Must One hold to the Trinity in order to be saved then?

[JonC]

The "quality" of the child of God's works determines their rewards. Our works do not determine our salvation or lack thereof.

(Rom 6:22 KJV) But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
(Rom 7:5 KJV) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

I don't mean that our works determine our salvation.
I mean faith without works is dead.(James 2:26)

If we have a faith that fails to result in a spiritual birth then our faith is useless.
A mind set on the flesh is death while a mind set on the Spirit is life.
We are known not by what we profess to belueve but by our fruits.

 

[KJB1611reader]

No, Scripture repeatedly instructs us to judge "fruit", that spiritual life begats spiritual fruit, that we are judged by our works whether good or bad. Scripture is against you here.

The text for doctrine is "what is written" in God's Word.
The text of Spiritual life is the fruit of the Spirit (the things God produces).

You seem to be making up phrases that sound Christian but are not.

"The blood stained Gospel"??? The Gospel is not stained with blood. It may sound pious but it is not.

We are saved in Christ, but we cannot test if we are in Chriat by saying we are in Christ. We are saved to do good works prepared beforehand that we should do them.

No, fruits don't affect salvation.

Best I can figure his theology is fairly close to that of Zane Hodges, which is (falsely) called free grace theology. It is itself a false gospel.

No, Ruckman, Breaker, Gene.

 

[JonC]

No, fruits don't affect salvation.

Ok....I am getting tired of your foolishness. You may have a learning disability and if so, I apologize, but it is becoming disruptive.

READ POSTS BEFORE RESPONDING.

I NEVER said that fruits affect our salvation.

The Bible says that to be saved one must be born of the Spirit and that this means we will produce "spiritual fruit" and "works accompanying salvation".

Works do not earn salvation but are evidence of being saved.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Ok....I am getting tired of your foolishness. You may have a learning disability and if so, I apologize, but it is becoming disruptive.

READ POSTS BEFORE RESPONDING.

I NEVER said that fruits affect our salvation.

The Bible says that to be saved one must be born of the Spirit and that this means we will produce "spiritual fruit" and "works accompanying salvation".

Works do not earn salvation but are evidence of being saved.

No, there is no condition of 'will produce fruits.'

 

[Salty]

Matt 5:16

 

[JonC]

No, there is no condition of 'will produce fruits.'

If that is true then God has lied.
My vote is God is right and you are wrong.

 

[KJB1611reader]

If that is true then God has lied.
My vote is God is right and you are wrong.

So, What if someone.believed Gospel and.no.fruit? Lost?

 

[JonC]

So, What if someone.believed Gospel and.no.fruit? Lost?

If God is to be believed, then they did not "repent and believe" but only had a cognitive acceptance of the gospel.

Look....you have set yourself against God in favor of a few heretics who tickle your ears.

You oughright called Jesus wrong for saying "the one who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 24:13; Matt 10:22; Mark 13:13).

You declared that Scripture was wrong for stating that belief without works is useless, that those who do not do good works will go to an everlasting punishment, that we have come to share in Christ if we hold our original confidence firm to the end, that if we endure we will reign with Him, that we are of His house if we endure to the end, that by endurance we will gain life, that God works in Believers to produce good works, that we were saved to do good works......DUDE, THE LIST GOES ON.

YES, somebody who "believes" but whose life is not changed is lost. They do not believe.

 

[David Lamb]

The majority of Baptists here are non-Calvinistic if you take Calviniism to mean its response to the Five Articles.

Yes, I did say in my posts that in the present time, most Baptists here in the UK are non-Calvinists.

But most are Calvinistic if you are talking about historical Calvinists (which would include Arminianism).

I have never heard the notion that historical Calvinism included Arminianism. The very 5 Points came about in order to answer the 5 Points of Arminianism.

By "baptist" I mean congregations that hold to believers baptism (congregations Calvinists originally persecuted for holding to believers baptism).

But even today many Baptist churches in the US consider Calvinism to be a heresy.

Same in the UK.

Most Baptists here are non-Calvinistic (TULIP) but consider Calvinism as a philosophy that does mot affect salvation or one's standing on the congregation (a non-issue). A few years ago it was a issue here because young hyper-Calvinistic Baptists were causing divisions. But that seems to have calmed down.

 

[David Lamb]

No, there is no condition of 'will produce fruits.'

He didn't say it was a condition. It is a result of having been saved. Paul wrote to the Ephesian Christians:4

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:8-10 NKJV)

In other words, good works result from being saved by grace through faith.

 

[JonC]

I have never heard the notion that historical Calvinism included Arminianism. The very 5 Points came about in order to answer the 5 Points of Arminianism.

That is why I used "historic Calvinism". Calvinism was developed in the 16th century while the "five points" was developed as a response to the Remonstrance in the 17th century.

What I mean is that James Arminius died a Calvinist. Arminianism had been debated and was declared to be an extreme position but within orthodox Calvinism. The "five points" came later and, as you noted, was a response to the Five Articles rather than the theological system as a whole.

