Is believing/faith a work ?

[Johann]

In part 1, Thomas Ross is in the affirmative and Douglas Jacoby is in the negative, discussing the proposition:

“We Are Born Again Before Baptism” (part 2 of the debate is “We are Born Again in Baptism” and Douglas Jacoby is in the affirmative and Thomas Ross in the negative).

In this first debate, Thomas Ross argued that sinners are born again, receive eternal life, and are justified (declared righteous in the sight of God) before baptism at the moment that they repent and believe; salvation is by faith alone. He said:

1.) Scripture teaches all true believers are justified / spiritually alive.
2.) Scripture teaches that before being baptized, one must be a true believer.
3.) Therefore Scripture teaches that one is justified / spiritually alive before baptism.

He presented over fifty passages of Scripture such as: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. . . . He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:16-18). Dr. Ross argued that when God employs words like “shall,” “will,” “every one,” “whosoever,” one who has believed on Christ has made at that moment the complete human response required to enter into eternal life. Baptism, therefore, cannot also be necessary for eternal life.

Ross argued that saving faith is not simply knowing facts. In the words of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689: “The principal acts of saving faith, have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.” (Chapter 14, “Of Saving Faith.”)

Ross pointed out that statements such as the following were not in the Bible:

NOTJOHN 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and is baptized in the name of him that sent me (?), hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

He quoted Thomas Campbell, a founder of the COC (“church of Campbell” if not the true church / if Thomas Ross is correct, “Church of Christ” if Douglas Jacoby is correct and his denomination is the true church) “Where the Bible speaks; we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” Thomas Ross argued that the Bible never says that the unbaptized will be damned, so we should be silent about that taking place. He argued that there is only one “everlasting gospel” (Revelation 14:6) and that in the Old Testament before the giving of the Law of Moses, underneath the Mosaic covenant, in Christ’s ministry in the Gospels, in the book of Acts and all subsequent revelation, and thus in all of Scripture the lost were always justified at the moment of faith, quoting verses such as:

“And [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6)

“Kiss the Son [repent], lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psalm 2:12).

He argued that the gospel of the Old Testament, salvation to all who trust in God’s Son (Psalm 2:12), is the gospel of the New Testament (Galatians 3:8, Hebrews 4:2).

He also pointed out that many New Testament examples indicate that “thy faith hath saved thee” (Luke 7:50), that Gentiles are saved in Acts before baptism (Acts 10), the Apostle Paul was justified before baptism, that the Bible specifically says “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5:1), and contrasted baptism with the gospel: “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17). He argued that since salvation is not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9) and no law has ever been given that can give life (Galatians 3:21), the good work of baptism (Matthew 3:15) cannot save from sin.

Just a taste, for those interested.

 

[Kermos]

