The Loaded Question (Philippians 2:13)

[Grip Docility]

If we walk in the light/God, we won't "speak in the flesh". (1 John 1:7)
And we will be speaking as ex-sinners.

James 5:16

James seems to think it’s wise to be honest before one another.

 

[TheSeabass]

The GOOD SHEPHERD!.

The Rock is my foundation.

No, try again:


Romans 6:16 Paul says each of serve one of two masters, we serve either:
1) sin unto death
or
2) obedience unto righteousness

The man-made idea of faith only eliminates "obedience unto righteousness". So what is left for the faith onlyist to serve?

 

[TheSeabass]

It’s all Jesus. We respond. He Exodus 14:14.

Some people complain He doesn’t work fast enough or do enough.

I’m begging Him to help me be still, Daily.

Being saved does require man to respond and those that do respond are in that sense 'saving themselves" as those who responded to Peter's command to repent and be baptized [verse 38] would 'save yourselves' [verse 40].

 

[TheSeabass]

Here is what 1 John 2:19 actually says"

"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

When we look at the whole verse instead of extracting part of it and trying to make it say what John never meant, we see that he says, "If they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us". This means that they didn't belong to them at all, ever, and did not stop belonging to them just when they decided to leave. He says that if they really belonged to them, they would have stayed, but the fact that they left showed that they never belonged in the first place.

It is important that Scripture is quoted correctly for what the writer actually says and means, instead of injecting a false meaning into it. Peter says that some are twisting the words of Paul to their own destruction. This is the possible outcome of those who misquote and twist the Scripture to support their own opinions.

1) "If they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us". If this means a person NEVER belonged to the church then all this verse proves is that one who was never saved...was never saved. It does not prove that one who is saved cannot fall away.

2) John is talking about specific individuals 'they'. Again, John wrote "They went out from us, but they were not of us;". John did NOT write "ALL who go out from, but ALL was never of us"...this is an assumption added into the verse. Therefore it cannot be applied universally to anyone/everyone who leaves the church, quits the faith..it applicable only to this case. For there are examples in the NT of those who fell away becoming lost in the NT along with many admonitions and warning about falling away:

John 6:66-67 "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?"

The word "also" means likewise or in the same manner. Jesus therefore is saying that it would be possible for His own Apostles to also/likewise go back and follow Him no more. One did, Judas. But if all 12 turn back and followed Christ no more does that prove they were never really saved to begin with? Of course not. On the other hand, if it were impossible for the Apostles to turn and follow Christ no more, then Christ's question is implying an untruth, a lie.​

3) one such warning/admonition is found in 1 John 1:24 "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." John uses the word "therefore" tying verse 24 with what was just said. This command in this verse logically implies that the Christian can let the word of God slip from Him where then he would no longer continue in the Son. If not, then this has no logical meaning.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."


(A)--------------------------(B)-------------------------(C)

What in 1 John 2:19 prevents these people, whom John is talking about, becoming Christians at point (A) and remaining faithful until point (B) when they let God's word slip from them being deceived by false teaching of the Gnostics? Then they no longer belonged to us at point (B) and continue to not be of us all the way up to when they went out from us at point (C). This scenario gives sense to the warning/admonishment in verse 24 to Christians to let the word of God continue to dwell in them.

"...but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

"not' does not mean "never".

Break down of the context:

(a) "They went out from us,"
This can mean:
1) they were never of us
2) they were once of us but they did not let God's word continue to abide in them.

(b) Verse 24 "Let that therefore abide in you"
The command implies that a Christian might not let God's word abide in him and he will then deny the Son and have not the Father, verse 23.

(c) Verse 24 "If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." The word "if" is a conditional word, again implying that the Christian may NOT let God's word continue in them.

Therefore we now know that verse 19 CANNOT imply that it is impossible for a Christian to not ever let God's word dwell in him...for it certainly is possible according to verse 24.

(d) verse 25 "And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life."

From v25 we see that eternal life is a promise, NOT an UNconditional guarantee no matter what the Christian does. This promise IS CONDITIONAL upon the Christian letting God's word continue to abide within him whereby the Christian continues to abide in the Son of verse 24.

(e) "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you."
This verse implies the Christian CAN be seduced, else it makes no sense and is a lie.

Verses 24-26 is NOT written to those that went out, but to those Christians that remained, the "true" Christians as you might call them.

(f) conclusion: verse 19 cannot be taken as an absolute rule that applies to ALL but an example that applied only to these people John was talking about.

Either these particular people John writes about:
1) were never of us
2) they were of us but did not let God's word abide in them and were seduced.

And neither 1 nor 2 prove OSAS, does not prove that departure means never of us.

 

[TheSeabass]

The fact that God has both an Old Covenant and a New Covenant isn't a contradiction, so it doesn't need reconciling. It's like asking how do you reconcile Romans 10:5 "Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."" with the righteousness which is by faith which the rest of Romans 10 talks about. OR reconciling Romans 3:20 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law" with Romans 3:21,22 "But now a righteousness from God, apart from 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."

It's been shown that God will not justify the ungodly unless, until the ungodly first obey.

Romans 10:5 shows that strict, perfect, flawless adherence to the OT law of Moses was required for one to be totally righteous/justified before God. This is contrasted to a "but (contrasting word) the righteousness by faith" Romans 10:6 which does not require strict, perfect adherence to a law, just a faithful obedience. Faithful obedience does require repentance for those times the Christian sins.

Romans 3:20 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin"
Again, to be justified under the OT law of Moses required strict, perfect, flawless law keeping which no Jew could do, they would eventually sin. Therefore no flesh can under the OT law of Moses be justified in God's sight for men sinned and did not keep that OT law perfectly as it required.

Romans 3:21 "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:".

"But now" means there is a different way, a new system (the gospel) 'now' as how one can be justified before God without flawless, perfect law keeping the OT required. That "now" way is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all that CONDITONALLY believe.

The reconciling of these verse is to been seen between the OT law of Moses' way to be justified by strict, perfect law keeping contrasted to a new system of justification which is by faith in Christ.

In the context, in Romans chapters 1 and 2 Paul had just prove both Gentile and Jew sinned, therefore both are under sin and need of justification. In Romans 3, Paul begins this chapter by showing the Jew had an advantage over the Gentile in that the Jew had a law given to them. Even though having that law gave the Jew advantages it could not justify the Jew for it required strict perfect law keeping that the Jew could not do, so the Jew is no better than the Gentile Romans 3:9.
Paul ends Romans 3 by show it is not deed of the OT law (strict, perfect law keeping) that justifies but a faith in Christ.

Paul gives a practical example of this in Romans 4 by choosing two men a Gentile (Abraham) and a Jews (David), Both men were ungodly in that both sinned and were in need of justification. As Paul already showed in Romans 3 neither man could be justified by the OT law of Moses for both sinned and did not keep the law perfectly (Abraham was not even under the law of Moses). So neither was justified by the work of perfect law keeping ("worketh not" - Romans 4:5) but both "believeth", both were justified by an obedient belief.

 

[TheSeabass]

You're ignoring what Paul said about them, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4 Luke was writing as an historian, not an apostle. He was recording their outward identity. Paul wrote what they really were."Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." Joh 7:24

Where did they come from??

Acts of the Apostles 15:24 they went out from us. So those false brethren, false teachers came from among the church in Jerusalem.

Acts 15:5 "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,..." They believed, they had been converted.

Calvinists John Gill says of Acts 15:5 "which believed; that Jesus was the Messiah, and professed their faith in him, and were members of the church, though they still retained many of their pharisaical tenets, and are therefore said to be of that sect:...." (my emp)

 

[bcbsr]

It's been shown that God will not justify the ungodly unless, until the ungodly first obey.

They do obey by believe. They don't have to do anything in order to be saved by believe. Yes, God does justify the wicked, just as Paul said, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Rom 4:4,5 If a person views salvation contingent upon his works, he works to be saved and as such is disqualified to be justified by faith.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about— but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." At the moment he believed the promise he was justified, and that apart from any works of faith. He simply believed the promise, He believed God and was justified.

So also for those who believe the gospel Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

 

[Phil W]

This was meant...
1 Peter 3:21
Psalms 89:14
But, this is Pentecost... and a very specific type of conversion is occurring. John the Baptist preached a somewhat similar message to prepare the way for Jesus. The Baptism being received at Pentecost is unique... because it is not water Baptism... as it is the provision of this to the Jews at Jerusalem... in fulfillment of this... (Matthew 3:11)(Acts Of the Apostles 1:8)
Something changes..... what has changed?
Acts of the Apostles 16:30-32

I "think" you are opining that the baptism of the Holy Spirit has supplanted baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins.
I don't agree.
Baptism in water, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, is done by men for men.
The gift of the Holy Ghost is given by God because of our "turn from" sin. (Repentance)
They are both necessary.

 

[Grip Docility]

I "think" you are opining that the baptism of the Holy Spirit has supplanted baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins.
I don't agree.
Baptism in water, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, is done by men for men.
The gift of the Holy Ghost is given by God because of our "turn from" sin. (Repentance)
They are both necessary.

Thief on the cross?

 

[Phil W]

Thief on the cross?

He didn't get either baptism.
However, as Romans 6 says that what happens to us at our water baptism is exactly what the thief endured...death with Christ, burial, with Christ, and being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.
The thief's death with Christ was a "picture" of our water baptism...in Jesus' name for the remission of sins.
Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins, so water wasn't necessary for the thief's remission of sins past.

 

[Grip Docility]

He didn't get either baptism.
However, as Romans 6 says that what happens to us at our water baptism is exactly what the thief endured...death with Christ, burial, with Christ, and being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.
The thief's death with Christ was a "picture" of our water baptism...in Jesus' name for the remission of sins.
Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins, so water wasn't necessary for the thief's remission of sins past.

I understand your point and I am baptized by literal dunking... but, I now see it as a ceremony that points to the working of the Holy Spirit, and the death of my flesh before God.

With study and age, I have grown to find that symbols are not requirements.

That is my opinion.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It's been shown that God will not justify the ungodly unless, until the ungodly first obey.

Romans 10:5 shows that strict, perfect, flawless adherence to the OT law of Moses was required for one to be totally righteous/justified before God. This is contrasted to a "but (contrasting word) the righteousness by faith" Romans 10:6 which does not require strict, perfect adherence to a law, just a faithful obedience. Faithful obedience does require repentance for those times the Christian sins.

Romans 3:20 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin"
Again, to be justified under the OT law of Moses required strict, perfect, flawless law keeping which no Jew could do, they would eventually sin. Therefore no flesh can under the OT law of Moses be justified in God's sight for men sinned and did not keep that OT law perfectly as it required.

Romans 3:21 "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:".

"But now" means there is a different way, a new system (the gospel) 'now' as how one can be justified before God without flawless, perfect law keeping the OT required. That "now" way is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all that CONDITONALLY believe.

The reconciling of these verse is to been seen between the OT law of Moses' way to be justified by strict, perfect law keeping contrasted to a new system of justification which is by faith in Christ.

In the context, in Romans chapters 1 and 2 Paul had just prove both Gentile and Jew sinned, therefore both are under sin and need of justification. In Romans 3, Paul begins this chapter by showing the Jew had an advantage over the Gentile in that the Jew had a law given to them. Even though having that law gave the Jew advantages it could not justify the Jew for it required strict perfect law keeping that the Jew could not do, so the Jew is no better than the Gentile Romans 3:9.
Paul ends Romans 3 by show it is not deed of the OT law (strict, perfect law keeping) that justifies but a faith in Christ.

Paul gives a practical example of this in Romans 4 by choosing two men a Gentile (Abraham) and a Jews (David), Both men were ungodly in that both sinned and were in need of justification. As Paul already showed in Romans 3 neither man could be justified by the OT law of Moses for both sinned and did not keep the law perfectly (Abraham was not even under the law of Moses). So neither was justified by the work of perfect law keeping ("worketh not" - Romans 4:5) but both "believeth", both were justified by an obedient belief.

