Remitted on the Cross or not?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Pelathais, I we have not been on the same side of any of these discussions... but I remember some years ago you making a statment about something being two sides of one coin.

that stuck with me. I dont even remember the full context. some things are inseperable.

like Abraham and his belief in God. It was his belief that was counted to him for righteousness but his belief made him leave his home and go to a land he did not know.

belief without the "going" is dead. "going" without belief is just a vaction in the desert.

I do appreciate our exchanges. even the ones where i just read and dont exchange.

You and I can go to the Politics forum whenever we want to agree.

The "coin" thing was the "free will versus predestination" debate. I have maintained that both viewpoints are equally valid and important, not out of a desire to "compromise" but because they represent a fundamental paradox.

And, you are correct. As James points out when he tackles Abraham's life, there was a lot of stuff that happened after Genesis 15. A lot of stuff that HAD to happen to demonstrate that Abe really did "believe God."

I don't think Paul would have argued with that. Paul's only point was that Abraham was declared by God to be "righteous" in Genesis 15, before the covenant of circumcision and before there was a lot of other "doing."

As you point out, however, Abraham did leave Haran in Genesis 12.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You and I can go to the Politics forum whenever we want to agree.

The "coin" thing was the "free will versus predestination" debate. I have maintained that both viewpoints are equally valid and important, not out of a desire to "compromise" but because they represent a fundamental paradox.

And, you are correct. As James points out when he tackles Abraham's life, there was a lot of stuff that happened after Genesis 15. A lost of stuff that HAD to happen to demonstrate that Abe really did "believe God."

I don't think Paul would have argued with that. Paul's only point was that Abraham was declared by God to be "righteous" in Genesis 15, before the covenant of circumcision and before there was a lot of other "doing."

As you point out, however, Abraham did leave Haran in Genesis 12.

in any case, your "coin persective" has been valuable to me.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Ferd,

Since when did it become a bad thing to pose a question for the sake of discussion or even to play the devil's advocate for the same reason?

You're being unreasonable.

MissBrattified, it is almost always appropreate. It would have been here too had there not been an egregious misrepresentation of view Adino was seeking to discredit.

[Ferd]

lets review exactly what Adino said in the opening post:

Given that all our sin was reckoned to Christ.

Given that all sin reckoned to Christ was remitted prior to the resurrection, else he would not have been raised from the dead.

1) What further remission do we obtain in the waters of baptism which did not happen on the Cross?

2) Does the teaching of baptismal sin remission declare a disbelief in the sin remitting work of the Cross?

Where here is there room for repenence?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Ferd

lets review exactly what Adino said in the opening post:

Given that all our sin was reckoned to Christ.

Given that all sin reckoned to Christ was remitted prior to the resurrection, else he would not have been raised from the dead.

1) What further remission do we obtain in the waters of baptism which did not happen on the Cross?

2) Does the teaching of baptismal sin remission declare a disbelief in the sin remitting work of the Cross?

Where here is there room for repenence?

I think Ol' Ferd, for some reason I can't explain, is guilty of jumping to conclusions.

Omission is not admission. The topic in view is baptism.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

lets review exactly what Adino said in the opening post:

Given that all our sin was reckoned to Christ.

Given that all sin reckoned to Christ was remitted prior to the resurrection, else he would not have been raised from the dead.

1) What further remission do we obtain in the waters of baptism which did not happen on the Cross?

2) Does the teaching of baptismal sin remission declare a disbelief in the sin remitting work of the Cross?

Where here is there room for repentance?

That is what I was asking myself as well.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I think Ol' Ferd, for some reason I can't explain, is guilty of jumping to conclusions.

Omission is not admission. The topic in view is baptism.

The topic is all sin is remittted at the cross before I was born.

those who baptize for remission (as the word of God says) live in unbelief in the power of the cross....

please note, that second part means I am a heritic, seperated from God with no access to him...as according to a later post by Adino, unbelief is the only unpardonable sin...(wich I now think may be where he wanted to go in the first place but that would be for him to admit)

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That is what I was asking myself as well.

Because your 3-stepper grid wouldn't let you listen and consider what was being discussed, which was "are sins remitted in baptism?" This is clearly what's in view and the subject at-hand. How repentance works out in that, if you read the post, has been thoroughly fleshed out.

So since the two of you needed an explanation, and didn't understand the original post (no excuse to make assumptions and get all vile and ugly), you can just keep reading to hear it fleshed out. But here we are, still speculating on the original post.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Ferd

lets review exactly what Adino said in the opening post:

Given that all our sin was reckoned to Christ.

Given that all sin reckoned to Christ was remitted prior to the resurrection, else he would not have been raised from the dead.

1) What further remission do we obtain in the waters of baptism which did not happen on the Cross?

2) Does the teaching of baptismal sin remission declare a disbelief in the sin remitting work of the Cross?

Where here is there room for repenence?

If that is how you interpret his words why not ask "Where here is there room for faith?" too?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Adino

Trying my best to be nice here.

FERD, the sin of unbelief was not imputed to Christ on the Cross. The Bible speaks of a sin unto death and I believe the sin of unbelief and/or rejecting Christ is that sin unto death. I would also consider this to be the blasphemy spoken of by Christ which is never to be forgiven. Unless a man believes he is condemned. Condemnation comes to the man who does not believe (John 3:18).

Biblical repentance means to turn back to God through faith in Christ. Conversion takes place in repentance and it is in conversion that we pass from death into life. ONLY those who have faith in Christ experience peace in regard to their sin and receive life.

The spiritually dead must believe in order to have spiritual life. This happens in repentance. The heart returning to God (i.e., repenting) must convert to Christ in order to have life. 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).

This is a paraphrase, but Loren Yadon once wrote me that too many do not adequately understand repentance and this is why it is so difficult for them to properly understand sound doctrine. I tend to agree.

For your reading pleasure...

MissBrattified and Prax, you are both guilty of the unpardonable sin. In fact, all of you who came out of the traditional Oneness Pentecostal church where Acts 2:38 was taught, cannot be saved....even if you have repented of it.