Two things to awake to:
1. Awake to righteousness (1.COR 15:34)
2. Awake to life (EPH 5:14)
Seventy-four "Be's":
1. Be exceeding glad (MATT 5:12)
2. Be reconciled to a brother (MATT 5:24)
3. Be perfect (MATT 5:48; 2.COR 13:11)
4. Be wise as serpents (MATT 10:16)
5. Be harmless as doves (MATT 10:16)
6. Be ready for Christ's coming (MATT 24:44;
LK 12:40)
7. Be content with your wages (LK 3:14)
8. Be merciful as God (LK 6:36)
9. Be like faithful servants (LK 12:36)
10. Be thankful (COL 3:15)
11. Be at peace among selves (1.THESS 5:13)
12. Be patient toward all people
(1.THESS 5:14; 2.TIM 2:24)
13. Be no partaker of sin (1.TIM 5:22)
14. Be sober and hope (1.PET 1:13)
15. Be sober and pray (1.PET 4:7)
16. Be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith,
charity, and patience (aged men, TIT 2:2)
17. Be sober, love husbands and children (young
women, TIT 2:4)
18. Be sober minded (young men, TIT 2:6)
19. Be in behaviour as becoming to saints (aged
women, TIT 2:3)
20. Be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good,
obedient (young women, TIT 2:5)
21. Be ready to give an answer of the hope that
is in you (1.PET 3:15)
22. Be of good cheer (JN 16:33)
23. Be baptized (ACTS 2:38)
24. Be converted (ACTS 3:19)
25. Be transformed (ROM 12:2)
26. Be kind of brotherly love one to another
(ROM 12:10; EPH 4:32)
27. Be fervent in spirit (ROM 12:11)
28. Be patient in tribulation (ROM 12:12)
29. Be given to hospitality (ROM 12:13)
30. Be afraid, if lawless (ROM 13:4)
Category "1,050 NEW TESTAMENT COMMANDS"
1050 NT commands Page 2
31. Be no idolater (1.COR 10:7)
32. Be followers of Paul as he followed Christ
(1.COR 11:1; PHIL 3:17)
33. Be followers of God (EPH 5:1)
34. Be followers of the faithful and patient
(HEB 6:12)
35. Be not children in understanding
(1.COR 14:20)
36. Be men in understanding (1.COR 14:20)
37. Be steadfast (1.COR 15:58)
38. Be unmoveable (1.COR 15:58)
39. Be always abounding in God's work
(1.COR 15:58)
40. Be strong in the Lord (1.COR 16:13;
EPH 6:10; 2.TIM 2:1)
41. Be of good comfort (2.COR 13:11)
42. Be of one mind (ROM 12:16;
2.COR 13:11; PHIL 2:2; 1.PET 3:8)
43. Be separate from the unclean
(2.COR 6:17)
44. Be renewed in spirit (EPH 4:23)
45. Be angry and sin not (EPH 4:26)
46. Be tender-hearted one to another
(EPH 4:32)
47. Be filled with the Spirit (EPH 5:18)
48. Be likeminded (PHIL 2:2)
49. Be one of accord (PHIL 2:2)
50. Be anxious for nothing (PHIL 4:6)
51. Be an example to believers in word,
conversation, charity, spirit, faith, and purity
(1.TIM 4:12)
52. Be a partaker of Christian sufferings
(2.TIM 1:8; cp. 1.PET 4:1)
53. Be gentle to all people (2.TIM 2:24)
54. Be apt to teach (2.TIM 2:24)
55. Be instant in season, out of season
(2.TIM 4:2)
56. Be careful to maintain good works
(TIT 3:8,14; cp. MATT 5:16)
57. Be content with what you have (HEB 13:5)
58. Be doers of the Word (JAS 1:22)
59. Be afflicted and mourn (JAS 4:9)
60. Be patient till Christ comes (JAS 5:7-8)
61. Be holy in conversation (behaviour)
(1.PET 1:15-16)
62. Be pitiful (1.PET 3:8)
63. Be courteous (1.PET 3:8)
64. Be examples of the flock of God, not lord over
it (1.PET 5:3)
65. Be subject one to another (1.PET 5:5)
66. Be clothed with humility (1.PET 5:5)
67. Be sober (1.PET 5:8)
68. Be vigilant (1.PET 5:8)
69. Be mindful of prophecies and commandments (2.PET 3:2)
70. Be diligent to be found in peace (2.PET 3:14)
71. Be diligent to be without spot, and blameless
(2.PET 3:14)
72. Be faithful to death (REV 2:10)
73. Be watchful, strengthen self (REV 3:2)
74. Be zealous and repent (REV 3:19)

So, the Imperatives are also considered to be works. right?

Go respond to the post directed at you that you left hanging instead of responding to a post that was not to you.

God's imperatives do not convey ability for man to comply unless God explicitly issues ability for man to comply in the imperative.

God's Commands Distinguished From Man's Ability

A Command Does Not Convey Ability To Obey Or Disobey Unless Explicitly Stated In The Command​

The command issued by the Creator reveals fruit of the creature; in other words, God's commands exposes man's obedience or man's disobedience.

The command of God states God's rule for man, to reward or punish, to bless or to curse.

The command of God does not confer an ability to obey for man, and the command of God does not confer an ability to disobey for man; unless, God's command explicitly confers ability in the command or elsewhere in scripture, then such ability does not exist; otherwise, for a person to claim the ability exists is the person's heart wickedly adding to scripture.

An example from the Torah:

The Word of God records the command of God to Adam "Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from, when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying"' (Genesis 2:16-17).
Scripture reveals that Adam disobeyed God's command (Genesis 3:6); therefore, scripture reveals Adam's ability to disobey God.
That was the single command issued by God to Adam, and Adam disobeyed; moreover, no account of Adam obeying a command of God exists in scripture.
No scripture reveals Adam's ability to obey God.
The English word "choose" has a Hebrew word equivalent of "בָּחר" (bachar -Strong's Number 977).
The Hebrew word "בָּחר" does not occur in the creation account (Genesis 1:1-31 Genesis 2:1-25 Genesis 3:1-24).
God did not say in God's command to Adam "you have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you have the ability to choose to obey".
Adam did not have the ability to freewill choose toward God.
​

Commands Embedded In Conditional Logic Statements​

Scripture contains many conditional logic statements. A conditional logic statement is normally an IF/THEN construct.

In linguistics, logic, semantics, and reality the established fact is that an IF/THEN construct follows this pattern:

IF condition THEN predicate

The condition results in a true state or false state. If, and only if, the condition results in a true state does the predicate get executed.
An IF-THEN construct merely exposes whether a condition is true or false; consequently, an if/then statement does not inherently convey ability to produce a true state for the condition.

