Salvation THEN Discipleship as Seen in Communion

[skypair]

To my friends here who lump salvation and discipleship together, consider the imagery of communion...

The taking of communion speaks of the partaking of the death (wine) and life (bread) of Jesus. Or as I have been touting lately, JUSTIFICATION, then SANCTIFICATION.

It parallels Rom 5:10 -- "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son [wine], much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life [bread]. Do you see the meaning of communion better now? It's the picture of being saved once forever and then entering into life-long discipleship with the "bread of life."

The teaching in communion seems to be that we are not saved by discipleship alone. We can't just say "I believe and am a follower of Christ" but must have made a separate choice to be reconciled by His death first. It's a personal testimony and a sotierology lesson all in one!

skypair

 

[Havensdad]

To my friends here who lump salvation and discipleship together, consider the imagery of communion...

The taking of communion speaks of the partaking of the death (wine) and life (bread) of Jesus. Or as I have been touting lately, JUSTIFICATION, then SANCTIFICATION.

It parallels Rom 5:10 -- "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son [wine], much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life [bread]. Do you see the meaning of communion better now? It's the picture of being saved once forever and then entering into life-long discipleship with the "bread of life."

The teaching in communion seems to be that we are not saved by discipleship alone. We can't just say "I believe and am a follower of Christ" but must have made a separate choice to be reconciled by His death first. It's a personal testimony and a sotierology lesson all in one!

skypair

No one is saying this. The issue is :

Justification, then DEFINITELY sanctification

or>

Justification, then "MAYBE" Sanctification.

Sanctification is simply the increasing of one's reliance on the Spirit becoming greater, and allowing one to more and more DO WHAT THEY HAVE DESIRED SINCE THE MOMENT THEY WERE SAVED (Justified)> turn from Sin, and Submit to Christ.

If I get in a Car, start it, and push the Gas (justification) I am GOING to go forward...though it is not I who is doing it, but the engine. Pushing the peddle (justification) is NOT the same as the engine moving me forward, but it is inevitable.

The issue is not whether Sanctification and Justification are separate (they are) but whether one comes INEVITABLY from the other, or involves some "special" part of Christianity.

If you are justified you ARE being sanctified according to scripture> not "maybe".

 

[webdog]

No one is saying this. The issue is :

Justification, then DEFINITELY sanctification

or>

Justification, then "MAYBE" Sanctification.

Sanctification is simply the increasing of one's reliance on the Spirit becoming greater, and allowing one to more and more DO WHAT THEY HAVE DESIRED SINCE THE MOMENT THEY WERE SAVED (Justified)> turn from Sin, and Submit to Christ.

If I get in a Car, start it, and push the Gas (justification) I am GOING to go forward...though it is not I who is doing it, but the engine. Pushing the peddle (justification) is NOT the same as the engine moving me forward, but it is inevitable.

The issue is not whether Sanctification and Justification are separate (they are) but whether one comes INEVITABLY from the other, or involves some "special" part of Christianity.

If you are justified you ARE being sanctified according to scripture> not "maybe".

2Ch 6:27 may You hear in heaven and forgive the sin of Your servants and Your people Israel, so that You may teach them the good way they should walk in. May You send rain on Your land that You gave Your people for an inheritance.

Jer 42:3 that the LORD your God may tell us the way we should walk and the thing we should do."

Eph 2:10 For we are His creation--created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.

Eph 4:17 Therefore, I say this and testify in the Lord: You should no longer walk as the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their thoughts.

1Jn 2:6 the one who says he remains in Him should walk just as He walked.

What is the common denominator? "Should" does not mean "definately".

 

[Pastor Larry]

You have misidentified the wine and bread. The wine and bread represent the death, not the death and life.

So bad premise, not to mention a bad conclusion.

 

[MB]

To my friends here who lump salvation and discipleship together, consider the imagery of communion...

