Salvation

Doulos 7 · Jul 10, 2018

Light of the East said:
Here's a real question for you - if you are wrong, are you going to recant?

there is a difference for who is a debater and who is a truth seeker i am the latter!

Doulos 7 · Jul 10, 2018

Nicolaus Mourer said:
When it comes to salvation, the details matter.
Secondly, you still haven't answered the question about Abraham or Adam, or Abel, or Noah - men who were saved before the Mosaic law was even around.
Thirdly, the Bible makes it clear that the law never saved anybody (Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:20) but was given to us so that we would know we are sinners (Romans 7:7) and have a need for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Fourthly, I called upon the name of the Lord in faith, like everyone who has ever been saved according to the Bible has - accepting I'm a sinner (Romans 3:23), understanding that I deserve hell (Romans 6:23, Revelation 21:8), and believing that Jesus Christ was sent to save the world (John 3:16) and then I prayed and asked him to save me (Romans 10:9-10) and that I was trusting him alone (Acts of the Apostles 4:12, John 14:6).

Luke didn't say that (Acts 22:16)

yeshuaslavejeff · Jul 10, 2018

Doulos 7 said:
Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18,19

Thus proving what was posted against you.

yeshuaslavejeff · Jul 10, 2018

Doulos 7 said:
there is a difference for who is a debater and who is a truth seeker i am the latter!

You may indeed be a truth seeker.

We will just have to wait and see if you accept the truth then.

yeshuaslavejeff · Jul 10, 2018

Doulos 7 said:
I could say that the catholic church is not saved, I could say that all of you don't know your bibles, Could say a lot of hateful things. But i am Only fight for the truth (1 Peter 3:15)!

What if Jesus said the same thing.
He is always perfectly truthful , in fact He is TRUTH.
And He hates what God the Father hates; He loves what God the Father loves.

Doulos 7 · Jul 10, 2018

Nicolaus Mourer said:
Show in the Bible where it asks, "What must I do to be saved?" And the answer is "Enter the Covenant of God."

Your answer is extremely vague and imprecise.

If you have ever read the book of acts you would find numerous examples of those that were saved! But it appears to me people don't study like they should (2 Tim. 2:15)!

Doulos 7 · Jul 10, 2018

Have fun! have to go!
Phil. 25

Call me Nic · Jul 10, 2018

Doulos 7 said:
Luke didn't say that (Acts 22:16)

Really? Read the scripture of the same story in the other place (specifically Acts of the Apostles 9:11), and you will see that Saul was praying and believed on Christ before Ananias even ever showed up to fulfill the vision that Christ gave him.

Call me Nic · Jul 10, 2018

Doulos 7 said:
If you have ever read the book of acts you would find numerous examples of those that were saved! But it appears to me people don't study like they should (2 Tim. 2:15)!

I actually have studied the book of Acts because I used to believe different, and when I studied in depth, the Bible never showed anything but baptism coming after one had already received salvation. Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold up in the court of law.

Light of the East · Jul 10, 2018

Nicolaus Mourer said:
Too bad Noah wasn't circumcised.

Romans 4:9-11 prove that Abraham was given righteousness (i.e. saved/justified) BEFORE he was circumcised. To deny this is to deny clear scripture, but to believe the Bible proves you wrong, friend.

The Greek does not support the Calvinist fantasy of "imputed righteousness." Scripture states that God saw Abraham's faith and "imputed" righteousness to him. The important thing to remember is this: what is the Greek word used here and what does it mean?

The word is "logizomai" and it means "to count what is there." It is a banking term. It means that if you see $25 on the table, you count it as being there. You don't see an empty table and then say "there is $25 lying there." In other words, what God saw was a righteous man, Abraham, acting in righteousness (faith) and God said "There is a righteous man."

What did not happen was that God said (as Calvinists say) "There is a totally depraved sinner who is unrighteous, but since he has acted in faith in me, I will give to him Christ's righteousness so that he can be righteous."