An IF/THEN construct exposes a potential, current, or previously taken PATH along with the PATH's resultant IMPACT.

So, an IF-THEN construct imposes a conditionl expression and a predicate, for example,

IF ACTION THEN RESULT

Moreover, no conveyance of ability exists intrinsically within the if-then construct.
In scripture, an ACTION represents fruit for the the Word of God says "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn [bushes] nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-20) and "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

In language, an IF/THEN statement requires a qualifier to indicate choice, for example, "if you choose chocolate then you eat chocolate" thus the qualifier in the conditional is "choose", but the conditional still does not convey ability to "choose" which such conveyance of ability to "choose" necessitates additional language connected with the IF-THEN statement, such as "you have the ability to choose" since the predicate cannot be executed in the absence of a supply of chocolate.

In Scripture, "you have the ability to choose God" is never expressed nor implied, yet, on the contrary to such a statement of "choose", the Word of God says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) with no exceptions to the stated choosing while applying to all believers in all time (John 17:20).

These facts of IF/THEN statements do not disappear in scripture.

An IF/THEN can be expressed likewise as:

IF you_do_this that_will_happen

Thus, the conditional expresses an action/fruit in the condition (you_do_this), and the effectual result in the predicate (that_will_happen).
A conditional does not convey ability to the recipient of the conditional.

The same goes for a command, that is, a command does not convey ability to carry out the command.

For example, the command "do not do this" does not inherently grant the capability to comply with the command.

Neither a conditional nor a command convey choice unless specifically stated.

Neither a conditional nor a command convey choice unless specifically stated.

Continued to post 863

 

[Kermos]

Continued from post 862

Commandment Exposes Righteousness and Wickedness - Not Inherent Capability Conveyance​

This all relates as to why Paul didn't write that he'd just choose to stop coveting, instead Paul indicates that he became aware of his sinfulness through the commandment. Here is that which Paul wrote:

"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." (Romans 7:7).

"sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind" (Romans 7:8).

"where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20).

"the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation" (Romans 1:16).

"How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14).

Behold, the Word of God is conveyed via communication AND the gospel, the good news, the Word of God is the power of God for salvation!

A practical example from Scripture is the account of Cain and Abel.

"Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:6-7)

God did not say that Cain "could" do anything.

The conditional logic statement does not indicate ability for Cain, rather the conditional logic statement indicates an action.

We know that Cain's action was to "not do well" because it is written "Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him" (Genesis 4:8).

Action. Not choice. Not decision. But action is written.

With respect to the Law, the commandments, the Apostle Peter said "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10), so people are incapable of keeping the commandments to God's satisfaction (James 2:10); furthermore, the Word states "And I also, I have given to them statutes not good, and judgments by which they do not live" (Ezekiel 20:25) of the Israelites, so clearly the apostle is in accord with God.

The apostles tell us that the Law is for our instruction, and that we know what sin is because of the Law, and we are guilty before God apart from our Savior.

A Biblical Declaration Of Ability And Inability - Capability Examined​

Lord Jesus declares "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

The first clause decisively declares that men cannot choose Jesus; in other words, men do not have the ability to accept Jesus. The first clause is "you did not choose Me".

The second clause absolutely declares that God chooses men. The second clause is "but I chose you", and this unto salvation as well for Jesus also said "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19); in other words, God has the exclusive ability to accept men.

Commands Expose Good And Evil - Not Inherent Capability Conveyance - A Hypothetical Example​

A hypothetical example, on Monday evening you take your lovely wife a hot bowl of delicious oatmeal while she's sitting on the couch, and she places the bowl on a pillow on her lap. Then your talking and toddling son sees the bowl of delicous oatmeal, and he wants some, so he shoots across the floor to the couch, and he excitedly grabs the rim of the hot bowl letting out a shrieking scream of pain from the hot bowl.

After applying soothing cream to the wound, both you and your wife explain the difference between hot and cold. You explain that hot can cause burns and pain. "Do not touch hot things" you command your son.

You continue by declaring "Your mommy and I can work around hot things to prepare and serve food, but you cannot, my love". The sobbing stops, and you all eat your dinner.

On Tuesday morning, you have the iron skillet on the stove, the gas fire keeping the iron skillet sizzling hot for a family pancake breakfast. The top of the stove radiates very HOT too, so you are sensitive to your son's current absence from the kitchen.

