"He who practices righteousness is righteous" (1 John 3:7)

[Hammster]

Only if they are aware of the alternative to the ways of man.

I don’t understand your point.

 

[timothyu]

I don’t understand your point.

Those who know of God's alternate culture to the culture of man have no excuse for not jumping mankind's ship.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Baptism of Acts 2:38 was new for it was not available to Jews under the OT law,

There was clearly a ceremonial baptism understood by the Jews - who else was John baptizing? There were no Christians or followers of Christ when John began baptizing..

Just thought that should be pointed out. Baptism itself was not some foreign thing to them.

 

[Paulomycin]

As I said. There was a chance or possiblity for them to be saved. So it was not in vain. A person cannot say to the Lord that there was no chance for them because He did not die for their sins. But you are free to tell the Lord these words to His face if you like to one day. I am sure He will not be amused.

Definition of "vain"

adj.

1. Without success; futile

God knows the future with pin point precision. So you are barking up the wrong tree.
I am not an Open Theist.

Doesn't matter. You're still asserting that our final decision on the matter is sovereign. Therefore, "yes," you're implying that God is surprised every-single-time someone makes a decision for Christ.

Not sure how this line of reasoning helps you in making it about what I believe the Scriptures to say. Your assertion is not what 2 Peter 2:1 says. The false teachers deny the Lord had bought them. Why would the Lord buy false teachers?

You're literally denying the Lord bought the believer, because according to you, the believer pays at least half the tab.

 

[Paulomycin]

It says MIGHT be saved. There is no MIGHT be saved in Calvinism. Hence, why you are refusing to explain this verse.

There is a "might" from the human perspective. There is no "might" from God's perspective. Admit it--you're just coveting God's level of control in the situation and claiming you control salvation instead.

 

[Hammster]

Those who know of God's alternate culture to the culture of man have no excuse for not jumping mankind's ship.

Um...okay.

 

[Paulomycin]

Nowhere did I imply that God is not Omniscient and that He does not know things. So again, you just falsely assumed this is what I believe (When I did not clearly say that).

It's strongly inferred as such when you have granted human beings the final executive decision on their own salvation. Your paradigm has humanity moving God; not God moving upon humanity (John 3:8).

It says,
“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

#1. Those who are deceived in doing unrighteousness are perishing because...
#2. they received not the love of the truth...
#3. that they MIGHT be saved.

Calvinism agrees with #1, but it does not agree with #2, and #3.

Calvinism agrees with #2 on account of the wider Doctrine of Total Depravity, along with all the verses that support it. You cannot deny this without making a complete contradictory trainwreck of scripture.

Calvinism can agree with #3 if (a.) the verse is stated from man's non-omniscient POV, and (b.) God is not rolling dice out of control. <-- God does not throw dice. God is always in-control.

 

[timothyu]

Um...okay.

It's what is taught all through the Bible... choose His way, not ours. We are backwards thinkers by default

 

[Paulomycin]

Was Peter on the day of Pentecost offering a works based salvation when he proclaimed Acts 2:38-39? Unmistakably, the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter called those in attendance and promises the remission of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit (this is arguably salvation) to those who repent and are baptized (in verse 38). Verse 39 says that that offer extends to today.

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them​

If a drowning man grabs an offered life preserver, does he glory in saving himself? Or does he thank the real rescuer?

Baptism will always follow genuine repentance.

But baptism is not a contingent work that is required for the remission of sins. "For" can be translated "because of," "due to," or "having the thing mentioned as a purpose or function."

Otherwise, you have something to boast of and you contradict scripture. If you're okay with contradicting scripture 24/7, then Arminianism is totally for you.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

IMO, from 1 John ...
If you practice righteousness, God considers you to be righteous.

Again, IMO, only the righteous will be admitted into heaven.

It is also written, haven't I done all these things in your name?

I never knew you, depart from me you workers of iniquity.

it's important to read the bible in context instead of every page ripped out except for the passage you're looking at.

 

[Guojing]

"For" can be translated "because of," "due to," or "having the thing mentioned as a purpose or function."

By the way you understand Acts 2:38, my guess is that you also think Mark 16:16 should not be authentic scripture?

 

[Butterball1]

There was clearly a ceremonial baptism understood by the Jews - who else was John baptizing? There were no Christians or followers of Christ when John began baptizing..

Just thought that should be pointed out. Baptism itself was not some foreign thing to them.

They had various washings under the OT law but my point was that the baptism of Acts 2:38 was not available to Jews under the OT law as Isaac or Jacob or David for Christ had yet to shed His blood so they had no baptism for remission of sins.

 

[timothyu]

Speaking of which, isn't it interesting how people will squabble over a translation yet miss out on the fact Jesus' good news became entirely misrepresented.

 

[Butterball1]

All classes. Just like I said.

Not just some classes but ALL classes of men therefore God's grace has appeared to all men.

Again Calvinist Albert Barnes:
If that which is in the text be adopted, it means that the plan of salvation has been revealed to all classes of men; that is, that it is announced or revealed to all the race that they may be saved; compare the notes at Colossians 1:23. If the other rendering be adopted, it means that that plan was fitted to secure the salvation of all men; that none were excluded from the offer; that provision had been made for all, and all might come and be saved.

 

[Paulomycin]

By the way you understand Acts 2:38, my guess is that you also think Mark 16:16 should not be authentic scripture?

Acts 2:38 is authentic scripture. We can both read the same words out loud and come away with two completely different and contradictory interpretations.

Mark 16:16 is much more direct. And just as authentic. The true believer will obey the command to be baptized. Good works necessarily follow true belief. The work is not a necessary cause of salvation, but rather the firstfruits that demonstrate geniune salvation.

Cart? Meet horse.

 

[Hammster]

Not just some classes but ALL classes of men therefore God's grace has appeared to all men.

Again Calvinist Albert Barnes:
If that which is in the text be adopted, it means that the plan of salvation has been revealed to all classes of men; that is, that it is announced or revealed to all the race that they may be saved; compare the notes at Colossians 1:23. If the other rendering be adopted, it means that that plan was fitted to secure the salvation of all men; that none were excluded from the offer; that provision had been made for all, and all might come and be saved.

Yes, all classes of men. If it had appeared to all men without exception, then according to Titus 2:11, all would be saved.

 

[Butterball1]

It sounds like a pretty concise summary to me.

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord ....".
This was written at a time when Roman emperors were considered to be gods, and "Caesar is Lord" was a common cry, or declaration. For Christians to stand boldly and declare "Jesus is Lord", may have resulted in imprisonment or cost them their lives; you have to be really convinced about your faith if you are going to stake your life upon it. And the Lordship of Christ means that loyalty to him, obedience to God and doing his will comes first. I would have thought that if you were going to be loyal to someone, maybe at the cost of your life, you would want to be really certain of who they were and that they were worth dying for.
"And believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" ...
Paul started this letter by saying that Jesus was declared, with power, to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, Romans 1:4. The resurrection proved that Jesus was who he said that he was. If he had been, as the Jews thought, a blasphemer, a false Messiah and a miracle worker who cast out demons by the power of the devil, Mark 3:22, God would have left him in the tomb - why bring a dead, deluded, blaspheming fraud back to life again?
But Jesus was the Son of God and Messiah. His words that he was the Good Shepherd who lay down his life for the sheep, John 10:11, that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45, that his blood was being shed for the forgiveness of sin, Matthew 26:28, that he was the vine, the resurrection and the life, the only way to the Father - and in fact everything he taught, was true. The resurrection proved it.

So those 2 statements might seem to be only part of the Gospel, but in fact they encapsulate a good deal of it.

Again, those 2 statments do not make up the sum of God's word when it comes to salvation. Rarely does just one verse exhaust all there is to know about a sunject and when it comes to the subject of salvation there are dozens upon dozens of verses which all must be examined. When all are examined we find Christ requiring belief repentance confession and baptism.

No, but believing in Jesus does not just mean assenting to the fact that he existed. It means accepting who he was, and everything he taught and did. That includes his claims about being God, about being the only way to the Father, the giver of eternal life, the Truth and that he was giving his life for others.



If a person accepts Jesus and believes in him, they accept what he taught - and he taught repentance and that he could give eternal life.

To be continued - maybe.

Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Jesus is Lord of those who do what he says

 

[Hammster]

Again, those 2 statments do not make up the sum of God's word when it comes to salvation. Rarely does just one verse exhaust all there is to know about a sunject and when it comes to the sunject of salvation there are dozens upon dozens of verses which all must be examined. When all are examined we find Christ requiring belief repentance confession and baptism.




Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Jesus is Lord of those who do what he says

Yes. But doing what He says doesn’t make Him Lord.

 

[Butterball1]

Of course, it doesn't matter to you! It defeats your presupposed narrative!

It's obvious you are avoiding the facts of Hebrews 11:7 where Noah did a work to receive God's free gift of salvation form the flood and his wok earned him nothing. You continue to avoid Hebrews 11 while nothing in Genesis 6 refutes the fact Noah had to do a work in order to receive the free gift of salvation.

 

[Butterball1]

Yes. But doing what He says doesn’t make Him Lord.

THe issue is Jesus is NOT Lord of those who will not obey Him.