I agree. If one does not believe in the undivided Trinity, then one cannot be considered to be a Christian. Otherwise, all manner of non-Trinitarian heretics would legitimately claim genuine Christianity.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree. If one does not believe in the undivided Trinity, then one cannot be considered to be a Christian. Otherwise, all manner of non-Trinitarian heretics would legitimately claim genuine Christianity.Reading John 14:1-31 & John 15:1-27 can be most helpful in understanding salvation & the Trinity. The Lord says keeeping His commandments in John 14:15-18 & Trinity is actually present in these passages. Also John 14:26 & John 15:26 have Trinitarian explanation.
The commandments the Lord expects of us are in various places like Romans 13:8-10 for ex. My work break is over….,
You said:My argument was not that Catholics do not have faith in Jesus Christ (they most assuredly do) but that some would argue that the Catholic faith is not a genuine saving faith in contrast to their own saving faith. As I also state, the Catholic Church has judged all other Christian faith as being inadequate because it and it alone possesses "the fullness of salvation".
Just correcting that sentence.One can argue that the RCC places its faith in works and in the Church, but the Protestant faith places its faith in Jesus Christ.
Well, at least you got that part right. Good luck with the dead doing an alive thing, though.No a believer can never become an un-born again child of God.
"[One is] secure eternally, but not temporally"? If they are secure eternally, they are secure temporally. But maybe you mean, feel secure? Or maybe, they are not exactly faithful temporally?The post answers\ed perfectly why Romans 10:9 is not telling unbelievers how to receive Eternal Life salvation. But instead is telling believers how to receive physical salvation from harm.
What, then, does verse 9 mean? Doesn’t it condition salvation upon both faith and confession? The key is in understanding the theme of Romans. Paul was writing to tell his believing Roman readers how one can escape (i.e., be saved from) the wrath of God temporally and eternally. He reminded them that one escapes the eternal wrath of God simply by believing in Christ as his Savior. He also taught them that one escapes the wrath of God here and now by living a godly life (cf. Rom. 1:18ff.) A believer is thus secure eternally but not temporally. That is, nothing a believer can do can lead to his experiencing the eternal wrath of God (Rom. 8:38-39). However, believers can and do experience the wrath of God here and now by sinning. The more we sin the more we experience God’s loving discipline.
Are you saying Scripture gives us a clear distinction and examples of "faith" and "saving faith" or "belief" and "True_Belief™ or "Real_Belief™?Of course, the counterargument is that Simon did not possess "saving faith", even though the Apostles accepted his profession of faith and baptized him as a believer.
The demons also believe, and tremble. We differentiate by using the adjective. Why is that a problem? You want to use a generic term, as though everyone who believes always and only means what James does not always use it to mean. Or are you saying that James is also a Calvinist?Are you saying Scripture gives us a clear distinction and examples of "faith" and "saving faith" or "belief" and "True_Belief™ or "Real_Belief™?
I hear this false distinction all the time especially among the Baptists. And all it does is cause confusion especially among new converts. Baptists make statements like "All True_Believers™ believe x, y or z." Or "only those with Real_Faith™ go to heaven."
Or concerning backsliders, they say "Yes, he said he did have faith and believed, but he didn't say he really truly had Real_Faith™ and he didn't say he Truly_Believed™
Concerning Baptist beliefs in Baptist Faith and Message 2000, states "All true believers endure to end." So are the Baptists saying here "believers don't endure to the end, but True_Believers™ do?
Scripture don't confuse us with qualifiers with adjectives and adverbs. We are called to trust the promises of Scripture and the words of Scripture. When we add qualifiers we are adding an unwanted layer of uncertainty which can cause doubt in the minds of the weak.
I read an article on this subject the the author said, ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS ARE THE GREAT ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL. How true!
Adjectives and Adverbs presuppose Calvinism.
If you want to affirm Simon didn't believe when the Luke said he did....you can do that. But you can also say, Simon did believe and did have True_Faith but Peter was wrong when he said "your heart is not right with God." Either way you question the clear teaching of the Scriptures.The demons also believe, and tremble. We differentiate by using the adjective. Why is that a problem? You want to use a generic term, as though everyone who believes always and only means what James does not always use it to mean. Or are you saying that James is also a Calvinist?