Your son toddles into the kitchen. You say "honey, the stove is hot, hotter than the bowl of oatmeal last night. If you touch the stove, then you'll get burned again. If you stay over there, then you'll be just fine." Then you smell that the pancake is about to burn unless you flip it, so you scrape the pancake, raise it, flip it, and you watch it drop - but as it drops, you see your precious son's hand grasp the extremely hot stove iron grill flame cover. In a flash, you dunk your excruciatingly pained and screaming child's hand in a glass of cold water, add ice, turn off the stove, examine the wound through the glass, and ...

The morals of the story:

1. Monday night's command did not convey ability. The command expressed safe action - or said another way safe inaction.
2. Monday night's declaration conveyed capabilities being that you could work around hot items while your son could not work around hot items. It is crucial to discern the exclusive nature of the declarative; one party can do something while the other party cannot do the same thing.
3. Tuesday morning's IF/THEN logic conditionals did not convey ability. Each conditional expressed the results of actions.
4. You cared deeply enough to help.
5. Your son was driven by his desires - his lusts, and he disregarded your instruction; in other words, his lusts were manifest by his action.
6. Your son's nature was to defy you despite (1) the command, (2) the declaration, and (3) the conditionals; in other words, the fruit of his nature were visible.
7. Your son was in rebellion against you.

Point 2 is a parallel - a remote shadow at best, to when the Lord Jesus' says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16, also John 15:13-15 about love and friends). It is crucial to discern the exclusive nature of the declarative; one party can do something while the other party cannot do the same thing; in other words, men cannot choose God while God chooses men.

Point 4 is analagous, a shadow at best, to how the Father in heaven causes the "sun to rise on [the] evil and [the] good, and sends rain on [the] righteous and [the] unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45).

Points 5 and 6 are analagous to the sin nature as default nature (the main document of this essay contains more detail about the nature of man).

The example is concluded.

Commands do not convey ability; rather, commands expose the desires of the person, more specifically the heart of the person.

 

[mailmandan]

Gill is a Calvinist and reads Calvinism INTO contexts. As I posted in another thread, proper interpretaion REQUIRES a word be accepted at its literal face value unless something in the context proves the word to be used in some figurative sense. There is NOTHING, NOT ONE THING in the context of Jn 3:5 that "water" means anything other than literal water or that "Spirit" means anything other than literal Spirit. It is those who have allowed themselves to be deceived by faith onlyism who cannot take the verse at face value therefore because of nothing more than THEOLOGICAL BIAS they must makeJn 3:5 conform to their bias.

The underlying Greek word for water in Jn 3:5 is hydor as it is translated in Jn 3:23 "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized." John was not baptizing near Aenon because there was much Spirit there but much water. There is an obvious theological bias and nothing more in trying to make water mean anything other than literal water. Nothing in the context of Jn 3:5,23 has water meaning anything other than literal water.

In regards to water baptism in John 3:22, Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus is over with and He has moved on. John 3:22 - After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. So water baptism does not fit the context of John 3:5.

Yet these verses fit the context. John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. (what happened to baptism?) 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (what happened to baptism?) 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not baptized? NO) does not believe is condemned already, (because he has not been baptized? NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

In John 4:10,14,7:37-39 living water is connected with the Holy Spirit and eternal life. John 7:38-39 - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Also "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration.

*So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted, yet you still choose to walk around mountains of grace in order to find water. It's your THEOLOGICAL BIAS that causes you to force John 3:5 to "conform" to your biased church doctrine.

 

[CadyandZoe]

My Testimony is that Salvation is by Grace apart from the works of men. But as soon as you condition Salvation on anything you do, believe, repent, obey , you then condition salvation on man and what he does, that's apostacy from Grace friend.

I don't agree with your premise that faith is a work. Therefore, I do not believe in a works salvation.

 

[Space_Karen]

If a person can be negatively chastised for a lack of faith.

In all fairness, they could be praised for keeping the faith.

...

Wanting to censor people from seeking credit for their feats of faith is a form of political correctness.

Ephesians endorsement of PC is one indication of it being one of the more liberal and politically left leaning books in the bible.

 

[brightfame52]

I don't agree with your premise that faith is a work. Therefore, I do not believe in a works salvation.

If you condition your salvation on something you do, its works salvation, regardless of what you say you do not believe in.

 

[Johann]

If a person can be negatively chastised for a lack of faith.

In all fairness, they could be praised for keeping the faith.

...

Wanting to censor people from seeking credit for their feats of faith is a form of political correctness.

Ephesians endorsement of PC is one indication of it being one of the more liberal and politically left leaning books in the bible.

If you condition your salvation on something you do, its works salvation, regardless of what you say you do not believe in.

Faith is NOT a work, but we are created UNTO good works brother, and full obedience to the law of Christ, through the Holy Spirit.

 

[brightfame52]

Faith is NOT a work, but we are created UNTO good works brother, and full obedience to the law of Christ, through the Holy Spirit.

Yes Faith is a work, believing is an act of man, and if you condition your salvation on it, your act, then you are trusting in your works, no way around it, you deny grace !

 

[CadyandZoe]

If you condition your salvation on something you do, its works salvation, regardless of what you say you do not believe in.

I never claimed that salvation is based on something I do. Where did you get that from? I wonder if you actually read my posts?

 

[Johann]

I never claimed that salvation is based on something I do. Where did you get that from? I wonder if you actually read my posts?

He is a troll, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[brightfame52]

I never claimed that salvation is based on something I do. Where did you get that from? I wonder if you actually read my posts?

If you dont, dont sweat it. My statement is for anyone who bases their salvation on something they did, believing, repenting, obedience, water baptism, then they are trusting in their works.

 

[Johann]

If you dont, dont sweat it. My statement is for anyone who bases their salvation on something they did, believing, repenting, obedience, water baptism, then they are trusting in their works.

Guess you forgot about Matthew 25 and....
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


Unto good works: as the immediate end for which we are new-created. We receive our new being that we may bring forth new works, and have a carriage suitable to our new principle.
Which God hath before ordained; or rather, as the margin, prepared, i.e. prepared and fitted us for them, by enlightening our minds to know his will, disposing and inclining our wills, purging our affections, &c.
That we should walk in them; i.e. that we should glorify God in a holy conversation, agreeable to that Divine nature, whereof we are made partakers in our new creation.


You conveniently leave out the OBEYING parts, obeying the law of Christ...are we mere passivists?


31. Be no idolater (1.COR 10:7)
32. Be followers of Paul as he followed Christ
(1.COR 11:1; PHIL 3:17)
33. Be followers of God (EPH 5:1)
34. Be followers of the faithful and patient
(HEB 6:12)
35. Be not children in understanding
(1.COR 14:20)
36. Be men in understanding (1.COR 14:20)
37. Be steadfast (1.COR 15:58)
38. Be unmoveable (1.COR 15:58)
39. Be always abounding in God's work
(1.COR 15:58)
40. Be strong in the Lord (1.COR 16:13;
EPH 6:10; 2.TIM 2:1)
41. Be of good comfort (2.COR 13:11)
42. Be of one mind (ROM 12:16;
2.COR 13:11; PHIL 2:2; 1.PET 3:8)
43. Be separate from the unclean
(2.COR 6:17)
44. Be renewed in spirit (EPH 4:23)
45. Be angry and sin not (EPH 4:26)
46. Be tender-hearted one to another
(EPH 4:32)
47. Be filled with the Spirit (EPH 5:18)
48. Be likeminded (PHIL 2:2)
49. Be one of accord (PHIL 2:2)
50. Be anxious for nothing (PHIL 4:6)
51. Be an example to believers in word,
conversation, charity, spirit, faith, and purity
(1.TIM 4:12)
52. Be a partaker of Christian sufferings
(2.TIM 1:8; cp. 1.PET 4:1)
53. Be gentle to all people (2.TIM 2:24)
54. Be apt to teach (2.TIM 2:24)
55. Be instant in season, out of season
(2.TIM 4:2)
56. Be careful to maintain good works
(TIT 3:8,14; cp. MATT 5:16)
57. Be content with what you have (HEB 13:5)
58. Be doers of the Word (JAS 1:22)
59. Be afflicted and mourn (JAS 4:9)
60. Be patient till Christ comes (JAS 5:7-8)
61. Be holy in conversation (behaviour)
(1.PET 1:15-16)
62. Be pitiful (1.PET 3:8)
63. Be courteous (1.PET 3:8)
64. Be examples of the flock of God, not lord over
it (1.PET 5:3)
65. Be subject one to another (1.PET 5:5)
66. Be clothed with humility (1.PET 5:5)
67. Be sober (1.PET 5:8)
68. Be vigilant (1.PET 5:8)
69. Be mindful of prophecies and commandments (2.PET 3:2)
70. Be diligent to be found in peace (2.PET 3:14)
71. Be diligent to be without spot, and blameless
(2.PET 3:14)
72. Be faithful to death (REV 2:10)
73. Be watchful, strengthen self (REV 3:2)
74. Be zealous and repent (REV 3:19)

Five things to feed:
1. Enemies (ROM 12:20)
2. Lambs (JN 21:15)
3. Sheep (JN 21:16,17)
4. Flock of God (1.PET 5:2)
5. The church (ACTS 20:28)

You agree?

 

[Johann]

In regards to water baptism in John 3:22, Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus is over with and He has moved on. John 3:22 - After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. So water baptism does not fit the context of John 3:5.

