Absolutely Free or Not?

[mlqurgw]

The form of obedience was different. I already pointed out Heb 9:15, so did Christ's death redeem the transgressions of all those that lived under the OT law, that is, do you think all that lived under the OT law are saved?

Only those who lookes to the redeemer as did Job.
Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Was it a matter of obedience or faith?

BTW, I do appreciate you taking the time to answer although you were ambiguous in your answer.

 

[Outrider]

The form of obedience was different. I already pointed out Heb 9:15, so did Christ's death redeem the transgressions of all those that lived under the OT law, that is, do you think all that lived under the OT law are saved?

Good question. It comes down to: Did the atonement work backward to the saints of the Old Testament period? The answer is "Yes". That is why they believed in Promise. God swore by himself that their salvation would come and that nothing would stop it [him]. Their faith was in Christ just like ours is. Only their orientation was different. They believed in the Promise which was to come. We believe in the Testimony, which has already happened.

 

[jmacvols]

In all my dealings with jmacvols I have yet to have him give a staight answer.

In many cases, just as he has done here in the case of Acts 10, he totally denies that I have responded and presented any case whatsoever. That kind of abject intellectual dishonesty should not be allowed to continue on this site.

It's one thing to present even a distorted or deluded response to an argument, but to deny that an argument has even been presented is an dishonest as it gets.

First, this 'campaign' to accuse me of not giving 'straight answers' is what we did when we had debates in jr high school. We understood that when one side could not defend their position, the only 'ammo' they had left was to make false accusations (as not giving straight answers) or to call names (cultest).

Second, in which post # did you 'deal' with Acts 10 and 11? Where did you 'deal' with the fact the HS fell on Conelius BEFORE he heard the words whereby he would be saved? Common sense tells us Cornelius was lost until he heard the words whereby he would be saved, so logic would dictate that he was lost when the HS fell upon him because he had not yet heard the words Peter would tell him that would save him.

 

[jmacvols]

If Paul is mistaken, why not just throw out all his letters? Take every reference to him from Luke and Peter's writing and use that as a Bible. His letters represent inspired, inerrant Scripture or not. Which is it to you? Obviously Lot and Job and Noah were righteous because of the faith with which God had gifted them.

There's my answer. Now where's yours regarding your Scriptural principle of 'prevenient grace'.

So now you have swithed from "none are righteous" to "some were righteous". People were considered righteous because of thier obedience to God.

 

[jmacvols]

Good question. It comes down to: Did the atonement work backward to the saints of the Old Testament period? The answer is "Yes". That is why they believed in Promise. God swore by himself that their salvation would come and that nothing would stop it [him]. Their faith was in Christ just like ours is. Only their orientation was different. They believed in the Promise which was to come. We believe in the Testimony, which has already happened.

So then, were all those that were under the OT 'saved' because of what Christ did? If not, then which ones were 'saved' and why? Which ones were lost and why? My position, as you know already, is again based on obedience. Those who obeyed the OT laws of circumcision, sacrifices, purifications etc their sins were redeemed.

 

[Outrider]

So then, were all those that were under the OT 'saved' because of what Christ did? If not, then which ones were 'saved' and why? Which ones were lost and why? My position, as you know already, is again based on obedience. Those who obeyed the OT laws of circumcision, sacrifices, purifications etc their sins were redeemed.

What if they sinned just before they died and weren't able to get in a sacrifice? What if they missed one somewhere in the passed? What about people who had leprosy? Bald men? Guys missing a stone? Anyone upon whom ceremonial cleansing had no effect? Women who died at the wrong time of the month?

 

[jmacvols]

What if they sinned just before they died and weren't able to get in a sacrifice? What if they missed one somewhere in the passed? What about people who had leprosy? Bald men? Guys missing a stone? Anyone upon whom ceremonial cleansing had no effect? Women who died at the wrong time of the month?

So is this a "yes, they were all saved" or a "no, some saved and some lost"?

 

[thehayesman]

Is eternal life absolutely free or not?

This is not a very kind question. How is one supposed to choose? Eternal life is free and costly. I cannot earn it, but I am called to live it. The answer is truly both, but the question misinterprets the gospel message.

