no godly sorrow for some of the sins I was committing, but I did for other sins. So I would confess nothing for those particular sins, since I would not admit it was sin, although I knew inside it was.

To say more requires more words, so this is as brief as I can make it.


Mike, I had a long, complicated, educated, and convincing rebuttal to this that would have instantly converted you to a one-stepper, or even a zero-stepper like me. But when I pushed "submit" I had disconnected and lost it. My brilliance is lost in the wind somewhere in techno-outer space.

I'll have to try again.

[Pressing-On]

Pressing-On, you can't use this verse. You can't use this verse. This one is in OUR playbook!! Look what it says..."Salvation to everyone who believes with a personal trust"!!!

Of course, this is just one of dozens of correlating statements in the New Testament.
I have no idea why I am still commenting on this thread. MFBlume said everything that could be said! LOL!

But, I will humor you here.

Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel (good news) of Christ; for it is God's power working unto salvation (for deliverance from eternal death) to every one who believes with a personal trust and a confident surrender and firm reliance, to the Jew first and also to the Greek," - (Amplified)

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart man believeth (personal trust) unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made (confident surrender) unto salvation."

Ooops, gotta little action going on here and it's not just "belief". We have some "confession" which is a "confident surrender". Who would have thunk it?! LOL!

[Jeffrey]

I have no idea why I am still commenting on this thread. MFBlume said everything that could be said! LOL!

But, I will humor you here.

Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel (good news) of Christ; for it is God's power working unto salvation (for deliverance from eternal death) to every one who believes with a personal trust and a confident surrender and firm reliance, to the Jew first and also to the Greek," - (Amplified)

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart man believeth (personal trust) unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made (confident surrender) unto salvation."


Ooops, gotta little action going on here and it's not just "belief". We have some "confession" which is a "confident surrender". Who would have thunk it?! LOL!


First, where in God's name did you get your paranthetical references from?

Second, it's quite known that obedience and faith are inseparable. They ride the train together. However, the engine that fuels the movement is faith. This is where regeneration is, where life is, where the whole thing happens. Faith does obey. Obey what? The teachings and commands of Jesus. But we must be careful to venture into triumphalism. Because you and I both are screwed if that's the case :)

I have to catch-up on this thread.

[Pressing-On]

First, where in God's name did you get your paranthetical references from?

Second, it's quite known that obedience and faith are inseparable. They ride the train together. However, the engine that fuels the movement is faith. This is where regeneration is, where life is, where the whole thing happens. Faith does obey. Obey what? The teachings and commands of Jesus. But we must be careful to venture into triumphalism. Because you and I both are screwed if that's the case :)

I have to catch-up on this thread.
Nice wording, Jeffrey! LOL!

I gave my paranthetical reference - Amplified Version. I commented that I liked how it was worded. Seems to go well with Romans 10:10.

They certainly do ride the train together - obedience and faith! :thumbsup

[mfblume]

Mike, I had a long, complicated, educated, and convincing rebuttal to this that would have instantly converted you to a one-stepper, or even a zero-stepper like me. But when I pushed "submit" I had disconnected and lost it. My brilliance is lost in the wind somewhere in techno-outer space.

I'll have to try again.

Must not have been God's will. lolololol (He would not want you to spread error). j/k

[notofworks]

Nice wording, Jeffrey! LOL!

I gave my paranthetical reference - Amplified Version. I commented that I liked how it was worded. Seems to go well with Romans 10:10.

They certainly do ride the train together - obedience and faith! :thumbsup


Your first sentence, combined with what was highlighted in Jeffrey's post, made me fall outta my chair and hit the floor hard, laughing. That's seriously funny. But give Jeffrey a break...he needs a bar of soap once in a while.

But he's right!!! And I'm not a fan of the "Amplified Bible". All those additions are basically commentary and not reliable as actual text.

Plus, The "Amplified" was done by a woman, and you can't trust these woman drivers!:lol (it's a joke, folks)

[mfblume]

First, where in God's name did you get your paranthetical references from?

Second, it's quite known that obedience and faith are inseparable. They ride the train together. However, the engine that fuels the movement is faith. This is where regeneration is, where life is, where the whole thing happens. Faith does obey. Obey what? The teachings and commands of Jesus. But we must be careful to venture into triumphalism. Because you and I both are screwed if that's the case :)

I have to catch-up on this thread.

I agree with what you said, Jeffery. Faith and works are inseparable and faith is the real kicker, though. It's just that while some folks seem to be trying to assure everyone they not lose sight of the kicker in faith, the others (like me) are trying to ensure everyone else does not lose sight of it is only FAITH THAT WORKS, though, while not saying the works save in and of themselves.

