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

Religiot · Jul 9, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Whether that is true of Jack Chick or not; Two wrongs do not make a right.

Again, you miss the obvious.

There is only one wrong in this case, Mr. Chick's ACTUAL plagiarism; and that is why the irony is so meaningful.

The tract is without the elements that constitute plagiarism, but you don't care about that.

Mr. Chick, and others like him, are responsible for leading many believers astray.

His business practices are wholly irrelevant to me, save for the irony the truth produced by your false allegations of plagiarism.

Not only do deceived-deceivers like Mr. Chick produce material that contradict the gospel of Christ, but they also sell it.

The truth cannot be sold, it must be given away, freely.

Ministers are to live off of the gospel they give away freely, by the contributions of those whom God touches to give: to sell the gospel, or anything related to God, is abomination, and a clear proof that the seller is without understanding.

Religiot · Jul 9, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Oh, then you simply believe in the teaching of the Trinity then, but you simply reject the use of the name “Trinity.” Is that correct? If so, I don’t have a problem with that.

I believe in the teaching of the Godhead, period.

I reject the term "trinity" for many reasons, chief among them is because of the many iterations of the concept of the trinity.

I use the term Godhead, because it is the right term, free from modern conjecture.

Phil W · Jul 9, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
But until that water or crucifixion comes, he is not saved then, right? A believer can only first be saved by getting wet or dying?

That is correct.
He can't be reborn until the "old man" is first killed-crucified with Christ. (Rom 6:3-7, Gal 5:24)
Even Cornelius was water baptized, according to Jesus' commands (Matt 28:19) within moments of his having received the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 10:47-48)

Bible Highlighter · Jul 9, 2020

Phil W said:
That is correct.
He can't be reborn until the "old man" is first killed-crucified with Christ. (Rom 6:3-7, Gal 5:24)
Even Cornelius was water baptized, according to Jesus' commands (Matt 28:19) within moments of his having received the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 10:47-48)

Sorry, I don't believe God makes a person to jump through major hoops like that so as to be initially saved. Paul says he comes not to baptize but to preach the gospel. If water baptism was for initial salvation then Paul would never speak negatively against water baptism. That would be like Paul saying, “I come not to get anyone initially saved, but I come to preach the gospel.”

Bible Highlighter · Jul 9, 2020

Religiot said:
I believe in the teaching of the Godhead, period.

I reject the term "trinity" for many reasons, chief among them is because of the many iterations of the concept of the trinity.

I use the term Godhead, because it is the right term, free from modern conjecture.

I am truly relieved to hear that. It is a great concern to me when folks reject the Godhead in favor of the Oneness doctrine, or Modalism, or Arianism, etc.; If I am understanding you correctly, I can now say we at least worship the same God as described in Scripture.

Phil W · Jul 9, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Sorry, I don't believe God makes a person to jump through major hoops like that so as to be initially saved.

I don't call obeying Jesus a "hoop".
In fact, acting with faith in obedience declares my faith.

Paul says he comes not to baptize but to preach the gospel. If water baptism was for initial salvation then Paul would never speak negatively against water baptism. That would be like Paul saying, “I come not to get anyone initially saved, but I come to preach the gospel.”

Don't you agree that hearing the gospel would come before any "next" step to salvation?
By "step", I mean an action to manifest one's belief.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 9, 2020

Religiot said:
Again, you miss the obvious.

There is only one wrong in this case, Mr. Chick's ACTUAL plagiarism; and that is why the irony is so meaningful.

Well, I only have your word on that. Who said this to you?
What makes you trust them? Was it one of his former employees?
If it is a former employee, maybe this former employee is making things up.

Now, if you believe you have witnessed these things yourself firsthand, again, ...

Two wrongs do not make a right.

You said:
The tract is without the elements that constitute plagiarism, but you don't care about that.

plagiarism

pla·gia·rism
Use plagiarism in a sentence

noun:

Plagiarism is the act of copying or stealing someone else's words or ideas and passing them off as your own work.

An example of plagiarism is when you copy a paper from the Internet, put your name on it and turn it in as if you wrote it.
An example of plagiarism is when you buy a term paper or essay written by someone else and attempt to use it as your own.
An example of plagiarism is paraphrasing materials without correctly attributing the source or research text.

Source:
Plagiarism dictionary definition | plagiarism defined

You said:
Mr. Chick, and others like him, are responsible for leading many believers astray.

He leads people to Christ and tells them about the gospel. He is an entrance gate man like many out there. He also warns against many false religions like Mormonism, JW's, and others. He may not teach Sanctification for salvation, but I think he believed that a believer will live a changed life and not justify a horrible lifestyle of sin. While I may disagree with his denial of Sanctification as a part of the salvation process, I do believe he has helped many to accept Jesus Christ and to follow Him.

Not only do deceived-deceivers like Mr. Chick produce material that contradict the gospel of Christ, but they also sell it.

So you don't think that this is not the gospel below?

Images source:
Chick.com: Greatest Story Ever Told

Paul says the gospel below:

1 “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Paul essentially says in this passage that the gospel is believing that Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later for our salvation.

We see these things mentioned in the pics I presented. So I fail to see how you think Chick preaches another gospel (unlike the tract that you presented).

You said:
The truth cannot be sold, it must be given away, freely.

I am sure you can say the same thing of the Bible, but Bibles cost money to print. The same is true of Chick tracts. He also makes his tracts available to read for free online, as well. So he is not hoarding the truth for a price.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 9, 2020

Phil W said:
I don't call obeying Jesus a "hoop".
In fact, acting with faith in obedience declares my faith.

