Are you saved if you are not obedient?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Are you saved if you are not obedient to Christ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • No

    Votes: 18 75.0%

  • Total voters
    24

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
I've got my bedi little eye on you lot...
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
John the baptist preached repentance and water baptism EG. It was nothing new to the Jews. I didn't know about this until I read about the sect of the Nazarenes. They did daily baptism.

And I can't think of a scripture offhand that says Paul called water baptism being born again. Paul spoke of not baptizing, that I do remember.


glitch again. Logging off and on again.
John never teached baptism to be born again, Thats what I was questioning. The jews did not baptism, a gentile had to be baptised to come into the promise (although I am not sure it was called baptism)

 

stonesoffire

Poetic Member
Nov 24, 2013
10,665
1,829
113
John never teached baptism to be born again, Thats what I was questioning. The jews did not baptism, a gentile had to be baptised to come into the promise (although I am not sure it was called baptism)

Did you not read my last post EG? Turn back the page.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
John never teached baptism to be born again, Thats what I was questioning. The jews did not baptism, a gentile had to be baptised to come into the promise (although I am not sure it was called baptism)

It was not called baptism but was done by total immersion. It was called Mikvah (Good deed). It involved renunciation of all other gods and dedication of one's self to the service of the God of Israel.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
Some would argue that the natural sense of the passage clearly parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (3:4) and with "flesh" (3:6). Simply stated, Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth (which is, of course, accompanied by amniotic "water"); the second is Spirit. I see that you completely disagree.

Now have you considered living water in John 3:5? Jesus said, "born of water and the Spirit" He did not say born of baptism and the Spirit. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. Scripture interprets itself. Notice in 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.

*Did you see that? 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.

In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism.

In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. Water baptism is the picture or symbol of the new birth, but not the means of securing it.
It is a defense such as this that proves to what absurd lengths those of the trust only regeneration groups will go to in order to protect their theology.

Mailmandan, you are a intelligent guy surely you can see the stretch in thinking that out of the blue Jesus would bring up amniotic fluid in their discussion. Do you really believe this??

A confused Nicodemus makes a clearly hyperbole response to the need for rebirth and Jesus brings up amniotic fluid?

Jesus said "born of water". Amniotic fluid is not water, I promise. The Bible never refers to childbirth as born "of water".

If you don't want the water in "water and spirit" to mean baptism, okay but to call the water amniotic fluid??

Peter clearly states "Repent and be baptized so that your sins will be forgiven" Acts 2:38a
Peter clearly states "Baptism which is like that water, now saves you" 1st Peter 3:21a
Jesus clearly states "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" Mark 16:16a

The release of amniotic fluid being called "break her water" is modern in nature. The people of that time thought of it as fetal urea.

Finally, to think that Jesus is proclaiming the need for natural childbirth thru the "breaking of a woman's water" would negate the path way to God's Kingdom for children who die in the womb or those murdered during abortion.

Your defense is absurd.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,002
13,010
113
58
It is a defense such as this that proves to what absurd lengths those of the trust only regeneration groups will go to in order to protect their theology.

Mailmandan, you are a intelligent guy surely you can see the stretch in thinking that out of the blue Jesus would bring up amniotic fluid in their discussion. Do you really believe this??
As I already said, some would argue that the natural sense of the passage clearly parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (3:4) and with "flesh" (3:6). Simply stated, Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth (which is, of course, accompanied by amniotic "water"); the second is Spirit.

So what absurd lengths did I go to? I simply harmonized scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. My view of John 3:5 is that Jesus was speaking of "living water" (John 3:5; 4:10,14; 7:37-39).

A confused Nicodemus makes a clearly hyperbole response to the need for rebirth and Jesus brings up amniotic fluid?

Jesus said "born of water". Amniotic fluid is not water, I promise. The Bible never refers to childbirth as born "of water".

If you don't want the water in "water and spirit" to mean baptism, okay but to call the water amniotic fluid??
In verse 4, Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?"

In verse 6, Jesus said, "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So the amniotic water view didn't just pop up out of thin air for those who hold to that view.

Peter clearly states "Repent and be baptized so that your sins will be forgiven" Acts 2:38a
In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*I like the way Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explained it: Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized. :)

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

My conclusion is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect harmony and Scripture must harmonize with Scripture.*

Peter clearly states "Baptism which is like that water, now saves you" 1st Peter 3:21a
In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

Jesus clearly states "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" Mark 16:16a
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one 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.

The problem with your method of hermeneutics is that you isolate a pet verse (or half of a verse) build doctrine on it, then ignore the context and try to force the rest of the Bible to "conform" to your biased interpretation of your pet verses, instead of properly harmonizing scripture with scripture. Your method is called "flawed hermeneutics."

The release of amniotic fluid being called "break her water" is modern in nature. The people of that time thought of it as fetal urea.

Finally, to think that Jesus is proclaiming the need for natural childbirth thru the "breaking of a woman's water" would negate the path way to God's Kingdom for children who die in the womb or those murdered during abortion.

Your defense is absurd.
I didn't have a defense for the amniotic fluid view, because that is not my view, but I clearly had a defense for the "living water" view in John 3:5.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Stop flaunting your high edjumacation not everyone is as learneded as thou! :D ;) :p
Hey My edjumacation was in a respectable high school, I was teached real well thank you very much :p
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
4,273
1,410
113
Difficult poll to answer well: Is a person saved if they do not obey Christ?

All Christians are prone to sin and no Christian is unable to sin -- most of us sin way too often! And that is not being "obedient to Christ."

Furthermore salvation is not based on obedience, but is "by grace through faith".

Thus I voted "yes" on the poll.

But having said that, I still firmly believe that a Christian will obey Christ, though not perfectly.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
As I already said, some would argue that the natural sense of the passage clearly parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (3:4) and with "flesh" (3:6). Simply stated, Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth (which is, of course, accompanied by amniotic "water"); the second is Spirit.

So what absurd lengths did I go to? I simply harmonized scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. My view of John 3:5 is that Jesus was speaking of "living water" (John 3:5; 4:10,14; 7:37-39).

In verse 4, Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?"

In verse 6, Jesus said, "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So the amniotic water view didn't just pop up out of thin air for those who hold to that view.

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*I like the way Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explained it: Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized. :)

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).

*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

My conclusion is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect harmony and Scripture must harmonize with Scripture.*

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one 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.

The problem with your method of hermeneutics is that you isolate a pet verse (or half of a verse) build doctrine on it, then ignore the context and try to force the rest of the Bible to "conform" to your biased interpretation of your pet verses, instead of properly harmonizing scripture with scripture. Your method is called "flawed hermeneutics."

I didn't have a defense for the amniotic fluid view, because that is not my view, but I clearly had a defense for the "living water" view in John 3:5.
As I already said, some would argue that
I asked "do you really believe this?". Not what others would argue.

My view of John 3:5 is that Jesus was speaking of "living water"
A forced assumption, Jesus said water not living water. In other words, He meant water.

In verse 4, Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?"
Clearly a hyperbole statement

In verse 6, Jesus said, "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So the amniotic water view didn't just pop up out of thin air for those who hold to that view.
Jesus is dividing the issues not attempting to prove they are both needed.

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
Luke would not write such a convoluted verse.

*I like the way Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explained it: Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized. :)
I like the way Paul explained it: "Don't you know all of us who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? When we were baptized into His death, we were placed in the tomb with Him. As Christ was brought back from death to life by the glorious power of the Father, so we too should live a new kind of life. If we become united in Him by His death, certainly we will be united with Him when we come back to life as He did." Romans 6:3-5

Water baptism is not a cause of salvation
I have seen this deflection before. Baptism is not the cause of salvation, it is the point in time for the forgiveness of sins.

ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
Come on. Are you this committed to fighting the obvious.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he whodoes not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."
Mark also would not write so convoluted.

*Perfect harmony and Scripture must harmonize with Scripture.
Sounds more like attempting to harmonize scripture to Daniel Wallace.

You offer verses that are so general in nature that even you admit that they must be "properly understood" to support your theology. And I use "flawed hermeneutics"??

General statements tie definitive statements together, they never negate them. English composition 101.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,002
13,010
113
58
I asked "do you really believe this?". Not what others would argue.
I answered what others would argue and what I believe.

A forced assumption, Jesus said water not living water. In other words, He meant water.
Water baptism is a forced assumption. Jesus simply said "water" not water baptism. Once again (and please pay close attention) - in John 3:5, Jesus said, "born of water and the Spirit" He did not say born of baptism and the Spirit. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. Scripture interprets scripture.

*Notice in 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. *Did you see that? 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.

In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water (not water baptism) that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. God is the source of living water/springs or wells of salvation (Jeremiah 2:13; 17:13; Isaiah 12:3).

*Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. Water baptism is the picture or symbol of the new birth, but not the means of securing it.

Luke would not write such a convoluted verse.
There is nothing convoluted here and Acts 2:38 is in harmony with Acts 3:19, which does not even mention baptism. There is also nothing convoluted about reaching the proper conclusion that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18) after properly harmonizing scripture with scripture.

I like the way Paul explained it: "Don't you know all of us who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? When we were baptized into His death, we were placed in the tomb with Him. As Christ was brought back from death to life by the glorious power of the Father, so we too should live a new kind of life. If we become united in Him by His death, certainly we will be united with Him when we come back to life as He did." Romans 6:3-5
And of course, you erroneously interpret this to mean that water baptism is the cause rather than the picture. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that FAITH, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16, 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1, 2). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures.

As Greek scholar AT Robertson explains - Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See on "Galatians 3:27" where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. Into his death (ei ton qanaton autou). So here "unto his death," "in relation to his death," which relation Paul proceeds to explain by the symbolism of the ordinance. The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin, forward to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave. There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.

I have seen this deflection before. Baptism is not the cause of salvation, it is the point in time for the forgiveness of sins.
It's actually neither. The forgiveness of sins is SIGNIFIED, yet not procured in water baptism. Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18 blows your point in time argument right out of the water.

Come on. Are you this committed to fighting the obvious.
You should ask yourself that question. :rolleyes:

Mark also would not write so convoluted.
There is nothing convoluted about Mark 16:16 (the entire verse). *Notice how you simply quoted the first "half" of the verse (Mark 16:16a) in order to accommodate your biased doctrine. Again, the problem with your method of hermeneutics is that you isolate a pet verse (or half of a verse) build doctrine on it, then ignore the context and try to force the rest of the Bible to "conform" to your biased interpretation of your pet verses, instead of properly harmonizing scripture with scripture. As I showed you, your biased interpretation of Mark 16:16a is not in harmony with John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. Sadly, you are unable to see anything beyond your church of Christ indoctrination. :(

Sounds more like attempting to harmonize scripture to Daniel Wallace.
I properly harmonized scripture with scripture and Greek scholar Daniel Wallace clearly understands that water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized. Amen! :)

Greek scholar AT Robertson also clearly understands:

"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." Amen! :)

You offer verses that are so general in nature that even you admit that they must be "properly understood" to support your theology. And I use "flawed hermeneutics"??
At least I properly harmonize scripture with scripture and yes, you use "flawed hermeneutics" by isolating a pet verse (or half of a verse) and building doctrine on it, then ignoring the context and trying to force the rest of the Bible to "conform" to your biased interpretation of your pet verse (or half a verse), instead of properly harmonizing scripture with scripture.

General statements tie definitive statements together, they never negate them. English composition 101.
Here is your problem. You read the Bible like it's simply a text book instead of God's inspired Word that is to be studied and understood only through English composition class. *See 1 Corinthians 2:11-14.
 

DJ2

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2017
1,660
57
48
General statements tie definitive statements together, they never negate them. English composition 101.


Here is your problem. You read the Bible like it's simply a text book instead of God's inspired Word that is to be studied and understood only through English composition class. *See 1 Corinthians 2:11-14.
You are quite correct. I most certainly do study/read the Scriptures as a text book.

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character then those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined and examined the scriptures everyday to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

"Every scripture is inspired by God and is useful, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work." 2nd Timothy 3:16-17

Both my emotions and intellect are held in check by sola scriptura, if it is wrong I am wrong. Both the human heart and mind are wicked but the Word of God is true. Unlike you I do not base my faith on my feelings. I do not base my faith on what "I think God is putting in my heart". These are a formula for chaos. This is ultimately what leads to all false doctrines.

I am like most, my heart desired a personal and experiential message from God. My mind wants to understand things in a way that conforms to my sensibilities. Neither one of these is promised or even possible to a lost mankind. I may not like what the Bible said but I will accept its terms. Trust only theology sounds appealing but is not scriptural.

My words may be hard for you to accept, you seem to be like many, a mind full of esoteric knowledge and a heart harden to anything other then believe only theology. The flow and form of the Bible is rather simple, God commands, man obeys and is rewarded. You see the Bible as God commands, man believes the command and will naturally obey. Nothing can be further from the truth. God puts the reward at the point of obedience to the command not the belief of the command.

Cain and Abel both walked and talked with God. Both believed and understood the will of God. Both knew what was needed to be done to please God. There was no issue of belief, the issue was obedience.

"If you do well will you not be accepted? But if you don't do well, sin is lying outside your door ready to attack. It wants to control you but you must master it." Genesis 4:7

Cain believed but wanted to be accepted on his terms.

Trust only regeneration is not the terms of salvation. It is the obedience to the commands of God that brings salvation. We may debate what is needed to obey but not the need itself.




 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,002
13,010
113
58
You are quite correct. I most certainly do study/read the Scriptures as a text book.

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character then those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined and examined the scriptures everyday to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
Yet there is more involved in coming to saving faith in Christ (John 6:44,65) and understanding the things of the Spirit of God/God's Word (John 14:26; 1 John 2:11-14; 1 John 2:27) than simply paper, ink and human intelligence, as I already explained to you in post #869 below:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...ce-alone-grace-plus-works-44.html#post3376556

"Every scripture is inspired by God and is useful, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work." 2nd Timothy 3:16-17
Amen! Yet in 1 Corinthians 2:11, we read - For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Both my emotions and intellect are held in check by sola scriptura, if it is wrong I am wrong. Both the human heart and mind are wicked but the Word of God is true. Unlike you I do not base my faith on my feelings. I do not base my faith on what "I think God is putting in my heart". These are a formula for chaos. This is ultimately what leads to all false doctrines.
Straw man argument. I don't base my faith on feelings or what I simply "think" God is putting in my heart, but on facts. You are wrong. The natural man setting out to interpret the Bible solely through human intelligence and faulty human logic is a formula for chaos and ultimately leads to all false doctrines.

I am like most, my heart desired a personal and experiential message from God. My mind wants to understand things in a way that conforms to my sensibilities. Neither one of these is promised or even possible to a lost mankind. I may not like what the Bible said but I will accept its terms. Trust only theology sounds appealing but is not scriptural.
Christianity is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (John 17:3) and not legalistic, religious bondage to false religion. Works salvation theology may sound appealing to the self righteous who want their ears tickled and their pride fed, but it's not scriptural.

My words may be hard for you to accept, you seem to be like many, a mind full of esoteric knowledge and a heart harden to anything other then believe only theology.
That salvation is by grace through faith and is not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9) is not hard to understand. It's just hard for you to ACCEPT. It's a shame that human pride will not allow you to let go of trusting in your works and receiving Christ through faith. We are to believe only in Christ for salvation and not in Christ "plus something else," namely, works.

The flow and form of the Bible is rather simple, God commands, man obeys and is rewarded.
Salvation/eternal life is a gift received through faith (Ephesians 2:8; Romans 6:23) and is not a reward based on works.

You see the Bible as God commands, man believes the command and will naturally obey. Nothing can be further from the truth. God puts the reward at the point of obedience to the command not the belief of the command.
The Bible is clear that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16) yet you say NO, and that there are still multiple acts of obedience that must be accomplished before man is saved. Christ just is NOT ENOUGH for you. You also continue to confuse receiving eternal life at the point when man believes (John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 1 Corinthians 1:21 etc..) with receiving rewards based on acts of obedience which follow (1 Corinthians 3:11-15). All I can say about your theology is, "what a mess!"

Cain and Abel both walked and talked with God. Both believed and understood the will of God. Both knew what was needed to be done to please God. There was no issue of belief, the issue was obedience.

"If you do well will you not be accepted? But if you don't do well, sin is lying outside your door ready to attack. It wants to control you but you must master it." Genesis 4:7

Cain believed but wanted to be accepted on his terms.
Here you go again thinking that ALL belief is the same "except for the lack of works" and still cannot grasp a DEEPER faith which trusts in Christ alone for salvation. This explains your misunderstanding about Cain and Abel and also explains why you have so much faith in "water and works."

*Abel's faith was evidenced in obedience to God's requirement for sacrifice by which he obtained witness that he was righteous (Hebrews 11:4). His offering substantiated his faith (James 2:18). Cain, who was of the evil one, demonstrated an evil heart by evil deeds, while Abel demonstrated a righteous heart by his righteous deeds (1 John 3:12); and that Abel offered his sacrifice by faith and Cain did not. Cain's sacrifice was evidence of his lack of faith. *Abel's offering proved something about his faith that was not demonstrated by Cain's offering.

Trust only regeneration is not the terms of salvation. It is the obedience to the commands of God that brings salvation. We may debate what is needed to obey but not the need itself.
Obedience to the commands of God on our terms and not His, for the wrong purpose and with the wrong motivation, does not bring salvation. Many will find this out the hard way on the day of judgment (Matthew 7:22-23).

Trust only in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation is the term that brings salvation (John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..). Obedience to the command to believe the gospel brings salvation (Romans 1:16; 10:16). You remind me of the Jews in John 6:28 who were thinking in terms of salvation by works - Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. When will you believe?