Did You Really Not Know That Christ Must Be Obeyed? --Yes, You!

Religiot

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2020
1,046
384
Private
✟29,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In other words, this means that all three persons of the Godhead (i.e. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) are distinct persons, and yet they are all one God. If you do not agree with this truth, you are going against the creed. The creators of this forum agree that denying the Trinity as it is commonly understood in Christianity (i.e. God exists as one God and yet He also exists as three distinct persons) would be going against the creed.
Repeatedly, I've told you, that I'm not here to talk about God's ontology: let the following be my final answer to you concerning this topic:

THE NICENE CREED OF 325
(Received Text)

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον [Essence]) with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost."

The above is what I believe, period.

I don't care about modern conventions, regardless of how logical they may seem; I'm just not interested.

There is only one God, and He had a Son, period.

Arguments of "when" He had His Son are absurd, because they presuppose that God is subject to time, and such a presupposition ignores completely that God made time, and is therefore not subject to it; moreover, His Son, was with Him from the beginning, and is the beginning... ...that last sentence alone, should shame anyone imagining themselves able to explain the nature of God.

God is Spirit, the Holy Spirit...

--This subject is too great to talk about in this thread, so please stop bringing it up, cause you are only wasting your time, and mine, and detracting from the point of this thread.

I am a Christian, regardless of whether or not I use your terms, or reject them, my faith is based on the word of God, period.

So let's focus on what is truly at hand, obedience.
 
Upvote 0

Religiot

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2020
1,046
384
Private
✟29,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Source:
BASICS: Copyright infringement and fair use

Fair Use:

Nonprofit educational uses: When teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use, this is normally acceptable. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan. (Note that she would not be permitted to photocopy the entire book).

Source:
The 'Fair Use' Rule: When Use of Copyrighted Material Is Acceptable

If you are the creator of the tract: It appears that you copied more than a few pages but you copied either the entire book or almost the whole thing. If you are only a promoter of the tract and not the creator, it is still wrong to publicly make available a work that is in violation of copyright law. For you would have to be okay with the existence or the creation of this illegal work in order to promote it.
None of the sources you've cited constitute legal advice.

Opinions about any law, especially a body of laws designed specifically to protect the infringement of certain alienable rights, vary so greatly, that one must only consider the written law for any conclusions, and try all claims in question before the courts.

You have conflated laws with opinions.

The law is clear, infringement for the reasons given is protected, period.

For the tract to be deemed illegal, as you falsely claim it is, is a decision for the courts, after trial. And should they agree with you, and the many lawyers against true freedom of speech, then the law they would have to pass, would indeed be, an illegal law; for it would be a contradiction to the law of this land, i.e., the Constitution: any law that contradicts the Constitution, is an illegal law, and the obedience to illegal laws is crime, which God forbids.

This is why this kind of infringement remains protected, tho it must be often contested.

PS: Disney agrees with your perspective, but by the grace of God, the United States did not fully agree with Disney.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
None of the sources you've cited constitute legal advice.

Opinions about any law, especially a body of laws designed specifically to protect the infringement of certain alienable rights, vary so greatly, that one must only consider the written law for any conclusions, and try all claims in question before the courts.

You have conflated laws with opinions.

The law is clear, infringement for the reasons given is protected, period.

For the tract to be deemed illegal, as you falsely claim it is, is a decision for the courts, after trial. And should they agree with you, and the many lawyers against true freedom of speech, then the law they would have to pass, would indeed be, an illegal law; for it would be a contradiction to the law of this land, i.e., the Constitution: any law that contradicts the Constitution, is an illegal law, and the obedience to illegal laws is crime, which God forbids.

This is why this kind of infringement remains protected, tho it must be often contested.

PS: Disney agrees with your perspective, but by the grace of God, the United States did not fully agree with Disney.

You are simply digging your own hole deeper on this matter.
The source I provided is from Nolo. I have been aware of them since 2004. They provide free legal advice info. on the internet.

Wikipedia states this about them:

“Nolo, formerly known as Nolo Press, is a publisher in Berkeley, California, that produces do-it-yourself legal books and software that allows people to handle simple legal matters such as making wills or writing business partnership contracts.”​

Source:
Nolo (publisher) - Wikipedia

So when they say you cannot photocopy an entire written work otherwise it is a violation of copyright law, they are correct because they are aware of the laws on this matter.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Repeatedly, I've told you, that I'm not here to talk about God's ontology: let the following be my final answer to you concerning this topic:

THE NICENE CREED OF 325
(Received Text)

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον [Essence]) with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost."

The above is what I believe, period.

I don't care about modern conventions, regardless of how logical they may seem; I'm just not interested.

There is only one God, and He had a Son, period.

Arguments of "when" He had His Son are absurd, because they presuppose that God is subject to time, and such a presupposition ignores completely that God made time, and is therefore not subject to it; moreover, His Son, was with Him from the beginning, and is the beginning... ...that last sentence alone, should shame anyone imagining themselves able to explain the nature of God.

God is Spirit, the Holy Spirit...

--This subject is too great to talk about in this thread, so please stop bringing it up, cause you are only wasting your time, and mine, and detracting from the point of this thread.

I am a Christian, regardless of whether or not I use your terms, or reject them, my faith is based on the word of God, period.

So let's focus on what is truly at hand, obedience.

You said, I quote:

Repeatedly, I've told you, that I'm not here to talk about God's ontology
~ Religiot.​

If that is the case, then why are you continuing to discussing God's ontology with me still? If you are not interested in discussing it, you would have stopped by now, right? You would not respond to my points on my defending the Trinity within this thread (That were removed). Before you denied the Trinity but yet you affirm the creed. This is contradictory. The creed affirms the Trinity. Again, whether you agree or not, the creators of this forum believe that the creed teaches the Trinity, and they basically are saying that you are not allowed to post in the “Christians Only” section of this forum if you deny the Trinity.

The forum rules state:

Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums.​

Source:
Statement of Purpose - Controversial Christian Theology Statement of Purpose
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Bible Highlighter said:
So you believe that the Son of God (Jesus) was the true God of true God, and He was begotten, and not made?
Yes, I do.

The Nicene creed states that the Son of God was begotten and not made. This means:

#1. Begotten = The Incarnation (When the Word was made flesh).
#2. Not Made = The Word (second person of Godhead or Trinity) is eternal. For something that is made suggests that it has a beginning point. For example: I am a part of God's creation. Thus, I am ultimately made by God. The Living Word was never at any point made or came into existence because He always existed because He is co-equally God with the Father from eternity's past.

The Living Word is eternal and forever existing.

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2).

The Preincarnate Living Word is a type of Melchisedec.
The Preincarnate Living Word is....

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;...” (Hebrews 7:3).

Before in this thread, you stated that you denied the Trinity (Note: These words were later removed). If you deny the Trinity this most likely means that you think the Living Word (Who became flesh, i.e. Jesus) came into existence sometime AFTER the Father's existence. For Jesus is co-equally God with the Father in being eternal and forever existing, and you deny Modalism, then you must hold to the view that the Living Word did not forever exist from eternity's past, and you believe the Living Word was MADE (Which is a violation of the Nicene creed).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Bible Highlighter said:
So you believe that the Holy Spirit can be called Lord, and is the giver of life, and proceeds FROM the Father?
Yes, I do.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is just an impersonal force?
Or do you believe the Holy Spirit is unique person in the Godhead or Trinity?

The Holy Spirit is a person:

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;” (John 14:16).​

The Holy Spirit can be grieved:

“And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30).​

If you believe the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force, ask yourself the question: Can you grieve an impersonal force?

The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed:

“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matthew 12:32).​

Important Note: Only God can be blasphemed.

The Father Sent The Holy Spirit:

The Bible says that God the Father sent the Holy Spirit. Jesus said.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you (John 14:26).​

The Father will send the Holy Spirit, not Himself, to help believers.

There Is A Difference Between The Father And The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit does the will of God the Father. Paul wrote.