I also believe that we must obey Jesus as a part of salvation after we are saved by God's grace. Being saved by God's grace includes believing that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later for our salvation; And it includes seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ over our sin.

However, I just do not think water baptism is a part of salvation.
I mean, there was no urgency in Philip trying to find some water nearby in order to get the Ethiopian Eunuch saved.

Philip did not say to the Ethiopian Eunuch,...

“Quick, we need to find some water
to get you saved or to keep you saved.”

Sorry, that just didn't happen.

I believe that while a believer can be water baptized, this was an Old Covenant ritual, and Spirit baptism was the eventual replacement of water baptism that was done by John. We see this transition take place in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7.

You said:
Don't you agree that hearing the gospel would come before any "next" step to salvation?
By "step", I mean an action to manifest one's belief.

Paul says he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Again, why would he speak against an initial step or the next step of salvation?

That would be like
Paul saying,
“I come to save you by preaching the gospel,
but I do not come to manifest your belief
by helping you to be baptized and continue in salvation.”
“It's not my job to keep you saved”

Phil W · Jul 10, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
I also believe that we must obey Jesus as a part of salvation after we are saved by God's grace. Being saved by God's grace includes believing that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later for our salvation; And it includes seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ over our sin.

I believe the same, but our salvation will still be dependent on our obedience to God.
If we truly believe Jesus died for our sins, how can we possibly go and commit more sins?

However, I just do not think water baptism is a part of salvation.

Jesus commanded it, so that is enough for me to take it seriously.

I mean, there was no urgency in Philip trying to find some water nearby in order to get the Ethiopian Eunuch saved.

Philip did not say to the Ethiopian Eunuch,...
“Quick, we need to find some water
to get you saved or to keep you saved.”
Sorry, that just didn't happen.

The eunuch must have already heard about baptism from Philip or he wouldn't even have mentioned it.
The eunuch's reaction was enough for me to take baptism seriously.
Besides, it is baptism that washes away our sins, as Peter wrote..."Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," (Acts 2:38)
And Luke wrote of Ananias..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

I believe that while a believer can be water baptized, this was an Old Covenant ritual, and Spirit baptism was the eventual replacement of water baptism that was done by John. We see this transition take place in Acts of the Apostles 19:1-7.

It wasn't a replacement, but an addendum.
Even the verses from Acts 19 you used point this out...(v5)"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
The gift of the Holy Ghost (baptism thereof) came later, when Paul laid hands on the twelve at Ephesus.

Paul says he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Again, why would he speak against an initial step or the next step of salvation?

Paul's priority was to give the "good news" before anything else.
The rest of the message, of repentance from sin, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, enduring till the end, would come later.
Hear and believe...first.
What point is there in teaching about baptism or repentance to unbelievers?
In addition to that, Paul makes it clear that he DID baptize some already, and it is also noted in Acts 18:8 that MANY believing Corinthians were baptized.

That would be like
Paul saying,
“I come to save you by preaching the gospel,
but I do not come to manifest your belief
by helping you to be baptized and continue in salvation.”
“It's not my job to keep you saved”

One step at a time.
Real believers will not stop at just hearing the gospel.
They will desire from the heart more than just an initial "teaser".

What do you do when you present the good news to others?
Do you just tell them about Jesus' death for us and of His resurrection and then leave them to the world without some sort of guidance?

Bible Highlighter · Jul 11, 2020

Phil W said:
I believe the same, but our salvation will still be dependent on our obedience to God.
If we truly believe Jesus died for our sins, how can we possibly go and commit more sins?

I agree. I believe grievous sin (or mortal sin) can separate a believer from God or the Lord. A believer who has black slidden into sin needs to confess of their sins and turn back to serving the Lord, or they will not be saved. Even one sin can spiritually destroy a believer and lead to their own condemnation along with the wicked (like with Ananias and Sapphira).

You said:
Jesus commanded it, so that is enough for me to take it seriously.

Yes, He did. But John the Baptist said he baptizes with water but that there is One who is mightier than him (i.e. Jesus) who would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. This is the baptism that Jesus was referring to in the great commission. Spirit baptism because John was saying that things would be different with Jesus. For Ephesians 4:5 says there is one baptism and not two. Acts 19:1-7 shows the transition between John's water baptism (which is an OT covenant ritual) to a change with Spirit baptism. These disciples of John the Baptist did not know of the Holy Ghost, so Paul gave them the Spirit baptism so as to give them the Spirit by his laying his hands on them.

Paul said he came not to baptize (water baptize) but to preach the gospel. In 1 Peter 3:21: Peter says that baptism (water baptism) does not save for the putting away of the filthin of the flesh, but it is something done as an answer to having a good conscience towards God. Meaning, it is something someone will do as a part of having an already clean conscience before God. The putting away of the “filth of the flesh” is in reference to sin in 1 Peter 3:21. 2 Corinthians 7:1 uses similar words. This verse refers to “filthiness of the flesh” as sin. Meaning, water baptism does not save you in putting away sin. Granted, I believe Peter was describing the old way of baptism, though (that was an Old covenant ritual). One can be water baptized, but it is not the one baptism as mentioned in Ephesians 4:5. Spirit baptism is the one baptism in Ephesians 4:5 because it is how we receive the Holy Spirit. For 1 Corinthians 12:13 says how we are all made to drink of one Spirit.

