Posted on 01/21/2005 6:34:28 AM PST by P-Marlowe
***I've become convinced that the only way to reach our enslaved brothers and sisters is by employing the same methodology as God Himself condescended to teach His people, that is through stories.***
Speaking thereof, you may be interest in my last post to fortheDeclaration. He is embroiled in a gigantic self-contradiction with his analogy. I'm in the process of straigntening him out. For my efforts, I fully expect him or some other Arminian to do what they have been doing on this thread.
Christian.
Exactly, salvation is achieved the same way for everyone under the New Covenant. I totally agree. Therefore, since the Jews on Pentecost were told to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins, then to say there is another way to be saved, is against the Scriptures. Cornelius was baptized, just like every other instance of salvation in the book of Acts. Baptism is the one common theme in all 10 conversion stories in Acts.
You are trying to make it sound like I am saying that people are saved differently, which I never have, and actually, I have always said the opposite. Salvation is always through hearing the Word of God, believing in Him, repenting of sins, confessing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and being baptized for the remission of sins.
You still have not offered proof that the Bible teaches that we are saved without the remission of sins.
Excellent post Pilgrim .
Thanks
I will be the first to admit there are probably other instances of Holy Spirit "baptism" in the New Testament. However, this is not where salvation takes place.
No it's not. In fact, in many cases (e.g. Philip's evangelism, my own personal experience), it took place some time after the person had come to the Lord. My only point is that we have to be careful in limiting God in how He chooses to display His power and Spirit.
I agree that we should not try to limit God. I do have a question about your statement, though, that "it (salvation) took place some time after the person had come to the Lord". Would you agree that a person is not saved until his/her sins have been forgiven?
Sorry, bad use of a pronoun. By "it" I was referring to the Holy Spirit coming to the person in power (i.e. demonstrating His gifts), not salvation. To return to the example of Philip, those who believed from his testimony were saved then (if any died before the Apostles came, they're in heaven now), but they did not receive their gifts of the Spirit until the Apostles laid hands on them.
I agree that those who believed what Philip was preaching were saved. In Acts 8,you find this verse:
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
As you can see, they were baptized. Baptism is for the remission of sins(Acts 2:38), and since it has yet to be proven that remission (or forgiveness) of sins is not necessary to be saved, I feel this only supports what I have been saying all along.
Do you agree, or not, that forgiveness of sins is required for salvation?
Again, I'm not preaching against baptism, and if someone claimed to be saved by faith but refused to be immersed I'd have my doubts. But one shouldn't put the cart either in front of or beside the horse. The Bible is clear that faith results in salvation which results in baptism, not that faith plus baptism results in salvation.
Again, look to the thief on the cross, who did nothing save to put his trust in Jesus hanging next to him. To try to parse that down according to "which" covenant was in effect is to miss the point--in all covenants, righteousness is only obtained by trusting in God (Gen. 15, Rom. 4).
I have only one response to this, and it is something I have repeated on here several times, and I will make this the last one.
The Bible, which is the Word of God, is trustworthy. The Bible states that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). In the Greek, this is the same exact structure as is used in Matthew 26:28, where Christ says that His blood is shed for the remission of sins. I don't think you, or anyone, would ever dare say that Christ did not shed His blood for the remission of sins. And yet, you claim that baptism is not for the the remission of sins, even though the exact same language is used in both cases. That, my friend, is a grave misuse of Scripture.
No. I claim that the Bible, the reliable Word of God, also says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (Jn. 3:16). It also says,
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has a boast; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." But to him working, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. But to him not working, but believing on Him justifying the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom. 4:2-5)And again, "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).
The reconciling point between us is, I believe, James 2, which explains that saying that we trust God without a willingness to do His will (i.e. good works) is useless. It'd be like Abraham saying he trusted the Lord but refusing to leave Haran. Or to use a modern example, for me to say I trust you to catch me in one of those team-building exercises where you fall backwards and rely on another person to catch you, only I refuse to fall back--clearly, a trust that isn't willing to act isn't really trust.
In like fashion, a person claiming to trust Christ for his salvation and remission of sins but who refuses baptism for some reason isn't extending his trust into a public action--so exactly how much trust is he showing? However, a person who puts their faith in Jesus but who dies in route to his or her baptism (and I know of at least one case where this has happened, and there are certainly others) isn't going to die in their sins and go to hell.
If you think otherwise, you've replaced a salvation dependent on receiving God's gift in trust with one that is works-based, requiring a sacrament. And that, my friend, is truly teaching another gospel than what Paul and the Apostles taught, as the above quotes show.
No, you either do not understand the definition of "partiality" or Calvinism. Partiality means "a predisposition to like something". God in His holiness is not predisposed to like any of us. He does not select us based upon whether we have blue eyes or freckles. God rich in His mercy and love saves us by His divine grace according to His own counsel to carry out His will. That is not partiality.
I hate analogies but let me give an example anyway. If I needed tires for the car and said I’ll only buy Goodyear because they make a great tire I would be partial to Goodyear tires. Other dealers could rightfully accuse me of being partial to Goodyear tires and I certainly couldn’t argue with them. On the other hand if I said I needed four tires to get the car running and just happen to drive pass a Goodyear Tire store and purchase tires, then the other tire dealers can’t complain I was “unfair” to them.
"Secondly, I do believe that the gifts of the Spirit are still operative today. Ergo, there's a measure of "partiality" involved there--that is, He equips us for the unique ministries "
“For there is no partiality with God.” Romans 2:11 see also Gal 2:6, Eph 6:9, Job 34:19
I know some Calvinists (and Arminians) would disagree but I'm believe all the gifts are still operative today as well. However, God gives faith, talents and gifts out as He sees fit and in the measure He determines so we may accomplish His purpose. Some people bear fruit 100 fold, some 60, some 30 but it’s all according to God plan. Some are great evangelists while others are simply meant to comfort a dying person. We are vessels chosen for a specific purpose. There is no partiality because He has a different plan for each of us and He will provide us what we need to accomplish that plan.
There is a Biblical example of this.
”Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he [Peter] would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”…So Peter seeing him [John] said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”” John 21:19-23
God gave a different mission to Peter than John just as He gives each of us our own assignment. We know from scripture and history Peter was a great evangelist and leader of the early church. John on the other hand wrote some of the greatest scriptures in the Bible. Both had their influences but in different ways. It is not our place to question our assignments any more than it was Peter’s place to question John’s assignment. Our Lord Jesus showed no more partiality for Peter than He did for John or vice versa with the gifts and talents He gave each.
I can see we are getting nowhere with this. I, for one, will not disregard Scripture. John 3:16 fits along with what I am saying. If you believe in God, then you will do his commandments, and therefore you will have everlasting life. The works that you talked about that do not lead to salvation are meritorious works and works of the flesh. Submitting to baptism is neither of these. It is obeying Christ, since He has commanded it. If baptism was a work, so would confession and repentance be works, but I don't see you denying that they are pre-requisites to salvation.
I have done my best to teach the truth in love. I feel confident I have done what God would have me to do in this situation, and I can do no more. I pray that God will bless you and your family.
The Lord used this analogy and you, Pilgrim, offer it in righteousness to affirm salvation by, through and according to the Lord, and none other.
An accusation within a statement. My, my. I never said we are saved without the remission of sins. Please show the post to me and I'll correct the error.
Perhaps I haven't been clear in my explanation. Please see the following article which better articulate my views.
"I never said we are saved without the remission of sins"
You didn't come right out and say that, and yet, you implied it. You say that baptism is not necessary for salvation, and yet the Word of God says that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), which you agree is necessary for salvation. Logically, you can't hold both positions. So, which is it?
Thank you, sister. I catch a lot of grief from the Arminians because I am no longer one of them. The praise from my Reformed brethren is much sweeter.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
***The Lord used this analogy and you, Pilgrim, offer it in righteousness to affirm salvation by, through and according to the Lord, and none other.***
This is high praise coming from my reformed sisters. I enjoy reading your posts as well, though, I often have to table the posts of sister RnMomof7 until I have the time to thoughtfully consider them and not rush through them. Her zeal is plainly evident and quite refreshing.
Proverbs 27:2 Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.