The taking of communion speaks of the partaking of the death (wine) and life (bread) of Jesus. Or as I have been touting lately, JUSTIFICATION, then SANCTIFICATION.

We are forgiven which is purification. While being purified we have been Justified. This is why the two work together and cannot be separated. You cannot be justified unless you are purified at the same time as well you cannot be purified with out being justified

It parallels Rom 5:10 -- "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son [wine], much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life [bread]. Do you see the meaning of communion better now? It's the picture of being saved once forever and then entering into life-long discipleship with the "bread of life."

The teaching in communion seems to be that we are not saved by discipleship alone. We can't just say "I believe and am a follower of Christ" but must have made a separate choice to be reconciled by His death first. It's a personal testimony and a sotierology lesson all in one!

skypair

No one has claimed we are saved by discipleship alone but, discipleship and surrender are the same thing. They are both the work of God and man doesn't decide to follow Christ. Man gives up to Christ and in that submission we become His servants. Once a servant we do what the master desires of us or else we are corrected. You can rebel even then but I wouldn't recommend it. I speak from experince honoring your commitment is much more pleasent that correction.
MB

 

[Havensdad]

2Ch 6:27 may You hear in heaven and forgive the sin of Your servants and Your people Israel, so that You may teach them the good way they should walk in. May You send rain on Your land that You gave Your people for an inheritance.

Jer 42:3 that the LORD your God may tell us the way we should walk and the thing we should do."

Eph 2:10 For we are His creation--created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.

Eph 4:17 Therefore, I say this and testify in the Lord: You should no longer walk as the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their thoughts.

1Jn 2:6 the one who says he remains in Him should walk just as He walked.

What is the common denominator? "Should" does not mean "definately".

Again, poor scriptural interpretation, due to "imaginary" words inserted by translators, NOT part of God's word!

Does the word "should" ACTUALLY appear in any of those verses?? Nope.

The word translated "we should walk":

peripateō
Thayer Definition:
1) to walk

There is NO conditional article in the sentence: therefore there is no reason to translate ANY of those verses with the word "should".

Properly, the phrase "should" say (pardon the pun):

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we walk in them.

Kinds of looks a little different, when you look at what it actually SAYS, instead of looking at the translators opinions.

In 1 John 2:6, the word translated "ought" and "should" , actually means to "owe" or "be obligated"!!! It is the OPPOSITE of what you are saying!

 

[webdog]

Again, poor scriptural interpretation, due to "imaginary" words inserted by translators, NOT part of God's word!

Does the word "should" ACTUALLY appear in any of those verses?? Nope.

The word translated "we should walk":

peripateō
Thayer Definition:
1) to walk

There is NO conditional article in the sentence: therefore there is no reason to translate ANY of those verses with the word "should".

Properly, the phrase "should" say (pardon the pun):

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we walk in them.

Kinds of looks a little different, when you look at what it actually SAYS, instead of looking at the translators opinions.

In 1 John 2:6, the word translated "ought" and "should" , actually means to "owe" or "be obligated"!!! It is the OPPOSITE of what you are saying!

I'll stick with the translators approach. Using your approach, either

A. We can supercede God
or
B. God has failed, as we don't always follow Him. We all fail using the "definately" approach.

 

[skypair]

If you are justified you ARE being sanctified according to scripture> not "maybe".

I believe your post boils down to this statement, no? And yes, we will be sanctified -- no maybe about it. The issue is will it be by constant chastisement and eventually, sin unto death, or will it be a "cooperative effort between you and God.

I like to think of it this way: When I was baptized, I did so on account of my JUSTIFIACTION. This has been a pattern since the OT and, particularly, John the Baptist -- baptized on account of our sins are forgiven.

I choose to participate in communion on account of SANCTIFICATION -- on account of not only did Christ die for my sin but also on account of I am endeavoring to live His life through His power in me.

Furthermore, there actually is a part of communion that is literally sanctifying when observed as it should be. It is warned that we not take communion unworthily. This means that before I partake, I must deal with my sin issues a) with God, b) with others, and c) with myself.

You and I are not that far apart on these things. You just seem to want either to make the justification decision the decision that sanctifies you as well (your "accelerator-engine" analogy). My view is that if sanctification involves changing your life, that sanctification is a continuum of decisions you make lacking which you may not experience your sanctification (2Pet 1:9). You do agree, don't you, that you can still choose either to sin or to obey God, right? The "accelerator or the brake?"

skypair

 

[skypair]

You have misidentified the wine and bread. The wine and bread represent the death, not the death and life.

"This is my blood shed for you ... this is my body broken for you."

Is it, then, "consubstantiation" for you PL? Can you not see beyond the literal elements to the spiritual truths?

I hope you will read my post to Havensdad above and reconsider.

skypair

 

[Havensdad]

I'll stick with the translators approach. Using your approach, either

A. We can supercede God
or
B. God has failed, as we don't always follow Him. We all fail using the "definately" approach.

Not so. It does not say "You will do nothing but good works, and you will never fail."

It says we will WALK in Good works. It is speaking of a style of life...which comes out if you just look at Thayers...

to make one’s way, progress; to make due use of opportunities

It is speaking of a direction> if you are a child of God, you WILL WALK as a lifestyle, in the ways of the Lord. This does not mean you won't fail at times. But your direction, your walk, will be one towards God.

Again, rather than adding words, just look at scripture itself> by simply looking at the actual scriptures, rather than interpreters pet theologies, one can easily understand what Scripture is describing> We WILL walk in the way of the Lord...

Of course, sometimes we fall down. But we don't change direction.

 

[skypair]

We are forgiven which is purification. While being purified we have been Justified. This is why the two work together and cannot be separated. You cannot be justified unless you are purified at the same time as well you cannot be purified with out being justified.

True -- but purification is not sanctification. Purification and justification mean "made clean." Paul uses the word "pure" frequently to speak of his conscience or, IMO, state of his soul towards God. It is what we are when we are "reconciled to God" or "given the righteousness of God." Paul even calls it being "perfect" -- 1Cor 2:6, Heb 12:23.

That is different than sanctification which is "set apart" and speaks of the spirit (our thoughts, emotions, and will). The way I understand it, God "sets apart" our spirit by giving us the Holy Spirit -- and that part is guaranteed. But we must cooperate in the sanctification process by daily choosing His leading over carnality. If we don't choose/decide to cooperate, we will grieve or quench the Spirit and our sanctification will have to come in the form of chastisement -- consequences of sin. But you know what sanctifying our spirits means? It means we have the "mind of Christ" more and more. It means we begin to live as He would have lived. it means that we are partaking of the "bread" of His body unto life!

They are both the work of God and man doesn't decide to follow Christ. Man gives up to Christ and in that submission we become His servants. Once a servant we do what the master desires of us or else we are corrected. You can rebel even then but I wouldn't recommend it. I speak from experince honoring your commitment is much more pleasent that correction.MB

I can for sure appreciate your last comments!! :tear:

But as to no decisions on man's part for justification nor for sanctification -- well, that's what Calvinism teaches but it's wrong. In fact, you allude to the contradiction when you say that "[m]an gives up to Christ." Yes, he does. Of his own choice/decision/free will. It works that way in justification and it works that way in sanctification. "It's as clear as the nose on your face" unless you are wearing "dark theological glasses" so you won't see it! :laugh:

skypair

 

[MB]

True -- but purification is not sanctification. Purification and justification mean "made clean." Paul uses the word "pure" frequently to speak of his conscience or, IMO, state of his soul towards God. It is what we are when we are "reconciled to God" or "given the righteousness of God." Paul even calls it being "perfect" -- 1Cor 2:6, Heb 12:23.