I mean, I get it. It took me time to see this. I remember a long while back another poster (here at CF) who was trying to show me that Spirit baptism replaced water baptism, but when I looked at the passages at that time, I couldn't see it. In time, without any man trying to convince, but God and the Scriptures alone, I then saw it as clear as day. Spirit baptism replaced water baptism. The key was Acts 19:1-7. It showed a change or transition between the two.

Then later I seen this article, and it confirmed what I already knew.

What is True Baptism?

Side Note:

I have been water baptized, so this has nothing to do with my own choice involving water baptism personally. So I was not motivated by my own life decision, but by what the Word says.

You said:
The eunuch must have already heard about baptism from Philip or he wouldn't even have mentioned it.

Or he knew of it because the Jews had baptizing pools.
Remember, when John the baptist called people from all the region to be baptized. They were not surprised by what John the baptist was doing. The pharisees did not question why John had to water baptize and what that meant. It was an Old Covenant ritual they were already familiar with.

You said:
The eunuch's reaction was enough for me to take baptism seriously.

The Eunuch was a new believer. Philip's reaction was more convincing for me. He treated it as not as important or essential. The Eunuch was the one who got all excited. Philip said you mayest if you believe. But we have to remember that the church that was primarily Jewish, and it was God's goal to get the Jewish Christians to accept the Gentiles into God's program. Water baptism was something that was from the OT covenant way of life that they knew and accepted. By the Gentiles acceptance of their rituals, it showed their acceptance by God as the church transitioned.

You said:
Besides, it is baptism that washes away our sins, as Peter wrote..."Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," (Acts 2:38)

Baptism symbolically washed away sin. Baptism is a symbolic picture of being buried with Christ (Romans 6:3). Romans 6:3 refers to either water baptism or Spirit baptism. But seeing Spirit baptism replaced water baptism (As we see in Acts 19:1-7), Romans 6:3 would refer to Spirit baptism for the believer today.

It was repentance (Seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ) that actually did the washing away of sin literally.

Water baptism was generally done along with confessing one's sins to the Lord (See: Matthew 3:6).

And Luke wrote of Ananias..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

I believe the word “and” starts a new thought in this verse. Ananias is saying, “and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord”
Baptism is the first instruction.
And calling on the name of the Lord to wash away your sins is the second instruction.

You said:
It wasn't a replacement, but an addendum.
Even the verses from Acts 19 you used point this out...(v5)"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
The gift of the Holy Ghost (baptism thereof) came later, when Paul laid hands on the twelve at Ephesus.

No. John the baptist said he baptizes with water, but there is One who is mightier than him who will baptize with the Spirit. This means that John is prophetically speaking of a change in the program. We see this change in the program in Acts 19:1-7. Water baptism was not good enough, and they needed to be Spirit baptized (Which is the one baptism mentioned in Ephesians 4:5).

You said:
Paul's priority was to give the "good news" before anything else.
The rest of the message, of repentance from sin, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, enduring till the end, would come later.
Hear and believe...first. In addition to that, Paul makes it clear that he DID baptize some already, and it is also noted in Acts 18:8 that MANY believing Corinthians were baptized.

Sorry, I am not buying it. You made it sound like baptism is a part of initial salvation like in Acts of the Apostles 2:28, and in Acts of the Apostles 22:16. If such is the case, then Paul would not deny an initial step of salvation by saying he came not to baptize. For he had already baptized already and the fact that he says he now does not come to baptize shows its own insignificance in God's new program for the church.

You said:
What point is there in teaching about baptism or repentance to unbelievers?

Repentance is what saves. Water baptism was just symbolic when it was in effect and while it was being employed during the transitional period where the Jewish church needed to accept the Gentiles. We have to get out from under the Old Covenant way of thinking. Water baptism is of the old way, and Spirit baptism is of the new way. But don't take my word for it. Pray about it. Ask God to show you the truth on this and He will. At one time, I could not see it.

Phil W · Jul 11, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
I agree. I believe grievous sin (or mortal sin) can separate a believer from God or the Lord. A believer who has black slidden into sin needs to confess of their sins and turn back to serving the Lord, or they will not be saved. Even one sin can spiritually destroy a believer and lead to their own condemnation along with the wicked (like with Ananias and Sapphira).

All sins are "grievous sins".
A certain sect made up the differentiation of sin in order to perpetuate it in their midst.

Yes, He did. But John the Baptist said he baptizes with water but that there is One who is mightier than him (i.e. Jesus) who would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. This is the baptism that Jesus was referring to in the great commission. Spirit baptism because John was saying that things would be different with Jesus. For Ephesians 4:5 says there is one baptism and not two. Acts 19:1-7 shows the transition between John's water baptism (which is an OT covenant ritual) to a change with Spirit baptism. These disciples of John the Baptist did not know of the Holy Ghost, so Paul gave them the Spirit baptism so as to give them the Spirit by his laying his hands on them.

I see no transition, but an addendum.
There are more than one baptism mentioned in the bible.
Water baptism is done by men, still, but God gives the gift of the Holy Ghost (Spirit baptism).
That is shown in the story of the twelve at Ephesus.
Two different baptisms two consecutive verses.