Circumcision had not been established at the time of Noah. But nonetheless, Noah moved by faith, built an ark, to the saving of his family. That same faith was in action when God established His covenant with Abraham. Anyone who entered into the covenant of God, did so through faith. But not by "faith alone." If you had faith in God, you acted on it and became circumcised. No one would submit to circumcision if they didn't have faith, and if you claimed to have faith and didn't submit to circumcision, you were simply a liar.

Faith and works are the same side of one coin. Faith alone is a false doctrine.

Call me Nic · Jul 10, 2018

Doulos 7 said:
Do you want someone to die in their sins? Eternity is on the line! if i am wrong that would make me a false teacher. if i am right you are not saved!

Doulos 7 said:
Have fun! have to go!
Phil. 25

Call me Nic · Jul 10, 2018

Light of the East said:
The Greek does not support the Calvinist fantasy of "imputed righteousness." Scripture states that God saw Abraham's faith and "imputed" righteousness to him. The important thing to remember is this: what is the Greek word used here and what does it mean?

The word is "logizomai" and it means "to count what is there." It is a banking term. It means that if you see $25 on the table, you count it as being there. You don't see an empty table and then say "there is $25 lying there." In other words, what God saw was a righteous man, Abraham, acting in righteousness (faith) and God said "There is a righteous man."

What did not happen was that God said (as Calvinists say) "There is a totally depraved sinner who is unrighteous, but since he has acted in faith in me, I will give to him Christ's righteousness so that he can be righteous."

Circumcision had not been established at the time of Noah. But nonetheless, Noah moved by faith, built an ark, to the saving of his family. That same faith was in action when God established His covenant with Abraham. Anyone who entered into the covenant of God, did so through faith. But not by "faith alone." If you had faith in God, you acted on it and became circumcised. No one would submit to circumcision if they didn't have faith, and if you claimed to have faith and didn't submit to circumcision, you were simply a liar.

Faith and works are the same side of one coin. Faith alone is a false doctrine.

Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

By the way, I reject Calvinism, but that's not the point - don't throw around accusations of things you apparently don't even know about.

Light of the East · Jul 10, 2018

Nicolaus Mourer said:
I actually have studied the book of Acts because I used to believe different, and when I studied in depth, the Bible never showed anything but baptism coming after one had already received salvation. Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold up in the court of law.

It most certainly would hold up in a court of law because A.) there is no place in the Bible where it teaches "sola scriptura" as truth B.) what is the testimony of the earliest Christians? It is that they baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) C.) what did the Church teach from the beginning? Baptism of infants and adults D.) what you are giving is your opinion and E.) there is no record of Baptists or any other Anabaptist group existing until invented in the 16th century.

You simply don't wish to acknowledge that you have not fully studied this issue. If the very first Christians taught that baptism is for all ages, and that baptism washes away sin, then why would you not believe it?

Light of the East · Jul 10, 2018

Nicolaus Mourer said:
Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

By the way, I reject Calvinism, but that's not the point - don't throw around accusations of things you apparently don't even know about.

You can reject Calvinism all you wish. "Imputed righteousness," of which you spoke and defended, is a distinctly Calvinist fantasy.

Call me Nic · Jul 10, 2018

Light of the East said:
It most certainly would hold up in a court of law because A.) there is no place in the Bible where it teaches "sola scriptura" as truth B.) what is the testimony of the earliest Christians? It is that they baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) C.) what did the Church teach from the beginning? Baptism of infants and adults D.) what you are giving is your opinion and E.) there is no record of Baptists or any other Anabaptist group existing until invented in the 16th century.

You simply don't wish to acknowledge that you have not fully studied this issue. If the very first Christians taught that baptism is for all ages, and that baptism washes away sin, then why would you not believe it?