Yet these verses fit the context. John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. (what happened to baptism?) 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (what happened to baptism?) 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not baptized? NO) does not believe is condemned already, (because he has not been baptized? NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

In John 4:10,14,7:37-39 living water is connected with the Holy Spirit and eternal life. John 7:38-39 - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Also "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration.

*So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted, yet you still choose to walk around mountains of grace in order to find water. It's your THEOLOGICAL BIAS that causes you to force John 3:5 to "conform" to your biased church doctrine.

Also, baptism [ek] into water does not necessarily place the person in [en] Christ.

 

[brightfame52]

johann

Guess you forgot about Matthew 25 and....

No, this thread is about them who condition salvation on what they do. They promote salvation by works which denies Grace.

 

[Space_Karen]

Faith is NOT a work, but we are created UNTO good works brother, and full obedience to the law of Christ, through the Holy Spirit.

If we can be punished for our choices to sin.

Perhaps we can also be rewarded for not sinning. Or doing the opposite of sin.

"Faith without works is dead."

Appears to indicate some necessary components of faith involves works and choices.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

In regards to water baptism in John 3:22, Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus is over with and He has moved on. John 3:22 - After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. So water baptism does not fit the context of John 3:5.

Yet these verses fit the context. John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. (what happened to baptism?) 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (what happened to baptism?) 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not baptized? NO) does not believe is condemned already, (because he has not been baptized? NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

In John 4:10,14,7:37-39 living water is connected with the Holy Spirit and eternal life. John 7:38-39 - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Also "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration.

*So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted, yet you still choose to walk around mountains of grace in order to find water. It's your THEOLOGICAL BIAS that causes you to force John 3:5 to "conform" to your biased church doctrine.

The issue is how the term 'water' is used in Jn 3:5 and not how water is used in other contexts. In Jn 7:39 the context there clearly points out that water is being used figuratively. Proper interpretation does NOT allow taking a figurative meaning from one text then liberally apply that figurative meaning anywhere else you so choose. Nothing in the context of Jn 3:5 has water mean anything other than literal water and Spirit meaning anything other than literal Spirit. The Spirit is already listed as an element of the new birth (born of the Spirit) therefore water would not be figurative for Spirit else the verse would read except a man be born of Spirit and of the Spirit. Water in Jn 3:5 does not figuratively mean Spirit no more than it does in Jn 3:23.

As pointed out many, many times already when Jn 3:5 is compared with other born again verses those verses clarifiy even further, the BIble being its own best commentary, that water of Jn 3:5 referes to water baptism;

(1)
Jn 3:5-----------------Spirit +++++++++++++ water >>>>>>>>>>>> in the kingdom
1 Cor 12:13--------Spirit ++++++++++++ baptized >>>>>>>>>>> in the body
Tts 3:5---------------Holy Ghost +++++washing of reg.>>>>>>>>> saved

All of these verses speak of that one birth (born again, Jn 3:3) that include two elements; literal Spirit and literal water

(2) The result of the new birth puts one in the kingdom. Yet one must do the will of the Father to be in the kingdom, Mt 7:21

born again >>>>>>>>>>>>>. in the kingdom
do the will of God >>>>>>> in the kingdom

God has commanded men to be water baptized hence obeying that command is doing the will of God. God has never commanded any kind of Spirit baptism to anyone to be in the kingdom. Since there is just one way to be saved/enter the kingdom, then there is a connection between being born again and doing the will of the Father. 1 Pet 1:22-23 Peter directly connected "obeying the truth" to being born again/purified your souls.

(3)
Nicodemus understood Christ was not talking about the physical birth for he understood the impossiblity of man entering his mother's womb to be born a second time, yet he did not understand the type of birth Christ spoke about that let man start over again anew.

Yet Nicodemus, being a master of Israel, should have known about this new birth (Jn 3:10) for it was prophsied in the OT. The Prophet Ezekiel prophesied to the Jews in Eze 36:25-27:

"I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."

Here water and Spirit are brought together to bring about that new birth in starting over anew. The Spirit is what transforms giving a new heart and spirit and water that will "cleanse you from all your impurities" which was not available under the law of Moses. Under the law of Moses there was no complete forgiveness of sins (Heb 10:1-4) as Christ's blood completely forgives sins under the NT. Christ shed His blood that washes away sins in His death and it is by means of water baptism one is baptized into the death of Christ where that shed blood washes away sins. (Rom 6:3-5)

This "cleansing from impurities" would take place when Christ's NT covenant came, Jeremiah 31:31-34. And the new covenant would go forth from Jerusalem (Isa 2:3). In Acts 2 we have that new law with its new birth first going forth out of Jerusalem as prophesied. This "cleanse you from all your impurities", that is, this new birth that Nicodemus should have known about as prophesied by Ezekiel is fulfilled when one is water BAPTIZED for remission of sins>>cleansed from all your impurities. (Acts 2:38).

