Except a man be born of WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[Getitright]

It doesn't have to be recorded to become a message.

Agreed. However, if it's not recorded then it must be a spoken word, correct?

 

[Waiting on him]

It is seen as a cleansing agent. It's also seen as a means of destruction in the Scriptures.

Yes. Destruction can be a good thing.

 

[Randy Kluth]

People in the OT looked forward to the coming of the Messiah; and even had the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them according to 1 Peter 1:11. And the scripture declares that we receive the Spirit of Christ when we believe in Christ (Galatians 3:14).

They did not believe in Jesus. They believed *Messiah would come.* Now you are saying they were saved by believing in Jesus even before Messiah had come!

Their righteousness, however, is as filthy rags, Isaiah 64:6.

I didn't say that righteous deeds saved people. I said they could perform righteousness, which of course all men in Israel could do under the Law. And I showed you that men outside of Israel could do righteousness as well, whether the saints before Israel existed or Gentiles who were known for their good deeds. Salvation has always come by mercy, but never disqualified righteousness as authentic, which seems to be what you're trying to do.

It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God that sheweth mercy (Romans 9:16).

I never said men achieved their own salvation by works. It has always been by mercy. But part of obtaining salvation is human choice, including choice for the good works of Christ and choice for the good nature given to us by Christ.

To make a decision to do good works, and then to think that that is going to save you, is in effect trusting in your works to save you.

To make a decision to do good works in Christ must include choice for the good nature in Christ if it is to obtain salvation. It is not enough to choose to do good works to be saved. One must choose to receive a *new nature* to be saved. I've told you that repeatedly, and your response is to go back to your mantra, that I'm requiring *only* a choice for good works to be saved.

That is what you have done with me.
Neither have I. But you took my words out of the context in which they were written to try and make me say that. So you should apologize. And I would encourage the reader to notice what I have emboldened in your statement. You are mixing works into your salvation equation; implying that good works will save you if they are accompanied by faith.

Of course I require a choice for good works, along with the choice for a good nature, to be saved! And you're saying that everybody who chooses Christ for salvation is neither choosing for any good works nor for any new spiritual nature? How silly is this?

So I suppose you chose Christ for salvation with no sense whatsoever that you had to repent of your sins?

You have three fingers pointing back at you (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42, Luke 6:37).
No, you haven't shown me this.

You tell me I haven't shown you this, and yet immediately afterwards you acknowledge that you've already had to deal with the argument over Cornelius.

Again, Cornelius and friends were a unique bunch. They were converted at a time of transition in church history. The circumcision group was opposed to the idea that Gentiles could be saved; and therefore God did a special work with Cornelius and friends by giving them the Holy Ghost before they were baptized; understanding that Peter knew what Jesus had taught him and would require them to be baptized after it became evident that they were Christians. God gave them the Holy Ghost in order to prove to the circumcision group that Gentiles could be saved so that they would be allowed to be baptized.

You just admitted that the account of Cornelius getting saved *before* water baptism took place when it *contradicts your entire argument!* And you try to give your own explanation, which is *not even given in the Scriptures!*

So I rest my case. Salvation is not dependent on Water Baptism. You would provide, arbitrarily, some supposed reason that Salvation can take place *without Water Baptism.* And so, you're going to find that the real basis for Salvation is obedience to God's word so that the Salvation Christ alone won us can be received.

There is a difference between what *we must do* and what *Christ alone could do.* When you figure that out, we can discuss that. But you ignore that, thinking it is solely about what Christ did, and nothing about what we do unless it completely excludes any action on our part.

Faith is a choice, and you seem to deny that. I say that because every time I mention we must make a choice you conclude that that is an illicit work. To deny that faith is a choice or a work we must do is, in my opinion, absurd. It is a work we do in order to be saved, but it does not perform the acts that achieve atonement. You are confusing things both men and Christ must do to be saved with things only Christ could do to achieve *atonement!* Men obviously must *choose Salvation* in order to be saved!

The fact that you oppose the doctrine of baptism in Jesus' Name indicates to me that you have not personally received this baptism. This is why you don't have the Holy Ghost. If you had received baptism in Jesus' Name, you would have the Holy Ghost and your doctrine would be sound.

What are you--a "Jesus Only" legalist? And you think, based on your elitist cultist thinking, that you can judge whether I'm saved based on criteria you arbitrarily and illogically set up? Good luck with that! ;)

 

[Randy Kluth]

Agreed. However, if it's not recorded then it must be a spoken word, correct?

