Justification by the faith OF Jesus Christ

[JIM]

In a nutshell:

Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

In a nutshell:

Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Okay, so we have established that you had a part to play in your own salvation. Paul says that is works and not grace. Have you read Paul yet? I recommend it.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

In a nutshell:

Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Please notice that belief precedes baptism. For the people that don't believe are not baptised either.

So we know that water baptism comes after regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

We also take the whole Bible into context, not just cherry pick it. So we know from the rest of the New Testament that belief is a gift of God and not of works. It is called "Saving faith" as opposed to just belief. Anybody can believe, even demons (says James) but belief is not saving faith unless God moves in a person and regenerates them.

So your go to verse says the opposite of your belief, when it is rightly understood.

Again, what part did you have to play in your own salvation? Was it 0.01%? Can you give a percentage please? How can God save you because you believed and you take part of the gift?

 

[JIM]

Okay, so we have established that you had a part to play in your own salvation

No. You may think that, but it is simply not true. What I had part in was hearing about Christ, believing what I heard, and responding appropriately to that. It was God, and only God, who had any part in my salvation.

. Paul says that is works and not grace. Have you read Paul yet? I recommend it.

I don't know how old you are or how long you have believed, but it is quite possible that I read Paul and understood him before you could even read.

 

[JIM]

Please notice that belief precedes baptism. For the people that don't believe are not baptised either.

So we know that water baptism comes after regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

You think you know that. What you think you know is wrong. Born of water and Spirit is regeneration. That action is perfectly well described in Acts 2:38.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

No. You may think that, but it is simply not true. What I had part in was hearing about Christ, believing what I heard, and responding appropriately to that. It was God, and only God, who had any part in my salvation.

I don't know how old you are or how long you have believed, but it is quite possible that I read Paul and understood him before you could even read.

If you don't know how old I am it is not possible for you to know you read Paul before you knew when I could read. I don't want to attack your argument there, but you just basically performed an ad hominem. That is where you attack the person instead of the argument being made. So I will respond to that by saying, you are coming across like a total jerk.

You had nothing to do with your own salvation except you believed and then you were saved. The trouble here is that you don't seem to realise that that is an oxymoron. I would try to help you see the contradiction but it appears you are impervious to it.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

You think you know that. What you think you know is wrong. Born of water and Spirit is regeneration. That action is perfectly well described in Acts 2:38.

Believe and be baptised, it says. So which one comes first, genius? This is the alphabet level of comprehension. We learn how to read and write (hopefully) when we are at least 6 years old.

 

[Arial]

And, of course, since the premise is totally false, no logically correct conclusion can result.

So you are saying you DO think your theology teaches that man is responsible for his own salvation? It is best to think about what you are saying rather than just parrot other people's use of words such as logic, conclusion etc., thinking that solves a problem. It is just more of the same. No premise, no logic, no support, just empty accusations. You would need to show what was missing in their posts, what the illogic was and what is logical, why a conclusion is wrong, and what is the correct conclusion. As I did and as others are doing. If you get nothing else from this thread you at least have the opportunity to learn how to properly present and defend your position. It really is a wonderful thing to learn. If everyone did so, we could have discussions instead of empty arguments.

 

[JIM]

Believe and be baptised, it says. So which one comes first, genius? This is the alphabet level of comprehension. We learn how to read and write (hopefully) when we are at least 6 years old.

The question is, which comes first, believe and be baptized or regeneration. I know what your answer is and I think it is wrong.

 

[JIM]

So you are saying you DO think your theology teaches that man is responsible for his own salvation? It is best to think about what you are saying rather than just parrot other people's use of words such as logic, conclusion etc., thinking that solves a problem. It is just more of the same. No premise, no logic, no support, just empty accusations. You would need to show what was missing in their posts, what the illogic was and what is logical, why a conclusion is wrong, and what is the correct conclusion. As I did and as others are doing. If you get nothing else from this thread you at least have the opportunity to learn how to properly present and defend your position. It really is a wonderful thing to learn. If everyone did so, we could have discussions instead of empty arguments.

So many words and so little knowledge.

 

[Arial]

So many words and so little knowledge.

Either stop with the personal remarks and get back on topic or get reported. Admin warning.

 

[JIM]

Either stop with the personal remarks and get back on topic or get reported. Admin warning.

