'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved'

[Iconoclast]

Don't bring election into this. It is not a thread on Calvinism.

Sorry to confuse you with the facts.
When you speak of the tekna you speak of the children of promise....that concerns the biblical teaching of election...
it is a biblical teaching and NOT dealing with the Calvinism you hate. It deals with Godly teachers who know and understand truth, as opposed to you who are wrong over and over again..
It looks like your KJ link is not helping you come to truth , whereas my Old Dead theologians and confessions and catechisms hold up just fine

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh,[sperma} these are not the children [tekna}of God: but the children of the promise [tekna]are counted for the seed.

from preceptaustin;
Romans 9:8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Greek: tout' estin, (3SPAI) ou ta tekna tes sarkos tauta tekna tou theou, alla ta tekna tes epaggelias logizetai (3SPPI) eis sperma

Wuest: That is, not the children of the flesh, these are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for offspring;
Young's Literal: that is, the children of the flesh -- these are not children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed;



Teknon - 99x in 91v - Matt 2:18; 3:9; 7:11; 9:2; 10:21; 15:26; 18:25; 19:29; 21:28; 22:24; 23:37; 27:25; Mark 2:5; 7:27; 10:24, 29f; 12:19; 13:12; Luke 1:7, 17; 2:48; 3:8; 7:35; 11:13; 13:34; 14:26; 15:31; 16:25; 18:29; 19:44; 20:31; 23:28; John 1:12; 8:39; 11:52; Acts 2:39; 7:5; 13:33; 21:5, 21; Rom 8:16f, 21; 9:7f; 1 Cor 4:14, 17; 7:14; 2 Cor 6:13; 12:14; Gal 4:19, 25, 27f, 31; Eph 2:3; 5:1, 8; 6:1, 4; Phil 2:15, 22; Col 3:20f; 1 Thess 2:7, 11; 1 Tim 1:2, 18; 3:4, 12; 5:4; 2 Tim 1:2; 2:1; Titus 1:4, 6; Philemon 1:10; 1 Pet 1:14; 3:6; 2 Pet 2:14; 1 John 3:1f, 10; 5:2; 2 John 1:1, 4, 13; 3 John 1:4; Rev 2:23; 12:4f. NAS = child(13), children(76), children's(2), son(8), sons(1).

Descendants (4690) (sperma from speíro = to sow) refers to seed sown as containing the germ of new fruit and here clearly represents the physical offspring of Abraham.

Sperma - 43x NAS - children(7), conceive*(1), descendant(4), descendants(16), posterity(1), seed(10), seeds(4).

For anyone who desires to learn truth...here you go.ThumbsupThumbsup

 

[InTheLight]

Nope, I never said nor did I imply you are unsaved.

You said that 2 Tim. 3:8 applied to me. You said I was like Jannes and Jambres, which 2 Tim. 3:8 says were,

"men of depraved minds" and "rejected by the faith". NIV
"men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." KJV
"men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith" NASB

You have a severe, severe reading comprehension problem if you think calling me the same as these two is not the same as saying I'm unsaved. You said it, so own it.

My argument above stands and is sound reasoning of Scripture. This to rebut your convenient excuse to find a word for word verse that shows repentance is in fact from ones sin which is an absurd and shallow request.

Translation: There isn't a verse that says this. I can't answer you directly, so I'm going to call you names.

However, there IS scripture that says EXACTLY this--"repent and turn from your sins and be saved", but apparently you don't know where it is, and if you do, you avoid it like the plague because it would blow up a central thesis of your beloved Calvinism.

I remember when you were posting under the moniker Preacher4Truth. You quickly made it into my killfile. Well, you're going back in there. My first quarantine since the redesign of Baptist Board.

 

[DHK]

What do you mean 'Does 'he' say...?' I quoted YOU, so you are 'he'. It is clear that you stated it is not a part of the Gospel.

Here is only PART of what YOU said:

And more:

Any person can go back and read what you said and see it in context. There is more as well. But we have the playing of games, you want exact wording 'repentance isn't necessary' while any common person can see that is what you said without it being a word for word quote. Just look up at what I quoted.

I do not deny repentance. I deny your definition of repentance (especially Icon's), and your application of it. You also have not understood or read carefully my posts on repentance where I have carefully defined it.
Note part of my post is simply a question for you to answer. You (or others) never did. Again, where in the gospels is repentance required for salvation? That was my question. Did I say I denied repentance? No. I do note however, that the feeble attempts made to discuss this at all use scripture that are taken out of context.