Whether something ultimately gets spoken or not is not the question. The question is what the word "rhema" means. If it doesn't have to refer to a word *that is being spoken,* then your definition doesn't work.

 

[justbyfaith]

They did not believe in Jesus. They believed *Messiah would come.* Now you are saying they were saved by believing in Jesus even before Messiah had come!

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

I didn't say that righteous deeds saved people. I said they could perform righteousness, which of course all men in Israel could do under the Law. And I showed you that men outside of Israel could do righteousness as well, whether the saints before Israel existed or Gentiles who were known for their good deeds. Salvation has always come by mercy, but never disqualified righteousness as authentic, which seems to be what you're trying to do.

And again, the righteousness which is of the law is as filthy rags, Isaiah 64:6. The righteousness which is by faith is fine linen, clean and white, however (Revelation 19:8 (kjv)). See also Philippians 3:9.

But part of obtaining salvation is human choice,

It is not of him who wills (John 1:13, Romans 9:16).

To make a decision to do good works in Christ must include choice for the good nature in Christ if it is to obtain salvation. It is not enough to choose to do good works to be saved. One must choose to receive a *new nature* to be saved. I've told you that repeatedly, and your response is to go back to your mantra, that I'm requiring *only* a choice for good works to be saved.

I cannot "choose" to receive a good nature. I can only believe in what Christ has done for me on the Cross, placing no trust in myself; and if I do this He will provide for me a new nature.

You just admitted that the account of Cornelius getting saved *before* water baptism took place when it *contradicts your entire argument!* And you try to give your own explanation, which is *not even given in the Scriptures!*

The information is indeed there in the scriptures (see Acts 10)

So I rest my case. Salvation is not dependent on Water Baptism.

And I have never taught that it is dependent on water baptism. I have said that water baptism has the power to save and that this is through the faith of the operation of God.

And so, you're going to find that the real basis for Salvation is obedience to God's word so that the Salvation Christ alone won us can be received.

If the basis of salvation is obedience to God's word then water baptism is a part of that obedience.

To deny that faith is a choice or a work we must do is, in my opinion, absurd. It is a work we do in order to be saved,

You contradict the holy scriptures; specifically what it says in Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-8, and Titus 3:4-7.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

Yes, you are quite illogically concluding that men were saved by believing in Jesus well before he was born. They believed in a Christian redemption even before it had been accomplished, before there was a cross, a resurrection, or a free gift of the Holy Spirit for salvation. Good luck with that!

And again, the righteousness which is of the law is as filthy rags, Isaiah 64:6. The righteousness which is by faith is fine linen, clean and white, however (Revelation 19:8). See also Philippians 3:9.

Paul, in context, was speaking about the attempt to do righteousness for salvation apart from the atonement supplied by God. It was an attempt to navigate around God's word, which therefore became "filthy rags." This is true of *all men* who do this. You ignore the qualifying statement that these are people who are trying to "get around God's word!"

Isa 64.6 and Rom 3 were speaking of the fact that Israel was not necessarily any better than pagan Gentiles when they performed works under the Law and yet remained unrepentant from the heart. This in no way indicated that men in the OT and under the Law could not be *saints!* It was a reference to doing good works *apart from obedience to God's word in the conscience.*

It is not of him who wills (Romans 9:16).

I cannot "choose" to receive a good nature. I can only believe in what Christ has done for me on the Cross, placing no trust in myself; and if I do this He will provide for me a new nature.

You cannot choose to receive a good nature? I can't think of anything more illogical! If you can't choose Christ, then someone must've done it for you? You think God makes the decisions *for everybody* so that they may be saved? In that case, then God must've chosen *for everybody* who are not saved that they should not be saved? Actually, Martin Luther indulged himself in this kind of logic to some degree with his Predestinarian Doctrine.

The information is indeed there in the scriptures (see Acts 10)

It's telling that you claim info is in Acts 10, and are unable to spell it out. It isn't there, brother! Nowhere in the passage does it explain, explicitly, why Salvation came to Cornelius *before* Water Baptism! And yet you claim it is there? Then produce it!

And I have never taught that it is dependent on water baptism. I have said that water baptism has the power to save and that this is through the faith of the operation of God.

So now you're saying that Water Baptism is a critical element that saves, and yet it isn't. Which is it? Your theology is inconsistent, and therefore in error.

If the basis of salvation is obedience to God's word then water baptism is a part of that obedience.

To some extent, yes. My claim is that it is the acceptance of God's word and the confession of belief in that word that brings salvation. And Water Baptism is part of the expression of that faith, and thus achieves salvation--not as if the believer achieves atonement, but that he accepts Christ's atonement.

