Is baptism necessary to be saved?

[Philo]

Isn't "receiving" something that you have to do?

If someone throws a snowball at you, how much work does it take to get hit?

 

[aggie03]

If someone throws a snowball at you, how much work does it take to get hit?

I have to not dodge it. That's something

If someone gives me a check don't I have to do something to benefit from it?

 

[Philo]

I have to not dodge it. That's something

If someone gives me a check don't I have to do something to benefit from it?

We, we could make analogies all day...

But I think the one that's most applicable is this: Do you have to do something to be born into a family? Because that's what happens. We are adopted as sons and daughters through Christ's blood.

Reguardless of anything else, I do believe one must be baptized to be saved. If you are baptized (immersed) in Christ, you are not in Christ. I think we can agree on this. I just think that it might be too narrow to say that our method of expressing this baptism, that is, water bpatism, is the only valid way to do it. It's true that the bible has a lot of water baptisms in it... But at the same time, water baptism was a part of the cultural paradigm. Its context was steeped in the traditions of the people of the region so much so that it required no explaination. In short, people knew the symbolism behind water baptism and accepted it accordingly.

There are no sacraments that confer grace. Only the blood of Christ saves. Through His sacrifice we can have communion with Him. I think we can both accept this fact. Like I said before, I believe that baptism and salvation coincide. Once one is in Christ, he or she is saved. I just believe that if God is willing to make exceptions to the examples set in the text (mute people cannot confess with their mouths, babies cannot confess at all, many cultures wouldn't know a wine grape from a pebble, &c), it shows that His grace is as full as it needs to be to accept anyone coming before Him with an honest and sincere faith.

If God expects anything else out of us, He expects too much. We can only be expected, as human beings, to give as much as we can give as best we know how. If God would condemn someone simply because they were not submerged bodily in water, despite their heart being pure and their motives set on Him, Christ's death seems rather impotent. I may be wrong, but I like to believe I serve a God who is bigger than we can imagine, and more merciful than we deserve.

He is Good,

Philo

 

[SFBay]

I won't read the 1,000+ posts on this thread, so if what I say has already been covered, I apologize. I just want to offer my $0.02 on the subject.

I don't think baptism is required to be saved. One example is the thief on the cross next to Jesus. Jesus told him, "Today you will be with me in paradise". Obviously, there was no way for him to be baptised.

I think baptism is more of a symbolic thing. It's just making your belief in Christ public. I'm not saying baptism is a bad thing, but it isn't necessary for salvation.

 

[suzie]

Suzie,

Romans 10:9 states that one must confess AND believe.... The "AND" is a coordinating conjuction connecting two equal parts - (confession) and (belief). Confessing with your mouth and believing in your heart are two separate actions - - They cannot be combined into one act. Consider John 12:42-43

In John, though there were some who believed in Jesus, they did not acknowledge Him before others out of fear of being thrown out of the synogogue. Therefore they were not sincere in their belief.

 

[western kentucky]

In John, though there were some who believed in Jesus, they did not acknowledge Him before others out of fear of being thrown out of the synogogue. Therefore they were not sincere in their belief.

Suzie,

John 12:42-43 points to one thing: The rulers had faith in Jesus, but they were not willing to act on their faith.

The conclusion is - Saving faith requires action (obedience to God's commands). This is the point in James 2:14-26..... Faith without works is dead.

Consider Acts 16:31 - Paul and Silas told the Phillipian Jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." So... end of story, right? Read on through verse 34..... When does the text say he and his household had believed? (hint - After they had been baptized).

 

[western kentucky]

I won't read the 1,000+ posts on this thread, so if what I say has already been covered, I apologize. I just want to offer my $0.02 on the subject.

I don't think baptism is required to be saved. One example is the thief on the cross next to Jesus. Jesus told him, "Today you will be with me in paradise". Obviously, there was no way for him to be baptised.

SF BAY,

I am glad that you have joined the discussion....

There are a few key things that a person must consider when using reference to the thief on the cross:

1. The thief on the cross lived and died under the old law.
2. The Old Law Ended after the death of Christ. (Hebrews 9:16)
3. A New Law began when Christ resurrected from the dead. (Hebrews 7:12)
4. Only under the new law is one to be baptized into Christ. (Acts 19:1-7)

*Point - The thief on the cross is not a valid reference when discussing the necessity of baptism.