Once again I give you the real definition of ;
Sanctification
SANCTIFICA'TION, n. [See Sanctify.]
1. The act of making holy. In an evangelical sense, the act of God's grace by which the affections of men are purified or alienated from sin and the world, and exalted to a supreme love to God.
God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. 2 Th 2. 1 Pet 1.
2. The act of consecrating or of setting apart for a sacred purpose; consecration.
I think you can see for your self that the word properly defined means both. You must also consider it's full meaning not just half of it. When we are saved the thing that happens first is called Salvation and sanctification and justification are involved and it happens all at once

That is different than sanctification which is "set apart" and speaks of the spirit (our thoughts, emotions, and will). The way I understand it, God "sets apart" our spirit by giving us the Holy Spirit -- and that part is guaranteed. But we must cooperate in the sanctification process by daily choosing His leading over carnality. If we don't choose/decide to cooperate, we will grieve or quench the Spirit and our sanctification will have to come in the form of chastisement -- consequences of sin. But you know what sanctifying our spirits means? It means we have the "mind of Christ" more and more. It means we begin to live as He would have lived. it means that we are partaking of the "bread" of His body unto life!

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Who do you suppose started the work in us.? Was it our selves? or was it God? Then who finishes it?

I can for sure appreciate your last comments!! :tear:

But as to no decisions on man's part for justification nor for sanctification -- well, that's what Calvinism teaches but it's wrong. In fact, you allude to the contradiction when you say that "[m]an gives up to Christ." Yes, he does. Of his own choice/decision/free will. It works that way in justification and it works that way in sanctification. "It's as clear as the nose on your face" unless you are wearing "dark theological glasses" so you won't see it! :laugh:

skypair

Resistance is freewill. I don't accept total depravity or any other of the five pedals of the tulip. Though man is able to come to God, he doesn't, because man with out knowledge can't help but love darkness. He doesn't understand the light until he is convinced of the truth. I do not believe man can make a choice to accept what he knows nothing about nor would he. A choice to believe or even have faith is not possible for man unless he knows what to have faith in. If man is told and is convinced and convicted and comes to have faith it still does not save him if the Word is true.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Man doesn't do a thing to become convinced the one who convinces the man is soley responsible other wise the man could boast just as you are doing when you profess you made the decision to believe and to surrender. Both of these happen without decision or else Salvation is not of God. It would be of man and God. Verse 8 says plainly "and that not of your selves it is a gift of God" It is not a gift if you do something to deserve it and it isn't grace if it's deserved. It would be payment for your actions.
This says to me your the one with the theological dark glasses because what you claim is against scripture. The Bible says it and I believe the Bible exclusively when it comes to theology. I can't believe what you claim unless you have scriptural support for your decision to believe and have faith. Rather I believe you have made a mistake in failing to consider all of scripture. If there is no contradiction in scripture and there isn't. Salvation is still a free gift no decision required. You can choose to resist as I've said before but you'll still carry the conviction that the light brings.
MB

 

[skypair]

When we are saved the thing that happens first is called Salvation and sanctification and justification are involved and it happens all at once.

I agree -- but it was not always so. In the OT, there was no "sanctification" by the indwelling Spirit. Thus, they are now "the spirits of just men made perfect," Heb 12:23. Their SOULS are perfect (re: 1Cor 2:6) but their spirits are even yet to be sanctified. This, perhaps, is the primary reason I believe that the two are separate even though in the NT they are simultaneous.

Who do you suppose started the work in us.? Was it our selves? or was it God? Then who finishes it?

The Spirit "does it all" but only so much in this life as we cooperate with Him, right?

Resistance is freewill. ... I do not believe man can make a choice to accept what he knows nothing about nor would he. A choice to believe or even have faith is not possible for man unless he knows what to have faith in.[/quote] EXACTLY!! So how do we cooperate in salvation? in sanctification? We "find out" what we know nothing about. Then and only then do we know what to have faith in.

Man doesn't do a thing to become convinced the one who convinces the man is soley responsible other wise the man could boast just as you are doing when you profess you made the decision to believe and to surrender. Both of these happen without decision or else Salvation is not of God.

OK, so explain salvation to me without choice. How is your mind/heart changed without information you don't know? James told me the same thing. I tell you, too, I have NEVER started with an original POV and changed my mind without a) more information and b) believing that information. If you can please describe for me how your mind/heart is changed in the absence of these, I would appreciate it.


Did YOU make the decision to believe on Christ, MB? Could YOU have decided to reject Him?

Back tomorrow with the rest, if necessary.

skypair

 

[MB]

I agree -- but it was not always so. In the OT, there was no "sanctification" by the indwelling Spirit. Thus, they are now "the spirits of just men made perfect," Heb 12:23. Their SOULS are perfect (re: 1Cor 2:6) but their spirits are even yet to be sanctified. This, perhaps, is the primary reason I believe that the two are separate even though in the NT they are simultaneous.

The Spirit "does it all" but only so much in this life as we cooperate with Him, right?

The Spirit does it all as long as we do not rebel...
Resistance is freewill. ... I do not believe man can make a choice to accept what he knows nothing about nor would he. A choice to believe or even have faith is not possible for man unless he knows what to have faith in.

EXACTLY!! So how do we cooperate in salvation? in sanctification? We "find out" what we know nothing about. Then and only then do we know what to have faith in.

IMO here, you have confused conversion, with Sanctification. Conversion is where we find out what to have faith in, and during this process there is no sanctification nor can there be. Sanctification comes when we repent because this is when we are forgiven. this is when we are made holy because with forgiveness we are made clean by it. Repentance is brought on by conviction as is submission. Our cooperation is in not deciding to rebel. Our cooperation is at the beginning of the process of Salvation when we listen to the preaching of the gospel. Our cooperation is not doing anything to prevent our selves from hearing.

OK, so explain salvation to me without choice. How is your mind/heart changed without information you don't know?

Scenario;
Man hears the gospel and doesn't reject it, in favor of darkness. There is no in-between rebellion and non rebellion. If man doesn't reject or deny it what is he left with? He is left with being convinced and being convicted. If man still does not reject or deny it there is only repentance and Salvation because there is no in-between. Man receives Salvation he does not reach out and grab it. it is delivered to him a free gift. With out decision on his part. Thus Salvation is all of God. Salvation is not a gift if you do something for it , it is no longer a gift but a payment for compliance. This makes Salvation of man and God and the Bible says it's not of our selves but a gift from God. If you believe you have to make a decision then you believe that Salvation is up to you.
Salvation is not forced on anyone. Man at anytime during the process can reject it. This is man's only decision. It is not a decision to choose Salvation because man will have it with out rebellion. Rebellion is what keeps man from being saved. Men can and do reject it all the time.

James told me the same thing. I tell you, too, I have NEVER started with an original POV and changed my mind without a) more information and b) believing that information. If you can please describe for me how your mind/heart is changed in the absence of these, I would appreciate it.

A mans mind and heart is changed by hearing the word. Again man can stop the process but man cannot choose this process. The preacher preaching the word and is a vessel of God and does what God has instructed. The man either listens or chooses not to listen. Choice for man is always for the negative because this is all man can choose.
You see it as a choice to either listen or not but if you think about it you don't know whether to listen or not unless you first hear it. By then you are already listening and the only thing you can do is to not listen any longer. You did not choose to listen but heard it anyway. Your hearing is always there, and it always listening. This is what hearing does.

Did YOU make the decision to believe on Christ, MB? Could YOU have decided to reject Him?

Back tomorrow with the rest, if necessary.

skypair

I came to believe because I stopped rebeling. I could have rejected Him at anytime but why would I after being convinced and convicted of the truth. I accepted the truth because it was truth. being convinced of it I was already believing. I could see hope in the gospel, hope in Christ.

Like you I once thought that I had made a decision for Christ. I believed man had to choose between the two but I could not explain how it could be all of God if my decision made me the co redeemer of my own Salvation. So I looked back at the beginnings of my Salvation to find an explanation and checking it with scripture. I reread all of scripture many times slowly, so that I absorbed what exactly it was saying. The more I read the more I became convicted of the fact that Salvation is all of God. There is no doubt in my mind now.
God sends the preacher so that you will hear it if you do not rebel. God's work. God draws us. Again God's work. God's word convinces us and convicts us. again God's work. God's word changes our potential because of it's knowledge. God’s work! God's word convicts us by showing us our sins. Once completely convinced and convicted we become sorry for our sins and our repentance is also God's work because repentance is it‘s product. After repentance comes submission and it's the result and part of our repentance. All of these things happen because they are God's work. Jn 6:29 To claim it is partly your choosing is a lie and serves to keep the man proud of himself. If Eph 2:8-9 and Jn 6:29 is a lie why can't you show scripture to the contrary proving it isn‘t all of God‘s work?

MB

 

[skypair]

Conversion is where we find out what to have faith in, and during this process there is no sanctification nor can there be.

Correct.

Sanctification comes when we repent because this is when we are forgiven.

Yes, good so far.

Our cooperation is at the beginning of the process of Salvation when we listen to the preaching of the gospel. Our cooperation is not doing anything to prevent our selves from hearing.

That would be the negative expression of it. How would we not "do anything to prevent ourselves from hearing?" listen? consider? believe? Didn't you say we had to believe? Is that not cooperation? agreement? Isn't that what Rom 4:5 means when it says "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth...?"

Man receives Salvation he does not reach out and grab it. it is delivered to him a free gift.

It is a gift -- but he does "reach out and take it." You said yourself that the belief that results in salvation is the belief that "acts." Scripture is replete with this truth. And it is NOT true that the one who reject therefore accepts. There is the "belief in vain" in which the one who believes does nothing. So no, faith does not enter the "vacuum" of non-rejection.

Salvation is not a gift if you do something for it , it is no longer a gift but a payment for compliance.

You have the wrong idea about spiritual gifts, then, MB. Individual spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:7-11) are not only dependent upon our taking them but they can even be "developed" the more we "desire" them and "exercise" our individual gifts, 1Cor 12:31. And the best gift is what? "Prophecy," 1Cor 14:1.

If you believe you have to make a decision then you believe that Salvation is up to you.

If you believe that you have to repent, submit, whatever -- then you believe the same.

It is not a decision to choose Salvation because man will have it with out rebellion.

Let's go back the "gifts" analogy. Obviously I won't get the gift if I reject it. But I won't get the gift either if I don't RECEIVE it. Ever notice how many times in scripture we see the word "receive" connected with eternal life and salvation?

I accepted the truth because it was truth. being convinced of it I was already believing. I could see hope in the gospel, hope in Christ.

See, this poses the likelihood of believing in vain. And that is what Calvinism does to a person --- they believe, therefore they are saved/elect and reconciled to God/justified/born from above. But remember, even you said that belief without repentance is incomplete.

I believed man had to choose between the two but I could not explain how it could be all of God if my decision made me the co redeemer of my own Salvation.

Many have done this same thing, MB. They want to ignore what the Spirit originally taught them and, on account of insecurities introduced by the teaching of men, they go back and "revisit" their original thoughts.

Paul's advice? "Leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. [leaving the MILK of the word, Heb 5:12] And this will we do..." Heb 6:1

Once completely convinced and convicted we become sorry for our sins and our repentance is also God's work because repentance is it‘s product.

If repentance is something YOU do, then be sure it is something YOU chose to do.

All of these things happen because they are God's work. Jn 6:29

Call to mind the question that preceded this verse, MB. The Pharisees asked, "What shall WE do, that WE might work the works of God?"

The answer? "This is the work of God [that YOU must do], that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. " You did this -- you are merely trying to "backtrack" to "lay again" the Foundation you already laid in another way.

To claim it is partly your choosing is a lie and serves to keep the man proud of himself.

Boy, wouldn't Satan love us to believe this!! Then NNE would choose Christ for salvation! They would "hope" but they would have no faith - no assurance - no gift.

If Eph 2:8-9 and Jn 6:29 is a lie why can't you show scripture to the contrary proving it isn‘t all of God‘s work?

Well, I believed I showed where you err regarding Jn 6:29 pretty conclusively. As to Eph 2:8-9, we both had alreadly agreed that faith is God's gift according to our belief and repentance, right? unless we believe in vain -- do nothing.

I think you are "scrambling" here to be a good Calvinist because now you've been convinced of another gospel, MB. You had all "the right stuff," but now someone has made you feel insecure. Was it your pastor? a friend? are you reading men's books and not keeping up with your personal Bible study?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

"This is my blood shed for you ... this is my body broken for you."

Is it, then, "consubstantiation" for you PL?

No.

Can you not see beyond the literal elements to the spiritual truths?

Yes, but your point was wrong. The verses you cited are not about communion, and they are not about a distinction between what his body bought and what his blood bought. As with so many other things, you are simply reading into Scripture something that is not there.

I hope you will read my post to Havensdad above and reconsider.

What is there to reconsider? You are wrong there too.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No.

Yes, but your point was wrong. The verses you cited are not about communion, and they are not about a distinction between what his body bought and what his blood bought. As with so many other things, you are simply reading into Scripture something that is not there.

What is there to reconsider? You are wrong there too.

No debate? Just well you're wrong? Or as a friend use to say "It just goes to show that once again I'm right and your wrong". Wow.

 

[skypair]

The verses you cited are not about communion, and they are not about a distinction between what his body bought and what his blood bought.

It's a MIRACLE, isn't it!! Rom 5:10 is about His death and life and Luke 22:19-20 is about His death and His life!!! :thumbs:

I got a great idea! Why don't YOU tell us what His blood bought and His body bought?

skypair

 

[MB]

Correct.

Yes, good so far.

That would be the negative expression of it. How would we not "do anything to prevent ourselves from hearing?" listen? consider? believe? Didn't you say we had to believe? Is that not cooperation? agreement? Isn't that what Rom 4:5 means when it says "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth...?"

Copperation does not require a decision if there is no resistance.
Man's faith may be counted for righteousness but man's righteousness doesn't save or have any power to save. We are saved by the faith of Christ Gal 2:16 The righteousness of men is only filthy rags

It is a gift -- but he does "reach out and take it." You said yourself that the belief that results in salvation is the belief that "acts."

True I did say that but now your quoting me out of context. That act is submission and submission is giving up. When you give up, you no longer resist, therefore you are not doing anything to stop your Salvation.

Scripture is replete with this truth. And it is NOT true that the one who reject therefore accepts. There is the "belief in vain" in which the one who believes does nothing. So no, faith does not enter the "vacuum" of non-rejection.

It does when there is no in between because you either reject or you don't and the only way you can stop Salvation is to decide to reject it.

You have the wrong idea about spiritual gifts, then, MB. Individual spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:7-11) are not only dependent upon our taking them but they can even be "developed" the more we "desire" them and "exercise" our individual gifts, 1Cor 12:31. And the best gift is what? "Prophecy," 1Cor 14:1.

I have no doubt that you believe that but you haven't proved me wrong. I have proved I'm right from scripture. I asked you to show me with scripture and you simply have not, all you've done is to deny what I say is true. You can say I'm wrong until your blue but unless you prove it with scripture you're just as wrong as you believe me to be.

If you believe that you have to repent, submit, whatever -- then you believe the same.

I disagree because you believe in being your own co-redeemer by helping God out with your decisions.

