O.B.N.C.

[fhansen]

Get real. I did address it. And exposed the error of the RCC. Are you in the RCC?

You never came close, or else you'd explain it. Yes, I'm RC.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Matters...for what, exactly? Could you be more clear in your pronouncements?

For salvation. I've given the quotes. You've dismissed them.

No, you've dismissed all the verses that salvation is by faith, not works.
You misunderstand the verses quote.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
What "profile" are you referring to? And where?

The one where yours reads "Non-Denom", nomenclature I used to wear myself.

So, what nomenclature do you wear now?

 

[FreeGrace2]

But your post I responded to suggests you think more than imputation of righteousness is done in man.

Sure. A lot more.

The believer becomes a new creature. 2 Cor 5:17
The believer possesses eternal life. John 5:24
The believer is justified. Rom 5:1
The believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit, which guarantees the believer's inheritance. Eph 1:13,14

All these are done by God. And God declares the believer to be righteous.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Of course. And yet you completely failed to address my post. Why would the Spirit make that differnce in us? What's the differnece between being Spirit-filled or not Spirit-filled?

Until you understand the difference between the indwelling and the filling of the Holy Spirit, I can't answer your question.

Regarding being filled with the Spirit, that is the ONLY TIME a believer's efforts are acceptable to God. But do you understand HOW to be filled with the Spirit, since it is a command from Eph 5:18?

Do we become His thoughtless automotons now? Or are we changed by that life in us?

Neither. Any change "by that life in us" comes from specific things that the believer must do. Do you know what they are? And do you have verses that say what you claim?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Get real. I did address it. And exposed the error of the RCC. Are you in the RCC?

You never came close, or else you'd explain it. Yes, I'm RC.

When I say that I addressed something, it means I explained it.

However, if you don't have eyes to see, or you've shut your eyes, you can't see it.

 

[fhansen]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Get real. I did address it. And exposed the error of the RCC. Are you in the RCC?

When I say that I addressed something, it means I explained it.

However, if you don't have eyes to see, or you've shut your eyes, you can't see it.

you explained nothing. And you could've, by explaining why you thought the conversation as you laid it said what you think it said, which it doesn't as far anything I can tell. On top of that I explained that my theology would oppose your opinion about what I said anyway. I'd suggest you just Christian up and acknowledge the error and move on

 

[fhansen]

Until you understand the difference between the indwelling and the filling of the Holy Spirit, I can't answer your question.

Regarding being filled with the Spirit, that is the ONLY TIME a believer's efforts are acceptable to God. But do you understand HOW to be filled with the Spirit, since it is a command from Eph 5:18?


Neither. Any change "by that life in us" comes from specific things that the believer must do. Do you know what they are? And do you have verses that say what you claim?

Remaining in Christ means more than believing; it means obeying His will, seeking Him, asking Him, loving Him. To the extent that we do that, He sends the Spirit; the Spirit is ours. It's a choice, a continous one, in fact. And unless we make it continously we'll no longer remain in a state of justice/righteousness.

 

[fhansen]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Matters...for what, exactly? Could you be more clear in your pronouncements?

No, you've dismissed all the verses that salvation is by faith, not works.
You misunderstand the verses quote.

You have. We're saved because of the righteouness that God has worked in us. Our works don't save us; He does, by making us right as we turn to Him in faith, faith being the first right step a human can make. And even that is a gift of grace. The bottom line, from the first step or choice of faith until the end of our lives, the human will is involved in the process becaue we can always say "no", we can resist grace at the beginning, or at any point later down the road. To the extent that we do not resist, but turn to and remain in Him, obedient to His will, we only grow in grace, in the gifts of faith, hope, and love, more convicted, more trusting, more loving with the good works that follow.

 

[fhansen]

Sure. A lot more.

The believer becomes a new creature. 2 Cor 5:17
The believer possesses eternal life. John 5:24
The believer is justified. Rom 5:1
The believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit, which guarantees the believer's inheritance. Eph 1:13,14

All these are done by God. And God declares the believer to be righteous.

You said somerthing more than that. The discussion involved why a person acts rightouesly after conversion you said this:

He doesn't make anyone righteous. When He IMPUTES righteousness to a person, it is the righteousness of Christ IN the person. But you don't seem to understand "impute".

Now, if by that you meant that the person is actually filled with righteouness such that he's now more peronally righteous than before, less prone to sin, for one thing, you're closer to the Catholic-and Eastern church's, position.

 

[FreeGrace2]

you explained nothing. And you could've, by explaining why you thought the conversation as you laid it said what you think it said, which it doesn't as far anything I can tell.

You are unable to understand because of your preconceived bias and training.

On top of that I explained that my theology would oppose your opinion about what I said anyway. I'd suggest you just Christian up and acknowledge the error and move on

I haven't erred.

Here is the situation. Paul's answer to the jailer who asked specifically what he must do to be saved is very clear: believe and be saved.

That's black and white.

Your view has to apply loads of presumption about what was said in v.32.

So, basically, your view rejects Paul's answer as complete.

And it seems you are ok with the idea that the Holy Spirit, who inspires Scripture, just wasn't alert to the 'short answer' or something.

Nonsense. Paul's recorded answer is complete. But you have been trained to believe something else.

And your training about baptism is woefully lacking. You cannot discern between the 2 baptisms that John the baptizer clearly noted in Mark 1:8. And that there are REAL and RITUAL baptisms.

And you can't explain the baptism into Moses and into the sea of 1 Cor 10:1-5.

Clearly the Israelites went through the Red Sea on dry ground, yet Paul describes the event as being baptised into the sea. That was a REAL and DRY baptism, of which you know nothing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Remaining in Christ means more than believing

No, it doesn't even mean that. To "abide", "remain" etc refers to fellowship, not salvation.

But it seems you cannot discern the difference between fellowship and relationship either.

 

[FreeGrace2]

We're saved because of the righteouness that God has worked in us.

No, the Bible tells us HOW we are saved.

1 Cor 1:21 - "God was pleased...to save those who believe". How isn't that real clear?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
He doesn't make anyone righteous. When He IMPUTES righteousness to a person, it is the righteousness of Christ IN the person. But you don't seem to understand "impute".

Now, if by that you meant that the person is actually filled with righteouness such that he's now more peronally righteous than before, less prone to sin, for one thing, you're closer to the Catholic-and Eastern church's, position.

No, you keep misunderstanding. I gave you the definition of "impute" but you haven't acknowledged it.

So, do you agree with the definition or not? When a person believes, God IMPUTES to them righteousness.

 

[Doug Brents]

I have no doubt that Paul did explain fully who Jesus is (Deity) and what He did on the cross (pay for our sins) and that trusting in Him alone for salvation is what saves.

Your notions about water baptism for salvation are all wet.

Again, Mark 1:8 refutes your notions.

It's all about eyes to see.

But you don't see that.

We do have a pretty good idea of what was preached. We have examples of sermons and their results all through Acts. There is Peters sermon in Acts 2. There is Paul’s sermon in Athens in Acts 17. There was Phillip’s sermon (that wasn’t really detailed), that we know had to have included water baptism as a central theme because it was the eunuch who asked to be baptized as they passed some water. Then there was the conversation of Saul. He didn’t need much actual preaching because he knew the reality, but he needed convincing of the truth of it. Once he was convinced, all he needed was Ananias’ instruction to be baptized to wash away his sins.

As for Mark 1:8, Christ did send the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is a part of water baptism. He is the one doing the work of removing sin, adding us to Christ, and resurrecting our spirit to a new life.

 

[Valletta]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
The RCC came up with "made" because of the INFERIOR Latin word. God doesn't "make" a person just. God declares a person justified.

I agree! The RCC should have just stayed with the original Greek. They would have avoided their error.

Jerome, who translated the Word of God into many languages, was a brilliant translator. It wasn't until the late 300s when the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible and formally gave the world the Bible. It was felt that in order to bring the Gospel to the people, a Latin version of the Bible was in order. Latin had supplanted Greek as the language of the people at the time of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. If you could read and write in Europe at the time--you spoke Latin, the common or "vulgar" language. "Vulgate" comes from the word "vulgar." It wasn't until many centuries later that Latin morphed into French, Italian, and Spanish so then more translations were forthcoming.

 

[fhansen]

You are unable to understand because of your preconceived bias and training.


I haven't erred.

Here is the situation. Paul's answer to the jailer who asked specifically what he must do to be saved is very clear: believe and be saved.

That's black and white.

Your view has to apply loads of presumption about what was said in v.32.

So, basically, your view rejects Paul's answer as complete.

And it seems you are ok with the idea that the Holy Spirit, who inspires Scripture, just wasn't alert to the 'short answer' or something.

Nonsense. Paul's recorded answer is complete. But you have been trained to believe something else.

And your training about baptism is woefully lacking. You cannot discern between the 2 baptisms that John the baptizer clearly noted in Mark 1:8. And that there are REAL and RITUAL baptisms.

And you can't explain the baptism into Moses and into the sea of 1 Cor 10:1-5.

Clearly the Israelites went through the Red Sea on dry ground, yet Paul describes the event as being baptised into the sea. That was a REAL and DRY baptism, of which you know nothing.

Oook....Sooo... what does any of this have to do with the question at hand, which is your claim that I insinuated that a baby isnt spritually dead until they sin?

 

[FreeGrace2]

We do have a pretty good idea of what was preached.

No, you don't. You only have presumptions of what you THINK Paul said to the family and the jailer. The gospel was given completely to the jailer in v.31 but you just aren't willing to accept that.

We have examples of sermons and their results all through Acts.

Acts is hardly the place to find doctrinal teaching. Acts was the early development of the church.

Those who want doctrinal principles go to Romans and the epistles.

The actual title of Acts is "Acts of the Apostles".

There is Peters sermon in Acts 2.

We've been over this. Eyes to see.

There is Paul’s sermon in Athens in Acts 17.

There isn't any mention of baptism in that chapter.

There was Phillip’s sermon (that wasn’t really detailed), that we know had to have included water baptism as a central theme because it was the eunuch who asked to be baptized as they passed some water.

Pure presumption.

Then there was the conversation of Saul. He didn’t need much actual preaching because he knew the reality, but he needed convincing of the truth of it. Once he was convinced, all he needed was Ananias’ instruction to be baptized to wash away his sins.

Nothing about being water baptised for salvation.

As for Mark 1:8, Christ did send the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is a part of water baptism.

This is again you presumption. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling/sealing of the Spirit, which IDENTIFIES the believer as God's possession. You've already seen the verses. Or, I should say, the verses have been presented.

Eyes to see.

He is the one doing the work of removing sin, adding us to Christ, and resurrecting our spirit to a new life.

And NONE of this involves any water.

1 Pet 3:21 tells us plainly that literal water (that water) symbolizes the baptism that DOES save you.

Cornelius received the Holy Spirit BEFORE being water baptized.

You do not understand the difference between REALITY and RITUAL.

Your claim that water baptism saves is really no different than the Judiazers claiming that circumcision saves. Acts 15:1-5.

 

[fhansen]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
He doesn't make anyone righteous. When He IMPUTES righteousness to a person, it is the righteousness of Christ IN the person. But you don't seem to understand "impute".

No, you keep misunderstanding. I gave you the definition of "impute" but you haven't acknowledged it.

So, do you agree with the definition or not? When a person believes, God IMPUTES to them righteousness.

Ok, so now your back to saying that actual righteouess "the righteouness of Christ" as you said, isn't given to us, but merely declared of us, imputed, etc. We're still snow-covered dung heaps, no better in terms of personal righteousness than before conversion, correct? But still somehow able to behave better for some reason, right?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Oook....Sooo... what does any of this have to do with the question at hand, which is your claim that I insinuated that a baby isnt spritually dead until they sin?

Are you still on that? You can't follow or understand the thread, so there's no use in having further discussion.

If you believe that all humans are born spiritually dead, great. If you don't, that's your opinion.

Need to move on.