Though the OT prophets prophesied to the Jews about this new law that would come forth out of Jerusalem that would give a new heart and spirit and would cleanse impurities, note that when that new law came out of Jerusalem (Acts 2) not every single Jew was universally nor unconditionlly given a new heart and spirit and cleansed of sins. Only those Jews who were compliant to that new laws conditions in obediently submitting to water BAPTISM (Acts 2:38) received a new heart and spirit and had their sins remitting whereby they could start over anew/born again. David prophesied that God would give the Gentiles to Christ as an inheritence (Psa 2:8) yet when that new law that gives a new heart and spirit and cleanses away sins came to the Gentiles in Acts 10, not every single Gentile was universally nor unconditionally given a new heart and spirit and cleansed of sins. Again, only those Gentiles that were compliant to that new law in submitting to water baptism (Acts 10:47-48) received a new heart and spirit and had sins cleansed away. Therefore the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47-48) is that new law where all sins are cleansed away whereby one starts over anew making water baptiem that 'like manner' way that all, Jew and Gentile, are saved/born again (Acts 15:11). Hence the prophecies from the OT about that new law bringing that new birth points to water baptism as to where this new birth takes place where sins are remitted.

 

[Johann]

johann



No, this thread is about them who condition salvation on what they do. They promote salvation by works which denies Grace.

Matthew 25 and the other Imperatives goes very much with our initial salvation.
In our initial salvation it was all God's

If we can be punished for our choices to sin.

Perhaps we can also be rewarded for not sinning. Or doing the opposite of sin.

"Faith without works is dead."

Appears to indicate some necessary components of faith involves works and choices.

The day you were reborn, was it all of God's doing?

Eph_2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

 

[Johann]

If we can be punished for our choices to sin.

Perhaps we can also be rewarded for not sinning. Or doing the opposite of sin.

"Faith without works is dead."

Appears to indicate some necessary components of faith involves works and choices.

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
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.
Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Kinda slap in the face of proponents promulgating "Not of works..." which is all over this Forum.

I am in full agreement here...
JAMES—NOTE ON 2:18–20 Response of a Critic. An objector argues that
faith and works are indeed separable, and James responds that faith can be
shown only through righteous deeds.

JAMES—NOTE ON 2:18 But someone will say. As was common in
Hellenistic rhetoric, James introduces a hypothetical respondent into his
discussion of faith and works, continuing his argument against those who
think that faith can save without works.

JAMES—NOTE ON 2:19 God is one. This affirmation of monotheism stems
from the core Jewish creed called the Shema (Deut. 6:4; see Mark 12:29;
Rom. 3:30). But James stresses its inadequacy, since even the demons
believe this, and they shudder. Mere mental assent to the Christian faith
does not save anyone. The faith that saves, as both Paul and James affirm,
embraces the truth of the gospel and acts accordingly.

JAMES—NOTE ON 2:21–26 Examples of Abraham and Rahab. James
continues his rebuttal by citing the examples of Abraham and Rahab, who
were both shown by their deeds to be righteous.

JAMES—NOTE ON 2:21 Abraham … justified by works. On the surface
James may seem to contradict Paul. I.e., Paul denies that Abraham was
“justified by works” (Rom. 4:2), arguing from Gen. 15:6 that Abraham’s
faith “was counted to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). However, James’s
assertion in this verse (that “Abraham [was] … justified by works”) is
based not on Gen. 15:6 but on Gen. 22:9–10, where (many years later)
Abraham began to offer Isaac as a sacrifice.

Thus James apparently has a
different sense of the word “justify” in view here, as evidenced by the
different Scripture passages, and the different events in Abraham’s life, to
which James and Paul refer. The primary way in which Paul uses the word
“justify” (Gk. dikaioō) emphasizes the sense of being declared righteous by
God through faith, on the basis of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice (Rom. 3:24–26),
whereas the primary way that James uses the word “justify” (Gk. dikaioō)
here in James 2:21 seems to emphasize the way in which works
demonstrate that someone has been justified, as evidenced by the good
works that the person does (cf. Matt. 12:33–37).

Some others hold a similar
view, which understands “justify” (Gk. dikaioō) here to mean to declare
someone to be righteous because, at the final judgment, the person’s works
give evidence of true saving faith. See note on Gal. 2:16.

JAMES—NOTE ON 2:22 faith was completed by his works. James does not
disagree that faith alone saves (Rom. 3:28). “Completed” (Gk. eteleiōthē)
often means “bring to maturity.” Full-grown and genuine faith is seen in the
good deeds it produces.