I certainly know the tri-part reformational definition of faith. notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Demons have notitia and assensus but never fiducia. Fiducia saves. If you don't believe Simon had Real_Faith™ but only mere faith or no faith, go ahead. It is a free country.The demons also believe
The demons also believe, and tremble. We differentiate by using the adjective. Why is that a problem? You want to use a generic term, as though everyone who believes always and only means what James does not always use it to mean. Or are you saying that James is also a Calvinist?
Some say if we believe in Jesus Christ we’re saved – how can they believe in Jesus being the Christ if they don’t know what the Christ is?
Where have I said any such thing about Simon and Peter? Really???If you want to affirm Simon didn't believe when the Luke said he did....you can do that. But you can also say, Simon did believe and did have True_Faith but Peter was wrong when he said "your heart is not right with God." Either way you question the clear teaching of the Scriptures.
I'm starting to think you are talking to someone else. I'm not the one who has said anything about Simon.I certainly know the tri-part reformational definition of faith. notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Demons have notitia and assensus but never fiducia. Fiducia saves. If you don't believe Simon had Real_Faith™ but only mere faith or no faith, go ahead. It is a free country.
I stand corrected.Where have I said any such thing about Simon and Peter? Really???
I stand corrected.I'm starting to think you are talking to someone else. I'm not the one who has said anything about Simon.
You sound like a lot of others here. The notion that ANY of us can read without assumptions is absurd.Baptists and Calvinists have a real conundrum here. Because of their belief in OSAS, either Simon had Real_Faith™ (not a fake faith, mere faith or no faith) and Peter was wrong about Simon having a "heart" not right with God or Simon had Real_Faith™ and Peter was not wrong. The latter is anathema to them because it is impossible to reconcile due to OSAS belief.
I just go along with the plain text of the narrative and add no assumptions to the text. Simon believed and Peter was not wrong. Simple
Okay, I went a little to extreme but for you it might be alot extreme. Sorry. Liked the Other_Place™ I will throttle down considerably.You sound like a lot of others here. The notion that ANY of us can read without assumptions is absurd.
I don't like OSAS. But it is simple that those to whom God has chosen to show mercy, the ones he made for the purpose of being with him in Heaven, WILL indeed be saved. If others "have faith" and lose it, or "have faith" and fall away, or "have faith" and for any other reason go to the LOF instead of Heaven, then their faith was not genuine, saving, faith.
But as I've responded 3 times now, I have made no statements as to your question of Simon and Peter. But if your "conundrum" is brought up for me to answer —not as a response to something someone said about Simon and Peter— that's different. I suppose, I will have to assume you are referring to Acts 8:9-24. I'm not sure why you think this should be a difficult passage for Calvinists. A Plain_Reading™ makes one wonder what was wrong with Simon, that he thought spiritual virtue or ability —specifically, 'the ability' to convey the Spirit of God being manipulated at will— could be bought with money. WHY do you insist (3 times now) that the Calvinist must jump to conclusions what was meant by 'believe' and by 'a heart not right'?
You need an answer? I'm not even a Calvinist, as such, anyway. But they (generally, since you group them all together) make a lot more sense to me than you do here. If Simon was of the Elect, he will go to Heaven. If not, he will go to the Other_Place™. But even if his belief was genuine, and certainly if it was not, he is more than capable of having a heart not fully understanding and not fully committed to God. Deceived. Addicted to money and false religion. There is no end to ignorant and deceived Elect. So are many of us here, and to some degree, ALL of us. Yes, that includes me, and you.
Context. Context. Context. What does Peter say to Simon, eight verses later?
(8:21) "You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God."
Simon gets booted from all church activities....a sort of excommunication.
And what does the Scriptures say about the heart that is not right before God?
The "heart" like Paul's usage of the word "flesh" is universally negative in Scripture, except where there is faith.
- Matthew 15: 18-19 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the HEART come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
- Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the HEART.
- Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish HEART were darkened.
- Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their HEART to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
- Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant HEART, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.
Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
SIMON DID NOT HAVE A PURE HEART. This ain't rocket science.
Yes, my point what any a person (one) (not myself) can make that argument. In fact, many have made that argument.You said:
Just correcting that sentence.
Of course Acts 8 doesn't say Simon lost his "born again" life. That's John 3 vocabulary. I already answer that in Post #76. However, I did answer the question using Peter's vocabulary----something about the "heart."where Simon lost his born again life.
I suppose anyone can misrepresent another religion, but should you?Yes, my point what any a person (one) (not myself) can make that argument. In fact, many have made that argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?