I think baptism is more of a symbolic thing. It's just making your belief in Christ public. I'm not saying baptism is a bad thing, but it isn't necessary for salvation.

Can you find a verse in the bible to support your view?

 

[aggie03]

I just wanted to point out that this is a very lazy exegesis.

I didn't really notice it as all that lazy

As each of these letters were written by the same author to different communities (who he could not reasobably expect to immediately start sharing his letters) and only one mentions baptism in conjunction to clothing one's self with Christ, it's actually more reasonable that baptism is conincident with putting on Christ and not the act of putting on Christ.

What you have just said seems to actually work directly against the point you are trying to make. If in fact the immediate distribution of these letters was not was expected and each congregation to which one was written only had their particular letter, then it is logical indeed to assume that those of Galatia would in deed determine that in order to be clothed with Christ then one must have been baptized with Christ.

As this is exactly what their letter indicates, I see no reason why they would have believed otherwise. If what you have said was true, then there was no other letter that they were going to receive any time soon to convince them of the contrary.

Strange reasoning can occur when we forget the context and subtext of the Bible.

In deed it can. Again, if what you have said is true, then the Galatians would only have had a letter telling them that those who are baptized have been clothed with Christ - a direct result of their baptism. They would have had no reason to doubt this.

Lets not let ourselves become willing partakers in willful ignorance just to advance our own Holy Establishment. Scholasticism is the root of our divisions, and this is the worst kind of scholasticism.

Here! Here!

Perhaps I've misunderstood the idea or point that you were trying to make. If this is so, please let me know .

 

[aggie03]

If someone throws a snowball at you, how much work does it take to get hit?

I've been thinking about this example that you've offered, and it isn't valid. The snowball is not a gift - it is an attack. It is not something that is offered but something that is forced upon you.

Salvation is not forced upon the individual, but rather it is up to each individual to consciously make the decision to accept the gift - like the effort required to cash a check.

My taking a check that I received for my birthday to the bank in no way merits or earns the receiving of that money, but it was something that had to be done before I could benefit from it.

 

[aggie03]

These are not just my thoughts. They are remarks based on Scripture. Jesus tells us "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me". (John 14:6) Salvation is through Jesus alone. Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" 1 Cor 1:30 "It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption" so that no one can boast.
"For you grant authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:2-3) "She (Mary) will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21
John 3:13-17 "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven- the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
Romans 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 3:28 "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."
Romans 10::17 "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ"
"So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works, if it were, grace would no longer be grace." Romans 11:5-6
"In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding." Ephesians 1:4-8
"And you were also included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance.." Ephesians 1:11-14
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21) "God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be anger and wrath. ...."
"A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by a written code. " Romans 3:28-29
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law, rather through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. He did this to demonstrate his justice because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as tobe just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." Romans 2:20-26
"Therefore since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand." Romans 5:1-2

I agree with all of the Scriptures that you've quoted .

Gods gift is etenal life It is a free gift.

I would say that God's immediate gift is the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38). It is at this point when our sins are forgiven that we are made part of the body, or become "in" Christ. The direct result of then living faithfully is eternal life with God in heaven, which is still a gift that cannot be earned by anything that we do.

Does this make sense? I agree with what you have said, but this is how I understand the phrase that you have written.

It is obtained by faith through grace.

This is where I start to disagree with you - and it may be only a typing error. I do not believe that we are saved by faith through grace, but rather we are saved by GRACE through FAITH. This might seem a little critical, but I believe that this is a very important distinction.

Our faith is something that we have and is something that we do - but grace is given by God.

It is given to all who sincerely believe.

While I believe that sincerity is most definitely necessary - I do not believe that it is the primary condition for the receiving of salvation. I believe that there are those who are sincerely wrong. As Philo so aptly noted earlier, it seems as though there will be sincere people who will not be going to heaven (Matthew 7), and we must diligently search the Scriptures to make sure that we are not of that lot. I believe that's what we're doing here

I suppose that it is also appropriate at this time to say that I do not in any form or fashion doubt your sincerity

This is also why I was so adamant about asking for you to post verses. There is in deed the possibility that I am the one who is mistaken and needs to change. This does not mean that I will be a push over and believe everything that you say right off the bat, but it does mean that I will seriously consider and weigh all things presented against the sum of God's word, which is Truth (Psalm 119:160).