2:24 not by faith only. James was not disagreeing with Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom.
3:23–26; Gal. 2:16), but was using his terms differently. Paul spoke of true, saving faith, but James of a
mere profession of faith. Paul spoke about being counted righteous before God, but James of faith
proving itself true before others by the works that follow upon true faith.

 

[Johann]

The issue is how the term 'water' is used in Jn 3:5 and not how water is used in other contexts. In Jn 7:39 the context there clearly points out that water is being used figuratively. Proper interpretation does NOT allow taking a figurative meaning from one text then liberally apply that figurative meaning anywhere else you so choose. Nothing in the context of Jn 3:5 has water mean anything other than literal water and Spirit meaning anything other than literal Spirit. The Spirit is already listed as an element of the new birth (born of the Spirit) therefore water would not be figurative for Spirit else the verse would read except a man be born of Spirit and of the Spirit. Water in Jn 3:5 does not figuratively mean Spirit no more than it does in Jn 3:23.

As pointed out many, many times already when Jn 3:5 is compared with other born again verses those verses clarifiy even further, the BIble being its own best commentary, that water of Jn 3:5 referes to water baptism;

(1)
Jn 3:5-----------------Spirit +++++++++++++ water >>>>>>>>>>>> in the kingdom
1 Cor 12:13--------Spirit ++++++++++++ baptized >>>>>>>>>>> in the body
Tts 3:5---------------Holy Ghost +++++washing of reg.>>>>>>>>> saved

All of these verses speak of that one birth (born again, Jn 3:3) that include two elements; literal Spirit and literal water

(2) The result of the new birth puts one in the kingdom. Yet one must do the will of the Father to be in the kingdom, Mt 7:21

born again >>>>>>>>>>>>>. in the kingdom
do the will of God >>>>>>> in the kingdom

God has commanded men to be water baptized hence obeying that command is doing the will of God. God has never commanded any kind of Spirit baptism to anyone to be in the kingdom. Since there is just one way to be saved/enter the kingdom, then there is a connection between being born again and doing the will of the Father. 1 Pet 1:22-23 Peter directly connected "obeying the truth" to being born again/purified your souls.

(3)
Nicodemus understood Christ was not talking about the physical birth for he understood the impossiblity of man entering his mother's womb to be born a second time, yet he did not understand the type of birth Christ spoke about that let man start over again anew.

Yet Nicodemus, being a master of Israel, should have known about this new birth (Jn 3:10) for it was prophsied in the OT. The Prophet Ezekiel prophesied to the Jews in Eze 36:25-27:

"I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."

Here water and Spirit are brought together to bring about that new birth in starting over anew. The Spirit is what transforms giving a new heart and spirit and water that will "cleanse you from all your impurities" which was not available under the law of Moses. Under the law of Moses there was no complete forgiveness of sins (Heb 10:1-4) as Christ's blood completely forgives sins under the NT. Christ shed His blood that washes away sins in His death and it is by means of water baptism one is baptized into the death of Christ where that shed blood washes away sins. (Rom 6:3-5)

This "cleansing from impurities" would take place when Christ's NT covenant came, Jeremiah 31:31-34. And the new covenant would go forth from Jerusalem (Isa 2:3). In Acts 2 we have that new law with its new birth first going forth out of Jerusalem as prophesied. This "cleanse you from all your impurities", that is, this new birth that Nicodemus should have known about as prophesied by Ezekiel is fulfilled when one is water BAPTIZED for remission of sins>>cleansed from all your impurities. (Acts 2:38).

Though the OT prophets prophesied to the Jews about this new law that would come forth out of Jerusalem that would give a new heart and spirit and would cleanse impurities, note that when that new law came out of Jerusalem (Acts 2) not every single Jew was universally nor unconditionlly given a new heart and spirit and cleansed of sins. Only those Jews who were compliant to that new laws conditions in obediently submitting to water BAPTISM (Acts 2:38) received a new heart and spirit and had their sins remitting whereby they could start over anew/born again. David prophesied that God would give the Gentiles to Christ as an inheritence (Psa 2:8) yet when that new law that gives a new heart and spirit and cleanses away sins came to the Gentiles in Acts 10, not every single Gentile was universally nor unconditionally given a new heart and spirit and cleansed of sins. Again, only those Gentiles that were compliant to that new law in submitting to water baptism (Acts 10:47-48) received a new heart and spirit and had sins cleansed away. Therefore the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47-48) is that new law where all sins are cleansed away whereby one starts over anew making water baptiem that 'like manner' way that all, Jew and Gentile, are saved/born again (Acts 15:11). Hence the prophecies from the OT about that new law bringing that new birth points to water baptism as to where this new birth takes place where sins are remitted.

Do you believe in baptismal regeneration?