Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
That would be covered under “baptism of desire,” and the principle behind it is valid, but excludes the doctrine that baptism is absolutely necessary to be born again.
The real issue is whether a response is needed to be saved, and that of attributing salvific merit to works, which is not a thread one should start at midnight. But,
Romans 10:9,10 states: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto [contended word] righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”
There is no real difference with confessing the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord by moving your neurons or tongue and moving you legs in confession Christ as regards this being a work.
Calvinism holds one is born again before they confess Christ while Arminianim holds that this happens as a consequence of responding to God’s grace in believing. (Acts 2:38; 10:43-47; Eph. 1:13)
I see salvation being by forgiveness and imputed righteousness appropriated by God-given repentance and faith, a decision one would not have made if he was not persuaded by God to do so. Thus no boasting, nor is there man meriting eternal life by works done in God, as in what Trent states. But the kind of faith that saves is one that is confessional in nature, which will confess Christ, and so upon such a complete faith is one saved, though God sees the heart before it comes out.
INDEED:
Christ gave us The Way, The Truth, and The Light. He made it so simple a child can grasp much of it. It doesn’t take knowing years of studying and understanding Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other ancient writings, passed down traditions of man. That system FAILED!!!
Reading the third Chapter of John and believing can bring you salvation through Jesus Christ the very instant you believe and accept it. Reading books upon books and studying years upon years of ancient tradition will bring you ancient traditions.
The miracle of salvation is GOD through the Holy Spirits Gives You Your Daily Bread just a GOD gave Israel Manna Whom did the Manna come from GOD or Moses? We need to be dependent on that and not relying on mans traditions. Come to Him as a child not a scholar and theologists. A child need not fully understand to believe a child believes by faith and trust. A child is taught by The Father. {and earthly mother}.
WRONG FAR AND WIDE
AGAIN!
I gather you’ve not read Psalms?
When John baptised, he said that he baptised with water. But one (Jesus) would come and He would baptise with fire and the spirit.
I understand that baptism is and outward act used to demonstrate an internal act.
We seem to be alright.
Dang, what am I gonna do with this bucket of rotten tomatos...
just kiddin ;-)
I see them as two different and distinct Baptisms not occuring at the same time. Christ Baptism the one John spoke of with fire and spirit comes at the instant you accept Him as Lord and Savior. IOW it is a spiritual Baptism of your very soul. The second the public profession and baptism usually coming later. Some churches require membership classes etc for that. That is the Baptism of obedience in accordance with The Great Commission.
Quix, there you go again, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Is is not possible that one might know “Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other ancient writings” and still also be childlike in faith? Believe me, I take this very personally.
Hyperbole set against hyperbole in moments of high drama when debating may garner immediate support from the audience, but wise and experienced debate judges are not fooled. Childlike faith and learning are not mutually exclusive. But I will agree with you in this, childlike faith is the proper - the only! - attitude to adopt before Him who is the “Ancient of Days,” who is “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God.”
Thank you! She is our sweetie.
God is the one who designed how skin is made. Now they are giving His creation of human skin over to Mary?
Then he asked them, “Who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,£ because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.
What I mean is learning Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc is not necessary. Why? Because we have The Holy Spirit who leads into all truths. I've seen many a Preacher who never attended any formal seminary be able to hold their own in knowledge of the Bible and meaning of scripture.
If a person has the tallents and desrires to learn ancient text go for it. But that by no means says such a person holds more knowledge of scripture than another to whom scripture has been revealed.
First of all, my apologies to Quix for attributing to you what is not yours.
For cva66snipe, my criticism is simple. Why are you linking two things that really don’t have anything to do with each other? You may have heard many a preacher who never attended any formal seminary who can hold their own ... I haven’t. But I have heard plenty of fools who thought they were led by the Spirit, and quite clearly, they were not. That there are some who have not been particularly well educated in traditional seminary areas of study but who understand well the Holy Scriptures, I have no doubt. But most of them aren’t preachers. They are lay people in other callings. Don’t underestimate the devil’s ability to play on the weaknesses, presumptions, and prejudices of all. On the other hand, I have also heard plenty of other preachers who have all the formal training in the world, but who didn’t know Scripture and its meaning nearly as well as any of my four daughters, who’ve had no formal training in such things. In fact I have heard plenty of such preachers who should never have been preachers.
Face it, there are quacks in every profession, some are duplicitous, some are well-intentioned. But you know what they say the road to hell is paved with. And when you add the element of faith, as you must in anything that touches on Christianity, the situation becomes still more confused. There is no substitute for faith in the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And there is no substitute for a sound and well-rounded education. The two are not in conflict, nor are they mutually exclusive.
And how do you tell when someone is "another to whom scripture has been revealed"? What if someone only THINKS they have more knowledge of scripture than someone who has learned the ancient texts? What if someone has deluded themselves that the Holy Spirit has revealed knowledge of scripture, when that isn't true?
Isn't that why there are tens of thousands of protestant denominations, because there are people who insist that the Holy Spirit has spoken directly to them, and only their understanding is divine, and everyone else is wrong?
It would seem that learning the ancient languages, meanings, and interpretations from the earliest church fathers would give more actual knowledge of the scripture and its meanings, than those who flatter themselves that their own interpretations are the voice of the Holy Spirit.
I just have difficulty trusting anyone who knows nothing about the ancient languages holding him/hersef up as some kind of scriptural authority.
The Church upon Christ built is in our plain sight. It is Divine Revelation of Jesus Christ to us and His truths through The Holy Spirit given us. That was what was being said to Peter not that Peter was to be a Pope. It is this way the One on One relationship with Jesus Christ so no man decieve you.
Man falls when he starts depending on other men for truth rather than the Word Of GOD.
you could go ask the tens of thousands of charismatic Catholics, they all claim to have the answer
Which version? Which translation? How do you know it is accurate? What if important words are mistranslated? Are human translations the Perfect Word? Who said so?
If any person who calls him/herself Catholic differs from the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, then whatever answer they claim to have is wrong.
Isee, and who says so?
and which Catholic church? The fundamentalist one, or the novus ordo one? the charismatic one, or the communist ones? how many are there anyway? Most just ignore the Pope and his edicts, so who’s in charge? From what I’ve read lately, each are going off in their own direction, so which one is the right one? How do you know?
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.