The NT consistently teaches that salvation is by faith (sola fide). Apparently this present lot of Calvinists have thrown that doctrine out the window.
"Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God" (Rom.5:1).
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Salvation is by faith. Note in all these scriptures, scores of them, repentance is not mentioned.
Why?
Faith always has an object. In salvation the object of one's faith must be Jesus Christ and his atoning work on the cross. If that is not the object of one's faith then there is no salvation. If that is the object of one's faith regeneration will occur and change will take place. When a person puts his faith in Christ as Savior and Lord he is changing direction by trusting Christ and not trusting the world or any other religion any longer. His focus now is on Christ, not any other object.
What I have just described to you is a definition of repentance. Biblical faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin.
Repentance is a change of mind with respect to one's attitude to God.
Repentance says: Once I was in rebellion to God. Then my attitude toward God was changed.
Now I am submissive to the will of God. That is repentance.

Both faith in Christ and repentance happen at the same time. Thus repentance need not to be mentioned in NT soteriology. It is inherent in "believing in Christ," or in "faith."

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK claims

Election was done in eternity past and thus has no bearing on the present.

God's eternal plan being made known and unfolding as we speak has no bearing on the present???Cautious

Of course not...if you lack biblical understanding completely...so let's look at this great pearl of wisdom
when God chose Israel as a nation above all other nations in the world, that had no bearing on the present?
when God says before he formed Jeremiah in the womb He knew Him and ordained him to be a prophet, that had no bearing on his life at that time...because it was done in eternity past???

When God elects individuals before time was...it has no effect on the present? CautiousCautious

lol sure...keep giving us these pearls of wisdom
.[/QUOTE]

 

[Internet Theologian]

I do not deny repentance. I deny your definition...

I don't care what your definition of repentance is.

All I set out to show is what you said about its necessity, and it is clear you deny its necessity, and I quoted you on what you said about just that, your fallacious definition of it aside.

Here is your stance in your own words:

Hank understood what you fellows did not understand. In the gospels John the Baptist preached repentance. That is not the gospel message of today. Thus I issued a challenge: Without using the Gospels or the Book of Acts, show from the epistles that repentance is part of the gospel. Where in the epistles does it say one must repent to be saved?

Your denial is crystal clear.

 

[DHK]

When God elects individuals before time was...it has no effect on the present?

You certainly are confused. You are unable to discuss any aspect of salvation without drawing election into it. How sad to be so indoctrinated as to have a one-track mind. There is no objectivity left in the discussion.

 

[DHK]

I don't care what your definition of repentance is.

All I set out to show is what you said about its necessity, and it is clear you deny its necessity, and I quoted you on what you said about just that, your fallacious definition of it aside.

Here is your stance in your own words:

Your denial is crystal clear.

There is no denial there. It is a question. There is a challenge. There is no denial. Show me the denial. Repent of bearing false witness.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Election was done in eternity past and thus has no bearing on the present.

Yes it does, God is still saving His elect today, that is how much bearing it has on the present. You see 'election' and think 'Oh, no, Calvinism!' we see it and think 'Thank God that He chose us and for His glorious decrees!'

 

[Internet Theologian]

There is no denial there. It is a question. There is a challenge. There is no denial. Show me the denial. Repent of bearing false witness.

You've been shown. I know it. You know it. Others know it. God knows it.

 

[DHK]

I don't care what your definition of repentance is.

All I set out to show is what you said about its necessity, and it is clear you deny its necessity, and I quoted you on what you said about just that, your fallacious definition of it aside.

Here is your stance in your own words:
Your denial is crystal clear.

Did you fail English grammar and comprehension?
Do you not understand this sentence??

Where in the epistles does it say one must repent to be saved?

 

[Iconoclast]

You certainly are confused. You are unable to discuss any aspect of salvation without drawing election into it. How sad to be so indoctrinated as to have a one-track mind. There is no objectivity left in the discussion.

Part of understanding salvation is to understand the nature of that salvation and all the words and terms God uses in describing and revealing His great salvation to us.
You mentioned terms that you have limited understanding on. You resent when anyone expands and explains truth because of your agenda.
I take great comfort in My Covenant keeping God who elected a multitude of sinners to obtain saving faith.
You hate this teaching and in fact deny the teaching as it is found in all of the respected confessions of faith by the saints throughout time.
You can hold what you want to...but i will stay with the confessing church those alive today and the great cloud of witnesses who have gone before.Thumbsup Wink Thumbsup

 

[DHK]

You've been shown. I know it. You know it. Others know it. God knows it.

Yes, God knows what I believe; you don't. You need to repent of false accusations and being a false witness.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Did you fail English grammar and comprehension?
Do you not understand this sentence??

Where in the epistles does it say one must repent to be saved?

And there you prove it yet again showing as to why exactly you don't believe it necessary. There are more quotes, not that any more are needed, mind you.

But the truth remains, the epistles were to the already saved, to the sheep, to the ELECT of God, to those who had already repented because it is part of the gospel and a necessity of conversion. Therefore there was no evangelistic message preached to those already redeemed.

These epistles simply contained doctrine and exhortations on how the converted should live. But this is all basic theological understanding. Your argument that it (repentance) isn't in the epistles is way off base and shows a perfunctory knowledge level on your part my friend. There is a reason it is not there and I have explained as to why.

 

[DHK]

And there you prove it yet again showing as to why exactly you don't believe it necessary. There are more quotes, not that any more are needed, mind you.

But the truth remains, the epistles were to the already saved, to the sheep, to the ELECT of God, to those who had already repented because it is part of the gospel and a necessity of conversion. Therefore there was no evangelistic message preached to those already redeemed.

These epistles simply contained doctrine and exhortations on how the converted should live. But this is all basic theological understanding. Your argument that it (repentance) isn't in the epistles is way off base and shows a perfunctory knowledge level on your part my friend. There is a reason it is not there and I have explained as to why.

Are you finished embarrassing yourself yet?
You seriously don't know the difference between a question and a declaration? Did you finish school?

 

[Iconoclast]

Did you fail English grammar and comprehension?
Do you not understand this sentence??

Where in the epistles does it say one must repent to be saved?

Your attempt to fragemnt God's word is once again going to be fruitless.
The epistles are written to those who already have repented and believed the gospel as per the Apostolic preaching....why should believers be instructed to repent when they already have?
Your question is useless.

 

[Iconoclast]

And there you prove it yet again showing as to why exactly you don't believe it necessary. There are more quotes, not that any more are needed, mind you.

But the truth remains, the epistles were to the already saved, to the sheep, to the ELECT of God, to those who had already repented because it is part of the gospel and a necessity of conversion. Therefore there was no evangelistic message preached to those already redeemed.

These epistles simply contained doctrine and exhortations on how the converted should live. But this is all basic theological understanding. Your argument that it (repentance) isn't in the epistles is way off base and shows a perfunctory knowledge level on your part my friend. There is a reason it is not there and I have explained as to why.

We posted at the same time....the same post, lol
He just does not get it as his agenda comes to the front of the discussion.
I suppose others can read and see it alsoSmileSmileSmile

 

[Internet Theologian]

Are you finished embarrassing yourself yet?
You seriously don't know the difference between a question and a declaration? Did you finish school?

Hey, guess what, you can call names, ridicule, all that childish stuff you do, it doesn't effect me at all. I've quoted you plainly, and all can see it. As usual you twist everything that is said.

Hank understood what you fellows did not understand. In the gospels John the Baptist preached repentance. That is not the gospel message of today. Thus I issued a challenge: Without using the Gospels or the Book of Acts, show from the epistles that repentance is part of the gospel. Where in the epistles does it say one must repent to be saved?

Enough said, and it is you who said it.

 

[Iconoclast]

You said that 2 Tim. 3:8 applied to me. You said I was like Jannes and Jambres, which 2 Tim. 3:8 says were,

Well...here you at least quote someone else using a verse; are you going to answer here now?
InTheLight said: ↑
You guys want me to provide scripture for something that doesn't exist.

Since Icon has failed to do so, why don't you list where the Bible says one must "repent of your sins" in order to be saved?
ITL......we would like you to provide is scripture for anything....anything at all. Your complaint is we are not giving you scripture? Are you lazy like your friend and not reading the links...
HINT; the letters and numbers represent scripture verses,

ITL....seriously...I just glanced through the links I offered to to you,
there were 146+ scripture verses on the subject offered to you
post 96 -20vs
post 104>62vs
post 109>12vs
post 110 6vs
post 112 46 vs
....do you want me to drive to Minnesota and hold your hand and read through them together ???
I can explain what they mean???

I thought i demonstrated this to you already....
In 1 thess 1 we read this; How they turned.... to God... from Idols

Idolatry is sin
they turned to God....from Idols{sin}
to serve the living God....

The word repentance is not used in the passage....the action describes exactly all the elements of Godly repentance......a change of mind to toward God, a change of mind towards sin, a change of mind toward godly service...all enabled by God's grace.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Are you finished embarrassing yourself yet?
You seriously don't know the difference between a question and a declaration? Did you finish school?

Any person can see you were denying repentance as necessity and asking for proof of it in the epistles. It has to feel really awful this pretense of ignorance you display. Tell you what, people aren't as dumb as you think, and you've alleged that on me several times tonight. I doubt you'd do that in real life.

 

[DHK]

Your attempt to fragemnt God's word is once again going to be fruitless.
The epistles are written to those who already have repented and believed the gospel as per the Apostolic preaching....why should believers be instructed to repent when they already have?
Your question is useless.

The entire Bible was written to God's people. The doctrine of inspiration guarantees that everything in the Bible is accurately recorded just as God wanted it to be recorded.

In many places the gospel is defined, described, etc. In fact the major theme of Romans is soteriology. It is the greatest thesis on soteriology ever written. If you can't get the message of the gospel of salvation from the book of Romans then you won't get it at all will you?
This post is pitiful Icon. Jude wrote to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Paul elaborates on the faith that he did contend, and then in his last epistle as he set down his pen he said:

2Ti 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
2Ti 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: