An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

[Thinkingstuff]

If you don't believe in universal salvation then not all men are saved.

I don't and yes this would be correct.

If you accept the fact the scriptures teach there some preach "another gospel" and "another Jesus" then you must accept the fact there are converts to that gospel and Jesus who THINK they are saved but in fact are placing their trust, no matter how sincerely, in something that cannot save.

I don't follow your conclusion. I think you are refering to Galatians chp 1

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed

I think in this passage Paul isn't commenting so much on whether the false teachers will or will not be saved but rather that the Galatians will not recieve any teaching apart from what was passed on already to them from the apostles. Ie the deposit of faith. Also the impression I get from Paul is that this group of false teachers are not only knowledgeable about teaching contrary to the deposit already preached but are intentionally getting people to leave that deposit. In the modern case where we are now there is obvious difference in thought regarding that deposit but where there are mistakes it is honest mistakes not intentional to lead people from God. As Christians we all hold to certain truths no matter what denomination you are a part of. IE. The Trinity, Virgin Birth, Incarnation, Water Baptism for the faithful (despite what priority, emphasis is given to that practice all Christians believe one needs to be baptized whether its just symbolic as a proclimation of faith or sacramental), the suffering, and death of Jesus Christ which was a sacrifice for us (despite all the nuances of disagreement), all believe in a bodily resurrection of Jesus, his assention to sit at the right hand of the Father, we all believe in the Holy Spirit and his enableing us to live faithful lives, we all believe that Jesus will come again, and that there will be a judgement. These beliefs are in common to all Christians. How we nuance them are another matter.

For example, I have met some extremely nice and sincere Mormons and JW's who confess "I believe in Christ as my Savior" but when they explain their Christ, he in no way remembles the Christ of Scripture. When they explain their "salvation", their "gospel" their "saved" their "grace" it does not resemblance anything in scripture although the same terms are used to express both their profession and my profession

Despite their contention they are not Christian and are intentional of leading people away from the consistently held truths of Christianity. They are no different than the Muslims leading Christians away. Now they may be convinced of their rightness but really that is irrelevant. And of all the points I made above both groups have seperated themselves from the very first point...Trinity.

The SAME is true in regard to Roman Catholicism and the Baptist profession - same terms but entirely different meanings. Their "gospel" is not my "gospel" and their "Jesus" is not my Jesus and their "salvation" and "saved" is not my "salvation" and "Saved."

I'm not certain this is true. We nuance the phrases slightly differently. However we both agree that the gospel or the Good News is that God became man and redeems us. We both believe that God wants to save us from sin and death and restore to us his life. That he wants to bring us into heaven. So we do hold many things similarily. But nuance things differently. For instance neither of us say salvation is realizing you are one with the universe. Contrarily we both believe man is fallen and Jesus saves us by his redemptive work and sacraficial atonement and apart from that we are incapable of salvation. A mormon's salvation is to become another god in a plethera of gods.

If you accept the fact of "tares" in the kingdom (Mt. 13) then you must accept the fact of false professors.

I'm not sure what you mean by tares. But the weeds are those people with in the church that aren't converted to God they are secular non-believers playing at church. And I accept the fact that there are these in the church. But it doesn't matter what they believe because in fact they don't believe at all and do what they want no matter what Jesus, the apostles, or scripture tells them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is the next passage of Scripture in our study of the New Testament:


Mark 1:4-5
English Standard Version (ESV)

4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

I'm going to beat Brother Biblicist to the punch on this one:

These verses in Mark are yet another twisted, purposefully mistranslated passage of Scripture by the coniving paedobaptists! They have really out-down themselves here. In Matthew chapter 3 they falsly referred to John's baptism as a baptism FOR repentance, but here they go even further: They refer to John's baptism as "a baptism OF repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins!"

What an outrage!

We all now know, thanks to Brother Biblicist, that what these verses should really say is this: "a baptism because of repentance because of the forgiveness of sins".

Thank goodness we have Brother Biblicist and his excellent knowledge of the Greek language to guide us to the true Word of God!

God os able to take the Grace of the Cross, the death of jesus as a propiation for sins, and effectually apply that towards children not yet held responsible and accountibile for their sins, mentally challenged persons etc...

water not required, for salvation is by the blood of christ, not in water!

 

[Wittenberger]

God os able to take the Grace of the Cross, the death of jesus as a propiation for sins, and effectually apply that towards children not yet held responsible and accountibile for their sins, mentally challenged persons etc...

water not required, for salvation is by the blood of christ, not in water!

Chapter and verse please!

 

[Yeshua1]

Chapter and verse please!

did King David baby die, and yet david would see him after he died?

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't follow your conclusion. I think you are refering to Galatians chp 1 I think in this passage Paul isn't commenting so much on whether the false teachers will or will not be saved but rather that the Galatians will not recieve any teaching apart from what was passed on already to them from the apostles.

He is not refering to "THE faith" but to "another GOSPEL". This disagreement reinforces are actual and serious differences even though we use the same terms. I could have just as easily quoted 2 Cor. 11:4 as much as Galatians 1:8-9. He defines what he means by the "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15:3-4.

Ie the deposit of faith.

More proof we are not even on the same page much less the same gospel. More proof that there is a REAL difference in definition of terms.

Anyone who defines the "gospel" as you do cannot possibly say our differences are mere "nuances" as that is rediculous. There is about as much "nuance" difference betweek regeneration and justification as there is between the Catholic view of the gospel and the Baptist view of the gospel. You just as well as say glorification and degeneration are mere difference of "nuance."

Despite their contention they are not Christian

That is my point exactly and it is not because they use DIFFERENT TERMONOGLY as they use the SAME termonolgy for their salvation experiencea and Mormons would insist our differences in minor "nuances" because they think we are that stupid! Likewise Roman Catholocism use the same termonology as Baptists in regard to salvation and merely suggest it is a matter of "nuances" thinking we are that stupid! Catholicism is no more a "Christian" religion" than Mormonism or Hinduism are regardless of other similarites as the gospel and salvation is the bottom line distinction between all false religions and Christianity.

Mormonism and Hinduism believe in different gods but even if they believed in the same God they are as pagan as Catholicism as they both are agreed in the same basic view of salvation - by works but call it grace.

 

[The Biblicist]

Chapter and verse please!

Romans 4:5-11 and the fact that Paul demands the example of Abraham is for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and for all who are "children" of Abraham!

 

[Wittenberger]

did King David baby die, and yet david would see him after he died?

King David was a believer. To generalize his statement to ALL infants regardless of the spiritual status of their parents has no scriptural foundation.

 

[Yeshua1]

He is not refering to "THE faith" but to "another GOSPEL". This disagreement reinforces are actual and serious differences even though we use the same terms. I could have just as easily quoted 2 Cor. 11:4 as much as Galatians 1:8-9. He defines what he means by the "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15:3-4.



More proof we are not even on the same page much less the same gospel. More proof that there is a REAL difference in definition of terms.

Anyone who defines the "gospel" as you do cannot possibly say our differences are mere "nuances" as that is rediculous. There is about as much "nuance" difference betweek regeneration and justification as there is between the Catholic view of the gospel and the Baptist view of the gospel. You just as well as say glorification and degeneration are mere difference of "nuance."






That is my point exactly and it is not because they use DIFFERENT TERMONOGLY as they use the SAME termonolgy for their salvation experiencea and Mormons would insist our differences in minor "nuances" because they think we are that stupid! Likewise Roman Catholocism use the same termonology as Baptists in regard to salvation and merely suggest it is a matter of "nuances" thinking we are that stupid! Catholicism is no more a "Christian" religion" than Mormonism or Hinduism are regardless of other similarites as the gospel and salvation is the bottom line distinction between all false religions and Christianity.

Mormonism and Hinduism believe in different gods but even if they believed in the same God they are as pagan as Catholicism as they both are agreed in the same basic view of salvation - by works but call it grace.

what bothers our RCC friends here is probably the truth that no matter how we live our lives, or how many good works we have done, we gain NO extra justification from God, for he either justifes us fully at time of faith in Christ, or not at all!

 

[Wittenberger]

Romans 4:5-11 and the fact that Paul demands the example of Abraham is for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and for all who are "children" of Abraham!

I just read the passage above. It doesn't say anything about infants not being held accountable for the sinful nature they inherit from Adam.

You are hanging your doctrine and your hopes on the concept that a just God would not send babies to hell, not on solid scripture.

Lutherans don't know what happens to the infants of non-believers if they die. God doesn't say, so we don't fill in the holes with made up doctrine. We just say, "I don't know. We will have to place our faith in a loving, merciful, but holy and just God."

 

[Wittenberger]

Next Passage of Scripture:


Mark 1:14-15
English Standard Version (ESV)

Jesus Begins His Ministry

14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

How do we receive the kingdom of God? Answer: by repenting and believing!

Not by good works, not by making a decision to be baptized, not by saying the Sinner's Prayer.

 

[Yeshua1]

Next Passage of Scripture:


Mark 1:14-15
English Standard Version (ESV)

Jesus Begins His Ministry

14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

How do we receive the kingdom of God? Answer: by repenting and believing!

Not by good works, not by making a decision to be baptized, not by saying the Sinner's Prayer.

repent of, and believe in what though?

 

[Wittenberger]

repent of, and believe in what though?

What does God say is required for true belief?

Do you have to learn all the correct doctrine first? No.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"
"If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Call out to Christ to save you, believing that He is Lord (God), make him your Lord, believing that God raised him from the dead, confess (publically proclaim) his Lordship, and repent of your sins, and THOU SHALT BE SAVED!

That is all that is required for salvation. Anyone who adds any more to that is adding to the word of God!

You do not have to do good works to be saved.
You do not have to be baptized to be saved.
You do not have to pray a specific prayer to be saved.
You do not have to know all the doctrines of Christianity first to be saved.
You do not have to remember a time when you were a "sinner" to be saved.
You do not have to remember an exact day and hour when you "accepted" Christ.

Believe and repent! Do it this very moment and every moment of your life! That is all that is required for eternal salvation!

 

[The Biblicist]

You do not have to remember a time when you were a "sinner" to be saved.

That is absolutely false as well as irrrational and foolish! Indeed, claiming to be "saved" is completely absurd if there never an "unsaved" condition that you were ever conscious about. How can such a person even say they are "saved' if they were never conscious of ever being lost? This is the rediculous that paedobaptism drives some to.

 

[The Biblicist]

I just read the passage above. It doesn't say anything about infants not being held accountable for the sinful nature they inherit from Adam.

It says nothing about women either! It says nothing about old men versus young men either! But it does include ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH and ALL who are "children" of Abraham! Does that exclude women because it does not name them?

the father of ALL them that believe, - Rom. 4:11

Gal. 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Gal. 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That is absolutely false as well as irrrational and foolish! Indeed, claiming to be "saved" is completely absurd if there never an "unsaved" condition that you were ever conscious about. How can such a person even say they are "saved' if they were never conscious of ever being lost? This is the rediculous that paedobaptism drives some to.

Actually, I agree with Wittenberger on this one.

 

[The Biblicist]

Actually, I agree with Wittenberger on this one.

Then you are equally as wrong as he is as that is absurd. Jesus said I came not to save "the righteous but sinners and you and Wittenberger have someone being saved who never was conscious of a sinful condition! We are saved "from sin" not from a sinless mindset!

All who claim they were always saved are still lost in their religous sins.

Gentlemen,

There has NEVER been one way of salvation prior to the cross (Mt. 7:13-14; Acts 10:43) and it is the very same way after the cross (Heb. 4:2) as there never has been any other name given under heaven to men at any time other than the Old Testament "Christ" who is the New Testament "Jesus" or Yahweh our Savior (Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6).

If divine ordinances are related and/or essential at all to salvation and in particular to remission of sins they were just as essential prior to the cross as after the cross. However, the scriptures clearly repudiate that relationship in a UNIVERSAL PRE-circucmision example for "ALL" who are "OF FAITH" in the case of Abraham who did exist prior to the cross and who is the example for ALL who are of faith AFTER the cross (Rom. 4:11).

Hence, prior to the cross, prior to circumcision remission of sins were obtained by faith in the gospel of Christ - Acts 10:43 - the very same gospel preached now - Heb. 4:2 - and external ordinances prior to the cross NEVER TOOK AWAY SINS but were ("shadows") FORMS empty of LITERAL substance in regard to remitting sins.

 

[Wittenberger]

That is absolutely false as well as irrrational and foolish! Indeed, claiming to be "saved" is completely absurd if there never an "unsaved" condition that you were ever conscious about. How can such a person even say they are "saved' if they were never conscious of ever being lost? This is the rediculous that paedobaptism drives some to.

Lutherans believe we are still sinners and we will always be sinners until the day we die. However, those who place their faith in Christ and repent, are sinners-saved-by-grace, and will inherit eternal life in heaven.

Please show me one verse in the Bible that states that one must know a time in the past that they "were" a sinner in order to be a Christian.

What is necessary is that one know that he IS a sinner, lost and bound for hell, without the free gift of salvation offered by Christ to all those who place their faith in him, believe in Him, and repent.

 

[Wittenberger]

It says nothing about women either! It says nothing about old men versus young men either! But it does include ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH and ALL who are "children" of Abraham! Does that exclude women because it does not name them?

the father of ALL them that believe, - Rom. 4:11

Gal. 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Gal. 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

You lost me. How does this verse relate to the idea that infants are not sinners and therefore they can enter heaven with the same status of righteousness as if they had experienced an evangelical "born again" experience????

 

[The Biblicist]

Lutherans believe we are still sinners and we will always be sinners until the day we die. However, those who place their faith in Christ and repent, are sinners-saved-by-grace, and will inherit eternal life in heaven.

Please show me one verse in the Bible that states that one must know a time in the past that they "were" a sinner in order to be a Christian.

You have answered your own question when you said:

"those who place their faith in Christ and repent" and this is precisely what the scripture repeat over and over again by precept and by example.

However, your concept of NEVER experiencing a time in one's life of ever beleiving or repenting and yet still be saved contradicts that very statement and indeed is a contradiction in terms. If there was never a time you experienced a lost condition then it could only have occurred when one came to that realization NOT BEFORE!

What is necessary is that one know that he IS a sinner, lost and bound for hell, without the free gift of salvation offered by Christ to all those who place their faith in him, believe in Him, and repent.

That is the point, your hypothetical example HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS OF SUCH A PAST CONDITION. Whatever point in time they grasped that concept is the time they were saved and not a moment before.

 

[Wittenberger]

Then you are equally as wrong as he is as that is absurd. Jesus said I came not to save "the righteous but sinners and you and Wittenberger have someone being saved who never was conscious of a sinful condition! We are saved "from sin" not from a sinless mindset!

All who claim they were always saved are still lost in their religous sins.

Gentlemen,

There has NEVER been one way of salvation prior to the cross (Mt. 7:13-14; Acts 10:43) and it is the very same way after the cross (Heb. 4:2) as there never has been any other name given under heaven to men at any time other than the Old Testament "Christ" who is the New Testament "Jesus" or Yahweh our Savior (Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6).

If divine ordinances are related and/or essential at all to salvation and in particular to remission of sins they were just as essential prior to the cross as after the cross. However, the scriptures clearly repudiate that relationship in a UNIVERSAL PRE-circucmision example for "ALL" who are "OF FAITH" in the case of Abraham who did exist prior to the cross and who is the example for ALL who are of faith AFTER the cross (Rom. 4:11).

Hence, prior to the cross, prior to circumcision remission of sins were obtained by faith in the gospel of Christ - Acts 10:43 - the very same gospel preached now - Heb. 4:2 - and external ordinances prior to the cross NEVER TOOK AWAY SINS but were ("shadows") FORMS empty of LITERAL substance in regard to remitting sins.

Why do some Baptists and evangelicals make salvation SO complicated????

Give me an example in the Bible where one of the Apostles or disciples interrogated someone regarding their theological positions prior to exhorting them to "believe and repent".

Believe and repent! That is all Jesus said. He didn't ask any other questions. Don't let ANYONE make salvation any harder than it really is!