Let's go back the "gifts" analogy. Obviously I won't get the gift if I reject it. But I won't get the gift either if I don't RECEIVE it. Ever notice how many times in scripture we see the word "receive" connected with eternal life and salvation?

This word "receive" does not require your co-opperation Just as receiving a whiplash injury in an auto accident doesn't require your copperation. Once you stop the rebellion you will be saved. Just wear your seat belt to prevent the whip lash. A seat belt is restraint and that is resistance. Both negative decisions with a positive reaction. If you cut off the negative all that's left is the positive and there is no more resistance. A positive effect that last forever.

See, this poses the likelihood of believing in vain. And that is what Calvinism does to a person --- they believe, therefore they are saved/elect and reconciled to God/justified/born from above. But remember, even you said that belief without repentance is incomplete.

Even if you called me a Calvinist it wouldn't make me one.

Many have done this same thing, MB. They want to ignore what the Spirit originally taught them and, on account of insecurities introduced by the teaching of men, they go back and "revisit" their original thoughts.

That may be true for some men but for me it was trying to cope with what God's word says in Jn 6:29

Paul's advice? "Leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. [leaving the MILK of the word, Heb 5:12] And this will we do..." Heb 6:1

I wasn't laying the foundation again sky. I didn't change a thing except my own perception of what took place. I did not lay again the foundation of my Salvation.

If repentance is something YOU do, then be sure it is something YOU chose to do.

Call to mind the question that preceded this verse, MB. The Pharisees asked, "What shall WE do, that WE might work the works of God?"

The answer? "This is the work of God [that YOU must do], that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. " You did this -- you are merely trying to "backtrack" to "lay again" the Foundation you already laid in another way.

see what I mean here you add to scripture your own words to make your point because Christ never said "that you must do" I noticed you made sure your own words are in red. Changing the bible to suit your own views is very wrong.

Boy, wouldn't Satan love us to believe this!! Then NNE would choose Christ for salvation! They would "hope" but they would have no faith - no assurance - no gift.

You know what Satan loves sky? He loves it when you believe in something out of stuborness instead of out of scripture. He loves it when you add to scripture to get your man centerd ideas accross.

Well, I believed I showed where you err regarding Jn 6:29 pretty conclusively.

Really! where? I didn't see any refute. Just you making claims of what scripture says. To get your point you had to add to the scripture of Jn 6:29. Those men wanting to know about the works of God wanted to do it them themselves but couldn't. Only God can make you believe in Him he is the one who gives the increase, even you know that.

As to Eph 2:8-9, we both had alreadly agreed that faith is God's gift according to our belief and repentance, right? unless we believe in vain -- do nothing.

Doing nothing at least isn't rebellion. You can't do anything to save your self as you claim making decisions really is.

I think you are "scrambling" here to be a good Calvinist because now you've been convinced of another gospel, MB. You had all "the right stuff," but now someone has made you feel insecure. Was it your pastor? a friend? are you reading men's books and not keeping up with your personal Bible study?

I really resent being called a Calvinist. You're just up set that you are unable to disprove what I've said.
Ever since I first came here you have ignored what I have had to say obviously.

Calvinist do not believe you can resist God.
Do you always resort to name calling? I believe it's childish at best and shows a lack of love for your brothers.
MB

 

[Pastor Larry]

No debate? Just well you're wrong? Or as a friend use to say "It just goes to show that once again I'm right and your wrong". Wow.

Yes, there are some things that are so clear that there is no debate. How else do we say it?

It's a MIRACLE, isn't it!! Rom 5:10 is about His death and life and Luke 22:19-20 is about His death and His life!!!

I am not sure what version you are using, but in the ones I have, Luke 22:19-20 is about his death for sin, not his resurrection. Romans 5:10 is not about the symbolism of the elements in communion as your OP tries to make it. Your error, at least in part, is in trying to make his body and blood represent two different things. In fact, they are one thing.

Why don't YOU tell us what His blood bought and His body bought?

They bought sinners. I didn't know there was any debate about that.