How are my remarks personal and your remarks telling untruths about what I believe or accusing me of just parroting other people's uses of words not personal?

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

The question is, which comes first, believe and be baptized or regeneration. I know what your answer is and I think it is wrong.

It does not matter what you think you know my answer is and that you think it is wrong. What matters is whether belief precedes baptism. If you are mixing them up instead of understanding that they are chronological based on the Bible being held as contextual in its entirety and not just misunderstandings based upon cherry picking verses out of context to support a belief system, for example here - not realising that the Gospel of Mark does not disagree with Acts and Pauls epistles about grace VS works - then you are doing eisegesis and not exegesis. In other words, to answer your question (even though you didn't use a question mark - very important in English to communicate properly) belief comes BEFORE baptism and belief or FAITH at the moment you are born again is REGENERATION.

Another question - how much Calvinist literature have you read and what literature have you read? Have you read the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin? I read books to educate myself. I hope you do the same, despite your old age.

 

[Arial]

How are my remarks personal and your remarks telling untruths about what I believe or accusing me of just parroting other people's uses of words not personal?

This is still off topic and argumentative. I am not a punching bag.

 

[brightfame52]

That is not what it says; neither can it be argued that is what it means.

Thats what it says to me, and I see no argument.

 

[brightfame52]

In a nutshell:

Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

When a person doesnt believe its because they werent of Christs Sheep, which means Christ didnt die for him or her Jn 10:26

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Again He died for His Sheep Jn 10:11,15

Now since He didn't die for the non sheep, they are under law condemnation, and so they aren't given the Gift of Faith to believe in Jesus as their Saviour. So persistent unbelief is a symptom/evidence of being under Gods wrath and condemnation, they will never believe.

 

[brightfame52]

You think you know that. What you think you know is wrong. Born of water and Spirit is regeneration. That action is perfectly well described in Acts 2:38.

Those folk in Acts 2:38 had already been regenerated, thats why they had a spiritual interest, they had been given repentance. It says they were pricked in their heart, thats the work of the Spirit in them Acts 2:36-37

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

The Spirit had already been poured out Acts 2:33

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Thats the Spirit of regeneration Titus 3:5-6

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

The word shed here is the same word shed forth in Acts 2:33

And the word pour in Acts 2:17-18

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

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

So the ones in Acts 2:38 were under the power and control of the Spirit.

 

[JIM]

It does not matter what you think you know my answer is and that you think it is wrong. What matters is whether belief precedes baptism. If you are mixing them up instead of understanding that they are chronological based on the Bible being held as contextual in its entirety and not just misunderstandings based upon cherry picking verses out of context to support a belief system, for example here - not realising that the Gospel of Mark does not disagree with Acts and Pauls epistles about grace VS works - then you are doing eisegesis and not exegesis. In other words, to answer your question (even though you didn't use a question mark - very important in English to communicate properly) belief comes BEFORE baptism and belief or FAITH at the moment you are born again is REGENERATION.

Another question - how much Calvinist literature have you read and what literature have you read? Have you read the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin? I read books to educate myself. I hope you do the same, despite your old age.

 

[Ladodgers6]

The question should be not what but who. It is God that saves the sinner. I really don't know why that is a concept so hard for you to grasp.

It is not hard for me to grasp because as I said, I used hold the same position you do, decades ago. How does God save sinners in your view? Can you define it step by step? The Reformed Faith we have Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation). What's yours, if you have any.

 

[Ladodgers6]

You demonstrated the accuracy of my statement when your responded with this:



My post since you isolated one sentence from it context and made an unfounded accusation against it by using my words addressing your post, that cannot be accurately applied to my post as I will demonstrate. That does not work as a defense of your position either.

Facts and Information, argument against something in particular, refutation of what free will presents.
Are careful not to think that.
What is said as a defense.
Argument that is presented by free will.
Argument against it by presenting the natural conclusion of the free will view as to the cross.
Conclusion of what free will is doing when it declares that God would never violate our free will.

Biblical evidence: None given as none was needed. The premise of the post was that free will proponents refuse to think that their theology means that they are responsible for their own salvation.

He doesn't understand the topics, that's why he has no substance, evidence. He doesn't even know that he holds to a Semi-Pelagiani view that was condemned by more churches throughout history.