Paul said he came not to baptize (water baptize) but to preach the gospel. In 1 Peter 3:21: Peter says that baptism (water baptism) does not save for the putting away of the filthin of the flesh, but it is something done as an answer to having a good conscience towards God. Meaning, it is something someone will do as a part of having an already clean conscience before God. The putting away of the “filth of the flesh” is in reference to sin in 1 Peter 3:21. 2 Corinthians 7:1 uses similar words. This verse refers to “filthiness of the flesh” as sin. Meaning, water baptism does not save you in putting away sin. Granted, I believe Peter was describing the old way of baptism, though (that was an Old covenant ritual). One can be water baptized, but it is not the one baptism as mentioned in Ephesians 4:5. Spirit baptism is the one baptism in Ephesians 4:5 because it is how we receive the Holy Spirit. For 1 Corinthians 12:13 says how we are all made to drink of one Spirit.

Though Paul said he didn't come to baptize, he also didn't come to teach on the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost or on doing the Lord's supper, or on spiritual gifts or healing.
Nut he did later...right?
The gospel was just the first step, an ice-breaker of sorts. ie.,..."Believe this, and we can move on to the next couple of lessons".
And he did water baptize, even listing some he remembered.
And you misinterpret 1 Peter 3:21.
"Filth of the flesh" regards the simple bathing of the skin, not the washing of sin by the blood of Christ; which happens at our "baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins". (Acts 2:38)
1 Peter 3:21 was the scripture that compelled me to ask for water baptism.

I mean, I get it. It took me time to see this. I remember a long while back another poster (here at CF) who was trying to show me that Spirit baptism replaced water baptism, but when I looked at the passages at that time, I couldn't see it. In time, without any man trying to convince, but God and the Scriptures alone, I then saw it as clear as day. Spirit baptism replaced water baptism. The key was Acts 19:1-7. It showed a change or transition between the two.

The most clear mention of two different baptisms showed you clearly that there is only one baptism?

Then later I seen this article, and it confirmed what I already knew.
What is True Baptism?
Side Note:
I have been water baptized, so this has nothing to do with my own choice involving water baptism personally. So I was not motivated by my own life decision, but by what the Word says.

Let me ask this...where in scripture do you see the likening of "burial" associated with the gift of the Holy Ghost? (Rom 6:5)
I see it with water baptism when men are submerged in water.

Or he knew of it because the Jews had baptizing pools.
Remember, when John the baptist called people from all the region to be baptized. They were not surprised by what John the baptist was doing. The pharisees did not question why John had to water baptize and what that meant. It was an Old Covenant ritual they were already familiar with.
The Eunuch was a new believer. Philip's reaction was more convincing for me. He treated it as not as important or essential. The Eunuch was the one who got all excited. Philip said you mayest if you believe. But we have to remember that the church that was primarily Jewish, and it was God's goal to get the Jewish Christians to accept the Gentiles into God's program. Water baptism was something that was from the OT covenant way of life that they knew and accepted. By the Gentiles acceptance of their rituals, it showed their acceptance by God as the church transitioned.
Baptism symbolically washed away sin. Baptism is a symbolic picture of being buried with Christ (Romans 6:3). Romans 6:3 refers to either water baptism or Spirit baptism. But seeing Spirit baptism replaced water baptism (As we see in Acts 19:1-7), Romans 6:3 would refer to Spirit baptism for the believer today.

It was repentance (Seeking forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ) that actually did the washing away of sin literally.

Scripture please.
Your definition of repentance also differs from mine.

Water baptism was generally done along with confessing one's sins to the Lord (See: Matthew 3:6).
I believe the word “and” starts a new thought in this verse. Ananias is saying, “and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord”
Baptism is the first instruction.
And calling on the name of the Lord to wash away your sins is the second instruction.

Which aligns perfectly with Peter's command to "baptize in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin" in Acts 2:38.
This was before Peter was aware of the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost being called a spirit baptism, so must have referred to water baptism.

No. John the baptist said he baptizes with water, but there is One who is mightier than him who will baptize with the Spirit. This means that John is prophetically speaking of a change in the program. We see this change in the program in Acts 19:1-7. Water baptism was not good enough, and they needed to be Spirit baptized (Which is the one baptism mentioned in Ephesians 4:5).
Sorry, I am not buying it. You made it sound like baptism is a part of initial salvation like in Acts of the Apostles 2:28, and in Acts of the Apostles 22:16. If such is the case, then Paul would not deny an initial step of salvation by saying he came not to baptize. For he had already baptized already and the fact that he says he now does not come to baptize shows its own insignificance in God's new program for the church.
Repentance is what saves. Water baptism was just symbolic when it was in effect and while it was being employed during the transitional period where the Jewish church needed to accept the Gentiles. We have to get out from under the Old Covenant way of thinking. Water baptism is of the old way, and Spirit baptism is of the new way. But don't take my word for it. Pray about it. Ask God to show you the truth on this and He will. At one time, I could not see it.

I haven't time tonight to address all the differences in our beliefs...maybe later.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 12, 2020

Phil W said:
All sins are "grievous sins".
A certain sect made up the differentiation of sin in order to perpetuate it in their midst.

Not all sin is the same. There are grievous sins that lead unto spiritual death, and there are minor infractions or hidden faults that do not lead to spiritual death.

Grievous sin is another name for a "sin unto death"
(Note: To check out the reference to the "sin unto death," see: 1 John 5:16).
(i.e. death = spiritual death or the second death) (Note: The second death is destruction in the Lake of Fire - Revelation 21:8).

"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;" (Genesis 18:20).

Examples of Grievous Sin:

#1. Not loving God, and not loving your neighbor (For loving God and loving your neighbor is a part of eternal life; See: Luke 10:25-28 cf. Matthew 19:17-19; Not loving Jesus (God) means one is accursed, see: 1 Corinthians 16:22; As for not loving your neighbor, see the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37), and then see number #5 below).