A). 2 Timothy 3:16, Luke 16:28-29.
B). Acts of the Apostles 2:21 is the salvation verse that came prior to Acts 2:38, proving that Acts 2:38 is a reactionary verse to those who believed (Acts 2:41).
C). Prove one example of an infant getting baptized in scripture. Secondly, the requirement for baptism is receiving Christ according to Acts of the Apostles 8:37.
D). I see a lack of scripture from you, and only more scripture from me.
E). And the Catholic Church wasn't started until the Nicene Council in 325AD, so what's your point? The scripture has always been around since the end of the 1st century, and I base my beliefs on what the Bible says, and only what the Bible says. Granted, I don't have understanding of everything nor could I because no one does, but there are many things the Bible teaches clearly, and these truths I will not back down on.

Light of the East · Jul 10, 2018

Nicolaus Mourer said:
Show in the Bible where it asks, "What must I do to be saved?" And the answer is "Enter the Covenant of God."

Your answer is extremely vague and imprecise.

Your "sola scriptura" is hanging out for all to see.

Not everything that Jesus taught is in the Bible. Look at this:

Acts 1: 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

So do you think that after 40 days of instruction, the Apostles went away and said, "Well, that's fine, but what Jesus said isn't going to be in the Bible, therefore we will ignore it"

I have no doubt that Jesus gave them deeper instruction on the meaning of "you must eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood." I imagine he clarified who was to be the leader of the Apostles, the single man around whom would be Church unity. I imagine he might well have taught them more about the New Covenant that began with His Crucifixion, and how circumcision was to transition to baptism.

Or would you just blow off the 40 days and all that Jesus taught because it ain't in the KJV?

Call me Nic · Jul 10, 2018

Light of the East said:
You can reject Calvinism all you wish. "Imputed righteousness," of which you spoke and defended, is a distinctly Calvinist fantasy.

THE BIBLE SAYS THE WORD IMPUTED. Take it up with God - he said it, not me.

Besides, Calvinism calls God the author of sin, which is a lie.

Call me Nic · Jul 10, 2018

Light of the East said:
Your "sola scriptura" is hanging out for all to see.

Not everything that Jesus taught is in the Bible. Look at this:

Acts 1: 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

So do you think that after 40 days of instruction, the Apostles went away and said, "Well, that's fine, but what Jesus said isn't going to be in the Bible, therefore we will ignore it"

I have no doubt that Jesus gave them deeper instruction on the meaning of "you must eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood." I imagine he clarified who was to be the leader of the Apostles, the single man around whom would be Church unity. I imagine he might well have taught them more about the New Covenant that began with His Crucifixion, and how circumcision was to transition to baptism.

Or would you just blow off the 40 days and all that Jesus taught because it ain't in the KJV?

So... this is your argument? Obviously we have a series of Epistles that came after Christ ascended into heaven written by the apostles themselves. They expounded on Christ's teachings after he was received into heaven.

Frankly, that doesn't even make any sense.

And you want to condemn me for believing the Bible? Guilty as charged, friend.

Light of the East · Jul 10, 2018

2 Timothy 3:16, Luke 16:28-29.

Neither one of these verses teaches "sola scriptura." You are reading into them what you wish to see. The Church for 1500 years, until Luther, never had such an idea. What they did teach was what Paul taught:

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Tradition is very important. Holy Tradition simply means, "what we have learned from the fathers, what we have practiced from the beginning." At the Council of Nicea, the heretic Arius did what JW's do today: he picked out verses from the writings of Paul and the Apostles and made his case based on "sola scriptura."

The Fathers of the Council, in coming to the understanding of Christ as God, said "this is all very interesting, but this has not been the tradition of the Church from the beginning." In other words, you can thank Holy Tradition at the Council of Nicea that we are not all Arian heretics today.

B). Acts of the Apostles 2:21 is the salvation verse that came prior to Acts 2:38, proving that Acts 2:38 is a reactionary verse to those who believed (Acts 2:41).

I have no real argument with this. But without baptism, one is not saved. As circumcision was the "act of faith" which brought a man and his family into the Covenant Kingdom, so now baptism is the response of faith that does the same. This is simply James epistle where he states that "faith without works is dead."

C). Prove one example of an infant getting baptized in scripture. Secondly, the requirement for baptism is receiving Christ according to Acts of the Apostles 8:37.

As mentioned earlier, the practice of the Church was always to baptize infants. It is a continuation of the circumcision of infants.

Hippolytus
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Where do you think these men learned this from if not from the Apostles themselves?

E). And the Catholic Church wasn't started until the Nicene Council in 325AD, so what's your point? The scripture has always been around since the end of the 1st century, and I base my beliefs on what the Bible says, and only what the Bible says. Granted, I don't have understanding of everything nor could I because no one does, but there are many things the Bible teaches clearly, and these truths I will not back down on.

First of all, the Church was started with Moses in the wilderness. The word "church" means "assembly" or "congregation" and it is the collection of God's people, assembled together under His appointed leadership. It was in the wilderness that God collected His people together out of Egypt, gave them leadership, and established worship. This group, which came to be known as "National Israel" is also known in Scripture by other terms. In Matthew 21: 33-46, we see it referred to by the metaphor of the vineyard, and called the Kingdom of God. And we see it transferred from national Israel to the New Covenant Assembly which is the Jewish/Gentile Church.

That same Church of the New Covenant, under the leadership of Peter and the Apostles, replacing the 12 tribal heads of Israel, came to be called "katholicos" in the early second century. Katholicos means "of the whole" or "universal." It means that wherever you went in the Roman Empire, you would find the very same doctrines and worship.

The Church, the family of God, the covenant people, the kingdom of God, whatever you wish to call it, started with Moses and has gone forth to this day as the congregation of God's people.

As for basing your beliefs on what the Bible says - well, that's humorous at best because there are probably 50 different flavors of Protestant belief in this forum, all of whom would disagree with you (some quite stridently) and all of whom would claim they are following the Bible alone for their only guide to the faith.

I understand where you are coming from. I used to be in the same boat, and it was a shock, to say the least, to actually read some real Christian history and theology (not the Trail of Blood or some Calvinist nonsense or a Chick tract) and find out that my beliefs did not exist in the first century.

I hope some day you get shocked as well.

Light of the East · Jul 10, 2018

Nicolaus Mourer said:
THE BIBLE SAYS THE WORD IMPUTED. Take it up with God - he said it, not me.

Besides, Calvinism calls God the author of sin, which is a lie.

Okay. Since you wish to be stubborn about it......

I will use a PROTESTANT BIBLE DICTIONARY......

Transliteration
logizomai
Pronunciation
lo-gē'-zo-mī λόγος (G3056)

Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: think (9x), impute (8x), reckon (6x), count (5x), account (4x), suppose (2x), reason (1x), number (1x), miscellaneous (5x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over
1. to take into account, to make an account of
  1. metaph. to pass to one's account, to impute
  2. a thing is reckoned as or to be something, i.e. as availing for or equivalent to something, as having the like force and weight
2. to number among, reckon with
3. to reckon or account
to reckon inward, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate
by reckoning up all the reasons, to gather or infer
1. to consider, take into account, weigh, meditate on
2. to suppose, deem, judge
3. This word deals with reality. If I reckon (logizomai) that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers more to fact than supposition or opinion

Look at the last part that I put in bold. It is exactly what I said to you. God looked at Abraham and dealt with reality..... the reality that Abraham was a righteous man.

You claim to be a "Bible-Only" type, but when you are shown the meaning of the Greek, you back off and refuse to change your mind, which shows that you don't want to believe what the Bible teaches in the Greek. You want to believe what your Protestant pastor taught you and you will close your eyes to anything that doesn't fit that paradigm.

You can look this up at Blue Letter Bible online if you don't believe me.

Salvation

Active Member

Active Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Well-Known Member

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency