• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

What about Baptism?

Discussion in 'Christianity and World Religion' started by cougan, Oct 6, 2002.

  1. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Let's continue our investigation of "What we have to do in order to be saved." As before, I shall employ Ben's rationale.

    Watch carefully:

    • I Corinthians 3:15.
      If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
    This verse contradicts the previous proof texts. It says that we are automatically saved "by fire." It does not say that we have to believe. It does not say that we have to repent. It does not say that we have to confess. It does not say that we have to have faith. It does not say that we have to be baptised.

    So, according to Ben's rationale, this verse contradicts the previous proof texts, and means exactly what it says - that salvation is granted by fire. What is the "fire" of which Paul speaks? He does not elaborate, so we must arrive at our own conclusions:
    • It could be literal fire. (If we're burned to death, we shall be saved.)
    • It could be symbolic of trial. (If we experience trial in our lives, we shall be saved.)
    • It could be Purgatory. (If we die and end up in Purgatory, we shall be saved... eventually. Perhaps in as little as several thousand years, even!) ;)
    • It could be lust, which Paul discretely refers to as "burning" in one of his epistles. (If we lust, we shall be saved. A trifle bizarre, perhaps - but certainly one of the more enjoyable soteriological models, I suppose!) :D
    Now let's test it.

    Well, the testing will depend on which interpretation we decide on, so I think everybody should make up their own minds, and report back when they've got some idea about whether or not they've been granted salvation or not.

    But whatever else we decide, the message is clear - we are saved by fire, according to Ben's rationale. :cool:
     
  2. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Let's continue our investigation of "What we have to do in order to be saved." As before, I shall employ Ben's rationale.

    Watch carefully:

    • I Timothy 2:15.
      Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
    This verse contradicts the previous proof texts. It is a very special verse, because it is the only verse in the Bible which proves that women are not saved in the usual way! Yes, you hear it here first, folks - according to Ben's rationale, this verse is saying that women have a special soteriological model all their own. It says that they are saved by bearing children - but only if they're good girls, and "continue in faith and love and holiness in sobriety"! (Wow, they've got a lot on their plates, haven't they? Makes you glad you're a man, don't it?) ;)

    It does not say that they have to believe. It does not say that they have to repent. It does not say that they have to confess. It does not say that they have to have faith. It does not say that they have to be baptised.

    So, according to Ben's rationale, this verse contradicts the previous proof texts, and means exactly what it says - that salvation is granted to women by bearing children, and only if they continue to live good lives. (Ahhh! Salvation by works! Blasphemy! Run away, run away!) ;)

    Now let's test it.

    Well, I'm not a woman, but I sure know a few, so I reckon I'll get out ther eright now and tell 'em to get pregnant real soon, or else they won't be saved! :rolleyes:

    Clearly, women are saved by bearing children and living good lives, according to Ben's rationale. :cool:
     
  3. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Let's continue our investigation of "What we have to do in order to be saved." As before, I shall employ Ben's rationale.

    Watch carefully:

    • I Peter 3:20.
      Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
    This verse contradicts the previous proof texts. It is a very special verse, because it is the only verse in the Bible which proves that Noah and his family were not saved in the usual way! It says that they were saved by water. What was that "water"? Well, Peter's not very explicit, but he's probably thinking of the floodwater. Or perhaps the rain. Or perhaps that lovely dew you get in the mornings, which Noah would have seen when he went for his daily stroll around the deck, shortly after his shower and continental breakfast. ;)

    It does not say that they had to believe. It does not say that they had to repent. It does not say that they had to confess. It does not say that they had to have faith. It does not say that they had to be baptised.

    So, according to Ben's rationale, this verse contradicts the previous proof texts, and means exactly what it says - that salvation was granted to Noah and his family by water (whatever that's supposed to mean here.)

    Now let's test it.

    Well, we don't have to test it, because it's happened already.

    Clearly, Noah and his family were saved by water (whatever this means), according to Ben's rationale. :cool:
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    Again, I'll say again. Confession and repentence is a subset of belief. You're trying to make things linear, but they are not. It is impossible for a person to truly believe in Jesus Christ and NOT repent or confess. That is where the difference is and what you seem to be unable to understand.

    Just faith. The other two are part of faith.

    It's pretty much instantaneous. The idea of after that you're using "makes" it seem that they are two separate things. After one has been received into Christ, they are baptized with the Holy Spirit - or the Holy Spirit comes and indwells within them. With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes love. The three occur at the same time.

    That's what happens when you wanted things so literally. The indwelling of the spirit does "put you into Christ" as it is a mark of salvation. Without the spirit, there is no salvation. Without salvation, there is no spirit.

    It boils down to the two happening at the same time. The result of belief is salvation and the indwelling of the Spirit. Your confusion comes from your insistence that one must happen after the other.

    Have you even read the post I wrote about this? Water cannot be the thing that saves, because&nbsp;it was the ARK that saved Noah&nbsp;FROM the water. The water did not save Noah. The saving agent in I Peter 3:21 is the resurrection of Christ. Read the passage in context and you&nbsp;will see that it cannot mean&nbsp;what you are saying it does.&nbsp;

    For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; <SUP>19</SUP> in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, <SUP>20</SUP> who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. <SUP>21</SUP> <B>And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience </B>— through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    The ark caused them to remain safe, not the water. The resurrection of Jesus Christ brings salvation, not water. Again, are the millions and millions of people who have believed and not been baptized forever lost?

    Because Baptism is a symbolic work. It was in the times before Christ. It was in the time of John the Baptist. It remains so today. It is a result of identification with something.

    Repenting and confessing are not works. Works cannot save a man. Your system of theology implies that faith in Christ is not complete without a work. (And&nbsp;please don't take "Faith without works is dead" out of context in your answer here, although I am sure it is coming.)&nbsp;

    Sigh. See above. We CANNOT love before we are&nbsp;truly a child of God. John takes 5 chapters in his first epistle explaining that. That is, unless you deny total inability, which&nbsp;both Calvinists and Arminians agree. We cannot truly love anyone before Jesus&nbsp;Christ has transformed our hearts.&nbsp;


    ** Snipped Galatians 3:27 commentary ** It is clear that you do not understand your own logical fallacies. Indeed, I would much rather you answer the many questions instead of beating this dead horse.&nbsp;Your scriptural basis for water baptism is circular, whether you see it or not. You make an apriori assumption that Paul is talking about water baptism and then use it to prove that Paul is talking about water baptism.

    Answer the questions instead. I will be interested to see your soteriological system, your view on the indwelling of the Spirit, and your opinion of the millions upon millions of people who have believed, showed fruit, yet were not baptized.
     
  5. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    Hey, let me tell you a secret, E. The Holy Spirit is residing in me. He came into my life when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour on Easter Sunday 1998.

    So, needless to say, I can personally refute your claim that the Spirit is notavailable today. (Oh, and I wasn't baptized until that summer of 1998, and believe me, I was SAVED. A radical change in my life occurred. I know the power of the Spirit! Who ARE you to say such a thing?!?)
     
  6. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    This made me smile...

    Where are we told that savlation is instantaneously granted during our current lives?

    ROTFL!!!

    I am currently in the process of demonstrating that this is your problem - and Ben's too! - not cougan's.

    Finally, the most hilarious of all:

    If repenting and confessing are "not works", how can you have the audacity to claim that water baptism is!? :cool:
     
  7. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Scott -

    Ooooh, I just love secrets! Spill the beans, Scott! Go on - I dare ya! ;)

    I have absolutely no doubt that this is what you believe. And yes, I've heard it all before; from Calvinists, from Pentecostals, from Charismatics, from Catholics, from Anglicans, from Baptists, and from generic, plain-label "non-denominationalists." All of them claim that the Holy Spirit "came into my life and indwelt me." (This despite that their respective theologies are in conflict with each other!)

    There's got to be something awry here, Scott. The Holy Spirit can't reside in a multitude of people who all believe something entirely different. That would make God "the author of confusion", and the Bible says He isn't. :)

    No, you can't do anything of the kind. All you can do is sit there and make some kind of totally unprovable claim, just like everyone else.

    That doesn't carry any weight with me.

    Why should I believe you? You haven't given me any rational basis for doing so.

    Well, and so what if it did? I've known atheist alcoholics who have experienced radical changes in their lives after giving up the bottle. What makes you think that a "radical change" in one's life is proof of salvation and/or the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit?

    *sigh*

    Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure that you believe this very sincerely, just like all the others.

    Oh, just a humble dude off the street with a Bible, a logical-rational approach to Scripture, and more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. :cool:
     
  8. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Let's continue our investigation of "What we have to do in order to be saved." As before, I shall employ Ben's rationale.

    Watch carefully:

    • I Peter 3:21.
      The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
    This verse contradicts the previous proof texts. It says that we are saved by baptism (not water baptism, not "Holy Spirit baptism", but by having a good conscience towards God), and also be the resurrection of Christ. It does not say that we have to believe. It does not say that we have to repent. It does not say that we have to confess. It does not say that we have to have faith. So, according to Ben's rationale, this verse contradicts the previous proof texts, and means exactly what it says - that we are saved by baptism, and by the resurrection of Christ.

    Now let's test it.

    Well, I suggest that we all pop down to our local CoC or Christadelphian ecclesia, and get ourselves baptised. That should do the trick. :)

    Clearly, we are saved by baptism and the resurrection of Christ, according to Ben's rationale. :cool:
     
  9. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Let's continue our investigation of "What we have to do in order to be saved." As before, I shall employ Ben's rationale.

    Watch carefully:

    • Romans 8:24.
      For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
    This verse contradicts the previous proof texts. It says that we are saved by hope. It does not say that we have to repent. It does not say that we have to confess. It does not say that we have to have faith. So, according to Ben's rationale, this verse contradicts the previous proof texts, and means exactly what it says - that we are saved by hope.

    Now let's test it.

    Well, let's all sit around and hope. I don't know exactly what we're supposed to be hoping for, because the apostle isn't very specific on this point - but I'm sure that if we're all hoping... not even hoping for somthing, just hoping generally... in a general sort of way... we'll definitely be saved. (At least, I hope we will!) ;)

    Clearly, we are saved by hope, according to Ben's rationale. :cool:
     
  10. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    No ritual, only BELIEVING---the kind of belief that encompasses GAL2:20!
    Ya want it in Greek? Rom10:10
    It's not a GUARANTEE, it's a PROMISE. See Eph1:13,4:31
    According to PAUL---Rom10. The understanding, is that "calling on His name reflects TRUE BELIEF.
    THat's outta context---we are saved BY GRACE! THROUGH FAITH! Did you read my post? John, in ch3, says "belief is all that is required for salvation"---but Jesus demonstrated the understanding that TRUE BELIEF, causes repentance, causes humility, causes doing God's will, CAUSES BORN-AGAIN.

    Whaddya think---that Paul FORGOT to mention water in Rom10:9-10?

    He didn't forget...
     
  11. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    OOPS---Eph4:30. Sealed UNTO (not unTIL) the day of redemption...

    Salvation is HAVING CHRIST (1Jn5:12-13)---eternal LIFE is ABIDING IN CHRIST UNTIL THE END. Salvation is INSTANT, the REWARD is reserved in Heaven for us... 1Pet1:4
     
  12. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Hidey ho, good neighbour. :)

    Oh, so it's only believing now, is it? Well, that means we don't have to worry about having faith, or persevering, or confessing, or calling on the name of the Lord. All we've got to do (according to you) is "believe."

    Well, I suggest you take a quick look at my other posts on this subject, and see how far that rationale gets you. :p

    I know what verse it is. I didn't ask for the verse, matey - I asked for the version. :rolleyes:

    *snip*

    Great! So in one fell stroke, you've totally refuted OSAS, and agreed with me that we're not saved instantly! Terrific! :D

    Ah, but the verse does not say "calling on his name reflects true belief", does it? That's an idea which comes from another verse entirely!

    So you're hoist by your own petard, Ben. On the one hand, you want to take a single verse out of context in order to prove that we're not saved by anything except belief. But on the other hand, you've been forced to realise the absurdity of this approach, and now you're trying to bolster your argument by an appeal to alternative proof texts!

    Which in turn proves my point that you can't establish an entire soteriological model on the basis of a single verse! You have to take the Bible as a whole; you can't just pick and choose. Every verse which speaks about salvation, must be considered and individually addressed before you have a comprehensive soteriolgy. Anything less than this is mere chicken scratchings.

    *snip*

    Bingo! Once again you prove my point and demolish your own argument! (See how dangerous is is to base an entire argument on a single proof text?)

    *snip*

    No, not at all. He referred to it specifically. Remember, he said baptism. He meant baptism.

    You've already told me that "baptism" means immersion, so how can you deny that water baptism is referred to here? :p
     
  13. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Ben -

    *snip*

    Ooops! In a previous post, you insisted that salvation is a promise, not a guarantee!

    But now you contradict yourself! Amazing!

    What happens next, Ben? Where do you go from here? :cool:
     
  14. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Because they believe that belief is the basis for salvation. It's what they agree on that is important - not what they disagree over.<BR><BR>
    </P>
    <P>They are not entirely different. I would say that less than 5% of doctrine is different. </P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>No it wouldn't. Man is responsible for that.&nbsp;<BR><BR>
    </P>
    <P>But if I show the FRUITS of the SPIRIT...then it is shown.<BR><BR>You do know that Christadelphianism is not an orthodox system of theology, right? You guys do believe that:</P>
    <LI><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Jesus had a sinful nature <EM>The Christadelphians, What They Believe, </EM>by Harry Tennant, The Christadelphian, England, p. 74 - this is a Christadelphian book.<EM>)</EM></FONT>
    <LI><FONT size=2><EM><FONT face=Verdana>Jesus needed salvation, </FONT></EM><FONT face=Verdana>(<EM>Christadelphian Answers</EM>, ed. by Frank G. Jannaway, The Herald Press, p. 25 - another Christadelphian book<EM>).</EM></FONT></FONT>
    <LI><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Jesus is not God in flesh (Answers, p. 22)<EM>.</EM></FONT>
    <LI><FONT face=Verdana size=2>That Jesus' atonement was not substitutionary <EM>(Answers, p. 25; What They Believe, p. 71).</EM></FONT> </LI>
    <P>I have no interest in discussing theology with a Christadelphian, who doesn't even believe that Jesus Christ was the Word from the beginning. If you'd like to start a thread showing how you are orthodox, you can begin one on the "unorthodox" thread. (Ironic, huh?) </P>
    <P>Since we begin from different places, we won't agree on baptism. The fact that you deny the Holy Spirit indwells people is, well, sad, actually. </P>
    <P>Romans 8:9 "<A name=Bu>Bu</A>t ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."</P>
     
  15. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    This little exercise has been a lot of fun. We have seen that Ben's approach to Scripture is... somewhat unusual. (To say the least!)

    Ben's approach results in Scriptural contradictions. This does not appear to trouble him, because... well, because he doesn't actually bother to cross-reference his verses very often, and on those rare occasions when he does, he takes care to select a passage which says exactly what the other verse had said. But not once does he ever make any attempt to reconcile his breathtakingly simplistic interpretation of these verses, with the other verses which (if we followed his rationale) would contradict his interpretation of his own proof texts!

    Ben's novel approach results in a series of hopeless Scriptural contradictions. It does not allow us to take Scripture as a unified package; instead, we are forced to read each and every proof text in total isolation, without harmonising it with others we have found. This in turn, results in the (erroneous) conclusion that the soteriological message of Scripture is awash with self-refutations and logical fallacies.

    Let's review:
    • Scripture says that we are saved by calling on the name of the Lord.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by hearing the words that another will speak to us.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by Christ's life.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by fire.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that women are saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety, which means that there must be some other way of salvation for men. (Well, there's plenty of options, as you can see - so take your pick!) ;)
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that there's an exception to this rule, because Noah and his family were saved by water.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by baptism, and by the resurrection of Christ.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by hope.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by believing.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by confessing.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by repenting.
    According to Ben's rationale, salvation must come by only one of these methods - not by all of them, and not by any combination of them. Yes, I know what you're thinking; you're thinking that this is a hopeless, self-contradictory mess. And yes, it certainly is.

    But that's the logical consequence of Ben's flawed hermeneutic. :cool:
     
  16. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Hi Scott. I'm a bit disappointed that you folded so quickly.

    Balderdash! Contradictions and conflicts about, Scott! Modern Christians violently disagree on issues of soteriology, eschatology, epistemology, pneumatology, harmatiology - you name it. Heck, the guy who runs these forums doesn't even believe that Preterists are "orthodox"! Sheesh! :rolleyes:

    Exactly. Man is responsible for it, which means that I should not believe everyone who claims that the Holy Spirit resides in him.

    But if I also show the fruits of the spirit... what then? You'll have a bit of a problem, won't you? :p

    No, I know nothing of the kind. What I do know, is that Christadelphians believe exactly as the 1st Century Christians did.

    Yep! And by the term "sinful nature", we believe that Christ was capable of sin. We do not believe that he did sin, and we do not believe in "Original Sin", so we do not believe in "sin nature" as taught by mainstream Christianity. So when we say that Christ had "a sinful nature", we mean only that he was capable of sin, but did no sin at all, and was therefore a perfect sacrifice for sin.

    Curiously enough, many Trinitarians also believe that Christ was capable of sin. :)

    Yep! He needed salvation from death. That's why God granted him immortality, remember? He had done no sin, but he was still mortal, so he had to be saved from death.

    And guess what? That's exactly what the Bible tells us...

    • Hebrews 5:7.
      Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared
    He had to be saved from death, and he prayed for it with strong crying and tears. And he was heard in that he feared.

    Yep! We believe in "the man, Christ Jesus", as Paul calls him.

    Yep! We believe that Christ's atonement was not a substitute for us, but a sacrifice for sin. He did not die as our replacement, but as our sacrifice.

    And guess what? That's eaxctly what the Bible says:

    • Ephesians 5:2.
      And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savor.
    There's not a single word in the Bible about Christ being our "substitute."

    That's a total cop-out.

    Hah! Like you'd listen anyway! :rolleyes:

    No, that's a fallacy of equivocation. I begin from a different place to that of the Church of Christ guys, and I still agree with them on baptism.

    Well, I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I'd rather listen to Scripture than the words of men.

    And just what makes you believe that this "spirit" is the Holy Spirit, matey?

    Here, read this:

    • Romans 2:28-29.
      For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
      But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
    The word "spirit" here refers to a mental disposition; an attitude, or a frame of mind.

    • Ephesians 4:20-24.
      But ye have not so learned Christ;
      If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
      That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
      And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
      And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
    The word "spirit" here refers to a mental disposition; an attitude, or a frame of mind.

    • Philippians 1:27.
      Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
    The word "spirit" here refers to a mental disposition; an attitude, or a frame of mind.

    It is exactly the same with your quote from Romans 8. There is absolutely no justification for claiming that the "spirit" referred to in Romans 8:9, is the Holy Spirit. If anything, the very context itself militates against such an interpretation. :cool:
     
  17. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    &nbsp;

    Sorry, Evangelion. You're being ignored by me. I would ask that you continue your study to see just how unorthodox your teachings are from true Christianity.

    Christadelphians are, and have been from their inception, a cult. You want to defend that, fine. But I will not argue baptism with you, since we can't even agree on the basics of Christian faith.
     
  18. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Oh, so now I get the silent treatment.

    Well, that's terribly convincing, I'm sure. :cool:
     
  19. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    I don't hold to "OSAS"---but salvation IS instant. When we BELIEVE, which is to say RECEIVE CHRIST, we are SAVED.
    Awesome posts, Scott! As always! :)

    EV, I am inclined to agree with Scott. Trying to pin you down on specific verses, seems similar to trying to catch a loose fire-hose. You do not represent what I say, not even close; you say I am contradictory, confused, that I do not excercise exegesis but rather eisegesis.

    For the other readers here, I harmonize all of Scripture, I read all in context. Salvation is by belief alone. But it is a specific KIND of belief---it is the belief that receives Christ, that crucifies the old self and is born again. Salvation is thus, "CHRIST IN US"---an instant event. Yes salvation must be "persevered in", but it is not by our WORKS but by our FAITH. There is no contradiction, no logical breech.

    The Gospel is "FELLOWSHIP with/in/through Jesus"---fellowship with Christ, with God. It is not very complicated.

    :)
     
  20. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Ben -

    Halleluyah! We agree on something! :D

    Is it? But you changed your mind halfway through the debate! First you said it was instant, then you said it was a promise! Now you're saying that it's instant again!

    When are you going to make up your mind? :confused:

    But I already showed you that this argument is logically bankrupt! Your novel approach results in a series of hopeless Scriptural contradictions. It does not allow us to take Scripture as a unified package; instead, we are forced to read each and every proof text in total isolation, without harmonising it with others we have found. This in turn, results in the (erroneous) conclusion that the soteriological message of Scripture is awash with self-refutations and logical fallacies.

    Let's review:
    • Scripture says that we are saved by calling on the name of the Lord.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by hearing the words that another will speak to us.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by Christ's life.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by fire.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that women are saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety, which means that there must be some other way of salvation for men. (Well, there's plenty of options, as you can see - so take your pick!) ;)
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that there's an exception to this rule, because Noah and his family were saved by water.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by baptism, and by the resurrection of Christ.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by hope.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by believing.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by confessing.
    • Ooops! Sorry, I'm wrong. Scripture actually says that we are saved by repenting.
    According to your rationale, salvation must come by only one of these methods - not by all of them, and not by any combination of them.

    That's the logical consequence of your flawed hermeneutic.

    Doesn't surprise me in the least.

    What nonsense! I have repeatedly dragged you guys back to the Scriptures, and what do I get for my troubles? I get superficial arguments, constant evasions, fallies of equivocation, and (in Scott's case) plain insults. Neither of you have made any attempt to reconcile your proof texts with the others that I have presented.

    Balderdash! I correctly defined your flawed hermeneutic, and I showed you why it is wrong.

    I have proved this repeatedly.

    But you have not done so during the course of this debate! You keep dodging proof texts, and only picking the ones you want to see!

    *snip*

    Nowhere does the Bible say that "salvation is by belief alone." That was the whole point of my most recent argument on this topic. :cool:
     
Loading...