 

[mlqurgw]

So is this a "yes, they were all saved" or a "no, some saved and some lost"?

If you don't mind me answering, some were saved most were lost. Those who looked to the sacrifice instead of what the sacrifice pointed to were lost. While they didn't know His name would be Jesus or had a clear understanding of all the details it was made progressively clear by God throughout the OT. Remember what Christ said to the Pharasees, He told them to search the Scripture for inthem they thought they had eternal life but they were a testimony of Him. Also on the road to Emmaus Christ began at Moses and in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. The OT is just as much a book about Christ as the New.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Second, in which post # did you 'deal' with Acts 10 and 11? Where did you 'deal' with the fact the HS fell on Conelius BEFORE he heard the words whereby he would be saved? Common sense tells us Cornelius was lost until he heard the words whereby he would be saved, so logic would dictate that he was lost when the HS fell upon him because he had not yet heard the words Peter would tell him that would save him.

You are not getting it.

It is your assertion that the CoC formula is that unless one has been water baptised they are not saved.

For that to be a true assertion it must be true in every single case.

Acts 10 proves it is not true in every singel case, therefore it is a false assertion.

 

[JustinWindsor]

This is not a very kind question. How is one supposed to choose? Eternal life is free and costly. I cannot earn it, but I am called to live it. The answer is truly both, but the question misinterprets the gospel message.

I agree. The question is wrong.

 

[Outrider]

If you don't mind me answering, some were saved most were lost. Those who looked to the sacrifice instead of what the sacrifice pointed to were lost. While they didn't know His name would be Jesus or had a clear understanding of all the details it was made progressively clear by God throughout the OT. Remember what Christ said to the Pharasees, He told them to search the Scripture for inthem they thought they had eternal life but they were a testimony of Him. Also on the road to Emmaus Christ began at Moses and in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. The OT is just as much a book about Christ as the New.

What he said.

They believed through the Promise. We believe through the Testimony.

 

[jmacvols]

What if they sinned just before they died and weren't able to get in a sacrifice? What if they missed one somewhere in the passed? What about people who had leprosy? Bald men? Guys missing a stone? Anyone upon whom ceremonial cleansing had no effect? Women who died at the wrong time of the month?

T

 

[jmacvols]

If you don't mind me answering, some were saved most were lost.

Because a few was obedient and most were not.

Those who looked to the sacrifice instead of what the sacrifice pointed to were lost. While they didn't know His name would be Jesus or had a clear understanding of all the details it was made progressively clear by God throughout the OT. Remember what Christ said to the Pharasees, He told them to search the Scripture for inthem they thought they had eternal life but they were a testimony of Him. Also on the road to Emmaus Christ began at Moses and in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. The OT is just as much a book about Christ as the New.

Since those under the OT lived and died under the OT before Jesus shed His blood, their obedience to the OT played a part in their salvation when Christ did shed His blood. Were the evil, disobedient of the OT, were their sins redeemed? Were the evil saved? I understand the OT gave prophecies of Christ, but it was thier obedience that was what was important.

 

[jmacvols]

You are not getting it.

It is your assertion that the CoC formula is that unless one has been water baptised they are not saved.

For that to be a true assertion it must be true in every single case.

Acts 10 proves it is not true in every singel case, therefore it is a false assertion.

Are you asserting Cornelius was not water baptized?
Are you asserting Cornelius was saved when the HS came upon him?
Cornelius already believed in God, Acts 10:2,22. If 'believe only' saves, then why send Peter to Cornelius to tell Cornelius what he "oughtest" to do? And what was the need for Cornelius to hear the things commanded of God from Peter?

 

[JustinWindsor]

You can merit your salvation. You can earn it. You must add something to grace to ensure that grace works! The lie comes in many forms. But it boils down to this. For Salvation, you must add a work, or works, to grace. It comes in the form of personal holiness, or adherence to some part of the Jewish Law of Moses. Or you have to PROVE yourself saved to some 'religious' authority, usually self-proclaimed as an authority.

Folks, listen to me now, it is Jesus alone...it is Jesus plus nothing.

That is not to say that now that grace has come we can sin all the more. "May it never be". We are saved to a high and holy calling. But we are not saved by that high and holy calling.

The first lie - We can be God, or like God. Satan believed his own lie, Adam believed this lie, and many believe it today.

We are created for His purposes, not our purposes, HIS purposes.
He is the creator, we the creatures. But that's another thread of debate.

The salvation that Pelagius, Arminius and Wesley saw, was in error.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Are you asserting Cornelius was not water baptized?
Are you asserting Cornelius was saved when the HS came upon him?
Cornelius already believed in God, Acts 10:2,22. If 'believe only' saves, then why send Peter to Cornelius to tell Cornelius what he "oughtest" to do? And what was the need for Cornelius to hear the things commanded of God from Peter?

You still are not getting it.

Something asserted to be true, must always be true.

If it's not true, then it is false.

There is no such thing as something being partially true.

That is where the CoC legalistic formula fails.

You totally ignore and deflect Acts 10 where there are believers who have the gift of the Holy Spirit, which you have admitted only a believer can have, and they have the gift of the Holy Spirit before they have even so much as heard of water baptism.

Your formula fails the test of being true because it is not true in every single instance.

You have been deceived by the lies of the CoC.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

You can merit your salvation. You can earn it. You must add something to grace to ensure that grace works! The lie comes in many forms. But it boils down to this. For Salvation, you must add a work, or works, to grace. It comes in the form of personal holiness, or adherence to some part of the Jewish Law of Moses. Or you have to PROVE yourself saved to some 'religious' authority, usually self-proclaimed as an authority.

Folks, listen to me now, it is Jesus alone...it is Jesus plus nothing.

That is not to say that now that grace has come we can sin all the more. "May it never be". We are saved to a high and holy calling. But we are not saved by that high and holy calling.

The first lie - We can be God, or like God. Satan believed his own lie, Adam believed this lie, and many believe it today.

We are created for His purposes, not our purposes, HIS purposes.
He is the creator, we the creatures. But that's another thread of debate.

The salvation that Pelagius, Arminius and Wesley saw, was in error.

Well said bro.

Satan appeals to the pride of humans by enticing them to think they can add one thing to the Precious Blood of Christ.

The only righteousness we can and will have is the pure white robe of Christ's Righteousness.

 

[jmacvols]

You can merit your salvation. You can earn it. You must add something to grace to ensure that grace works! The lie comes in many forms. But it boils down to this. For Salvation, you must add a work, or works, to grace. It comes in the form of personal holiness, or adherence to some part of the Jewish Law of Moses. Or you have to PROVE yourself saved to some 'religious' authority, usually self-proclaimed as an authority.

Folks, listen to me now, it is Jesus alone...it is Jesus plus nothing.

That is not to say that now that grace has come we can sin all the more. "May it never be". We are saved to a high and holy calling. But we are not saved by that high and holy calling.

The first lie - We can be God, or like God. Satan believed his own lie, Adam believed this lie, and many believe it today.

We are created for His purposes, not our purposes, HIS purposes.
He is the creator, we the creatures. But that's another thread of debate.

The salvation that Pelagius, Arminius and Wesley saw, was in error.

Where have I ever said one can earn or merit their salvation? More false accusations.

Look at it this way. In John 9 Jesus heals a blind man. Jesus put clay in the blind man's eyes, then tells him to go wash in the pool of Siloam, which the man did and he received his sight.

When Jesus sent the man to wash his eyes and the man went, that was a work the man did. Did he merit/earn his own healing by going and washing? Did he heal himself by going and washing? Was the something special about the water that healed his eyes? NO on all counts. He simply was obedient to the conditions Jesus put on his recieving his sight back. One is obedient in being water baptized by meeting the conditions Jesus put on salvation. One is not earning/meriting his salvation, no one is saving themselves apart from what Christ has commanded, and there is nothing special about the water. IT IS THE ACT OF OBEDIENCE, that is why the blind man gained his sight when his washed his eyes and that is why God removes sins when one is water baptized. Had the blind man refused to wash his eyes, he would have remained blind, just like those that deny water baptism for remission of sins, they remain "blind".

 

[bluedart]

This is a very interesting forum. Thanks for all of your comments.