And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will (Romans 8:27).​

Source used for Holy Spirit being distinct from the Father:

Is the Holy Spirit a Distinct Person from God the Father?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Religiot

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2020
1,046
384
Private
✟29,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You are simply digging your own hole deeper on this matter.
The source I provided is from Nolo. I have been aware of them since 2004. They provide free legal advice info. on the internet.

Wikipedia states this about them:

“Nolo, formerly known as Nolo Press, is a publisher in Berkeley, California, that produces do-it-yourself legal books and software that allows people to handle simple legal matters such as making wills or writing business partnership contracts.”​

Source:
Nolo (publisher) - Wikipedia

So when they say you cannot photocopy an entire written work otherwise it is a violation of copyright law, they are correct because they are aware of the laws on this matter.
Not only do you not know what constitutes legal advice, you have now started to pretend that we are talking about photocopying an entire work... ...

--To photocopy an existing work and pass it off as one's own is simply known as plagiarism, which is a crime, because it is theft, and fraud.

To take an existing work, and change it, for the purposes of criticism, teaching, satire, etc., is protected under the First Amendment, which is the basis for the body of laws that comprise Fair Use.

The only one us digging their own hole, is you, for you have now resorted to simple misrepresentation, and have, thereby, started to erode the remaining credibility you presently have with me.

The nobility of your concern is now in question.
 
Upvote 0

Religiot

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2020
1,046
384
Private
✟29,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Do you believe the Holy Spirit is just an impersonal force?
Or do you believe the Holy Spirit is unique person in the Godhead or Trinity?

The Holy Spirit is a person:

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;” (John 14:16).​

The Holy Spirit can be grieved:

“And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30).​

If you believe the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force, ask yourself the question: Can you grieve an impersonal force?

The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed:

“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matthew 12:32).​

Important Note: Only God can be blasphemed.

The Father Sent The Holy Spirit:

The Bible says that God the Father sent the Holy Spirit. Jesus said.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you (John 14:26).​

The Father will send the Holy Spirit, not Himself, to help believers.

There Is A Difference Between The Father And The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit does the will of God the Father. Paul wrote.

And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will (Romans 8:27).​

Source used for Holy Spirit being distinct from the Father:

Is the Holy Spirit a Distinct Person from God the Father?
The Holy Spirit is not some impersonal force, but the actual Spirit of God.

I'm done discussing God's ontology with you.

I'm also done discussing your misunderstandings of Constitutional Law.

Those topics are not at all relevant to the thread.

Please discuss the topic of the thread, which is obedience, and stop detracting from it.

PS: Out of all the posters to this thread, you appear to be the most determined to shut it down... ...the irony here is very meaningful.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not only do you not know what constitutes legal advice, you have now started to pretend that we are talking about photocopying an entire work... ...

--To photocopy an existing work and pass it off as one's own is simply known as plagiarism, which is a crime, because it is theft, and fraud.

To take an existing work, and change it, for the purposes of criticism, teaching, satire, etc., is protected under the First Amendment, which is the basis for the body of laws that comprise Fair Use.

The only one us digging their own hole, is you, for you have now resorted to simple misrepresentation, and have, thereby, started to erode the remaining credibility you presently have with me.

The nobility of your concern is now in question.

You quote the copyright codes upon Chick Publications tract called, “This Was Your Life” (that you altered), but you are simply unaware of copyright law. You are not allowed to photocopy the entire work of an artistic work so as to alter it. Period. Talk with a copyright attorney and he will tell you the same thing. What makes matters worse is that you plagiarized the work, as well. Altering a person's entire work or the majority work and then not giving them credit with you taking the credit is plagiarism. You took away Jack Chick's initials and put your own initals instead.

According to Plagiarism Checker, they state:

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is using someone else's work without giving proper credit. Schools deal with plagiarism by giving the cheaters academic consequences. Most teachers will give F grades for plagiarized work, and some will do more. When I was a teaching assistant at Stanford University, some students were suspended for copying answers during a test.

Plagiarism doesn't have to include copyright infringement. For example, William Shakespeare's plays are not copyrighted because they're too old. Even though it would technically be legal to copy from one of those plays for an English assignment, it would still be plagiarism if you didn't give credit to Shakespeare. Your teacher may not be able to take you to court over it, but she can certainly give you an F. You might even get suspended or expelled from school. Even though copying one sentence from a Web site is legal according to United States copyright laws, that may still count as plagiarism in your teacher's book.​


Source:
Plagiarism vs. Copyright Infringement: Is Copying Illegal?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Holy Spirit is not some impersonal force, but the actual Spirit of God.

I'm done discussing God's ontology with you.

Well, if you deny Modalism, and yet you deny the Trinity (as previously stated before), this means that you most likely believe that the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) is the Father and not the Holy Spirit being a distinct person from the Father. If so, this is false.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Holy Spirit is not some impersonal force, but the actual Spirit of God.

I'm done discussing God's ontology with you.

I'm also done discussing your misunderstandings of Constitutional Law.

Those topics are not at all relevant to the thread.

Please discuss the topic of the thread, which is obedience, and stop detracting from it.

PS: Out of all the posters to this thread, you appear to be the most determined to shut it down... ...the irony here is very meaningful.

I just want others to follow the rules. You are not above the rules of this forum to post in the Christians Only section and yet also openly state that you deny the Trinity. Before in this thread you denied the Trinity (of which, the posts were later removed). You are only allowed to post in the Outreach section of this forum if you deny the Trinity. The Trinity is a major doctrine that all Christians must accept. For it is clearly explained in 1 John 5:7.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7 KJV).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Please discuss the topic of the thread, which is obedience, and stop detracting from it.

I already posted newly written work (new posts) about obedience, but you did not reply to these posts. You are simply choosing to ignore them and acting like I did not want to discuss it. But I did discuss obedience and provided new content for you to discuss. You simply chosen to ignore these portions of my recent posts to you. The ball is in your court to reply to such posts or not.
 
Upvote 0

Religiot

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2020
1,046
384
Private
✟29,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I already posted newly written work (new posts) about obedience, but you did not reply to these posts. You are simply choosing to ignore them and acting like I did not want to discuss it. But I did discuss obedience and provided new content for you to discuss. You simply chosen to ignore these portions of my recent posts to you. The ball is in your court to reply to such posts or not.
I don't remember the posts you are referring to. Would you please point me to them, thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't remember the posts you are referring to. Would you please point me to them, thanks.

I may have missed it, but I don't believe you responded to my points in Post #811, and Post #812.

Also, in Post #816,

You stated to me:

“Your twisting of what Paul writes cannot alter the commands of Christ.”
~ Religiot.

My response was:

“Where did I twist what Paul writes?
Care to explain? Or are you just making baseless accusations?
What do you believe are the commands of Christ that cannot be altered? Are you suggesting water baptism?
Yes, I believe we are commanded by Jesus to be water baptized, but it is not how we are initially saved. For Cornelius received the Spirit (He was Spirit baptized) before he was water baptized.” ~ Bible Highlighter.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe you gave a response to this one.
 
Upvote 0

Religiot

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2020
1,046
384
Private
✟29,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Where did I twist what Paul writes?
Care to explain? Or are you just making baseless accusations?
Fair enough, I will explain:

The following will prove that you have indeed twisted 1 Corinthians 1:17, to mean something Paul never intended:

PAUL EMULATES CHRIST

1Co 11:1-2: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Paul's Helpers Baptized Like the Lord's Disciples Baptized
(John 4:2)

1Co 1:10-17: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. *17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

*Note:

Verse 17 above is often cited by naysayers as evidence against baptism, yet when examined in the context of the letter, and in the context of the scriptures, and in the light of the Gospel, the evidence not only shows that their use of the verse is fully erroneous, but that this same letter to the Corinthians, much to their chagrin, contains more mentions and teachings, concerning baptism, than any other letter by Paul or any other apostle! Furthermore, it serves to contribute to the substantiation of the doctrine that all Christians are authorized to baptize as commanded by the Lord. Paul's practice, as stated by himself above, is an emulation of Christ, in accordance with the very practice of Christ Himself [Jhn-4:2].

Following is a simple diagram of this first letter to the Corinthians, divided in three parts, commencing with the detail to the above reference made by Paul, which is found in Acts ch.18, wherein the identity of Crispus is found to be none other than the Chief Ruler of the Synagogue (this fact should speak for itself concerning the kind of help Paul had at Corinth); moreover, the Corinthians baptized at the time are described as many; this rightly raises the question, 'Who baptized the many Corinthians, if Paul baptized "none", save the aforementioned exceptions?' The second part continues the diagram with the closing of 1st Corinthians, which provides unequivocal evidence, that Paul, like all other messengers of Christ, had helpers called firstfruits, which performed the baptizing: This is in obedience to the commandment of the Lord, to make others like themselves, all, disciples of the Lord. The third part concludes with the summary of teachings on baptism found in this letter, which are, shamefully--to the naysayers--more numerous than any other epistle by anyone:


Part 1:
The Reference to Paul's Statement

Act 18:1-11: After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them. 3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. 5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. 6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. 7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man’s house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. 8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. 9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: 10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. 11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Part 2:
The Closing of the Letter Containing the Exhortation
for Submission to Paul's Fellow Labourers
Who are Called the Firstfruits

1Co 16:15-17: I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) 16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth. 17 I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.

Part 3:
Summary of Baptism Teachings Found in 1st Corinthians

First Doctrine:
Paul's Warning that Baptism and Spiritual Gifts do not Preclude Obedience

1Co 10:1-6: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

Second Doctrine:
We are All Baptized into One and All Drink into One

1Co 12:11-13, 25: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit... ...25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

Third Doctrine:
Our Baptism is without purpose if Christ did not
Rise from the Dead

1Co 15:12-35: Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. 33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

All of the above proves your misunderstanding and misuse (twisting) of 1 Corinthians 1:17.

EDIT: The algorithm displays a smiley face for some KJV punctuation marks, so I've had to alter the colon and parenthesis combination in one verse to remove the smiley face it renders.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Fair enough, I will explain:

The following will prove that you have indeed twisted 1 Corinthians 1:17, to mean something Paul never intended:

PAUL EMULATES CHRIST

1Co 11:1-2: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Paul's Helpers Baptized Like the Lord's Disciples Baptized
(John 4:2)

1Co 1:10-17: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. *17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

*Note:

Verse 17 above is often cited by naysayers as evidence against baptism, yet when examined in the context of the letter, and in the context of the scriptures, and in the light of the Gospel, the evidence not only shows that their use of the verse is fully erroneous, but that this same letter to the Corinthians, much to their chagrin, contains more mentions and teachings, concerning baptism, than any other letter by Paul or any other apostle! Furthermore, it serves to contribute to the substantiation of the doctrine that all Christians are authorized to baptize as commanded by the Lord. Paul's practice, as stated by himself above, is an emulation of Christ, in accordance with the very practice of Christ Himself [Jhn-4:2].

Following is a simple diagram of this first letter to the Corinthians, divided in three parts, commencing with the detail to the above reference made by Paul, which is found in Acts ch.18, wherein the identity of Crispus is found to be none other than the Chief Ruler of the Synagogue (this fact should speak for itself concerning the kind of help Paul had at Corinth); moreover, the Corinthians baptized at the time are described as many; this rightly raises the question, 'Who baptized the many Corinthians, if Paul baptized "none", save the aforementioned exceptions?' The second part continues the diagram with the closing of 1st Corinthians, which provides unequivocal evidence, that Paul, like all other messengers of Christ, had helpers called firstfruits, which performed the baptizing: This is in obedience to the commandment of the Lord, to make others like themselves, all, disciples of the Lord. The third part concludes with the summary of teachings on baptism found in this letter, which are, shamefully--to the naysayers--more numerous than any other epistle by anyone:


Part 1:
The Reference to Paul's Statement

Act 18:1-11: After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them. 3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. 5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. 6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. 7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man’s house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. 8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. 9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: 10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. 11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Part 2:
The Closing of the Letter Containing the Exhortation
for Submission to Paul's Fellow Labourers
Who are Called the Firstfruits

1Co 16:15-17: I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) 16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth. 17 I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.

Part 3:
Summary of Baptism Teachings Found in 1st Corinthians

First Doctrine:
Paul's Warning that Baptism and Spiritual Gifts do not Preclude Obedience

1Co 10:1-6: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

Second Doctrine:
We are All Baptized into One and All Drink into One

1Co 12:11-13, 25: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit... ...25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

Third Doctrine:
Our Baptism is without purpose if Christ did not
Rise from the Dead

1Co 15:12-35: Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. 33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

All of the above proves your misunderstanding and misuse (twisting) of 1 Corinthians 1:17.

EDIT: The algorithm displays a smiley face for some KJV punctuation marks, so I've had to alter the colon and parenthesis combination in one verse to remove the smiley face it renders.

First, your tract equates the gospel with baptism. Yet, Paul's own words in 1 Corinthians 1:17 plainly states that he comes not to baptize but to preach the gospel. This means the gospel, and water baptism are two different things. The beginning of the gospel in Mark 1 has now evolved beyond John's water baptism. Again, if things are as you say, and Paul had helpers to baptize, and the gospel was water baptism, Paul would contradict himself in saying I come not to baptize (i.e. come not to get you saved by the gospel), but I come to preach the gospel. So Paul preached water baptism (the gospel), and yet he did not administer the gospel act? Come on now. Paul would have made that fact clear and say this. But he didn't.

John the Baptist says:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” (Matthew 3:11).​

This is the baptism that is now to be. Being baptized into the Spirit.

Second, you are reading water baptism in between the lines.
Water baptism (while a believer can do such a thing) is not the one and only baptism mentioned in Ephesians 1:4-5.

4 “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,”
(Ephesians 1:4-5).​

So if John talked about how he baptized with water, and he predicted that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, this suggests a change in the program.

This is exactly what we see. In Ephesians 1:5, Paul says that there is one baptism and not TWO. John the baptist even recognizes that Spirit baptism is going to be done by Christ.

We see this change take place in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7. Those disciples of John the Baptist did not know of the Holy Ghost, and they were only aware of John's water baptism. Paul did not ask them to be water baptized again in the name of Jesus. Pay very close attention. In the King James: We read how Paul baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, but he lays his hands on them to receive the Spirit as a part of this baptism. This is the ONE baptism now according to Ephesians 1:4-5. We see Cornelius saved by being baptized by the Spirit before he is even water baptized. But seeing Peter is a Jew, he baptizes them in water. Paul did not water baptize all because it was not a requirement for salvation. Water baptism is also not the evolved plan in God's program of the gospel. It was Spirit baptism as John the baptist prophesied. For there is one who is mightier than him who would baptize them in the Spirit and with fire.

As for Paul imitating Christ:

There are limits to this. Obviously Paul would not imitate Christ in regards to accepting worship as God. Paul would also not imitate Christ in regards to telling another to reconcile with his brother before offering up an animal sacrifice, either (See: Matthew 5:24). Do we still obey this command? Are we altering the command of Christ by not offering animal sacrifices? At one time, Jesus endorsed animal sacrifice and commanded a man to do so after reconciling with his brother. But the temple veil has been torn from top to bottom. There are no more animal sacrifices that can be offered up to the OT aaronic priesthood anymore. We now have a new heavenly high priest after a different priesthood order.

As for Crispus:

Well, he was a ruler of the synagogue. Synagogues were for the Jews. This means he was a Jew. Water baptism was a Jewish ceremony that did not begin with John the Baptist, but it was an old Jewish custom.

My encouragement is to check out this article here:

What is True Baptism?

They talk about this more in Scripture at length, and make some excellent points you may not have considered.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Religiot

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2020
1,046
384
Private
✟29,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
First, your tract equates the gospel with baptism. Yet, Paul's own words in 1 Corinthians 1:17 plainly states that he comes not to baptize but to preach the gospel. This means the gospel, and water baptism are two different things. The beginning of the gospel in Mark 1 has now evolved beyond John's water baptism. Again, if things are as you say, and Paul had helpers to baptize, and the gospel was water baptism, Paul would contradict himself in saying I come not to baptize (i.e. come not to get you saved by the gospel), but I come to preach the gospel. So Paul preached water baptism (the gospel), and yet he did not administer the gospel act? Come on now. Paul would have made that fact clear and say this. But he didn't.

John the Baptist says:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” (Matthew 3:11).​

This is the baptism that is now to be. Being baptized into the Spirit.

Second, you are reading water baptism in between the lines.
Water baptism (while a believer can do such a thing) is not the one and only baptism mentioned in Ephesians 1:4-5.

4 “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,”
(Ephesians 1:4-5).​

So if John talked about how he baptized with water, and he predicted that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, this suggests a change in the program.

This is exactly what we see. In Ephesians 1:5, Paul says that there is one baptism and not TWO. John the baptist even recognizes that Spirit baptism is going to be done by Christ.

We see this change take place in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7. Those disciples of John the Baptist did not know of the Holy Ghost, and they were only aware of John's water baptism. Paul did not ask them to be water baptized again in the name of Jesus. Pay very close attention. In the King James: We read how Paul baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, but he lays his hands on them to receive the Spirit as a part of this baptism. This is the ONE baptism now according to Ephesians 1:4-5. We see Cornelius saved by being baptized by the Spirit before he is even water baptized. But seeing Peter is a Jew, he baptizes them in water. Paul did not water baptize all because it was not a requirement for salvation. Water baptism is also not the evolved plan in God's program of the gospel. It was Spirit baptism as John the baptist prophesied. For there is one who is mightier than him who would baptize them in the Spirit and with fire.

As for Paul imitating Christ:

There are limits to this. Obviously Paul would not imitate Christ in regards to accepting worship as God. Paul would also not imitate Christ in regards to telling another to reconcile with his brother before offering up an animal sacrifice, either (See: Matthew 5:24). Do we still obey this command? Are we altering the command of Christ by not offering animal sacrifices? At one time, Jesus endorsed animal sacrifice and commanded a man to do so after reconciling with his brother. But the temple veil has been torn from top to bottom. There are no more animal sacrifices that can be offered up to the OT aaronic priesthood anymore. We now have a new heavenly high priest after a different priesthood order.

As for Crispus:

Well, he was a ruler of the synagogue. Synagogues were for the Jews. This means he was a Jew. Water baptism was a Jewish ceremony that did not begin with John the Baptist, but it was an old Jewish custom.

My encouragement is to check out this article here:

What is True Baptism?

They talk about this more in Scripture at length, and make some excellent points you may not have considered.
How you've concluded that I, or the tract, say that the gospel is water baptism is beyond me.

Not only is your allegation absurd, it doesn't follow from anything that I've actually said, and certainly not anything the tract says.

Moreover, I have never heard of anyone, at any point, ever say, that water baptism is the gospel...

If maintaining such an absurdly built strawman is all you have, then perhaps it is best for us to cease any further conversation.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How you've concluded that I, or the tract, say that the gospel is water baptism is beyond me.

Not only is your allegation absurd, it doesn't follow from anything that I've actually said, and certainly not anything the tract says.

Moreover, I have never heard of anyone, at any point, ever say, that water baptism is the gospel...

If maintaining such an absurdly built strawman is all you have, then perhaps it is best for us to cease any further conversation.

On page 34 we see this....

full


The heart of the of the gospel is actually 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (i.e. Believing that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later - for our salvation). It can include repentance (i.e. repentance = seeking forgiveness of the Lord Jesus by way of prayer), and Spirit baptism (Mark 1:1-8). This all eventually leads to an obedience of the faith (or or the following fruits of repentance or holy living and good works). So this statement is only true if you have given the proper details about what the gospel actually is. The tract mentions no such thing. Before, you stated that every Christian knows about these details. I assert that such a thing is not true. I have ran into Christians who actually deny God's grace and make salvation all about works (with no grace).

It's like Titus 2:11-12. God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present. But your tract appears to eliminate grace (seeking forgiveness with the Lord - Romans 10:13, Luke 18:9-14), and belief that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and it just jumps to living holy. It doesn't work like that.

On page 36 we see this...

full


Notice the words that are placed on a black background towards the bottom right. It says those who deny this simple truth are preaching another Jesus, another gospel, and they are ministers of Satan.

I see baptism in the picture and I am being told to be baptized, and then I am told as the final point at the bottom right that those who deny this simple truth (i.e. water baptism for salvation), they are preaching another gospel. This is the clear way to read this tract whether it was your intention to promote baptismal salvation as the gospel or not. There are groups like the church of Christ who believe you are initially saved only by being water baptized. By your tract (Whether it was your intention or not), it is saying that if a person does not water baptize, they are preaching another gospel; Thus, the tract here is equating water baptism with the gospel. Note: On page 35, you stress the point about trusting and obeying the Lord for salvation. While the truth of obeying the Lord for salvation is true (ONLY AFTER being saved by God's grace and the gospel n 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), the tract then immediately then jumps into talking about baptism on page 36; Thereby implying baptismal salvation. You then say that those who deny this truth (baptismal salvation) are preaching another gospel. Again, this implies that baptismal salvation is the gospel.

Side Note:

What makes matters worse is that your tract pokes fun at the Sinner's Prayer. So the tract fails to realize that the Sinner's Prayer is a part of being saved by God's grace (of which we see in Luke 15:17-21, Luke 18:9-14, Romans 10:13, Psalms 51, Proverbs 28:13, Jonah 3:6-10, 1 John 2:1, 1 John 1:9, Matthew 3:6, Acts of the Apostles 8:22). The tract does not stress that the Sinner's Prayer alone with no changed life is wrong. The tract just says that the Sinner's Prayer will not save them. Thus, it implies that it is wrong even though we see this truth expressed many times in Scripture. What blows my mind is that there are many Pastors and preachers denying the Sinner's Prayer today. This is scary stuff. The Bible makes it plain about this truth. Only those who desire to change the Bible and look to the original languages beyond what the KJV says, or they are seeking to make disciples after themselves will they fall into this kind of error.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How you've concluded that I, or the tract, say that the gospel is water baptism is beyond me.

Not only is your allegation absurd, it doesn't follow from anything that I've actually said, and certainly not anything the tract says.

Moreover, I have never heard of anyone, at any point, ever say, that water baptism is the gospel...

If maintaining such an absurdly built strawman is all you have, then perhaps it is best for us to cease any further conversation.

If you have not seen post #838, please go back and read that post first.

If your tract is not preaching the heart of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (that we are to believe that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later for salvation), it is preaching another gospel (Whether that was your intention or not in either the creation or promotion of such a tract). By the reading of your tract: I have no right understanding of how to properly be saved initially by the Lord. The tract promotes a person to be saved initially via by water baptism (Which is what the Church of Christ and other churches believe). Water baptism does not initially save a person because Cornelius was saved by Spirit baptism before he was water baptized. Paul says there is one baptism in Ephesians and he says he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If your tract preached how we must FIRST believe in the gospel as laid out in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (Believing that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later - for salvation) and it preached how the Sinner's Prayer (God's grace) towards Jesus can save us (as long as we make good on our promise with the Lord to change our life), then I would not have a problem with the tract.

But the tract preaches another gospel. It gives me the impression that the Sinner's Prayer cannot save, and that I must be first water baptized in order to be saved. No belief in the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is necessary according to your tract. Just obedience is all that is needed. But a person cannot save themselves by their own works without God's grace. A person cannot be saved if they deny the truth of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. For a person who lives out their faith: They must eventually come to the truth early on in their faith that they are saved by God's grace, & the gospel. Only THEN can they abide in Christ and allow Christ to do the good works through them.
 
Upvote 0