You contradict the holy scriptures; specifically what it says in Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-8, and Titus 3:4-7.

Yea, just throw Scriptures at me without explanation! [sigh]

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, you are quite illogically concluding that men were saved by believing in Jesus well before he was born. They believed in a Christian redemption even before it had been accomplished, before there was a cross, a resurrection, or a free gift of the Holy Spirit for salvation. Good luck with that!

People looked forward to the promise of Messiah. Even Adam and Eve had revelation of what would come through the proto-evangelion statement in Genesis 3:15.

Paul, in context, was speaking about the attempt to do righteousness for salvation apart from the atonement supplied by God. It was an attempt to navigate around God's word, which therefore became "filthy rags." This is true of *all men* who do this. You ignore the qualifying statement that these are people who are trying to "get around God's word!"

This statement is....where?

The only atonement that is even sufficient is the atonement of the Cross. Animal sacrifices wouldn't cut it (Hebrews 10:1-4).

Isa 64.6 and Rom 3 were speaking of the fact that Israel was not necessarily any better than pagan Gentiles when they performed works under the Law and yet remained unrepentant from the heart. This in no way indicated that men in the OT and under the Law could not be *saints!* It was a reference to doing good works *apart from obedience to God's word in the conscience.*

Men who lived during OT times could indeed become saints. Some of them even had the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them (1 Peter 1:11). And we receive the Spirit of Christ through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:14).

You cannot choose to receive a good nature? I can't think of anything more illogical! If you can't choose Christ, then someone must've done it for you?

No, you cannot choose to receive a good nature if God is not offering it to you.

You have to come on His terms.

The only way to obtain a good nature is to receive Jesus and what He did for you on the Cross. It has nothing to do with turning over a new leaf, i.e. making a decision to "do good from now on."

Actually, Martin Luther indulged himself in this kind of logic to some degree with his Predestinarian Doctrine.

The doctrine of predestination is biblical and did not originate from Martin Luther but from Paul.

It's telling that you claim info is in Acts 10, and are unable to spell it out. It isn't there, brother! Nowhere in the passage does it explain, explicitly, why Salvation came to Cornelius *before* Water Baptism! And yet you claim it is there? Then produce it!

That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the understanding that the circumcision group was opposed to the idea of Gentiles being saved. That concept is clearly shown in Acts chapter 10.

So now you're saying that Water Baptism is a critical element that saves, and yet it isn't. Which is it? Your theology is inconsistent, and therefore in error.

No, I am not being inconsistent.

Here, I'll spell it out for you.

A person who merely believes should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

A person who believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).

A person who believes and calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10:13).

A person who is baptized in Jesus' name shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39).

A person who asks for the Holy Ghost shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Luke 11:13).

To some extent, yes. My claim is that it is the acceptance of God's word and the confession of belief in that word that brings salvation. And Water Baptism is part of the expression of that faith, and thus achieves salvation--not as if the believer achieves atonement, but that he accepts Christ's atonement.

In this, you are proclaiming salvation by works. And this is contradictory to certain passages of the Bible (such as Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-8, Titus 3:4-7); which teach that salvation is not of works.

Yea, just throw Scriptures at me without explanation! [sigh]

Here is my explanation: the scriptures in question teach that salvation is *not of works*.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The big problem I see Christians having today is an inability to articulate the Gospel in a way that unbelievers can understand. For example, we read that "all our righteousness is as filthy rags." Then the Christian falsely concludes that unbelievers cannot do any righteousness at all that is acceptable to God, including being kind to the poor or even accepting the Gospel! This would turn off any unbeliever, who knows he has a free will.

But "righteousness" is used in 2 ways in the Scriptures, one which is an external form of righteousness that deceitfully covers sins, and the other as a genuine righteousness from the heart that is able to do good and to accept the Gospel. We must inform unbelievers that they are fully able to choose to do good or to choose Christ. It is only the false kind of righteousness that is "filthy rags," and cannot please God, because it is a kind of works that tries to navigate around true internal righteousness. We call this "legalism."

I'm not, however, saying that just the choice to do good works by unbelievers is sufficient to achieve salvation. Though they may properly choose to do good and perform righteousness that God is pleased with, we must do more and choose more to be saved. We must choose to be born again, or to have a new nature from Christ. Only this can save us. We must inform unbelievers that they are indeed able to opt for a new nature that will save them!

 

[Randy Kluth]

People looked forward to the promise of Messiah. Even Adam and Eve had revelation of what would come through the proto-evangelion statement in Genesis 3:15.

So you're saying these people in the OT believed in Christ for Salvation before even knowing what he would do to save them? They didn't know he would die on a cross. They were told next to nothing about his death and resurrection. And they certainly did not receive the Spirit of adoption. So how were they saved, brother?

This statement is....where?

The only atonement that is even sufficient is the atonement of the Cross. Animal sacrifices wouldn't cut it (Hebrews 10:1-4).

The "statement" is the context in which "righteousness" is being described as "filthy rags." In other words, the statement is that this is false righteousness, and not denying true righteousness! There were 613 different ways Israelites could outwardly obey God without really having His love on the inside. This is called "legalism," and it was therefore declared to be "as filthy rags." You need to understand context, and not just throw verses wildly out there!

Men who lived during OT times could indeed become saints. Some of them even had the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them (1 Peter 1:11). And we receive the Spirit of Christ through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:14).

They had not yet become saved! They were not saved by receiving the Spirit of Christ! Salvation took place at the *cross,* brother! Your formula for Salvation is corrupt. You're teaching Salvation by the Law, or by some preexisting faith.

No, you cannot choose to receive a good nature if God is not offering it to you.

Silly man! Who said people accept a gift of a new nature that is not 1st offered them? ;)

You have to come on His terms.

The only way to obtain a good nature is to receive Jesus and what He did for you on the Cross. it has nothing to do with turning over a new leaf, i.e. making a decision to "do good from now on."

So you're saying Salvation has nothing to do with repentance? That is corrupt!

The doctrine of predestination is biblical and did not originate from Martin Luther but from Paul.

There were elements in Luther that I believe were corrupt. Don't get me wrong--I love Martin Luther. But some elements in his Predestination seemed to deny human choice, which I believe is wrong and unbiblical. And it hurts our message to the world if we don't clearly state that they *can* choose for righteousness, and *can* choose for Salvation. Indeed, they *must!*

That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the understanding that the circumcision group was opposed to the idea of Gentiles being saved. That concept is clearly shown in Acts chapter 10.

Has no bearing on the fact Salvation preceded Water Baptism with Cornelius.

No, I am not being inconsistent.

Here, I'll spell it out for you.

A person who merely believes should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

A person who believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).

A person who believes and calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10:13).

A person who is baptized in Jesus name shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39).

A person who asks for the Holy Ghost shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Luke 11:13).

Anybody can quote Scriptures, but can you articulate them with understanding? Observing the Law apart from the Spirit is worthless. Quoting Scriptures without properly representing them is worthless, as well.

In this, you are proclaiming salvation by works. And this is contradictory to certain passages of the Bible (such as Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-8, Titus 3:4-7); which teach that salvation is not of works.

You are misrepresenting what I said. There is a difference between *atoning works* and *works that we choose to do to be saved.* We choose for righteousness, we choose for a new nature, and we make those choices to be saved. That is the only form of works that are involved in our salvation, and have nothing to do with earning our atonement. Christ alone could do that!

Here is my explanation: the scriptures in question teach that salvation is *not of works*.

You don't understand.

 

[justbyfaith]

This would turn off any unbeliever, who knows he has a free will.

The big problem I see Christians having today is an inability to articulate the Gospel in a way that unbelievers can understand. For example, we read that "all our righteousness is as filthy rags." Then the Christian falsely concludes that unbelievers cannot do any righteousness at all that is acceptable to God, including being kind to the poor or even accepting the Gospel! This would turn off any unbeliever, who knows he has a free will.

The unbeliever is already "off"...for he is dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1).

But "righteousness" is used in 2 ways in the Scriptures, one which is an external form of righteousness that deceitfully covers sins, and the other as a genuine righteousness from the heart that is able to do good and to accept the Gospel. We must inform unbelievers that they are fully able to choose to do good or to choose Christ.

Except that they are not able to choose to do good or choose Christ. So to inform them of that would be informing them of a lie.

It is only the false kind of righteousness that is "filthy rags," and cannot please God, because it is a kind of works that tries to navigate around true internal righteousness. We call this "legalism."

This is the only righteousness that unbelievers are capable of...and they may indeed look good on the outside.

Though they may properly choose to do good and perform righteousness that God is pleased with,

No more than I would be pleased with the cleanliness of a dirty menstrual cloth....for in Isaiah 64:6, that is the language used to describe the righteousness of the unbeliever.

We must choose to be born again, or to have a new nature from Christ.

We can not "choose our way" into such a thing. John 1:13, Romans 9:16.

We must receive the sacrifice of Jesus when it is presented to us, as a response to the preaching of the gospel message.

 

[justbyfaith]

So you're saying these people in the OT believed in Christ for Salvation before even knowing what he would do to save them? They didn't know he would die on a cross. They were told next to nothing about his death and resurrection. And they certainly did not receive the Spirit of adoption. So how were they saved, brother?

Abraham believed in the LORD; and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6).

They had not yet become saved! They were not saved by receiving the Spirit of Christ!

So you're saying that you believe that the Spirit of Christ has nothing to do with the new nature?

Because you were previously contending that a person becomes saved by receiving the new nature. How does one receive the new nature except by receiving the Spirit of Christ?

Salvation took place at the *cross,* brother! Your formula for Salvation is corrupt.

Salvation takes place *because of* the Cross...prophets of old were given revelation of what would take place there...see 1 Peter 1:10-12.

So you're saying Salvation has nothing to do with repentance? That is corrupt!

Salvation has everything to do with receiving what Jesus did for us on the Cross. Jesus catches the fish and then He cleans them.

There were elements in Luther that I believe were corrupt. Don't get me wrong--I love Martin Luther. But some elements in his Predestination seemed to deny human choice, which I believe is wrong and unbiblical. And it hurts our message to the world that they *can* choose for righteousness, and *can* choose for Salvation. Indeed, they *must!*

Men are dead in trespasses and sins and cannot choose for salvation. It must be a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Has no bearing on the fact Salvation preceded Water Baptism with Cornelius.

It has every bearing on the subject.

Anybody can quote Scriptures, but can you articulate them with understanding? Observing the Law apart from the Spirit is worthless. Quoting Scriptures without properly representing them is worthless, as well.

Basically, that faith can save a man apart from calling on the name of the Lord or being baptized; but it's kind of "iffy". If you want absolute assurance, call on the name of Jesus Christ or else be baptized in His name.

and *works that we choose to do to be saved.*

There is no such thing, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-8, Titus 3:4-7.

 

[Getitright]

Whether something ultimately gets spoken or not is not the question. The question is what the word "rhema" means. If it doesn't have to refer to a word *that is being spoken,* then your definition doesn't work.

But it does apply to a word that is spoken.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The unbeliever is already "off"...for he is dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1).

You need to reach out to unbelievers to bring salvation to them. You won't do that if you deny they can already make good choices. If you deny they can even do anything good, you rob them of their intrinsic worth.

Except that they are not able to choose to do good or choose Christ. So to inform them of that would be informing them of a lie.

How nutty can you get? If people cannot choose Salvation, then why even preach the Gospel to them?

This is the only righteousness that unbelievers are capable of...and they may indeed look good on the outside.

That's false. All people, believers and unbelievers, are capable of legalism, ie righteousness that is as filthy rags. On the same token, all people, believers and unbelievers, are capable of genuine righteousness, ie righteousness that is done in Christ, whether conscious of it or not. It's just that only believers have the New Nature that can be received from Christ.

No more than I would be pleased with the cleanliness of a dirty menstrual cloth....for in Isaiah 64:6, that is the language used to describe the righteousness of the unbeliever.

That is vile and an insult to all people, who God found worth saving. God in fact has been pleased with men from the beginning of time who have chosen to follow their conscience. Only those who choose to indulge their carnal nature, and yet cover it up with legalistic religious deeds, are seen by God as those who "righteousness is as filthy rags."

God, in Isaiah, only said that all *classes* of *carnal* men produce illicit righteousness, including both pagan nations and Israel. He was not saying that people cannot do genuine righteousness!

We can not "choose our way" into such a thing. John 1:13, Romans 9:16.

That denies that men have free choice. But God has asked things from all men, to whom He gave the ability to obey them. Deut 30.

We must receive the sacrifice of Jesus when it is presented to us, as a response to the preaching of the gospel message.

If men respond to anything, they have to have the ability to make good choices. And you illogically deny that. You are contradicting yourself.

 

[Randy Kluth]

But it does apply to a word that is spoken.

Once again, I'm not denying that rhema can apply to the spoken word. I am denying that it can *only* apply to the spoken word!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Abraham believed in the LORD; and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6).

I rest my case. Men could do *good* apart from having Salvation!

So you're saying that you believe that the Spirit of Christ has nothing to do with the new nature?

Because you were previously contending that a person becomes saved by receiving the new nature. How does one receive the new nature except by receiving the Spirit of Christ?

The Holy Spirit is the preexistent Spirit of Christ, as well. This is not the same thing as the giving of the Spirit for Salvation. The Prophets in the OT operated through the agency of the Holy Spirit, and yet were not yet Saved. That is, they did not yet have possession of Eternal Life.

Salvation takes place *because of* the Cross...prophets of old were given revelation of what would take place there...see 1 Peter 1:10-12.

They saw through as though from a distant land.

1 Peter 1.10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

Salvation has everything to do with receiving what Jesus did for us on the Cross. Jesus catches the fish and then He cleans them.

Yes, but a person may do good even before he is "cleansed." The cleansing comes from the New Nature, and an unclean person may indeed choose to receive that. That's what saves a person--not just doing good things. Even the rich young ruler was loved by God for doing genuine righteousness. But he was not saved until he choose for a New Nature. Mark 10.

Men are dead in trespasses and sins and cannot choose for salvation. It must be a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, but that's not true. God gave unregenerate man a choice to become regenerated. They can indeed make good choices. God made that choice available to Cain, who God saw as capable of avoiding murder.

It has every bearing on the subject.

Your claim to explain Cornelius Salvation before Baptism does not do anything more than contradict your claimed essential formula.

Basically, that faith can save a man apart from calling on the name of the Lord or being baptized; but it's kind of "iffy". if you want absolute assurance, call on the name of Jesus Christ or else be baptized in His name.

I have no clue what you're talking about? "Faith" has to be associated with something. It has to be connected to God's word to be genuine faith. Faith can be exercised simply to do something good. But this may not be faith for Salvation. Faith may also be aimed at receiving Salvation. Without faith of some kind a person may not be able to do either something good or receive Salvation.

There is no such thing, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-8, Titus 3:4-7.

John 6.29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Exercising faith is not often seen as a "work." But in fact it is a work, as defined by Jesus, and pursues good works and something else that is good--Salvation. It is not a work that atones for one's self. Only Christ could do that. But we can opt to do good works, and to obtain a good nature that does good works. You need to know that. God calls men to Salvation by calling upon them to *repent.* That means fallen men have a free choice, and may indeed obey God.

 

[Getitright]

Once again, I'm not denying that rhema can apply to the spoken word. I am denying that it can *only* apply to the spoken word!

That's irrelevant. They only had the spoken word

 

[justbyfaith]

You need to reach out to unbelievers to bring salvation to them. You won't do that if you deny they can already make good choices. If you deny they can even do anything good, you rob them of their intrinsic worth.

In order for an unbeliever to be able to receive Christ, they must be spiritually awakened...the Father must draw them to Christ.

How nutty can you get? If people cannot choose Salvation, then why even preach the Gospel to them?

Because the Father is able to quicken them so that at specific moments of their lives they are able to choose salvation. However, being dead in trespasses and sins for the most part, for most of their lives they cannot make a decision for Christ.

That's false. All people, believers and unbelievers, are capable of legalism, ie righteousness that is as filthy rags. On the same token, all people, believers and unbelievers, are capable of genuine righteousness, ie righteousness that is done in Christ, whether conscious of it or not.

The only genuine righteousness is the righteousness which is of God by faith. By definition, only believers can have that (see Philippians 3:9).

That is vile and an insult to all people, who God found worth saving. God in fact has been pleased with men from the beginning of time who have chosen to follow their conscience.

That can only be true if God is pleased with men whose hearts are deceitfully wicked above all things (see Jeremiah 17:9). I don't think that holy scripture testifies to that (see Psalms 5:5-6, Psalms 7:11).

Only those who choose to indulge their carnal nature, and yet cover it up with legalistic religious deeds, are seen by God as those who "righteousness is as filthy rags."

All those who seek to be righteous through their own obedience to the law, qualify for the designation of "filthy rags righteousness". The only other righteousness than that is the righteousness which is of God by faith.

God, in Isaiah, only said that all *classes* of *carnal* men produce illicit righteousness, including both pagan nations and Israel. He was not saying that people cannot do genuine righteousness!

Men are born dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14); and therefore they cannot do anything; let alone anything righteous (John 15:5).

That denies that men have free choice. But God has asked things from all men, to whom He gave the ability to obey them. Deut 30.

Please specify what verses you are referring to...narrow it down for me so I can answer it better.

If men respond to anything, they have to have the ability to make good choices. And you illogically deny that. You are contradicting yourself.

They cannot make a good choice apart from the Father drawing them to Christ. When the Father draws them to Christ, they can come to Christ in that window of opportunity.

I rest my case. Men could do *good* apart from having Salvation!

Abraham was quickened by the Lord and drawn to Him and thus was enabled to believe. But you have dodged the original point; which was that people in the Old Testament were saved by grace through faith in Jesus just like in the New Testament.

The Holy Spirit is the preexistent Spirit of Christ, as well.

The Holy Ghost came about at the point of Luke 23:46 and than ascended to be outside of time; from there He could descend to anywhere in time. The Spirit of Christ is the Father (John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11). The Holy Ghost is the "is to come" aspect of the Father. It is hard to put it into words because of the nature of time and eternity; but suffice it to say that I understand it. Maybe go to my Trinity thread and get some insight from there (will post a link shortly).

True Trinity.

This is not the same thing as the giving of the Spirit for Salvation. The Prophets in the OT operated through the agency of the Holy Spirit, and yet were not yet Saved. That is, they did not yet have possession of Eternal Life.

Where does it say that they weren't saved? I would contend with you that they were in fact saved (see Matthew 5:10-12).

Yes, but a person may do good even before he is "cleansed."

But that good that they do would be as filthy, menstrual rags (Isaiah 64:6).

The cleansing comes from the New Nature,

The new nature comes from the cleansing. The cleansing comes from the blood of Jesus.

and an unclean person may indeed choose to receive that.

Not by "turning over a new leaf" or "making a commitment to do good works". Only by appropriating the blood of Jesus Christ to the heart.

Men are dead in trespasses and sins and cannot choose for salvation. It must be a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, but that's not true.

It is true (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14, Titus 3:5).

God gave unregenerate man a choice to become regenerated. They can indeed make good choices. God made that choice available to Cain, who God saw as capable of avoiding murder.

Cain was incapable of making any other choice than the choice that he made; for he was dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14).

John 6.29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Exercising faith is not often seen as a "work." But in fact it is a work, as defined by Jesus, and pursues good works and something else that is good--Salvation. It is not a work that atones for one's self. Only Christ could do that. But we can opt to do good works, and to obtain a good nature that does good works. You need to know that. God calls men to Salvation by calling upon them to *repent.* That means fallen men have a free choice, and may indeed obey God.

I will respond to both quotes above by saying this. Jesus is being facetious with those who want to insist on salvation being by works here. He is saying, "Okay, you want to believe that you can be saved by works...I'm telling you now that the only work that will save you is placing your faith simply in me."

But that faith and works are mutually exclusive when it comes to salvation is evident in Ephesians 2:8-9...

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.

It should be clear that we are saved by grace through faith and that we are not saved by works.

So then, since faith is the catalyst for my salvation, and works is not, this would indicate that faith and works are mutually exclusive. If I am saved by faith, but am not saved by works, then faith is not a work. Because if I am saved by faith as a work, then I am not even saved through faith; because salvation is not of works. But if I am saved by faith alone apart from works, all is well; because I am not trusting in my works to save me. If I am saved by works then the Bible is incorrect in its statements. Therefore, since I am saved by faith, faith cannot be a work. Because I am not saved by works but am saved by faith; and therefore faith saves me and works do not; and this means that faith is not a work that saves me, since works do not save.

But if you are going to insist on salvation being by works, believing in Christ with a simple faith and trust is the only work that will save you.

Kapiche?

This is a labour of love for me; I can go all day. :);):cool:

 

[justbyfaith]

Even the rich young ruler was loved by God for doing genuine righteousness.

The rich young ruler was not loved by God for anything He did; but Jesus loved him because Jesus is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16).

 

[Randy Kluth]

The rich young ruler was not loved by God for anything He did; but Jesus loved him because Jesus is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16).

And you base that conclusion on what? Clearly, the context indicates that Jesus loved him because he was keeping all of the commandments of God. What he lacked was a commitment to a change in nature, the need to adopt a new nature to go along with his keeping of the commandments. Keeping the commandments was good, and certainly within the realm of human ability. We know that because:

Deut 30.11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Mark 10.17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”

20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

21 Jesus looked at him and loved him.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In order for an unbeliever to be able to receive Christ, they must be spiritually awakened...the Father must draw them to Christ.

Granted. God's word to the human conscience awakens him to the need to obey God. Then we choose to obey Him when He reveals to them His will, whether they are conscious that it is Him or not. Unbelievers can be virtuous--no question about it. It's just that being virtuous does not save. It is in receiving the new nature from Christ that saves.

Because the Father is able to quicken them so that at specific moments of their lives they are able to choose salvation. However, being dead in trespasses and sins for the most part, for most of their lives they cannot make a decision for Christ.

And you get that where?

The only genuine righteousness is the righteousness which is of God by faith. By definition, only believers can have that (see Philippians 3:9).

That is not true. The NT is often talking only about faith that leads to Salvation--not faith that enables righteousness without Salvation. But it requires faith, conscious of it or not, to do good.

Paul is only talking about the kind of faith that leads to Salvation. The kind of righteousness that leads to that requires that we accept the new nature that comes from Christ.

But there is a genuine righteousness that does not always lead to Salvation. I've given you the example of the Rich Young Ruler. And quite honestly, as far back as Cain God told him he could do good and overcome evil. He did not have to murder his brother. He could choose to do well. The commandments of the Law were not just for "the saved," but for all Israel, well before there was even Christian salvation. The laws of God could be kept by *everybody* in Israel--no just some supposed elite group.

All those who seek to be righteous through their own obedience to the law, qualify for the designation of "filthy rags righteousness". The only other righteousness than that is the righteousness which is of God by faith.

You get that where? The only faith that leads to Salvation is faith that embraces the new nature in Christ. But there is nothing that prohibits men from being righteous apart from Salvation. They may legitimately do righteous works, and still lose their souls.

The "righteousness that is like filthy rags" is phony righteousness, such as when Israel, under the Law, tried to cover up their sins with religious rituals. It was a *false righteousness."

What Isaiah was saying is that *the righteousness of disingenuous religious men is no better than filthy rags.* It is not a genuine righteousness. Their religious observance is strictly external, and thus hypocritical.

It is not saying that all men are religious phonies, or that all men are despicable dogs. It is not saying that nobody can do any good or exhibit any virtue.

Men are born dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14); and therefore they cannot do anything; let alone anything righteous (John 15:5).

With respect to Salvation, yes. They are dead because a single choice in Adam and Eve condemned all of their offspring to death. They are dead as soon as they are born, or even before they are born. They are born mortal due to the inherent sinful nature they inherit from their parents.

This does not mean people, who are born in sin, cannot do good. They are not actually dead, but only condemned to eventual death.

Abraham was quickened by the Lord and drawn to Him and thus was enabled to believe. But you have dodged the original point; which was that people in the Old Testament were saved by grace through faith in Jesus just like in the New Testament.

No, I haven't dodged anything, although in this post I'm having to reduce its size. Some points are repetitive.

Salvation was not complete in the OT, and so nobody yet had eternal life even though they exercised the kind of faith that could adequately look forward to Christ's atonement. So, what you're saying is not that regenerate faith was necessary to do good, because men were not yet regenerated by Christ. But you're saying that the faith of the elect alone was able to do good or be saved, even though they were not yet saved.

Where does it say that they weren't saved? I would contend with you that they were in fact saved (see Matthew 5:10-12).

Nobody in the OT yet had eternal life because eternal life was given to men only after the cross. Do you then deny this? There are many Scriptures to this effect!

Cain was incapable of making any other choice than the choice that he made; for he was dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:14).

That isn't biblical.

Gen 4.6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

It should be clear that we are saved by grace through faith and that we are not saved by works.

Paul uses abbreviated words for larger concepts to save time. For example, he will mention "faith" as a code word for "faith for salvation." Rather than say "faith for salvation" every time, he will just say "faith" and use the word in a salvation context to indicate that.

You are not distinguishing between those who believe for reasons other than for Salvation. You are saying there is no righteousness that is genuine apart from *saving faith.* But Paul isn't saying that. He is only describing *saving faith,* and not discounting that faith exists outside of Salvation. Nor is he denying that genuine righteousness exists outside of Salvation.

On the contrary, Paul's heart goes out for his unsaved Jewish brethren because he does see their zeal for righteousness as real, and only insufficient with respect to the need for a new saved nature.

Rom 9.I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Does Paul here say that their righteousness was worthless? No, it was only worthless insofar as they needed a new nature for the purpose of Salvation.

Phil 3.4 If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.
7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things.

Paul was not saying that the righteousness of the unsaved flesh was without virtue, but only without any value *as far as Salvation.* It did not bring the knowledge of fellowship with Christ! And that is what Salvation is! It is more than righteousness--it is knowing Christ who is the source of a righteous nature.

Just like Jesus loved the rich young ruler for his lawfulness under the Law, Paul loved Israel for their zeal for God's Law. But it was much more important to know Christ--so much that all should be put to death to enter into a resurrected life in Christ.

There were many Jews who believed in God and obeyed His word, producing genuine righteousness. But this was not saving faith. Only those who adopt a completely new nature can be saved. Otherwise, works are mixed, good and evil, and the evil can extinguish the value of the good. It requires a new nature to qualify for salvation. And today, in the NT, it requires faith to receive the New Nature in order to be saved.