There was a lot that Calvinism and Arminianism shared because Arminianism is of a Calvinistic trajectory. Thus is why most who are not Calvinists also do not affirm Arminianism (even with Calvinistic related theologies you also have Amyraldianism).

 

[David Lamb]

That is why I used "historic Calvinism". Calvinism was developed in the 16th century while the "five points" was developed as a response to the Remonstrance in the 17th century.

What I mean is that James Arminius died a Calvinist. Arminianism had been debated and was declared to be an extreme position but within orthodox Calvinism. The "five points" came later and, as you noted, was a response to the Five Articles rather than the theological system as a whole.

There was a lot that Calvinism and Arminianism shared because Arminianism is of a Calvinistic trajectory. Thus is why most who are not Calvinists also do not affirm Arminianism (even with Calvinistic related theologies you also have Amyraldianism).

Thanks for explaining.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

No, Ruckman, Breaker, Gene.

Ok. So they also hold to a false gospel in the same vein as Hodges. It's really quite telling that every time faith leading to bearing fruit is mentioned you jump into the comments to fight against it tooth and nail declaring that salvation doesn't result in fruit. That is not what God, nor the "KJB" say. Unlike what you believe, the Bible says that God is faithful to rescue believers out of their sin via sanctification. Yours makes the gospel "fire insurance." Very man centered "I get to go to heaven, while still continuing in the sin that I love" - that doesn't sound like a work of God to me.

 

[atpollard]

So, What if someone.believed Gospel and.no.fruit? Lost?

What if someone was saved and still damned?
What if a man got married and remained a bachelor?
What if an omnipotent God created something more powerful than himself?

The list of impossible self-contradictions goes on and on ...

To be saved is to become a new being ... to have a new nature ... to be changed by contact with God: To be transformed and unchanged is a self-contradictory impossibility ... like a married-bachelor.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

What if someone was saved and still damned?
What if a man got married and remained a bachelor?
What if an omnipotent God created something more powerful than himself?

The list of impossible self-contradictions goes on and on ...

To be saved is to become a new being ... to have a new nature ... to be changed by contact with God: To be transformed and unchanged is a self-contradictory impossibility ... like a married-bachelor.

Outstanding response!

 

[JesusFan]

How is one saved? Is it the name of Christ despite the host of misconceptions held by even the best theologians?

Or is it a faultless understanding of incomprehensible truths?

No, its being saved by the true Chrsit of the bible, and in order to get Him, must have the blessed Trinity

 

[JesusFan]

Wrong, Calvinism as we know it today was seen as heresy be even a segment within orthodox Calvinism.
For a long time Baptists viewed Calvinism as heresy (called Calvinists "Romeish").

Before the 16th Century the Calvinistic view of the role of Father and Son was heresy.


It isn't heresy now because Christianity has moved to a broader acceptance. The only way Calvinism was able to take root was its timing (it was during the Reformation, and at that time various reforms of Roman Catholicism was being explored).


You shoukd study before posting rather than ignorantly objecting in a knee jerk way.


They are, without, trinatarian. But they reject the old orthodox reeds concerning the Trinity and the nature of God.

Calvivism is, in a historical context, neo-orthodox. It is a relatively new philosophy that is just outside of historical orthodox Christianity.



Making false accusations about anybody, much less Christians, is wrong.

I NEVER said, posted, or thought that those " holding tp Pst are making up a false God, a false trinity".

You just made that up and attributed it to me.

I REPEATEDLY said that I was a Calvinist for a time, and believed PST for most of my life, and was no more or less Christian at that time

I suggest you apologize to the board for making such a false and misleading claim OR you quote me posting that to prove yourself correct. Either is fine with me. Abd either would be taking responsibility for your words.

majority of we Baptists though historically over here in America were particular Baptists, Calvinists, as the free will Baptist branch picked up steam after Civil War

 

[JesusFan]

In that case, it is strange that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is firmly Calvinistic. "General Baptists" (non-Calvinistic) slipped into Unitarianism, and died out for a time. (Now, I would say the majority of Baptists here in the UK are non-Calvinistic).

Majority of the Baptists here historically in the states were particular Baptists, another name for Calvinists

 

[5 point Gillinist]

No, its being saved by the true Chrsit of the bible, and in order to get Him, must have the blessed Trinity

I guess he embraces Jws and Mormons as believers? Their denial of Christ's true identity is merely relegated to "incomprehensible truths?" Doctrinal essentials are not at odds with believing in the name of Christ.

 

[JonC]

Majority of the Baptists here historically in the states were particular Baptists, another name for Calvinists

No, "particular Baptist" is not another name for Calvinist. The majority of Baptists historically in the States were Arminianism (adopted in part from the Methodists, which was for a long time the largest Protestant denomination in the US).

There was a time when no Baptist (thise who practice believers baptism, not a particular denomination) were Calvinists.

For most of our history Calvinistic Baptists were a minority.

Not sure that any of that matters. There are a lot of Mormons, but that dies not mean they are correct.