O.B.N.C.

[FreeGrace2]

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.

So, you STILL don't seem to understand wht 'impute' means.

That means there is no use in further discussion.

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?

I don't know. What's your point?

And, are you going to explain HOW a person obeys the command to be filled with the Spirit?

Have you figured it out yet? Or still looking for verses?

 

[fhansen]

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.

There's no salvation without that fellowship. Because our "lostness" or death are defined by that lack of fellowship with God.

 

[fhansen]

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?

And this is what faith gains:
“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.“ Rom 5:1-2

“…just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:21

 

[fhansen]

So, you STILL don't seem to understand wht 'impute' means.

That means there is no use in further discussion.

Wrong- I think there's still hope for you.

I don't know. What's your point?

I think that's the point-you don't know. The only right reason that a person does the right thing is because they're not puppets, they're pure in heart, clean on the inside motivated by the righteouness, the love, God gives to a believer. However, since man's will is always involved in his salvation, and love is necesarily a choice even as it's also necesarily a gift of God's, we won't necessarily live by that grace, that gift, we may well turn and live selfishly, according to the flesh instead unless and until we're perfected in love. We may ignore and forfeit the righteouness given. We do that in small and large ways every time we sin. It's a good struggle in any case, in which we can be refined, growing in justice, in love, away from sin and nearer to God, to conformity to His image. Or not.

And, are you going to explain HOW a person obeys the command to be filled with the Spirit?

Did that. I don't believe you responded.

 

[fhansen]

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

So, what nomenclature do you wear now?

Geez, man! Start reading the posts if you're going to comment on them!!

 

[fhansen]

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.

I doubt you can answer it anyway.

 

[fhansen]

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

You're not following the discussion to begin with! The only reason for that particular discussion was because of your nonsensical claim-that you haven't had the integrity to prove!!

 

[fhansen]

Beginning centuries ago the church has had cause to address many issues, often at council, some of them very controversial, some more mundane. The councils were more or less modeled on the meeting at Jerusalem which took place around 50 AD, attended by Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and other disciples who addressed the issue of legalism and expectations for Gentile believers, generally considered to be the first council. Later at council the church would assemble the canon of Scripture, decide on the deity of Christ and the relationship between His human and divine natures, and, related to that, the Trinity. At one point Pelagianism became popularized, the idea that a person could make themselves right in the eyes of God by their own efforts. Semi-Pelagianism modified that view, claiming that man comes to faith on his own, apart from grace, but from then on God grants the grace necessary for salvation. Augustine argued against both of these views and later on, at a small local council in 529 at Orange (Aurenja), now part of France, a council whose decisions were later approved and sanctioned by the church, his arguments mainly were employed to officially lay down the Church’s doctrine on grace for the purpose of ending the controversy.

At that council, using 25 canons, the church insisted on the absolute necessity of grace in order to turn man to God in faith, in order for man to do anything good, in order for man to be pulled from the pit. But it goes on to say that, once a person is so graced, responding to God in faith, they now “have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul”.

This is the Catholic position today, that we cannot possibly be saved without God (we wouldn’t even know where to begin), and yet that He doesn’t finally save us without us, so to speak. He wants our wills involved, for our own greatest good. So He justifies us IOW, and then we remain and walk and persevere and grow in that justice, that righteousness, that love, that image of Himself, or not. We must remain in Him and that life of grace, daily picking up our cross and doing His will as best we can with that grace, with Him.

 

[Doug Brents]

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

You do not understand the difference between REALITY and RITUAL.

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”

An antitype: something that is represented by a symbol.

What is the antitype? Baptism.
What is the symbol? The water of the flood.
The statement here is that 8 souls were saved through the water of the flood. And that symbolizes the water that now saves you: baptism.
And as he is clear to point out, this is not a physical function of the water, but the pleading with the Spirit for a cleansed conscience as it is more clearly said in the ESV: “but as an appeal to God for a good conscience”.

Indeed, I do understand the difference between a ritual and reality. The difference is expressed in both Rom 6 and Col 2. In both the ritual of water baptism coincides with the reality of the Holy Spirit removing our sins and coming to dwell in our renewed spirit.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There's no salvation without that fellowship

This is exactly backwards, and show how confused your view is.

Relationship must be established before any fellowship can occur.

There can be no fellowship between father and child UNTIL there IS a child. Do you understand this?

Because our "lostness" or death are defined by that lack of fellowship with God.

No it's not. But since you think otherwise, what verse informs your opinion?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
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?

And this is what faith gains:
“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.“ Rom 5:1-2

“…just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:21

These verses don't really specify much. Do any of them say we avoid the lake of fire? Or that we can be saved from the power of sin?

And, the subject of my post was HOW to be saved, which you ignored. The verses you quoted do not address how to be saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
So, you STILL don't seem to understand wht 'impute' means.

That means there is no use in further discussion.

Wrong- I think there's still hope for you.

Since you haven't YET shown any understanding of "impute", I have to wonder is there is any hope for you.

I think that's the point-you don't know.

Fail.

The only right reason that a person does the right thing is because they're not puppets, they're pure in heart, clean on the inside motivated by the righteouness, the love, God gives to a believer. However, since man's will is always involved in his salvation, and love is necesarily a choice even as it's also necesarily a gift of God's, we won't necessarily live by that grace, that gift, we may well turn and live selfishly, according to the flesh instead unless and until we're perfected in love. We may ignore and forfeit the righteouness given. We do that in small and large ways every time we sin. It's a good struggle in any case, in which we can be refined, growing in justice, in love, away from sin and nearer to God, to conformity to His image. Or not.

Why you even mention puppets is hilarious. That is a comment for Calvinists.

I agree with you on this paragraph. However, we differ greatly in the outcome for how one lives.

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
And, are you going to explain HOW a person obeys the command to be filled with the Spirit?

Did that. I don't believe you responded.

If you did, I missed it. But since I've been looking for your explanation, I don't think you did.

How about repeating the lesson. Like teachers do in school. Thanks.

I do recall a post that apparently was your answer and I pointed how it wasn't.

So it seems you really do not know HOW to be filled with the Spirit. It is a command, so you'd better KNOW how to be filled if you are going to obey that command.

Once again, HOW do you obey the command? Your previous non-answer was rather vague. Being filled requires specific steps. Do you know what they are?

 

[FreeGrace2]

fhansen said: ↑
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?
Freegrace said: ↑
Until you understand the difference between the indwelling and the filling of the Holy Spirit, I can't answer your question.

I doubt you can answer it anyway.

This is a cop-out answer. Why would I ask you a question that I don't have the answer to?

You could smoke me any way you wanted and get away with it too.

I DO know the difference. I am asking to see if you do. And by your judgmental answer, it seems rather obvious that you do not. Sad.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You're not following the discussion to begin with! The only reason for that particular discussion was because of your nonsensical claim-that you haven't had the integrity to prove!!

I've already noted that babies are born spiritually dead. And grow up that way until they are born again.

Do you disagree? Then prove your disagreement from Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

How about repeating the lesson. Like teachers do in school. Thanks.

Well, you're certainly in need of being taught, but distracted students have difficulty learning-usually by thinking they already know everything anyway. The problem is that you act as if you're following along, but disprove that by your responses. You can find the posts in question.

 

[fhansen]

I've already noted that babies are born spiritually dead. And grow up that way until they are born again.

Do you disagree? Then prove your disagreement from Scripture.

That part of the discussion began because you claimed that I somewhere insinuated otherwise, that babies are not born spiritually dead, which I did not.

 

[fhansen]

This is a cop-out answer. Why would I ask you a question that I don't have the answer to?

I asked first my friend-and you answered with a question that didn't logically follow.

 

[FreeGrace2]

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”

You are "sunk" by this passage. Being "saved through water" is what sinks your view.

If the words were "saved BY water", you'd have a point. But you don't have a point because they were actually and literally saved FROM the water of the flood.

All the other earth dwellers were baptized (immersed) in the water and were killed. They weren't saved FROM the water. Nor 'through' the water.

It seems you don't understand the meaning of words here.

An antitype: something that is represented by a symbol.

Exactly right. And the literal water is a symbol for the reality of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which DOES save us.

What is the antitype? Baptism.

What is the symbol? The water of the flood.

Right. Literal water is a symbol of the baptism of the Spirit. That is exactly what Peter was saying.

The statement here is that 8 souls were saved through the water of the flood.

You can read that: "saved FROM the water of the flood".

And that symbolizes the water that now saves you: baptism.

So, basically, you are saying that the literal water of the flood symbolizes the water of baptism. How do you not see your error?

And as he is clear to point out, this is not a physical function of the water, but the pleading with the Spirit for a cleansed conscience as it is more clearly said in the ESV: “but as an appeal to God for a good conscience”.

Nope. Water baptism is an identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Col 2-
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

Indeed, I do understand the difference between a ritual and reality. The difference is expressed in both Rom 6 and Col 2. In both the ritual of water baptism coincides with the reality of the Holy Spirit removing our sins and coming to dwell in our renewed spirit.

OK, the ritual of water baptism does NOTHING literal. Changes nothing.

Good.

 

[fhansen]

These verses don't really specify much.

Until we begin to understand them. They have very real and specific meaning.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked first, my friend-and your question didn't logically follow.

What does your friend have to do with anything about our discussion?