Ananais and Sapphira...lost?

" Can I referee this? "Twe-e-e-e-et!" "There are two fouls, here! First call, B_PT, it is 'Tag, you're it.' Second call Hope, you write: 'This is different than Acts 8:7: ... This is similar to Acts 16:16:... .' In a contrasting position, 'A' is different from 'B' (by contrast) 'A' is similar to 'C'! The penalties offset. Replay the down!" :tongue3: - Language Cop

Ed

 

Read: 2 Cor.13:5
also read 1 John which is a test of genuine christianity.

 

I guess it depends on what you deem "this part of the country." There are several kingdom believers in Tennessee. Several in Minnesota, Indiana. Is that part of "this country"?

Bob please explain to me exactly how I have "put you down"? I have not called you a name. I have not made up anything and said you said something you didn't like you did with me. Exactly how have I put you down?

Actually that's not true at all. There are several kingdom believers on this board.

I don't have any idea why God has chosen to give me eyes to see and ears to hear, but I am EXTREMELY thankful that He did!

 

Ok, lets read 1John.

1 John 3:9
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Are you sure you are saved? If you are, what are you basing that assurance on? Is it the fact that you have passed the test of 1 John 3:9?

 

It was meant mostly in jest. I cannot even put something in but have to have my lovely and talented bride do such things. I just get to type on the thing a while.

Ed

 

Luke 17:12-19
12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:
13 And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.
14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go show yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.
15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God,
16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.
17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?
18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.
19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.

The Samaritan that returned to worship Jesus, was it his fruit that was evidence of his cleansing? Or was the fruit the response of a grateful heart to something that was otherwise evident to the man? What of the other nine, who did not return to give God glory? Did they not have faith to be made whole? It says they were all cleansed, what acted in the place of faith for the other nine? Or were they perhaps false-cleansed-professors?

 

I John 3:9? Hmmmm! Good verse! Here's a couple more good passages, and one individual verse from the same book.

How about these verses?

So what is it, James_Newman and 2BHizown? Is there a contradiction, here? Does one of these passages, along with I John 3:9 'cancel' the other? Does not I John 5:10, 18 contradict one another? Or is the real problem too often, poor exegesis, translations that are not easily done into English, and 'proof-texting'? I suggest that it is the last sentence that is the real problem.

Ed

P.S. I have heard it said and seen in print on the BB this statement. -

"A text, out of context, is a pretext for a proof-text."

I agree.

 

I think it is absolutely a problem of context and a problem of assuming things that the bible does not explicitly teach. The context of 1John is written to believers. If it is a test, it is not a test for making sure Jesus really died for your sins, but for making sure that as a believer, bought with the blood, you are walking in perfect faith and pleasing God, not for the purpose of being/staying saved but for receiving the inheritance and as he states in 1:4, that your joy may be full.

 

Uh- I thought one could only "get saved" once. At least that is what I think I read in Hebrews. I agree, James. It is absolutely astounding to me how many are in the "salvation stealing" and "assurance stealing" business. Never seems to be a shortage of them, does it? Too bad there are not more "dispensers" and "disciplers" and fewer "thieves".

Ed

 

Yup! Sho' 'nuff do!

Ed

 

I'm not J.Jump, but will use this opening to say that I don't 'resent' any individuals, per se. But personally, I do "highly resent" 'religious speak'. often in what I hear. We have used words and phrases so long and so often that they have become 'canonized' to the point of actually being commonly though of as 'Bible says', when in fact, the Bible may say no such thing. Some of these words and phrases are, including a couple of these that I have seen on this thread, are the word 'convert', in an active sense, when every instance that I've seen in the Bible is passive - i.e. "be converted", for God does 100% of the convertin'; "Either Jesus is Lord of all, or He is not Lord at all!", another statement one will not find in Scripture: and the two 'oldies but goodie', "Repent of your sins", and "Make Jesus Lord". Repent in Scripture? Absolutely! Multiple times! 'Repent of your sins?' Those words, as a phrase, are not found one time in Scripture. Does Scripture ever say anything about us "making Jesus Lord'? Nope, but it sure says God did it! And I'd even suggest that the idea that one can improve on this, by "helpin' God out", makes Satan's arrogance pale by comparison.

Ed

 

It certainly makes his job easier, when he has so much of Christendom spreading his confusion for him

 

The verse should have been Acts 11:18. My typo, sorry.
Both the NKJV, the version I normally use, and the HCSB render "δωη" or "δω" (No real difference, here, except one ending is Subjunctive, and the other Optative) as "grant", in II Tim. 2:25.
And while I understand what you are saying as to "a grant" being "a gift", as in the noun usage, "to grant" as a verb carries more the idea of "to permit, or to allow", in English, at least, which is what I think is more applicable, here, especially in this context. The word is "διδωμι" ("didomi"), which has multiple connotations. Among these are give, grant, allow, cause, etc.
And I do not agree that "repentance", per se, is a "gift". Assuming that (the state of) "repentance" is the result of (one who) "repents", as a verb, as far as I'm aware, in every case in Scripture, "repent" is in the 'active', never in the 'passive'. Hence, God repents, man repents, but I cannot find that "God repents man", if you follow me. As I recently posted on this thread about 'convert', I would place this (repent) in contrast to "convert", which is properly always found in the passive.
Finally, as to the group/individual idea, if God 'gave' repentance to the group, hence to all individuals, then would not all in these groups, in these cases, Gentiles and Israel therefore be saved? Gotta' run. :wavey: Eatin' time, when all Calvinists become Arminians, three meals a day! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I don't know if you are referring to me or what, but if so then state what I misquoted please. Also, I see you misquoted yourself at the bottom of this page so what goes around comes around.

Also Ed;
As a whole nation God did Give the gift of repentance so that they could repent if they chose. Before hand they were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, without God and having no Hope in the world but gave Gave them the gift of repentance so they too could be saved.


Act 11:18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

 

Talk about a contradictory statement! Is it sure or is it a hope?

 

You are, of course, quite correct.

My statement was rhetorical, pointing out the absurdity of trotting out a long list of scholars that agrees with what I'm saying, at which point he'll trot out a long list that agrees with him, and pretty soon we'd have the equivalent of a 3rd grade playground fight.

I did not mean to imply that I would compare my credentials with him, nor anything along that line. I was trying to point out that "because I said so!" is not proper debating techniques, and that I would prefer to look at what Scripture says and have this discussion/debate. It seems to me that most of the people involved in these debates are able to do so reasonably, even if there is no concensus at the conclusion, but a few have to derail the debate by being asinine.

I appreciate your level-headedness, as well as that of others who are capable of having a rational, reasonable discussion.

 

God is the source and supply of all our lives, as demonstrated by his calling and equipping his people for service in a covenantal relationship with him. The call of God takes place by virtue of the work of Christ, and the service takes place by means of the Spirit. There is no synergism in the covenant in which God contributes his part and we do ours in order to accomplish something together that is greater than either of our efforts in isolation. God is not looking for our help. The importance of the cross in salvation and on the work of the Spirit in justification and sanctification makes it evident that the initiative, origin, and sustenance of the new covenant is due solely to the unilateral and merciful work of God on behalf of his people.

It is the Spirit, in bringing one to Christ for forgiveness of sins, who brings into being the new life of the new creation. One can claim faith in Christ and remain faithful to him only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Our covenantal relationship with God is from beginning to end based on God’s previous act of redemption and continuing acts of provision. This is the great indicative reality of the gospel.

At the same time the fact that we are people of the new covenant drives home the absolute necessity of living in obedience to God’s commands as the expression of our faith in his promises. Keeping God’s commands is what trusting in God as the source and supply of our lives looks like in everyday life. Given God’s justifying and sanctifying work in the lives of his people as guaranteed and brought about by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, there is no excuse for habitually failing to trust God’s gracious provisions and promises in Christ. Faith that trusts God to meet one’s needs invariably expresses itself through love as the fulfillment of the law. (Gal. 5:6, 14; Rom. 13:10).

As I had mentioned earlier, God commands his people not to steal because he has committed himself to meet their needs. To steal is to disbelieve God’s promise in this regard. As some of you have argued, God commands his people not to covet because he has already promised to satisfy their deepest longings, ultimately in himself (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5). Therefore to say all that I need to be happy is found in something material is to commit idolatry by failing to trust God’s covenantal commitment that he will be enough for us.

The fundamental point concerning our covenantal relationship with God in this regard is that every command from him is a call to trust in his promises and provisions, culminating in his greatest provision, the joy and delight that come from experiencing the transforming effect of his personal presence. For this reason, although God’s provisions and promises are all undeserved as unconditional gifts of grace, they are at the same time conditional upon the obedience that comes from faith (Rom. 1:5, 15:18, 16:26).

For as Paul warned the Corinthians, “Do you knot know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?” (1Cor. 6:9). We are saved “by grace… through faith” as the “gift of God,” a gift that includes being re-created in Christ Jesus in order that we might do “good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:8-10). The necessity of obedience to God’s commands, as the expression of faith in God’s promises, is therefore not works righteousness, since both the promises of God and the power to trust them are gifts of God’s unmerited, saving grace. IN OTHER WORDS, God gives what he demands, and we he demands is the obedience that flows from faith (Rom. 1:5, 16:26).

Persistent disobedience, without concern for repentance, is the life of unbelief. God’s wrath is meted out on all who dishonor God by a hardened refusal to acknowledge his provisions and trust in his promises (Rom. 1:18-21), which shows itself in an inability to obey and callousness toward his commands.

 

Very good post. We have a God that has BOUND Himself to the covenant. (heb)
We have a personal relationship God.

 

Why do a Calvinist's writings always have to sound like a stereo installation manual? You start your post with a flawed argument, that believing is doing something. Believing is not helping God save you. I don't know what you think is the importance of the cross in salvation. For me, the cross is salvation. Jesus shedding His blood and dying on that cross is what God did to save me. If I believe that, Jesus said I am going to be raised up on the last day.

I'll go one up on you.
1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

But you seem to have the wrong understanding of faith. You speak of faith as some magic substance that you either have or you don't. Faith is something that we possess by degrees, as Christ said if you have faith as the grain of a mustard seed. And faith is not all encompassing. You may have faith in one area, and lack faith in another. And you may have presumption calling itself faith.

 

Sorry but the word conditional and spiritual salvation do not and can not go hand in hand or what one is in fact saying is that Christ's work on the cross was not sufficient and that it must be His works plus my obedience equal salvation, which definitely not what the Bible teaches.

But maybe my undeducated mind just wasn't able to get around the complexities of your post It sure sounds like works salvation to me.

Ah something we can finally agree upon. And guess what Christians that live in persistent disobedience without concern for repentance are living a life of unbelief and there are consequences for leading a life of unbelief, just as their were consequences for the unbelief on the part of the children of Israel in the wilderness.