[mfblume]

Your first sentence, combined with what was highlighted in Jeffrey's post, made me fall outta my chair and hit the floor hard, laughing. That's seriously funny. But give Jeffrey a break...he needs a bar of soap once in a while.

But he's right!!! And I'm not a fan of the "Amplified Bible". All those additions are basically commentary and not reliable as actual text.

Plus, The "Amplified" was done by a woman, and you can't trust these woman drivers!:lol (it's a joke, folks)

That is not altogether true. The amplified uses ALL THE DEFINITIONS for the terms in the parentheses. They're not commentary.

Multiple English word equivalents to each key Hebrew and Greek word clarify and amplify meanings that may otherwise have been concealed by the traditional translation method.

[notofworks]

Must not have been God's will. lolololol (He would not want you to spread error). j/k


:lolActually, I thought it was the devil because he doesn't want you seeing the truth of grace! Then you'd be an educated, well-studied one-stepper!:D

[Pressing-On]

Your first sentence, combined with what was highlighted in Jeffrey's post, made me fall outta my chair and hit the floor hard, laughing. That's seriously funny. But give Jeffrey a break...he needs a bar of soap once in a while.
Yeah, I have a nice bar of soap that we could use on Jeffery. You hold him down and I will administer the soap! :toofunny

But he's right!!! And I'm not a fan of the "Amplified Bible". All those additions are basically commentary and not reliable as actual text.
Not actually a big fan of the Amplified, but I do like some things that are written. I guess I mean that I use it for a reference, but not a daily reading. The stuff in parenthesis gives me a headache after a while. LOL!

Found an error in the NLT the other day. A really stupid error as the verse contradicted what was written above and below.

Plus, The "Amplified" was done by a woman, and you can't trust these woman drivers!:lol (it's a joke, folks)
My husband would agree with you. LOL! If I ask him if I can drive, he will say, "Am I getting in this vehicle?" LOL! Guess that means that I don't get to drive, huh? LOL!

[notofworks]

Yeah, I have a nice bar of soap that we could use on Jeffery. You hold him down and I will administer the soap! :toofunny


Not actually a big fan of the Amplified, but I do like some things that are written. I guess I mean that I use it for a reference, but not a daily reading. The stuff in parenthesis gives me a headache after a while. LOL!

Found an error in the NLT the other day. A really stupid error as the verse contradicted what was written above and below.


My husband would agree with you. LOL! If I ask him if I can drive, he will say, "Am I getting in this vehicle?" LOL! Guess that means that I don't get to drive, huh? LOL!

An error in the NLT??? Thou blasphemeth!!! Where? I actually have a $400 Thompson Chain KJV that has a print error in it.

[Jeffrey]

I agree with what you said, Jeffery. Faith and works are inseparable and faith is the real kicker, though. It's just that while some folks seem to be trying to assure everyone they not lose sight of the kicker in faith, the others (like me) are trying to ensure everyone else does not lose sight of it is only FAITH THAT WORKS, though, while not saying the works save in and of themselves.

When my faith is in Jesus, it always works.

This faith and dead works stuff comes from a pretty sloppy exegesis of James' words.

What's at stake here is the one area where we refer to "good works" and the other where we attach processes to one's salvation. This thread has combined them both it seems. Maybe rightfully so.

[Jeffrey]

Your first sentence, combined with what was highlighted in Jeffrey's post, made me fall outta my chair and hit the floor hard, laughing. That's seriously funny. But give Jeffrey a break...he needs a bar of soap once in a while.

But he's right!!! And I'm not a fan of the "Amplified Bible". All those additions are basically commentary and not reliable as actual text.

Plus, The "Amplified" was done by a woman, and you can't trust these woman drivers!:lol (it's a joke, folks)

You Puritans! :razz

[Jeffrey]

That is not altogether true. The amplified uses ALL THE DEFINITIONS for the terms in the parentheses. They're not commentary.

I didn't say I had a problem with the Amplified's interpretation. Haven't examined it enough and don't have the language background to offer my own opinion anyway. I read the opinions of others, listen the argument and decide that way - at least for now.

Fact is, the Amplified does not give us a Classic Pentecostalism verse. I have no problem with the verse with paranthetical comments included.

[Pressing-On]

An error in the NLT??? Thou blasphemeth!!! Where? I actually have a $400 Thompson Chain KJV that has a print error in it.

I'm in the middle of reading a pdf file. What do you think about starting a thread on the subject of errors in various Bible translations? I'll post it there when I get a chance. That is, if you want to start a thread.

I'm supposed to be taking pictures of an antique cabinet my sister wants to buy. Haven't done that yet. I was supposed to do it last night.LOL! I'm so sunburned from going out in our boat - MIDDAY - for fours hours on Friday that I'm not in a big mood to do anything much. I wish I could stop hurting! :tissue

[notofworks]

You Puritans! :razz

Actually, if we got started, you'd have to use an entire detergent factory on me!:lol

[mfblume]

When my faith is in Jesus, it always works.



What would you say if someone's faith never produced water baptism? i.e., the person never got baptized, even when presented with it?

Sort of like asking, what if Abraham refused to be circumcised?

[notofworks]

That is not altogether true. The amplified uses ALL THE DEFINITIONS for the terms in the parentheses. They're not commentary.

Multiple English word equivalents to each key Hebrew and Greek word clarify and amplify meanings that may otherwise have been concealed by the traditional translation method.


Of course it's commentary! Dang, are we gonna disagree on everything, which translates to, are you gonna be wrong about everything?:lol

Anything added to the text, in a way to help you better understand it, is commentary. It's a person's opinion on how to better understand what appears in the bible. No one has ever claimed that the words that appear in parentheses is "Divine" or "Inspired", therefore, it's commentary.

[Pressing-On]

What would you say if someone's faith never produced water baptism? i.e., the person never got baptized, even when presented with it?

Sort of like asking, what if Abraham refused to be circumcised?

You see? We must keep going back to this question. It must be answered. :thumbsup

[mfblume]

Of course it's commentary! Dang, are we gonna disagree on everything, which translates to, are you gonna be wrong about everything?:lol

Anything added to the text, in a way to help you better understand it, is commentary. It's a person's opinion on how to better understand what appears in the bible. No one has ever claimed that the words that appear in parentheses is "Divine" or "Inspired", therefore, it's commentary.

Still wrong. :p

It is not commentary. You know how all dictionaries give more than ONE TERM for a definition? Well, instead of translating the Hebrew or Greek word into ONE of the several English words in a definition for the Greek or Hebrew, the Amplified LISTS ALL THE options of the definition, and not just one.

[Jeffrey]

What would you say if someone's faith never produced water baptism? i.e., the person never got baptized, even when presented with it?

Sort of like asking, what if Abraham refused to be circumcised?

In all my years of ministry, I've never heard of this.

If someone wasn't baptized it was out of ignorance not disobedience.

If this were a true hypothetical, I'd question if their faith was truly in Jesus. Or ask what sort of childhood phobia they have with being dunked in water.

[notofworks]

I'm in the middle of reading a pdf file. What do you think about starting a thread on the subject of errors in various Bible translations? I'll post it there when I get a chance. That is, if you want to start a thread.

I'm supposed to be taking pictures of an antique cabinet my sister wants to buy. Haven't done that yet. I was supposed to do it last night.LOL! I'm so sunburned from going out in our boat - MIDDAY - for fours hours on Friday that I'm not in a big mood to do anything much. I wish I could stop hurting! :tissue


Translation errors???? GASP!!! How dare you??:lol

What should the thread be about, specifically?

[Jeffrey]

God has spoken, the rest is commentary.

Nothing wrong with "commentary." What do you think the Mishnah or Talmud were? Jewish discussion on "what God said" is nothing new. Surprises me to think that many see the Bible as a gift straight from the mouth of God into the pen of King James' court.

In Biblical linguistics, Amplified is certainly not technically "commentary," since it's pairing offerings of manuscripts from another language.

I wonder if Paul knew his words would make-up an entire Bible for generations, and be looked at as written by God himself :)

[Pressing-On]

Translation errors???? GASP!!! How dare you??:lol

What should the thread be about, specifically?

Hmmmm....Spotting Errors in Various Bible Translations? Something to that effect?

Some of the errors could be just our opinion which would also be interesting.

The verse I'm thinking of brings in the word "shame" and someone may think it would be correct. We shall see. Anyway, I have to run. Let me know if you want to start the thread. I think it would be one that is added to over time as we won't catch everything in a day, KWIM?

[Jeffrey]

Hmmmm....Spotting Errors in Various Bible Translations? Something to that effect?

Some of the errors could be just our opinion which would also be interesting.

The verse I'm thinking of brings in the word "shame" and someone may think it would be correct. We shall see. Anyway, I have to run. Let me know if you want to start the thread. I think it would be one that is added to over time as we won't catch everything in a day, KWIM?

I'd enjoy such a thread. I know there's been many like it before.

[Pressing-On]

I'd enjoy such a thread. I know there's been many like it before.
Sounds great. You guys come up with a title thread and we can run with it. I'm thinking Mizpeh would be interested in a thread of that nature as well.

Gotta run. God Bless!

[notofworks]

Still wrong. :p

It is not commentary. You know how all dictionaries give more than ONE TERM for a definition? Well, instead of translating the Hebrew or Greek word into ONE of the several English words in a definition for the Greek or Hebrew, the Amplified LISTS ALL THE options of the definition, and not just one.


There are two things, Mike...and you're surprising me here. There's the divinely inspired Word of God that appears translated from multiple languages and manuscripts, and there....everything else.

So what would you call the "Everything else"? If it's not commentary, what is it?

[notofworks]

God has spoken, the rest is commentary.

Nothing wrong with "commentary." What do you think the Mishnah or Talmud were? Jewish discussion on "what God said" is nothing new. Surprises me to think that many see the Bible as a gift straight from the mouth of God into the pen of King James' court.

In Biblical linguistics, Amplified is certainly not technically "commentary," since it's pairing offerings of manuscripts from another language.

I wonder if Paul knew his words would make-up an entire Bible for generations, and be looked at as written by God himself :)


Correct. I believe I originally said, "It's basically commentary". If not, I should have. That's what I always say about it when asked. It's a usage of words or phrases to shed light on the understanding of a verse...and some of it could be wrong.

[mfblume]

There are two things, Mike...and you're surprising me here. There's the divinely inspired Word of God that appears translated from multiple languages and manuscripts, and there....everything else.

So what would you call the "Everything else"? If it's not commentary, what is it?

I already said what it is. It is the VARIOUS DEFINITIONS of the SINGLE Greek and Hebrew words. lol

It's like doing this with the word HAPPY.

Happy (WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY)
HAP'PY a. [from hap.]
1. Lucky; fortunate; successful.
Chimists have been more happy in finding experiments, than the causes of them.
So we say, a happy thought; a happy expedient.
2. Being in the enjoyment of agreeable sensations from the possession of good; enjoying pleasure from the gratification of appetites or desires.

And once we get all these variations of the SAME WORD HAPPY, we write a sentence like this:

"I was so HAPPY (lucky; fortunate; successful, in the enjoyment of agreeable sensations from the possession of good) to meet you at the coffee shop while you were agreeing with Timmy of how stupid everyone on AFF is." :lol

I did not give commentary on the parentheses, but THE VARIOUS CORRECT DEFINITIONS of the single word. A dictionary definition is not a commentary. And that is all that the amplified bible did.

If you still disagree, you just want to disagree. lol

[notofworks]

I already said what it is. It is the VARIOUS DEFINITIONS of the SINGLE Greek and Hebrew words. lol

It's like doing this with the word HAPPY.

Happy (WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY)
HAP'PY a. [from hap.]
1. Lucky; fortunate; successful.
Chimists have been more happy in finding experiments, than the causes of them.
So we say, a happy thought; a happy expedient.
2. Being in the enjoyment of agreeable sensations from the possession of good; enjoying pleasure from the gratification of appetites or desires.

And once we get all these variations of the SAME WORD HAPPY, we write a sentence like this:

"I was so HAPPY (lucky; fortunate; successful, in the enjoyment of agreeable sensations from the possession of good) to meet you at the coffee shop while you were agreeing with Timmy of how stupid everyone on AFF is." :lol

I did not give commentary on the parentheses, but THE VARIOUS CORRECT DEFINITIONS of the single word. A dictionary definition is not a commentary. And that is all that the amplified bible did.

If you still disagree, you just want to disagree. lol


No Mike, this isn't true. The Amplified Bible is NOT just expounding on word definitions. I just grabbed mine and opened randomly to the New Testament. There are two forms of additions to the text; 1) Parentheses; and 2) Brackets.

The Parentheses contain additional words that help clarify the meaning of words. The brackets, however, "contain justified clarifying words or comments not actually expressed in the immediate original text" and that's a direct quote.

[mfblume]

No Mike, this isn't true. The Amplified Bible is NOT just expounding on word definitions. I just grabbed mine and opened randomly to the New Testament. There are two forms of additions to the text; 1) Parentheses; and 2) Brackets.

The Parentheses contain additional words that help clarify the meaning of words. The brackets, however, "contain justified clarifying words or comments not actually expressed in the immediate original text" and that's a direct quote.

Guess I had incorrect info. Thanks!

So, anyway.... do you think someone who accepts Jesus in their hearts, and refuses baptism is saved?