Who die to self and take on Christ.

It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. Unearned, unworthy, and yet given.

How do you believe that we die to the old man?

 

[Philo]

[/font]




While I believe that sincerity is most definitely necessary - I do not believe that it is the primary condition for the receiving of salvation. I believe that there are those who are sincerely wrong. As Philo so aptly noted earlier, it seems as though there will be sincere people who will not be going to heaven (Matthew 7), and we must diligently search the Scriptures to make sure that we are not of that lot. I believe that's what we're doing here

Actually, I was trying to say that a just God wouldn't condemn the ignorant based soley on their ignorance reguarding a single doctrinal point. If our salvation hangs on doctrinal points, then why hang Christ on a cross?

Again, I believe that God is a big enough and understanding enough being to gamble the life of His only son for our lives. And, since I believe in free will, the sacrifice of Christ was a gamble... God had no guarantee that we would accept Christ.

Kinda off-topic, I know.

On topic: Baptism IS necessary to be saved. But, ultimately it is the heart of the baptized that matters, and not the manner. You could dunk someone, have him live a perfect Christian life, and then watch him be cast away because he was doing it for his own glory. It's all about the heart.

Well, at least for me. But I like to have a reasonable theology. If something doesn't mesh in the Greater Scheme of Things (that is, the person of God and the redemption story as told in the Bible), then I have to put it in my questionable pile. Complete-immersion Water Baptism as being our one and only access to the grace of God colides head-on with justice and love, and especially grace. It cheapens Christ's sacrifice to me, if you say that only people with a certain level and kind of understanding will enter heaven.

I said it once and I'll say it again: The only thing God can justly expect from man is everything man has to offer, as far as man knows how to offer it. God cannot require perfect understanding, because no one has this. God cannot require perfect actions, because no one is sinless. God cannot require even perfect love, because the only man to ever love God perfectly died upon the cross so that we might have the chance to fail miserably. God can require faith, because we all have it. God can require love, because everyone is capable of it. God can require everything we have to give, because we can give everything we have. More to the point, God is everything we have, if you believe the story of the Christ.

I do, so I try and give him as much as I can as best I know how.

What a petty beast we serve if we are only good for feeding the ego of an undying megalomaniac.

What a wonderful, amazing, glorious God we serve, if we are only good for being loved and loving in return.

Makes me think of Moulan Rouge.

Philout

 

[Philo]

I've been thinking about this example that you've offered, and it isn't valid. The snowball is not a gift - it is an attack. It is not something that is offered but something that is forced upon you.

Salvation is not forced upon the individual, but rather it is up to each individual to consciously make the decision to accept the gift - like the effort required to cash a check.

My taking a check that I received for my birthday to the bank in no way merits or earns the receiving of that money, but it was something that had to be done before I could benefit from it.

This is why analogies don't argue.

Alright. How much effort does it take to be rained on?

Shoot, it's a better analogy than I thought... Track with me a bit. So, God's grace is like rain. It's poured out for all of us, and it is free. But, if you choose to open an umbrella or go under and awning or whatever to get out of the rain, you have made the choice NOT to be rained on. Just as if you dodged the now-defunct snowball (takes no effort not to dodge ). Shoot, way better explaination than I thought at first.

Grace is for all humanity, because God desires that everyone be saved. But, just like in the garden of Eden, we can actively disenfranchise ourselves of this grace by choosing ourselves. There are only two ways this can go. Man, weird and wonderful thoughts one gets after a concert.

And, yes I think it's biblical, what I'm saying, but you have to stand back and look at the picture from a biiiiiig perspective to see the whole picture. Like, justification by faith only makes sense in this model, because it presupposes faith (that is, that everyone when presented with the Gospel story will initially accept its authenticity on a visceral level) and then stepping out of faith (being presented with this information, one can decide to intentionally ignore the implications of the story and cut themselves off from grace, or else seek justification stemming from their own righteousness, and fall from grace (blast, the verse escapes me and I'm tired, but you know what I'm talking about)).

Sheesh,

Philo

 

[aggie03]

Actually, I was trying to say that a just God wouldn't condemn the ignorant based soley on their ignorance reguarding a single doctrinal point. If our salvation hangs on doctrinal points, then why hang Christ on a cross?

Well, you seem to have forgotten that we don't deserve salvation. God in no way is obligated to save us from our sins. When WE sinned against God, when we broke the natural law, then we have separated ourselve from God and we are deserving of punishment.

God is just to condemn anyone who has sinned. God would be just to send you to hell, and me right along with you. However, God is merciful to those whom He has chosen to give mercy to (Romans 9).

Again, I believe that God is a big enough and understanding enough being to gamble the life of His only son for our lives. And, since I believe in free will, the sacrifice of Christ was a gamble... God had no guarantee that we would accept Christ.

Actually, I believe that God knew exactly who would and who wouldn't accept the gift that He has offered it. That doesn't mean that God only "made" certain men to be saved, but God already knew what they were going to choose. So, in effect, God sent His Son to die on a cross knowing that a great many people would spurn the gift that He has offered.

On topic: Baptism IS necessary to be saved. But, ultimately it is the heart of the baptized that matters, and not the manner. You could dunk someone, have him live a perfect Christian life, and then watch him be cast away because he was doing it for his own glory. It's all about the heart.

I agree with you 100% here.

If something doesn't mesh in the Greater Scheme of Things (that is, the person of God and the redemption story as told in the Bible), then I have to put it in my questionable pile. Complete-immersion Water Baptism as being our one and only access to the grace of God colides head-on with justice and love, and especially grace. It cheapens Christ's sacrifice to me, if you say that only people with a certain level and kind of understanding will enter heaven.

Well, first off, I can't tell you who is and who will is not going to be saved. Were I do to do that the I would be placing myself in the seat of God, and that is surely a place where I know that I do not belong. The only thing that I can do is tell you what the Scriptures say, for it is after all according to the word that we will be judged (John 12:48). What this means is that while God is fully able to save any whom He chooses, the only people that He has told He will save are those who have responded to the gospel in the manner that we find in the Scriptures.

I said it once and I'll say it again: The only thing God can justly expect from man is everything man has to offer, as far as man knows how to offer it.

I disagree with what you have said here. If this were true than no one would fall under condemnation because they have sinned. God, I believe, can and does expect nothing short of perfection. This is the reason why we need to be saved in the first place; we fall far short of the perfection that God demands.

There has only been one person in the history of mankind who has lived the perfect life, and He was slain on a tree so that many might have the remission of their sins when they are obedient through a loving faith to God: the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

God cannot require perfect understanding, because no one has this. God cannot require perfect actions, because no one is sinless. God cannot require even perfect love, because the only man to ever love God perfectly died upon the cross so that we might have the chance to fail miserably.

God can do all of these things, and in deed I believe that He does do all of these perfect things. This is why we are not capable of saving ourselves. But if we have become children of God through faith and obedience, then when we stand before God on the day of judgment we will be made perfect in Christ Jesus and then we will be presentable to God.

God can require faith, because we all have it. God can require love, because everyone is capable of it. God can require everything we have to give, because we can give everything we have. More to the point, God is everything we have, if you believe the story of the Christ.

I do, so I try and give him as much as I can as best I know how.

And not even this is capable of making up for that very first sin that you ever committed.

 

[Philo]

Aggie,

It was late at night when I wrote my last post, so let me clarify some things.

First of all, none of us deserve salvation. This, I think, is obvious. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Our only hope of salvation is to be covered by Christ's sacrifice. In essence, we all must die to ourselves so that we can proclaim as Paul did, "I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me."

My problem with binding sacramental requirements on salvation is this: We all have the capacity to be wrong. We cannot understand perfectly. Perfect understanding is God's domain. We cannot be expected to understand perfectly, because we are flawed. Our understanding is necessarily subjective. Objectivism is a rationalist fantasy that seeks to kill wonder and subjegate doubt. Christianity is a subjective experience, by its very nature. Each of us receives the Holy Spirit, becomes a priest in the order of Christ, communicates with our Creator personally and is communicated to personally.

If we go into the Bible looking for "requirements of salvation," perhaps we've missed the Gospel forest through the doctrinal trees.

I just want you to answer this one single question for some insight as to what I'm trying to get across here: Why do you want salvation?

More Later,

Philodoxy Ex Machina

 

[Macca]

One thing I notice is that everyone goes back to the thief on the cross. Are there any more arguments besides that? And please, give scripture with every argument, not just your own opinion.

Eph. 2:8 & 9 make no mention of requiring baptism. Neither does Rom. 10: 9 & 10 mention baptism.
While it is not necessary for salvation, Jesus commanded His disciples to go ........and baptise in His name, so there must be some significance to baptism.
Macca.

 

[aggie03]

This is why analogies don't argue.

I believe that they do work for properly expressing an idea or concept.

Alright. How much effort does it take to be rained on?

None. Unless you discount the effort of one who might run out into the rain.

Shoot, it's a better analogy than I thought... Track with me a bit.

Okay

So, God's grace is like rain. It's poured out for all of us, and it is free. But, if you choose to open an umbrella or go under and awning or whatever to get out of the rain, you have made the choice NOT to be rained on.

I disgaree with this on a couple of points. Firstly, God's grace is not like the rain simply because it is not poured out to all people. God says that He will have mercy on whom He has mercy and compassion on whom He has compassion (Romans 9). In a very clear illustration that you've recently used from Matthew 7 we see that there are those who will not be saved.

Secondly, the benefits of the rain will be received whether or not one hides under an umbrella or goes into a building. All that happens when one avoids getting rained on is that they have kept from getting wet. Just because this is true, it does not keep the benefits from the rain of being bestowed upon them. The grass will still grow, the flowers will still bloom and they will still have water to drink. Keeping this in mind, if God's were grace were like the rain, then one would receive the benefits of God's grace no matter what.

Grace is for all humanity, because God desires that everyone be saved. But, just like in the garden of Eden, we can actively disenfranchise ourselves of this grace by choosing ourselves.

The disfranchisement occurs after one has sinned and is then separated from God. Once we have done this, there is nothing that we can do to become right with God. After this has happened then we are no longer deprived of anything that we deserve - which is what it means to be disfrachised. In fact, we will get exactly what we deserve - condemnation and death.

Even so, though we through our own actions have separated ourselves from God, because God is merciful, He has established a New Covenant, and a New Law, where under those who become conformed to the likeness of His Son, by grace through obedience and faith, have the promise of eternal life in heaven with God.

And, yes I think it's biblical, what I'm saying, but you have to stand back and look at the picture from a biiiiiig perspective to see the whole picture.

I disagree that is, unless I have misunderstood what you are saying.

Like, justification by faith only makes sense in this model, because it presupposes faith (that is, that everyone when presented with the Gospel story will initially accept its authenticity on a visceral level) and then stepping out of faith (being presented with this information, one can decide to intentionally ignore the implications of the story and cut themselves off from grace, or else seek justification stemming from their own righteousness, and fall from grace (blast, the verse escapes me and I'm tired, but you know what I'm talking about)).

I don't understand what you mean here. The idea that everyone will accept the Truth of the gospel when presented with it is invalid. The Jews who stoned Stephen when he preached to them most certainly did not believe the message.

However, I do agree that we are capable of losing our salvation, or the promise of eternal life, as you have noted. I think the verse that you may have been looking for was Galatians 5:4?

Aside: How have you and Aaron11 been lately? Do you all still get to see one another on a frequent basis? How has your summer been so far?

I look forward to hearing back from you!

 

[Philo]

Aside: How have you and Aaron11 been lately? Do you all still get to see one another on a frequent basis? How has your summer been so far?

I look forward to hearing back from you!

Aaron and I are doing fine. We live like a block from eachother, so we see eachother all the time.

Now, as for God having mercy on those who He wills and condemning those he wills, consdier a few passages with me:

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3,4)"

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)"

I can't find the rest of them (and there are more), but I get the impression that God wants everyone to be saved. Through Christ's mercy, he has had mercy on everyone. All of us. (Please recall that the "mercy on whom He will have mercy" was more the answer to Jews objecting to Gentile Christians than a general theological statement.) Unless you believe that there are those who have no access to salvation, you have to accept that Christ's sacrifice confers the oppurtunity to be saved to everyone on earth.

Like I said before, analogies are just illustrations. The facts behind a rainstorm have very little to do with the nature of the Sacrifice. The point behind it was that God has given grace to everyone. It's already been given. Christ's death on the cross insured this. This doesn't mean it can't be rejected. If your parents give you a trust fund, you can still choose to give it away once you are mature enough to make the decision.

I might be wrong, I admit. But this view meshes better with my view of God as Love. From what I have seen in the Scriptures, God is much more inclusive than exclusive. He's more willing to make accomidations than unbreakable blanket condemnations (Rahab comes to mind, as does the Thief, as well as that Canaanite tribe that became the waterbearers of the Israelites, as well as Nineveh, and others).

If God loves us like I believe He does, that means He loves even us mentally less-able kids. If you are a parent and you have a few kids, and one of them turns out disabled in some way, you love them just the same. Well, if you don't, then you aren't as loving as the ideal. God is the ideal.

Christ's sacrifice was necessary to God for our salvation. If God could save us all, reguardless of our hearts, why wouldn't He? He doesn't need our praises, our offerings, or anything we can give Him... Except love. Love is soemthing that must be reciprocated. A love based on the fear of punishment is not love. It is servitude and self-preservation. "A perfect love casts out all fear," or so I've been told.

"Light has no shared life with darkness." This is why God cannot save us all. Sin is abhorent to God. God and sin cannot exist in the same place. This is why we are clothed in Christ... He covers our sins in His perfect righteousness, so that we can share life with God. That's what the word translated "fellowship" in our English Bible means after all: sharing life.

I think that if God desired a broken and contrite heart more than burnt offerings back when the Law was binding, He must now accept them.

If this view of God seems wrong to you, tell me why... And don't use the Bible. I've read it already. I want to hear it in your own words, because that's what really matters. We all read the Bible, but that doesn't stop us from coming to different conclusions based on any number of factors. But, really, when it comes down to it, our conclusions are what matters.

 

[suzie]

Wow western you really take things and lift them right out of context. However, I dont read the Scriptures in the same light. It reads to me that salvation is a gift, one that I cant earn, that I dont deserve and I need to do nothing more than accept and believe. You would be well to know the Judiazers, you have much in common

 

[aggie03]

Philo,

I'm glad to hear that you're doing well and still in contact with Aaron11.

I have a question that might help to clear things up. I believe that we may have been trying make the same point but using the same words with different definitions.

When you say that God has given grace, do you mean that God has offered grace?

 

[aggie03]

Wow western you really take things and lift them right out of context. However, I dont read the Scriptures in the same light. It reads to me that salvation is a gift, one that I cant earn, that I dont deserve and I need to do nothing more than accept and believe. You would be well to know the Judiazers, you have much in common

Hi suzie! I'm glad that you're still here!

I would like to start off by making a comment that I believe is true: When God gave us the Bible, He had a single intent in mind when He wrote it. If we can read through some passage and come up with more than one meaning, that means that we might not necessarily be understanding what God has intended. This isn't a critical problem in some instances, but through constant study and prayer and humility we ought to work together to come to a more perfect understanding of the Sciptures. However, I also believe in certain cases that holding a different view from God has intended may be a critical problem.

The second thing I would like to say is that I have never seen Western Kentucky, to the best of my knowledge, state that he believes the circumcision of Moses is necessary to be saved. This means that he is in deed NOT a Judaizer.

It seems as though you may have been upset when you made your post, at least that's the way that I read it, and it appears that instead of trying to make a point with speech seasoned with salt and full of grace you attacked someone who disagreed with you. Maybe I misunderstood you tone, but that's the way you "sounded" to me.

I would like to ask then that everyone here, myself included for sure , that if someone has posted something that get's your blood flowing, that you just close the window and log off for a little while. Cool down, read the Scritpures, pray. When we are then capable of coming back and discussing rather arguing or making ad hominem attacks, then we should post for the edification and instruction of all. Keep me honest, too, please .