#2. Looking at a woman in lust = danger of being cast bodily into hell fire (Matthew 5:28-30).

#3. Not forgiving = not being forgiven by the Father (Matthew 6:15).

#4. One can be condemned by their words (Matthew 12:37).

#5. Not helping the poor or the unfortunate = Going away into everlasting punishment (or everlasting fire) (Matthew 25:31-46).

#6. No man who puts his hand to the plow (i.e. one who spreads the gospel and teachings to lead men of God into holiness by His Word) and looks back (turns away from doing so) is fit for the Kingdom of God (Luke 9:62) (Note: See the KJV rendering on this verse).

#7. 1 John 3:15 says, "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."

#8. Galatians 5:19-21 says, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Meaning, those who do these kinds of sins will not inherit (enter) God's kingdom (i.e. they will not be saved). For entering God's kingdom is associated with salvation in Matthew 25:34 (Note: Paul is mentioning the violation of the Moral Law. The Moral Law is the same equivalent as loving your neighbor; See Romans 13:8-10).

#9. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8).

Minor infractions or faults of character is another name for a "sin not unto death" (i.e. not unto death = not unto spiritual death or the second death) (Note: While the "sin not unto death" mentioned in 1 John 5:17 is in context to confessed sin in John's epistle (See: 1 John 1:9), it can be extended loosely to refer to the kind of sins that do not lead to spiritual death by it's very name).

"Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults." (Psalms 19:12).

Examples of Sins That Do Not Lead Unto Spiritual Death:

#1. 1 John 5:17 mentions the "sin not unto death."
In context to 1 John 5: This would be talking about confessed grievous sin that one is striving to overcome with the Lord's help (1 John 2:1) (1 John 1:9) (Romans 13:14). In 1 John 5, the brethren are praying for this believer to have victory (life) over their sin as this believer confesses their sin (Note: Grievous sin are sins the Bible warns with punishment by hellfire, or spiritual death, etc.; These would be sins like murder, hate, adultery, theft, idolatry, etc.). If these sins are confessed with the intention of forsaking them, the individual is not abiding in spiritual death.

#2. Psalms 19:12 says, "Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults." I believe these would be faults of character or minor errors that a person might make with people. Example: A person may not be a great listener, and they do not allow others to speak like they should. By not listening to others may come off a little like they do not care (even though they care in their own way or a different way). Paul wanted to go to Jerusalem. The Spirit warned Paul not to go. He was still determined to go because he loved His fellow Jews and wanted them to know the love of Jesus. The Spirit told the brethren that Paul will be imprisoned by his going to Jerusalem. The brethren warned Paul not to go. They were in tears and loved him and begged him not to go. But Paul did not listen. He would not hear them. He did not want to hear it. Fault of character. Hidden fault. Minor error of his character. It is not something that condemned him (See Acts of the Apostles 21, and read this article here by Ray Stedman; Note: There is even a better write up than this one by Bible commentator James Boice here; Please keep in mind I do not share their views on Soteriology, though; I merely agree with their view on what happened with Paul in Acts of the Apostles 21).

3. Other Commands in the New Testament that do not seem like a major violation of loving God and loving your neighbor that have no death penalties attached to them. One example would be the command to Rejoice when men persecute you or falsely accuse you of evil in Matthew 5:11-12.

Real world examples: Going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit in area that is not life threatening to others. Not taking out the trash yesterday when it was a little stinky. These minor transgressions would obviously not send a Christian to hell.

But we as Christians strive to obey and do good in all things in the Lord. We strive to keep His commandments. For it is written,

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.' (1 John 5:3).

Side Note:

Please understand that it is not possible for a person to obey God's commands without them first being saved by Jesus Christ and His grace (i.e. by seeking forgiveness of their sin with Him, and believing in His death, and resurrection on their behalf). For Christians are initially and ultimately saved by Jesus Christ. While Christians may need to grow in the Sanctification Process, a Christian will also strive to obey even in the smallest ways in serving the Lord, as well.

Religiot · Jul 12, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Well, I only have your word on that. Who said this to you?
What makes you trust them? Was it one of his former employees?
If it is a former employee, maybe this former employee is making things up.

Now, if you believe you have witnessed these things yourself firsthand, again, ...

Two wrongs do not make a right.

plagiarism
pla·gia·rism
Use plagiarism in a sentence

noun:

Plagiarism is the act of copying or stealing someone else's words or ideas and passing them off as your own work.

An example of plagiarism is when you copy a paper from the Internet, put your name on it and turn it in as if you wrote it.

An example of plagiarism is when you buy a term paper or essay written by someone else and attempt to use it as your own.

An example of plagiarism is paraphrasing materials without correctly attributing the source or research text.

Source:
Plagiarism dictionary definition | plagiarism defined

He leads people to Christ and tells them about the gospel. He is an entrance gate man like many out there. He also warns against many false religions like Mormonism, JW's, and others. He may not teach Sanctification for salvation, but I think he believed that a believer will live a changed life and not justify a horrible lifestyle of sin. While I may disagree with his denial of Sanctification as a part of the salvation process, I do believe he has helped many to accept Jesus Christ and to follow Him.

So you don't think that this is not the gospel below?

Images source:
Chick.com: Greatest Story Ever Told

Paul says the gospel below:

1 “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Paul essentially says in this passage that the gospel is believing that Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later for our salvation.

We see these things mentioned in the pics I presented. So I fail to see how you think Chick preaches another gospel (unlike the tract that you presented).

I am sure you can say the same thing of the Bible, but Bibles cost money to print. The same is true of Chick tracts. He also makes his tracts available to read for free online, as well. So he is not hoarding the truth for a price.

You continue to miss the obvious:

The tract I'm promoting contains the artwork of both Mr. Chick and Fred Carter. The stylistic differences between the two are stark. Tho I prefer Mr. Chick's style, Mr. Carter's is obviously from a very skilled hand. (Mr. Chick's style is similar to the simple Hanna Barbara style cartoons, while Mr. Carter's is at the level of a Marvel or DC comics artist.) Moreover, this information is easily verifiable with a simple search on google.

Secondly, you continue to claim plagiarism, while overlooking that this tract is produced anonymously... You have chosen to ignore the obvious, and have therefore made yourself blind by your choice. Not only have my previous posts demonstrated your ignorance of the law, but also that your motivations are without the merits of scripture. Continuing to pretend that this tract is illegal, is just a lie, period.

Thirdly, not only have I demonstrated by my previous posts that you don't know what the gospel is, but also that you twist what Paul writes about it. The gospel includes baptism, period, because it is what the Lord commanded: any version of the gospel that ignores what the Lord commands is perverted, period.

--The Lord is the author of eternal salvation.

Anyone who contradicts the Lord is doing the work of Satan.

What makes you think that you can deny baptism as part of the gospel? Seriously. After reading the tract, and conversing with me, how can you still be at peace with that notion?

Bible Highlighter · Jul 12, 2020

Religiot said:
You continue to miss the obvious:

The tract I'm promoting contains the artwork of both Mr. Chick and Fred Carter. The stylistic differences between the two are stark. Tho I prefer Mr. Chick's style, Mr. Carter's is obviously from a very skilled hand. (Mr. Chick's style is similar to the simple Hanna Barbara style cartoons, while Mr. Carter's is at the level of a Marvel or DC comics artist.) Moreover, this information is easily verifiable with a simple search on google.

Secondly, you continue to claim plagiarism, while overlooking that this tract is produced anonymously... You have chosen to ignore the obvious, and have therefore made yourself blind by your choice. Not only have my previous posts demonstrated your ignorance of the law, but also that your motivations are without the merits of scripture. Continuing to pretend that this tract is illegal, is just a lie, period.

Thirdly, not only have I demonstrated by my previous posts that you don't know what the gospel is, but also that you twist what Paul writes about it. The gospel includes baptism, period, because it is what the Lord commanded: any version of the gospel that ignores what the Lord commands is perverted, period.

--The Lord is the author of eternal salvation.

Anyone who contradicts the Lord is doing the work of Satan.

What makes you think that you can deny baptism as part of the gospel? Seriously. After reading the tract, and conversing with me, how can you still be at peace with that notion?

Fred Carter worked with Jack Chick for many years. Fred Carter also still works for the company as an illustrator after Jack Chick has died.

You can learn about Fred Carter's involvement here:
Chick.com: About Us

I did a Google search and nothing came up as you suggest.
Why would Fred Carter still work for a company that plagiarized his work? It makes no sense.

As for the other points you brought up: I have already gave more than a sufficient answer for both of them already. Repeating myself will not help you to see what I have already stated.

Phil W · Jul 12, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Not all sin is the same. There are grievous sins that lead unto spiritual death, and there are minor infractions or hidden faults that do not lead to spiritual death.

It is written..."The wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23)
No difference is made between lies and adultery in the end.

Side Note

:
Please understand that it is not possible for a person to obey God's commands without them first being saved by Jesus Christ and His grace (i.e. by seeking forgiveness of their sin with Him, and believing in His death, and resurrection on their behalf). For Christians are initially and ultimately saved by Jesus Christ.

You call it "saved", but I call it "converted".
I'll know I am "saved" when I finish the "race".

While Christians may need to grow in the Sanctification Process, a Christian will also strive to obey even in the smallest ways in serving the Lord, as well.

I don't agree.
The sanctification "process" is repentance from all sin, permanently, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
Baptism into Christ's death is how the atoning, sanctifying blood of the Redeemer is applied to our vessels.
God's Spirit is then given, but the Spirit of God will not abide in an unsanctified temple.
The reborn start off sanctified, as that which is born of God cannot be unholy or unconsecrated.
We do, however, grow in grace and knowledge.

Religiot · Jul 12, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Fred Carter worked with Jack Chick for many years. Fred Carter also still works for the company as an illustrator after Jack Chick has died.

You can learn about Fred Carter's involvement here:
Chick.com: About Us

I did a Google search and nothing came up as you suggest.
Why would Fred Carter still work for a company that plagiarized his work? It makes no sense.

As for the other points you brought up: I have already gave more than a sufficient answer for both of them already. Repeating myself will not help you to see what I have already stated.

You are so detached from paying any kind of real attention to anything that I've said, that if our conversation were not recorded in writing I would have long ago ceased from responding to your posts; for in almost all that you've said, most doesn't follow from what I've actually posted... It's absolutely incredible, yet it serves as a wonderful example to how delusion can render the obvious as obscure...

Not only did I educate you on who Fred Carter is, but told you, specifically, that his anonymity ended, when Mr. Chick died, and Mr. Daniels took over... Mr. Daniels, not being an artist of any kind, started to put Mr. Carter's name on the tracts he had him illustrate, thus ending Mr. Chick's decades of ACTUAL plagiarism.

I spelled this out to you in post #857: Did You Really Not Know That Christ Must Be Obeyed? --Yes, You!

For you to pretend that you are educating me on this, is so absurd, that I can't help but to find it humorous, and saddening.

May God grant you repentance, in the name of Yehoshua Messiah. Amen.

Religiot · Jul 12, 2020

Phil W said:
It is written..."The wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23)
No difference is made between lies and adultery in the end.

You call it "saved", but I call it "converted".
I'll know I am "saved" when I finish the "race".

I don't agree.
The sanctification "process" is repentance from all sin, permanently, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
Baptism into Christ's death is how the atoning, sanctifying blood of the Redeemer is applied to our vessels.
God's Spirit is then given, but the Spirit of God will not abide in an unsanctified temple.
The reborn start off sanctified, as that which is born of God cannot be unholy or unconsecrated.
We do, however, grow in grace and knowledge.

Phil, I've asked you before, have you sinned since the posting of this thread?

If not, would you please explain how you maintain that.

Thank you.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 12, 2020

@Religiot:

plagiarism

pla·gia·rism
Use plagiarism in a sentence

One definition example:

An example of plagiarism is paraphrasing materials without correctly attributing the source or research text.

Source:
Plagiarism dictionary definition | plagiarism defined

Notice the one definition example above. The tract you promoted did not give credit to Jack Chick for work that is done under his name or his company brand name.

As for Fred Carter: Again, if you believe Fred Carter has been wronged, then why is Fred said to be a long time friend of Jack Chick on the website? Why hasn't Fred Carter spoke up against this kind of thing in the past in his being wronged? Do you know that artists for Hallmark cards on most greeting cards do not have the name of the artist or artists who worked on them? Instead it has the company name on it (i.e. Hallmark). Do you think the artists there are upset because it has the name Hallmark on the card instead of their own name? Fred Carter willingly worked for Chick Publications. We did not see him quit on the account of his artwork being supposedly plagiarized. We did not see him speak out against Jack Chick and how he was wronged. Fred is said to be a lifelong friend of Mr. Chick. It's only you who says otherwise. Perhaps maybe somebody who wants to discredit Jack Chick's work and what he has done for the Lord is making stuff up. Again, I did a Google search and found nothing of what you said. If you can maybe provide a link for us to see?

Bible Highlighter · Jul 12, 2020

Religiot said:
You are so detached from paying any kind of real attention to anything that I've said, that if our conversation were not recorded in writing I would have long ago ceased from responding to your posts; for in almost all that you've said, most doesn't follow from what I've actually posted... It's absolutely incredible, yet it serves as a wonderful example to how delusion can render the obvious as obscure...

Not only did I educate you on who Fred Carter is, but told you, specifically, that his anonymity ended, when Mr. Chick died, and Mr. Daniels took over... Mr. Daniels, not being an artist of any kind, started to put Mr. Carter's name on the tracts he had him illustrate, thus ending Mr. Chick's decades of ACTUAL plagiarism.

I spelled this out to you in post #857: Did You Really Not Know That Christ Must Be Obeyed? --Yes, You!

For you to pretend that you are educating me on this, is so absurd, that I can't help but to find it humorous, and saddening.

May God grant you repentance, in the name of Yehoshua Messiah. Amen.

This is simply not true.

Fred Carter is given credit for the black tract series (Including a tract called “It's Your Life”). You can verify this truth on Chick Publications article here...

Chick.com: New Tract Line with Black Characters

And yet, the tract Fred Carter created still has the initials "J.T.C." on the cover. Why?

Because if you were to open the tract up and look inside for the tract called “It's Your Life”, it says: Jack T. Chick LLC. on the inside page.

Look to the side of the page to the left here:

Did you see the words LLC next to Jack T. Chick's name?

Chick.com: It's Your Life!

What is an LLC?

A limited liability company (LLC) is a business structure in the United States whereby the owners are not personally liable for the company's debts or liabilities. Limited liability companies are hybrid entities that combine the characteristics of a corporation with those of a partnership or sole proprietorship.

Source:
The Truth About Limited Liability Companies

So the initials is a reference to the COMPANY NAME!!!!
You said that Fred Carter's name is now added to his tracts.
This is not true in regards to “It's Your life.” We can still see the COMPANY NAME .... Jack T. Chick LLC. (on the inside) or J.T.C. on the cover of the tract created by Fred Carter. So it seems you have bought into a lie from what somebody said (based on lies or half truths).

Bible Highlighter · Jul 12, 2020

Phil W said:
It is written..."The wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23)
No difference is made between lies and adultery in the end.

1 John 5:16-17 talks about a sin that does not lead to death.
So there is such a thing that exists as I stated already.
We also do not see Paul condemned by God when he disobeyed the warning of the Spirit in not going to Jerusalem, as well.

You said:
You call it "saved", but I call it "converted".
I'll know I am "saved" when I finish the "race".

I was converted the moment I accepted Christ. I was not even aware of baptism until many, many years later in my Christian life; Yet, I was changed spiritually and on fire for God and His Word was alive to me (Whereas it was a dead book to me before I accepted Christ). Water baptism did not change me when I did it many years later in my faith. I did not recognize a new change in my life as a result of being water baptized. I was already changed and enlightened to the things of the Lord when I accepted Jesus as my Savior (many years before), and I believed that He died for my sins, and He was buried, and He was risen for my salvation. I used to be an atheist, and when I accepted Jesus, it was like a light had went on inside of me in 1992. I was not baptized until 2013. But I now regard water baptism as an OT covenant ritual that is optional for the believer. Whenever you see the word “baptism” in the Bible, most likely you instantly think of water. I know. I used to think that way until I started to think outside the box of beyond what most in the church teach these days. I started to truly look at what Scripture was really saying vs. what I wanted them to say. But if you are not open to it, you are never going to see it.

Side Note:

I also was water baptized in a church that appeared to be for Once Saved Always Saved or a form of Belief Alone-ism. I was not aware of this fact until AFTER I was water baptized. If water baptism was something that would truly matter in my walk with God, I would need to find another group of believers who at least has the same view on Soteriology that I do. At the time, I really was looking for the right followers to be baptized by. Today, it just seems like we are in a spiritual wasteland. Nobody truly wants to follow the Lord and or take His Word seriously. The thing is that I was praying to find the right place to be water baptized. I did not find it. Why? Because I believe it is not an essential requirement to be changed by God and to be initially saved.

You said:
I don't agree.
The sanctification "process" is repentance from all sin, permanently, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
Baptism into Christ's death is how the atoning, sanctifying blood of the Redeemer is applied to our vessels.
God's Spirit is then given, but the Spirit of God will not abide in an unsanctified temple.

Then why did Cornelius and his family receive the Spirit before he was water baptized?

As for repentance: Well, many in the popular circles of Christianity today just blindly follow what other teachers say these days instead of them searching the Scriptures to see what they say instead. Some follow the teachings by others that repentance means to forsake sin and some follow the teachings by others that says that repentance is having a change of mind from one's old way of thinking.

After an extensive study of the Scriptures with God, here is...

My Biblical Case For Repentance:

At the heart, I believe the Bible teaches that repentance means, "Asking God for forgiveness" (Which of course naturally then leads to the "fruits of repentance", i.e. obedience to the Lord):

Important Note: While I may believe "Repentance" does involve to a certain degree a "change of mind" (like a person changing their mind about their old life of sin), I do not think "Repentance" exclusively means a “change of mind.”

Anyways, here are my ten points using Scripture showing that "repentance" means "asking God for forgiveness of sin."

#1. Acts 2:38,
The New Living Translation says in Acts 2:38 to "repent of your sins."
Douay Reheims says in Acts 2:38 to "Do penance."
New Life Version says in Acts 2:38 to "Be sorry for your sins"

#2. Luke 17:3 says, "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." This doesn't make any sense if "repent" means believe in Jesus (as some teach) or to have a change of mind about sin (as others teach) or to exclusively forsake sin. Yes, we are to forsake sin as a part of repentance but that comes later after repentance (Which is to ask God for forgiveness of our sin). For how can we reconcile with a brother if we do not say we are sorry vs. just going on about life as if we did nothing wrong?

#3. Jesus said in Matthew 12:41 that the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. If you were to turn to Jonah chapter 3, you would be able to see in Jonah 3:6-10 that the King of the Ninevites had told his people to:

(a) Cry out to God (i.e. Repentance) (See Jonah 3:8).
(b) Turn from their sins or evil ways (i.e. The Natural Fruits of Repentance).

#4. Matthew 3:6 (which then lines up with Matthew 3:8). Also, in Mark 1:4-5, it says John preached the "baptism of repentance" for the remission of sins (verse 4), and it then defines this "baptism of repentance" by saying they confessed their sins when they were baptized (verse 5).

#5. We see in Acts of the Apostles 8:22 a clear example of Peter telling Simon to "repent" of his wickedness in trying to pay for the Holy Spirit. Peter is telling Simon to make a prayer towards God. For Peter says that he should pray that God might forgive him. In other words, Peter is telling Simon to repent of a one time event of wickedness by way of prayer to GOD. This only makes sense if "repent" means to "ask for forgiveness."

#6. Ezekiel 14:6 says,
"Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols;" Repent makes the most sense here if a person is asking God for forgiveness by way of prayer instead of a person just believing in God. Naturally a person believes in God as their Savior if they are planning on forsaking their idols.

#7. We see repentance is the topic of discussion in Luke 15 (Luke 15:6) (Luke 15:10); This is then followed up by the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" with the son desiring to be reconciled with his father. We learn the WAY the Prodigal Son desired to be reconciled with his father when he said,

"I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants." (Luke 15:18-19).

In other words, the Prodigal Son was seeking forgiveness. This ties into the point of repentance in Luke 15:6 and Luke 15:10.

#8. Luke 10:13 says,
"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." This rules out the theory that repentance is exclusively forsaking sin. Granted, forsaking sin always follows true repentance (Asking God for forgiveness of one's sins) but forsaking sin is not repentance. The word "repented" here is describing a one time event because they "repented", sitting in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:6 we learn that the King of Nineveh sat in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:8, the King of Nineveh tells people to put on sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God (i.e. repentance): and then turn from their evil way (i.e. the fruits of repentance).

#9. John the Baptist says we are to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8). Fruits are deeds (or obedience to God). How can repentance be the same thing as the fruit? Is the fruit the same thing as the tree?

#10. Jeremiah 8:6 says, "I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle." Here we see the word "repented of wickedness" tied with the words, "What have I done?" This is an acknowledgement of one's sin to God as a part of asking His forgiveness.

Notable Additional Verses that Deal with Repentance:
(But They Do Not Use The Word "Repent" or "Repentance"):

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13).

13 "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:13-14).

Proverbs 28:13 says whosoever confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads