Search results

@studier Which came first — the chicken or the egg? Faith = obedience? Or obedience = faith, which then supposedly shows itself in baptism? At this point, it’s just theological word gymnastics. Paul didn’t write “to him that obeyeth,” he wrote “to him that believeth.” (Romans 4:5 KJV) Faith...

Grace doesn’t come at baptism — it comes through faith in Christ. Peter’s listeners in Acts 2 had already believed (v. 37), and baptism was the outward confession of that faith. Scripture never puts grace inside the water — it puts it in the finished work of Christ (Eph. 2:8–9; Rom. 5:1 KJV)...

ChristRoseFromTheDead is using a “silent inclusion” argument — a common Oneness or baptismal-regeneration move. An argument from silence is one of the weakest forms of argumentation, especially in theology. Paul didn’t “forget” to mention baptism — he deliberately excluded works from the means...

Here we go again — you keep trying to reintroduce faith = obedience! Since you clearly refuse to listen or acknowledge what’s already been shown from Scripture, I’ll speak to the forum directly. What is Studier up to? He’s trying to blur the clear line between faith and obedience. By...

I never said there are three Gods — that’s a misrepresentation. Scripture reveals one divine Being who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — Father, Word, and Spirit — co-equal and co-eternal in essence. That’s exactly what 1 John 5:7 (KJV) affirms: “For there are three that bear record...

The issue isn’t whether faith obeys — genuine faith always does. The question is how Scripture defines that relationship. In 1 John 3:23 (KJV), John isn’t redefining faith as obedience; he’s describing obedience to the command to believe. That’s categorical, not equivalential — faith fulfills...

I appreciate the detailed response, but this isn’t about forcing a theology — it’s about following Paul’s consistent usage. The genitive debate (whether Source, Production, or Apposition) doesn’t change Paul’s own pattern: Romans 10:16–17 (KJV) — “They have not all obeyed the gospel... So then...

That’s fair — Wallace doesn’t explicitly “endorse” any one category for Romans 1:5 KJV. But he does describe the Genitive of Production as “similar to a Genitive of Source,” which captures the same underlying relationship of origin or dependence. My statement simply reflects that nuance — not...

Fair point — and I agree Wallace doesn’t explicitly “endorse” a specific genitive label for Romans 1:5 KJV. My point wasn’t that he assigns it dogmatically, but that his explanation of the Genitive of Production (which he says is similar to a Genitive of Source) fits Paul’s usage pattern. The...

The distinction matters because Scripture does. Romans 4:5 (KJV) — “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Faith obeys the command to believe — it doesn’t earn salvation. That’s why Paul separates “worketh not”...

Exactly — they marched because God told them to, which proves the very point I made: their obedience flowed from faith in God’s word, not as a means to become His people. Hebrews 11:30 (KJV) — “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.” The act followed...

That’s the point — Naaman’s obedience didn’t cause the healing, it connected him to what God had already promised to do. The power wasn’t in the water or the act; it was in God’s word, received by faith. Hebrews 11:30 (KJV) — “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed...

You just restated my point — God’s power saves when one believes. That’s exactly what I said. Naaman’s obedience didn’t create God’s power; it simply demonstrated his faith in what God had already promised. The same pattern holds in salvation: Ephesians 1:7 (KJV) — “In whom we have redemption...

The Bible never separates justification and regeneration into two different saving phases. Both occur the moment a sinner believes. Titus 3:5 (KJV) — “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...

The Jericho example was being used to illustrate faith expressed through obedience, not covenant entry. The Israelites didn’t become God’s people by marching — they marched because they already belonged to Him. Hebrews 11:30 (KJV) says, “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were...

The comparison to Jericho doesn’t hold, because the Hebrews were already God’s covenant people before they obeyed. Their obedience was an expression of faith, not the means of entering the covenant. The same principle applies to salvation — faith precedes the act. Scripture is consistent...

That syllogism works only if you keep the sequence clear — faith is obedience to the command to believe, not obedience that earns salvation. Scripture distinguishes the act of believing (obedience to the gospel call) from the fruits of obedience that follow salvation. Romans 1:5 KJV — “for...

If salvation were a “cooperative cause,” grace would no longer be grace. Scripture makes it clear that God alone is the efficient cause of salvation, and faith is the means by which we receive it—not a co-agent in producing it. Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV) — “For by grace are ye saved through faith...

The Attributive Genitive view you’re describing (“faithful obedience”) may sound plausible grammatically, but it doesn’t fit Paul’s theological flow in Romans. The genitive πίστεως in εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως (Rom 1:5 KJV; 16:26 KJV) expresses relationship and origin, not equivalence. In Paul’s...

You’re correct that Wallace doesn’t “endorse” a specific label for Romans 1:5 KJV—he simply suggests it perhaps reflects a Genitive of Production, which he also notes is similar to a Genitive of Source. That similarity is precisely the point I’m making: both emphasize origin or relationship, not...