J
Johann
Guest
Already explained-no need for repetition.Try again===wha are you saying??
Shalom
J.
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Already explained-no need for repetition.Try again===wha are you saying??
I understand "to be more zealous to confirm your call and election" as a warning against what I've heard termed "easy believism", the idea that because you went up front in a revival and professed faith in Christ years ago, but now live like the the world, that you are a true child of God. Eph. 2:10 where we were created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God ordained for us, shows we must have evidence of being a child of God, born from above. We should see the fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5:22,23 in our life and the graces, and if they are lacking, we need to do some serious soul searching in comparison to scripture. As in James 2:24, am I justified in thinking I'm truly a child of God.Great Scripture reference-how do you understand "to be more zealous to confirm your call and election?"
I remain mindful of the serious error of going beyond what the scriptures clearly state, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.
Spurgeon said-"Study many good books-as long as the remain the secondary source and not a substitute for the primary source-the Scriptures"-something like that.
You have quoted from A.T. Robertson-so what is he saying re calling and election?
And I will show you what a precious Baptist minister is writing on "calling and election"-so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2Pet 1:3-11, RSV)
God bless
Johann
That group was the church. Someone may ask, "Isn't Scriptural authority enough." This reasoning would go like this: the Bible commands us to be baptized,
In absolute agreement here-what I've heard termed "easy believism", the idea that because you went up front in a revival and professed faith in Christ years ago, but now live like the the world,
So what then would hinder one from being baptized . IF they DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST .Acts 8:26-39 the facts
- The eunuch was preached Christ
- The eunuch asked about baptism in water because they were near water and what would hinder him from being baptized, so obviously, Philip also told him about baptism and its necessity to be saved
- Philip told him if believed he could be baptized
- the eunuch confessed his belief in Christ
- Philip baptized the eunuch
Yet I agree with your Scripture quotation.
J.
Spotted brother-and in full agreement with you.So what then would hinder one from being baptized . IF they DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST .
Cause without FAITH IN CHRIST , ALL IS VAIN . And that be a fact . a fact i know MY FRIEND already KNOWS WELL .
Point to CHRIST JESUS till the last breath ebbs out our lungs . YES indeed my friend .Spotted brother-and in full agreement with you.
Johann.
I'm not a cult and I quoted you James, which you just laughed off as "typical of my kind."WE are not saved by "choosing Christ" so, your cult commentary is wrong again , Randy.
That is not antithetical to Christians living righteous lives. Unless they do, they are not Saved. I have *never* said that Christians must do good to get Saved. I have said that they must choose Christ to get Saved because Christ is the exclusive source of Salvation. If you don't choose Christ, you don't choose Salvation. And if you choose Christ as Savior, then you are also choosing to repent of your own ways and live by his righteousness. The Apostle John makes it very, very clear:We are saved by God, because we gave our Faith in Christ to God, and the BELIEVERS faith is "counted as righteousness".
See 1 John above. What that says is diametrically opposed to your notion, which is a form of Antinomianism. To choose Christ is by default to choose his righteousness. Salvation is choosing him and his righteousness, and the proper way of repenting of our own sin and independence from God.So, Christianity has nothing to do with being "lawful".
Clearly, you are misapplying this in our conversation. Christ is the end of the Law of Moses, which was a system that operated *before* Christ died for our sins. That system has now been displaced by Christ, who always was the end goal of the Law. The purpose of the Law was to operate in faith until the object of our faith, Christ, had come."Christ is the end of the Law, for everyone who believes"
Right. To deny the necessity of Water Baptism in our Salvation can be understood in two ways. 1st, those who argue for the necessity of Water Baptism in our Salvation argue that it is the typical way of expressing public confidence we're exercising in Christ as our Savior and righteousness.Those who believe that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation can't think past a handful of pet verses taken out of context and are unable to see anything beyond their biased church doctrine. If water baptism was absolutely required for salvation, then Jesus would have mentioned it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). Yet what is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
if you choose Christ as Savior, then you are also choosing to repent of your own ways and live by his righteousness.
I'm not a cult and I quoted you James, which you just laughed off as "typical of my kind."
Such "hair-splitting" may be confusing for us. How can you say, "It's not that we agree to have it?," without creating tremendous confusion over words? I know what you mean, but this kind of language is not normal and screams out your "theological concerns" about Justification.Every person who is born again, is become "the righteousness of God, in Christ" as that is HOW we are become "a new creation, in Christ".
This is Salvation, and its not that we agree to have it....Its that we trust in Christ, repenting of our unbelief and God gives us "the Gift of Righteousness".
Such "hair-splitting" may be confusing for us. How can you say, "It's not that we agree to have it?," without creating tremendous confusion over
We both agree that we choose to accept Christ's offer of Salvation and become Born Again, I should hope? And after we are Saved we choose daily to walk in the Salvation we have already been given, which is the New Nature Christ has bestowed on us. Why not leave it at that?
I disagree. I think you're indulging in some serious "hair-splitting!" You're battling a semantical ghost, in my opinion, assuming that "agreement" doesn't mean "believing," which is a choice, or an agreement. To believe in something is to agree that it is true and to accept the conditions involved. It is, in Christianity, a covenant agreement. If you think the New Covenant is not a "covenant" you're engaging in word confusion.Who taught you that you are to agree with the Gospel, is the same as believing and receiving it by faith?
That is not the same thing, Randy.
The reason why I state that there is an "agreement" with Salvation is because of the issues you raised about Justification and Righteousness. When we embrace Christ we are agreeing with who he actually is--not some kind of artificial construct of who he is. For some he is a kindly grandfather in the sky who serves us like Santa Claus.God does not save those who agree that its true..., as that is a head knowledge of the Historical fact that Jesus died on the Cross.
Unbelievers, who live in the "bible belt' southern USA, all know more about that than most, but that is KNOWING.
That's not faith in Christ.
God saves those who's "faith comes by hearing", and the hearing is to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and BELIEVE IT.
The other thing that is confused is your noticable non use of Paul's NT vocabulary when you discuss anything related to redemption through Christ.
Did you ever read this before ?
Romans 3:21-28
Im still waiting for the next time you tell us that its only if we agree to the Christian life principles first.. that God will save us.
Why not just say.....that If you give God your faith in Christ, He gives you the gift of Salvation.
No strings attached.
I disagree. I think you're indulging in some serious "hair-splitting!" You're battling a semantical ghost, in my opinion, assuming that "agreement" doesn't mean "believing,"
When we embrace Christ we are agreeing with who he actually is-
When we accept him we get his Righteousness.
Boy sir you went to a lot of effort to discredit a simple command from God and distort his word to try to make it fit your teaching but no matter how hard you try to reword what God has said his word will stand and yours will be judged by his not the other way around. If you but read Romans 6 Paul and Apostle Of Christ the spokesman from Christ has explained just how that the Baptism in the name of Christ does in fact remit sin and gives the new life just as Peter said who also was a spokesman of Christ and each teach the same thing on the subject of baptism.22:16 "be baptized and wash away your sins"
These are both AORIST MIDDLE IMPERATIVES. This is an OT allusion to the ceremonial ablutions (cf. Lev. 11:25,28,40; 13:6,34,56; 14:8-9; 15:5-13,21-22,27; 16:26,28; 17:15-16; Num. 8:7,21; 19:19; Deut. 23:11). It is used here as a symbol of our spiritual cleansing in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb. 10:22). Baptism was the early Church's public profession of faith.
Notice that the MIDDLE VOICE refers to both baptism (AORIST MIDDLE IMPERATIVE) and cleansing (AORIST MIDDLE IMPERATIVE). Paul could not wash away his sins, but he could baptize himself (Jewish practice for proselytes).
Often it is said that immersion is the only NT pattern (cf. Romans 6 and Colossians 2), but here baptism is linked to the metaphor of washing (cf. Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb. 10:22).
Theologically 1 Pet. 3:21 shows that it is a symbol, not a sacrament!
Modern interpreters must be careful of basing too much on the MIDDLE or PASSIVE VOICE because these were merging into the PASSIVE form in Koine Greek.
Paul is said to have been baptized (PASSIVE) in Acts 9:18. The mode of Paul's baptism is not the issue, but his baptism itself is!
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthētō hekastos hūmōn). Rather, “And let each one of you be baptized.” Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mat_28:19 (eis to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eis to onoma and en tōi onomati with baptizō since eis and en are really the same word in origin. In Act_10:48 en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou occurs, but eis to onoma in Act_8:16; Act_19:5. The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis onoma prophētou (Mat_10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Mat_28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See note on Mat_28:19 for discussion of this point. “Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord” (Page).
Unto the remission of your sins (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hūmōn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology.
In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1Co_2:7 eis doxan hēmōn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mat_10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophētou, dikaiou, mathētou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mat_12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kērugma Iōna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koiné[28928]š generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.
A.T. Robertson
Jam packed with information.
J.
This post flew right over your head-I can tell.Boy sir you went to a lot of effort to discredit a simple command from God and distort his word to try to make it fit your teaching but no matter how hard you try to reword what God has said his word will stand and yours will be judged by his not the other way around. If you but read Romans 6 Paul and Apostle Of Christ the spokesman from Christ has explained just how that the Baptism in the name of Christ does in fact remit sin and gives the new life just as Peter said who also was a spokesman of Christ and each teach the same thing on the subject of baptism.
Now please do yourself a favor and take what you said and compare it with what God through his spokesmen had to say on the matter. You must teach the oracles of God because your judgement will be far worse if you are judged by God to be teaching falsehood in his name.
enlighten me pleaseThis post flew right over your head-I can tell.
You are talking about Grace, without the means to have Peace with it?Yes, without water.
Like this..
"Abraham BELIEVED GOD, and it "IT", (his Faith)., was credited to Him as Righteousness".
See that?
[...]
God is the SAVIOR... He saves us THROUGH our Faith......
See, many are trusting in Faith......as if Faith hung on the Cross.