The people had participated in a great miracle. They were given a free dinner. They stayed around because they wanted more food. They stuck with Jesus because they could be fed and healed. But when Jesus told them that to be His real disciples they must eat of His flesh and drink His blood, most of them walked away, because Jesus was saying that He was going to die and that they need to be identified with His death. So, the Jews could not accept a Messiah who was going to die. They wanted a Messiah who was going to meet their temporal needs. They were there just for the free lunch.

This is the same with the majority of Christians. They will come in their crowds to healing, and "feel good" meetings where they can be promised with guaranteed healing and prosperity, but a preacher who preaches the gospel of Christ - that Jesus died for us on the cross and that we need to receive Him and, instead of the "free lunch" we have to live a holy, self-denying life, would be lucky to get a couple of hundred to his meetings. But those would be the ones who are hungry for the Word of God, rather than the blessings of healing and prosperity that the main crowd are seeking.

 

[Phil W]

I understand your point and I am baptized by literal dunking... but, I now see it as a ceremony that points to the working of the Holy Spirit, and the death of my flesh before God.

With study and age, I have grown to find that symbols are not requirements.

That is my opinion.

You will need to supply some verses which state the Holy Spirit kills, buries, and raises us with Christ to walk in newness of life...like Romans 6 does for water baptism.

I'ld like to provide a few verses that corroborate my POV.
"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:" (Rom 6:5)
"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" (Col 2:12-13)
Be especially aware of the "forgiven you all trespasses" portion, which connects to Acts 2:38..."...and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
The baptism of the Holy Ghost comes after water baptism. Cornelius was the only exception, to prove to the Jews that the Gentiles who repented were also accepted of God. (Acts 11:18)

 

[Grip Docility]

You will need to supply some verses which state the Holy Spirit kills, buries, and raises us with Christ to walk in newness of life...like Romans 6 does for water baptism.

I'ld like to provide a few verses that corroborate my POV.
"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:" (Rom 6:5)
"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" (Col 2:12-13)
Be especially aware of the "forgiven you all trespasses" portion, which connects to Acts 2:38..."...and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
The baptism of the Holy Ghost comes after water baptism. Cornelius was the only exception, to prove to the Jews that the Gentiles who repented were also accepted of God. (Acts 11:18)

Do you believe We are imputed His Righteousness? I do.

Do you believe we who fail Him daily are blessed with His mercy? I do.

Do you note the difference in the Diaspora Believers and the Gentile believers walks? I do.

Do you see what changed in the Body from Saul’s road to Damascus? I do.

What must I do to be Saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Heart and Soul. We each know the verses. Let us not exalt ritual in place of The God Who was exalted and Slain, in shame and pain... that upon wretched us... Grace can reign.

Let those who elope, elope! Let those who have ceremony have ceremony. Let none of us ever be ashamed of the Gospel which reveals the Goodness of our Lord God, Jesus Christ! Let us declare His name though the world think us insane.

 

[Phil W]

Do you believe We are imputed His Righteousness? I do.

Yes, I do.

Do you believe we who fail Him daily are blessed with His mercy? I do.

If we have been given "His" righteousness, how can we fail?

Do you note the difference in the Diaspora Believers and the Gentile believers walks? I do.

You will need to define who was in the diaspora.
The Jews were still "zealous of the law", though I know not why, as they had been delivered from it just as the Gentiles had been.
However, both sets of believers were equipt with everything necessary to actually keep the law of Christ...ie. Love God above all else and your neighbor as you love yourself.
It is written in our hearts.

Do you see what changed in the Body from Saul’s road to Damascus? I do.

If "body" means "church"...I see no change.

What must I do to be Saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is the perfect start, but the devils believe too...and tremble.
So we see that mere belief is nothing without the rest of one's total commitment to Godliness.

Heart and Soul. We each know the verses. Let us not exalt ritual in place of The God Who was exalted and Slain, in shame and pain... that upon wretched us... Grace can reign.

Yes, but grace reigns through righteousness, (Rom 5:2), so without righteousness there is no grace.

Let those who elope, elope! Let those who have ceremony have ceremony. Let none of us ever be ashamed of the Gospel which reveals the Goodness of our Lord God, Jesus Christ! Let us declare His name though the world think us insane.

Amen !