More about : Water Baptism

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You are a JW or a Catholic?

See, this idea , this false idea, this LIE, that "water cults" teach.....that states that water causes regeneration, and not the Holy Spirit, is based on the Catholic Bible. .. the Douay Rheims.

In this book......In John 3... it says... "born again BY water".

"born again.......By.... Water"

And water cults teach that....

And that is in fact a LIE, and how do you know, Reader?

Because its the Holy Spirit of God, that gives the New Birth, not the city water supply.

Water is just water... and nothing more.

Now these water cults, pretend that the city water supply has mystical power to cause "baptismal regeneration".

Do not believe these water cults.

I would be very careful with the language towards others in your posts....you might get reported (but not by me). You may want to re-read post #15 by ViaCrucis.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

This post is very judgmental

What exactly is judgemental? The Lord Himself said there will be (and there are) false Christians.
It is also true that some are water baptised and they do not believe. People who do not believe are not saved, that is not me being judgemental. John 3:18 'Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.'

Water baptism is a sign and seal of Jesus uniting a person to Himself, and thereby making Him or Her visibly a member of His Church.
Baptism is a sign of three totally underserved, gracious things that Jesus does for Christians. First, it is a sing of being washed clean, because Christians have been washed clean from their sins by Jesus' death on the cross. Second, it is a sign of dying and rising to a new life, because a Christian's old self has died and they have risen to a new life with Jesus, and there will be a day when their bodies also will be raised from the dead, as Jesus was. Third, the poured water is a sign of Holy Spirit whom Jesus pours out on all who trust in Him.

Baptism does not automatically do any of these thins. But when a baptised person believes the promises contained in their baptism, God does somehow use it to do these things for them. Therefore for baptism to be of any value to the baptised person, they must love, serve and trust Jesus for the rest of their life.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What exactly is judgemental? The Lord Himself said there will be (and there are) false Christians.
It is also true that some are water baptised and they do not believe. People who do not believe are not saved, that is not me being judgemental. John 3:18 'Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.'

Water baptism is a sign and seal of Jesus uniting a person to Himself, and thereby making Him or Her visibly a member of His Church.
Baptism is a sign of three totally underserved, gracious things that Jesus does for Christians. First, it is a sing of being washed clean, because Christians have been washed clean from their sins by Jesus' death on the cross. Second, it is a sign of dying and rising to a new life, because a Christian's old self has died and they have risen to a new life with Jesus, and there will be a day when their bodies also will be raised from the dead, as Jesus was. Third, the poured water is a sign of Holy Spirit whom Jesus pours out on all who trust in Him.

Baptism does not automatically do any of these thins. But when a baptised person believes the promises contained in their baptism, God does somehow use it to do these things for them. Therefore for baptism to be of any value to the baptised person, they must love, serve and trust Jesus for the rest of their life.

Pity the poor individual who has been baptized and has loved, served, and trusted Jesus up to the end of their life when they commit a sin and lose their salvation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

John Calvin "gate-keeps" Salvation, and its defined as : TULIP

I'm not a Calvinist, or part of the Reformed tradition in anyway whatsoever.

I don't think, however, you really know what you're talking about. John Calvin and TULIP have virtually nothing to do with one another. Calvin had been dead for half a century when the Remonstrance controversy erupted within the Dutch Reformed Church.

And if you haven't heard of it, there are plenty of people who could help clue you in.

Maybe you heard of it?
If not, about 80% of this Forum's members can clue you in, @ViaCrucis

And the "cult of mary", Gate-Keeps" Salvation, by teaching that you are Born again..... BY = Water.

I have no idea what this cult of mary is, and I don't know anyone that teaches that one is born again by water.

These same "water cult" teach the lie that "water washes away your sin" as if the Blood of JESUS does not even exist.

Who are these people you speak of? I'm not familiar with anyone who believes that water can wash away sin and acts as if the blood of Jesus doesn't even exist.

Understand?

The NT says you are born again "by my Spirit sayeth the Lord" and if you think that is water baptism, then you have a surprise waiting for you, a little later on, Reader.

What New Testament are you reading? Because the one I read has a lot of stuff to say about the meaning and importance of Holy Baptism. Perhaps we aren't reading the same New Testament? The one I read is a collection of 27 books which is common in the majority of Christian churches.

It's always possible, I suppose, that you simply have a different New Testament than the one the other 2 billion Christians on this planet have. Though that raises a lot of questions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aviel]

I have no idea what this cult of mary is, and I don't know anyone that teaches that one is born again by water.

The "cult of mary" is the original title given by the "church fathers" in about 4-5ad, in Ephesus.

Later this was changed to "Catholic".

You can do the research yourself, and start with the "church of Mary" that was formally the Temple of Diana.

You can research "The Goddess Diana" and you'll learn that this Pagan Goddess, was a "Perpetual virgin" and is the "queen of Heaven"

Lot of good stuff to discover, when you really want to find out what are the origins of the cult of Mary.

Who are these people you speak of? I'm not familiar with anyone who believes that water can wash away sin and acts as if the blood of Jesus doesn't even exist.

That would be "Baptismal Regeneration" theology.. (Cult of Mary).

This comes from the Catholic Bible, as found in John 3.

Its says.. .that a person is ... "born again ... BY Water".

"born again (spiritually).....BY =Water.

"born again.......BY... Water".

"water washes your sin away".

"Baptismal Regeneration".

That's a Catholic Theology.

The truth is.......a person is born again by "THE HOLY SPIRIT" or "By my SPIRIT sayeth the Lord".. .and that is not water.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The "cult of mary" is the original title given by the "church fathers" in about 4-5ad, in Ephesus.

There were no church fathers in 4-5 AD. At the time the Lord Jesus Himself would have still only been a child. He didn't begin His earthly ministry until sometime between 26-30 AD. The term "church father" is generally a designation for important voices in the history of the Church beginning in the sub-apostolic era, that is the time after most of the Apostles had fallen asleep in the Lord.

So I'm not sure how any church father could create a title called "cult of mary" in Ephesus at this time. What is the source of information you are using for this?

Later this was changed to "Catholic".

The earliest recorded use of the word καθολικός, meaning "according to the whole" or "entire" in reference to the Christian Church can be found in the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. After Peter and Paul had left Antioch, which had been their base of operation for their pastoral and apostolic ministry for a number of years, they left a man by the name of Evodius in charge as pastor of the church. Evodius, however, suffered a martyr's death during Nero's persecution of the Church, which is when also Peter and Paul also received their martyr's crown. Ignatius is the one who took up the position of pastor in Antioch after Evodius, which he held for a long time until his death around 105-110 AD, which is the same time he wrote several letters. In those letters he uses the word καθολικός to describe the scope and scale of the Church. The Greek word καθολικός is transliterated into Latin as catholicus, and through Latin into English as "catholic".

Nothing changed, of course, catholic is simply one of the many ways Jesus' Church has been described. The Church is catholic, or to put it more simply, the Church can be found all over the world. In Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Rome, in Alexandria, in Corinth, in Ephesus. Today Jesus' Church can be found across the whole globe, in Seattle, in New York, in Buenos Aires, in Montreal, in Cairo, London, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Sydney, Auckland, Mumbai, Jericho, Tel Aviv, Lagos, and so on and so on. Jesus' Church is catholic. There is a whole big Christian Church, and Jesus is Lord and Head of it.

You can do the research yourself, and start with the "church of Mary" that was formally the Temple of Diana.

Perhaps you could offer a starting place. When I Google "Church of Mary" the results I get don't have anything to do Diana. There are a lot of churches that have the name "Mary" in them. But most seem to be named after Jesus' mother, and they are Christian. So I might need a bit more to go off of than just "do the research yourself" in this case.

You can research "The Goddess Diana" and you'll learn that this Pagan Goddess, was a "Perpetual virgin" and is the "queen of Heaven"

Instead of just telling me to research, could you point me where to look. I am curious where Diana was called a "perpetual virgin" and "queen of heaven". Who are the ancient mythographers who record this information so I can look it up for myself?

Lot of good stuff to discover, when you really want to find out what are the origins of the cult of Mary.

Until you give me a starting point, I only have your word to go off of. So it'd be helpful if you could give me a starting place to do my own research. Give me some primary, or even secondary, sources I can check out myself.

That would be "Baptismal Regeneration" theology.. (Cult of Mary).

This comes from the Catholic Bible, as found in John 3.

Its says.. .that a person is ... "born again ... BY Water".

"born again (spiritually).....BY =Water.

"born again.......BY... Water".

"water washes your sin away".

"Baptismal Regeneration".

That's a Catholic Theology.

The truth is.......a person is born again by "THE HOLY SPIRIT" or "By my SPIRIT sayeth the Lord".. .and that is not water.

So your Bible doesn't have the third chapter of John in it? I think maybe you accidentally purchased a damaged Bible if the entire third chapter of the Gospel of John is missing in yours. Or perhaps there was a printing error. If you need to replace your Bible there are a lot of places where you can buy a Bible either in person or online. Also, there are a lot of websites that provide the entire Bible online for free, or you can even download copies of the Bible onto your smart phone if you own one.

You don't have to go around with a Bible missing the third chapter of John. Because it's not just Roman Catholics who have this chapter in their Bibles, everyone does. I feel bad that you don't have a Bible that has it, there's a lot of really good stuff in John chapter 3. It contains one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible, "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, so that whoever trusts in Him should not perish, but have life everlasting." That's John 3:16, it's a beautiful verse that communicates a central truth of the Gospel, of God's insurmountable love for people and that Jesus came to save us sinners.

Since your Bible doesn't have the third chapter of John, I know you have been missing out on it. So, again, definitely get your Bible replaced, because if your Bible has entire chapters from books of the Bible missing, then obviously you have a damaged Bible or a weird misprint. You could probably get a free and new Bible from your pastor or from another member of your congregation if you ask. It's unlikely that all the Bibles at your church are damaged or contain misprints like that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Pity the poor individual who has been baptized and has loved, served, and trusted Jesus up to the end of their life when they commit a sin and lose their salvation.

You cannot lose your salvation as Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was perfect.

When Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath He drank it to the dregs. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus and that means on the final day and every day until then. God is never judging you for your sin if you are in Christ. That does not mean we are free to sin, as sin is still deadly and has consequences.

Christ came to redeem from sin. He took the punishment of every believer. God cannot judge His people in any way because his people have already been judged in Jesus. God no longer looks at Christians as sinners, but He sees His Son and His precious blood.

So either you have been judged in Christ, and because Christ was without sin the punishment of death was invalid...or you will be judged for your sins on judgement day.

John 6 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You cannot lose your salvation as Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was perfect.

When Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath He drank it to the dregs. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus and that means on the final day and every day until then. God is never judging you for your sin if you are in Christ. That does not mean we are free to sin, as sin is still deadly and has consequences.

Christ came to redeem from sin. He took the punishment of every believer. God cannot judge His people in any way because his people have already been judged in Jesus. God no longer looks at Christians as sinners, but He sees His Son and His precious blood.

So either you have been judged in Christ, and because Christ was without sin the punishment of death was invalid...or you will be judged for your sins on judgement day.

John 6 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

I agree heartily with you, brother. Sadly, there are some who believe and teach the doctrine I outlined in my post.

The salvation of the Christian is as sure and as certain as the promises of God, which are yea and amen.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You cannot lose your salvation as Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was perfect.

When Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath He drank it to the dregs. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus and that means on the final day and every day until then. God is never judging you for your sin if you are in Christ. That does not mean we are free to sin, as sin is still deadly and has consequences.

Christ came to redeem from sin. He took the punishment of every believer. God cannot judge His people in any way because his people have already been judged in Jesus. God no longer looks at Christians as sinners, but He sees His Son and His precious blood.

So either you have been judged in Christ, and because Christ was without sin the punishment of death was invalid...or you will be judged for your sins on judgement day.

John 6 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

Teaching assurance of salvation is a good thing, we should be taught that we can be assured of the grace, promises, and kindness of God which is in Christ, and that God saving us is a precious treasure we can have total and complete confidence in.

My problem, however, with the false doctrine known informally as "once saved always saved", is that it not only ignores the seriousness of the warnings contained in Scripture concerning apostasy and the dangers of shipwrecking our faith. But, quite paradoxically, "once saved always saved" very easily undermines the very idea of assurance, undermining the confidence we can have in the Gospel.

If a brother or sister approaches us with worry, doubt, and despair over their salvation, we should point them to the promises of God in the Gospel. Now the trouble arises when we stop pointing to God's promises, and instead try to find an answer within ourselves; and this happens very easily when, as tragically happens, a Christian departs from the faith and ceases to be a Christian, whether for a season or--most tragically--even until the end of their mortal life. For those who insist that it is impossible to abandon our salvation, there are only two options that I am aware of for how to deal with that situation:

1) A Christian who has departed from the faith is merely in a state of backsliding, their salvation remains secure even though they are at present declaring themselves a non-beleiver.

2) More often, however, the answer is that this individual was never actually a Christian in the first place, they were a false believer, they never had faith, and thus they never had salvation anyway.

There are certainly problems with the first answer, but worse is the second answer by far. In the second answer all assurance is eradicated, and all confidence in the Gospel is thrown away. If a brother comes to me with doubts and questions, I should, as already said, be able to point them to the promises of the Gospel: I can point them to what is declared in the Scriptures that none shall be plucked from the hand of Christ, that there is no power that can separate us from the love of God that is for us in Christ, I can point to one's baptism and the promises of God attached there, to all the wonderful promises of God in the Gospel.

Now what is done with those promises if we take two professing Christians, and all things being equal, their lives have been identical as it pertains to the life of Christian faith. Then, circumstances arrive, and we have one brother who remains a professing Christian, but the other brother denounces his faith, and departs as an unbeliever.

If I, or anyone, were to say, the second brother was never a brother; they never believed, etc. And the first brother comes to me, and understandably upset and experiencing the pain of seeing the other brother leave and I tell him the second brother was never really saved; the first may then seek comfort--"how can I know that I'm saved?"--having shared the same experiences, growing up in faith, baptized, hearing the same Scriptures, fellowshipping together, living as Christian brothers--what am I to say? That the reason why the first brother is actually saved is because of something he did differently? That his faith was genuine but the second brother's faith was false? This raises the deeply existential dread: How can I know whether my faith is genuine or false? Am I a true believer or a false believer?

What must I do in order to be a true believer rather than a false one?

Because how can I point to the promise of God as objectively true and assured if the one, hearing and receiving the same promises from God, never actually had God's promise? If his faith was false rather than genuine? Then how can we be assured by God's promise? We are forced to instead look inward, to ourselves, or to our works, or some other thing other than the promises of God.

And the moment we do that there will not, and cannot, be assurance. There could be pride or vanity, but that is not assurance that is self-righteousness. And all that is really left is unconsolable despair.

Our consolation, our comfort, our assurance, our confidence must be in the promises of God and nothing else.

The brother who throws away his faith is not guilty of never having had faith, but of throwing it away; it is not that the word of God is untrustworthy, it is not that the promises of God fail; it is that apart from Christ we are without hope. And our salvation exist in Jesus, and our confidence and assurance is always in Christ, and the promises of God are inviolate, there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God, there is no one that can pluck us from the Savior's hand. To trust in Christ is to be the child of God.

That is our confidence, that is our assurance.

Once saved always saved can lead to despair, it can lead to pride, but it can not lead to the comfort, consolation, confidence, and assurance of the Holy Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aviel]

There were no church fathers in 4-5 A

About 30 seconds of sincere study and you can find out all you need to know.

Like this..

"""The Council of Ephesus in 431 sanctioned the CULT of the Virgin as Mother of God; the dissemination of images of the Virgin and Child, which came to embody church doctrine.""

 

[ViaCrucis]

About 30 seconds of sincere study and you can find out all you need to know.

Like this..

"""The Council of Ephesus in 431 sanctioned the CULT of the Virgin as Mother of God; the dissemination of images of the Virgin and Child, which came to embody church doctrine.""

That's 431 AD, not 4 AD. A difference of 427 years.

I'm pretty familiar with the Council of Ephesus, it's one of the Ecumenical Councils which virtually all Christians embrace. I'm not sure that you are familiar with it.

There was not a "CULT of the Virgin". But there was a controversy that erupted within the Christian Church at the time when the bishop of Constantinople at the time, Nestorius, rejected the term Theotokos to describe Mary; Nestorius instead insisted that only the term Christotokos should be permitted.

To understand this controversy we have to take a step back and take a broader look at the sort of conversations and debates which had been going on for decades at this point.

I'd be happy to work you through some of this information, because it just so happens that Church history is a subject that I've put a lot of effort into studying over the last twenty years of my life; and the subject of the early Christological controversies is an incredibly important subject.

The incredibly brief summary of the Theotokos/Christotokos controversy is that we are talking about a period of time in the history of Christianity where we were still formulating precise language in how we talk about Jesus.

Perhaps you've heard it said that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, and that He assumed human nature, became human, by His conception and birth by the Virgin Mary. The reason you've heard that said is because of early Church councils, such as the Council of Ephesus here.

When Nestorius argued that Mary was not Theotokos (a Greek term meaning "Birth-giver of God") but instead only Christotokos ("Birth-giver of Christ") it caused alarm bells. Because for over a century Christians had been tirelessly fighting to defend the doctrine of Christ's Divinity. That Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is Divine, fully God. A victory was achieved at the Council of Nicea in 325, but the battle was not over, not by a long shot.

So here's the question which Ephesus centered upon: Is Jesus Christ both fully God and fully human? Now I hope you answer yes to this question, but if you do, you can, in part, thank the Council of Ephesus for that. If Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, what does that mean? More precise, is the Person of the Word mentioned in John 1:1, God the Son, identical with the Person that Mary gave birth to?

Is Jesus God the Son? Is Jesus the Divine Word?

When in John 1:14 it says, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" what does that mean? Was the Logos a Divine Person who was there alongside a human person named Jesus? Was Jesus, in some way, two persons? Was there a Divine Person and a human person, co-existing? Or is there a single Person, Jesus?

If Jesus is a single Person, then He is a Divine Person--He's God. But He is also human, right? So Jesus is a single Person, both God and human.

That's the issue here: Did Mary, when she gave birth to Jesus, give birth to the singular Person of Jesus who is both God and man? Or did Mary give birth to a human person named Jesus, but there remained distinct and apart from the human Jesus a the Divine Person of the Word/Son?

Did Mary give birth to a Person who is God? Did Mary carry in her womb the Second Person of the Holy Trinity?

Did God live in Mary's womb for nine months?

If this is true, then describing Mary as Theotokos "Birth-giver of God" is a true statement. Mary did carry God in her womb for nine months, Mary did give birth to God--she gave birth to Jesus, and Jesus is God.

Now, if you don't believe that. If you don't believe that the Person who Mary carried in her womb for nine months, if you don't believe that the Person Mary gave birth to is God--if you don't believe that Jesus is God--then we have a completely different set of issues to be talking about here.

But if you believe that Mary gave birth to God Incarnate, then you agree with the Council of Ephesus.
If you do not believe that Mary gave birth to God Incarnate, then you should have a very long chat with your pastor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aviel]

That's 431 AD, not 4 AD. A difference of 427 years.

Typo...

Here it is again.

"""The Council of Ephesus in 431 sanctioned the CULT of the Virgin as Mother of God; the dissemination of images of the Virgin and Child, which came to embody church doctrine.""

 

[Aviel]

Perhaps you've heard it said that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, and that He assumed human nature, became human, by His conception and birth by the Virgin Mary. The reason you've heard that said is because of early Church councils, such as the Council of Ephesus here.

I had assumed that was in a K. Greek Text. or a Latin Text.

I wonder why.

Because for over a century Christians had been tirelessly fighting to defend the doctrine of Christ's Divinity.

So you want to talk about the Trinity?

I'd rather stay on Topic and talk about "cult of Mary"

1. And again do some research regarding the "Temple of Diana" (Acts 19) 27 """""So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess DIANA should be despised.."""""

Now see that "Diana',, ???that is Ephesians ( NT).

She is a PAGAN = "perpetual Virgin" and the "queen of Heaven"...

(Study this out).. @ViaCrucis

That Goddess had a TEMPLE there.....and the "cult of Mary". took that Temple, and remade it as the "Church of Mary".

The Church of Mary (Turkish: Meryem Kilisesi) was an ancient Christian cathedral dedicated to the Theotokos ("Mother of God", i.e., the Virgin Mary), located in Ephesus (near present-day Selçuk in Turkey).

Now @ViaCrucis .

Study all that out as im not interested in your change of subject. (Trinity).


-A

 

[ViaCrucis]

I had assumed that was in a K. Greek Text. or a Latin Text.

I wonder why.

You assumed what was in a Koine or Latin text? The Council of Ephesus? The Council of Ephesus was a council. People wrote about it, in both Greek and Latin. The Council of Ephesus produced writings. You can read what pastors who gathered there for the council wrote and said.

Want a link? You won't read any of it, but I'll give you a link.

Internet History Sourcebooks: Medieval Sourcebook

So you want to talk about the Trinity?

I'd rather stay on Topic and talk about "cult of Mary"

1. And again do some research regarding the "Temple of Diana" (Acts 19) 27 """""So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess DIANA should be despised.."""""

Now see that "Diana',, ???that is Ephesians ( NT).

She is a PAGAN = "perpetual Virgin" and the "queen of Heaven"...

(Study this out).. @ViaCrucis

That Goddess had a TEMPLE there.....and the "cult of Mary". took that Temple, and remade it as the "Church of Mary".

The Church of Mary (Turkish: Meryem Kilisesi) was an ancient Christian cathedral dedicated to the Theotokos ("Mother of God", i.e., the Virgin Mary), located in Ephesus (near present-day Selçuk in Turkey).

Now @ViaCrucis .

Study all that out as im not interested in your change of subject. (Trinity).


-A

You brought up the Council of Ephesus.

When you offer a source for your claims, then we'll have something to talk about. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase to find whatever

To put it bluntly, I know more than you do about these things. By a wide margin. I have done the research, I have done my homework. Your claims are nonsense--I've humored you out of a desperate hope that you'd at least make a small effort to at least try to back up what you say with something. But you haven't. And when I offered to share some basic historical information about a single historical topic which you raised, you threw a hissy fit about me changing the subject.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Typo...

Here it is again.

"""The Council of Ephesus in 431 sanctioned the CULT of the Virgin as Mother of God; the dissemination of images of the Virgin and Child, which came to embody church doctrine.""

Provide a source for that quote.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aviel]

You brought up the Council of Ephesus.

Yes, they produced this..

"""The Council of Ephesus in 431 sanctioned the CULT of the Virgin as Mother of God; the dissemination of images of the Virgin and Child, which came to embody church doctrine.""

When you offer a source for your claims, then we'll have something to talk about. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase to find whatever

You are the one who came to ME, and said......'what is ALL That"..

So, i showed you., and now you want to play the "well, i dont have time"

funny...

To put it bluntly, I know more than you do about these things.

I vote : No.

What you can discuss is Catholic Church History.

That is not the same as having a sure grounding in Paul's NT Doctrine.

Let me show you where to start.., as i want to help you, @ViaCrucis ..

And the source material is "NEW TESTAMENT" but not the Douay Rheims.

Romans 3:21-28

Hebrews 13:9

2 Corinthians 5:19

John 3:17

Romans 4:8

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, they produced this..

"""The Council of Ephesus in 431 sanctioned the CULT of the Virgin as Mother of God; the dissemination of images of the Virgin and Child, which came to embody church doctrine.""

Provide a source.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

My problem, however, with the false doctrine known informally as "once saved always saved", is that it not only ignores the seriousness of the warnings contained in Scripture concerning apostasy and the dangers of shipwrecking our faith. But, quite paradoxically, "once saved always saved" very easily undermines the very idea of assurance, undermining the confidence we can have in the Gospel.

You only have to look at cross of Jesus Christ to understand whether salvation can be lost or not.

God gave everything for our salvation, He gave Himself. The Son perfectly obeyed His Father, He was without sin, thus His sacrifice was perftect. If it wasn't perfect, not one would be saved as not one sin could be forgiven.

Either Jesus has redeemed you from the power of sin, or sin is upon you. Jesus paid the price in full for you, if you indeed are a believer. If Jesus then paid for all of your sins, how can you lose your salvation, based on what? There is no sin on you as Jesus paid it all. The debt of sin has been paid in full. You have passed from judgement to eternal life, because you have been judged in Jesus. If you have been judged in Jesus, what are you going to be judged on?

God poured the wrath for your sins on Jesus, there is no more wrath. Because of Jesus' sacrifice, the Father no longer looks on you as a sinner, but He sees His Son and His precious blood on you. There is a reason Jesus said 'it is finished' or in Greek Tetelestai, which means paid for, because Jesus paid for all the sins of every true believer on the cross. There is no more sin, so on what basis will you go to hell?

That does not mean we are free to sin, we belong to Christ now, we are His slaves, and sin still has horroble consequences, and although we will not be judged, we will still give an account to God on what we have done with our Christian life. And even though Christians sin, God brings them to repentence. Christians are bothered by the fact they do not perfectly pbey God, because we long to.

You mentioned the warning about apostasy. It is written we have to overcome, but we overcome because God is holding on to us. We do not fall into apostasy because God is holding on to us. It is not by our power, but God's alone we do all these things.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You only have to look at cross of Jesus Christ to understand whether salvation can be lost or not.

God gave everything for our salvation, He gave Himself. The Son perfectly obeyed His Father, He was without sin, thus His sacrifice was perftect. If it wasn't perfect, not one would be saved as not one sin could be forgiven.

Either Jesus has redeemed you from the power of sin, or sin is upon you. Jesus paid the price in full for you, if you indeed are a believer. If Jesus then paid for all of your sins, how can you lose your salvation, based on what? There is no sin on you as Jesus paid it all. The debt of sin has been paid in full. You have passed from judgement to eternal life, because you have been judged in Jesus. If you have been judged in Jesus, what are you going to be judged on?

On the cross Christ died for everyone. Correct? Jesus paid everyone's debt. Right?

But not everyone is saved? Right?

So the question is not what objectively happened on the cross, the question is the subjective--how does what Christ did objectively for everyone become mine personally.

According to Scripture, how does that happen? The answer, of course, is faith.

God poured the wrath for your sins on Jesus, there is no more wrath. Because of Jesus' sacrifice, the Father no longer looks on you as a sinner, but He sees His Son and His precious blood on you. There is a reason Jesus said 'it is finished' or in Greek Tetelestai, which means paid for, because Jesus paid for all the sins of every true believer on the cross. There is no more sin, so on what basis will you go to hell?

That does not mean we are free to sin, we belong to Christ now, we are His slaves, and sin still has horroble consequences, and although we will not be judged, we will still give an account to God on what we have done with our Christian life. And even though Christians sin, God brings them to repentence. Christians are bothered by the fact they do not perfectly pbey God, because we long to.

You mentioned the warning about apostasy. It is written we have to overcome, but we overcome because God is holding on to us. We do not fall into apostasy because God is holding on to us. It is not by our power, but God's alone we do all these things.

So what is the point of warning against apostasy? If there's no such thing as apostasy, then warning against it would be like me warning you about wild unicorn attacks.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aviel]

Provide a source.

-CryptoLutheran

Ok, for the 4th time.

Source and Date : The Council of Ephesus in 431