The New Birth

[JSM17]

Saying that you were born again by "baptism" is the equivalent of saying that the blood of Christ was not sufficient enough to atone for our sins, and when he said "It is finished," he said it in vain.
Is that what you believe?

Actually saying Christ said we are born again by water and spirit, thats what I believe.

Paul was told to wash away his sins in baptism, was Paul saying that the blood of Christ was not sufficient to atone for our sins.

It was Christ who instructed Ananias to tell Paul the things that came three days later.
Besides your arguement works just as well if you insert the word's "Your faith only" were you placed "Baptism"

So no that is not what I believe, I do not believe that is what is meant when I speak of baptism or repentance or faith or confession or the blood of Christ or grace or the gospel or hope or love or the word, which are all things that save.

Does you belief, which takes work, does that minimize the work of the blood of Christ? What about repentance, does that work minimize Christ's blood?

 

[JSM17]

By the way, whenever "faith and repentance" are used together, "repentance" always precedes "faith."

I know you COC folks like to talk about "Speaking where Scripture speaks and remain silent where it is silent."

Well, according to Scripture, "repentance" always precedes "faith" when both of them are used together (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; Heb 6:2).

It is "repentance" followed by "faith," so says Scripture.

Your order is out of sync

In mark 1:5 it is clear that the Jews needed to repent before believing in Christ, they had already believed in God, so it can be easily seen that their faith needed change hence repentance. They belonged to God, in that period they were God's chosen people who already had a faith that needed adjusting.
As well in Hebrews 6:2 the author is declaring that their was a need of repentance from the dead works that they had been in prior to Christ coming.
As for Acst 20:21 Paul is merely stating what he preached.

As for you COC folks like this or that, please do not attribute to me any blanket thoughts about another mans ideas. It is an assumtion that I follow after those ideas of the one who said that statement. I do think that we need to be careful to understand the summation of all scripture when holding to any particular view, especially salvation. The bible is directly silent on many issues yet by implication and inferance one can see that God has not left us without th ability to see about other things that are not directly stated but implied.

Such as that one can have repentance without first believing.

Why in the world would I repent if I did not believe?

How could I repent if I did not understand why I was repenting?

Godly sorrow worketh repentance which leads to life.

Faith in God makes me understand that there is a need for a change of mind, why in the world would I change my mind if I did not have a faith that told me that I needed to change my mind?

 

[TCGreek]

In mark 1:5 it is clear that the Jews needed to repent before believing in Christ, they had already believed in God, so it can be easily seen that their faith needed change hence repentance. They belonged to God, in that period they were God's chosen people who already had a faith that needed adjusting.
As well in Hebrews 6:2 the author is declaring that their was a need of repentance from the dead works that they had been in prior to Christ coming.
As for Acst 20:21 Paul is merely stating what he preached.

As for you COC folks like this or that, please do not attribute to me any blanket thoughts about another mans ideas. It is an assumtion that I follow after those ideas of the one who said that statement. I do think that we need to be careful to understand the summation of all scripture when holding to any particular view, especially salvation. The bible is directly silent on many issues yet by implication and inferance one can see that God has not left us without th ability to see about other things that are not directly stated but implied.

Such as that one can have repentance without first believing.

Why in the world would I repent if I did not believe?

How could I repent if I did not understand why I was repenting?

Godly sorrow worketh repentance which leads to life.

Faith in God makes me understand that there is a need for a change of mind, why in the world would I change my mind if I did not have a faith that told me that I needed to change my mind?

I thought we should let Scripture inform our conclusions?

There we go again when human logic!

Scripture has "repentance and faith."

Because a person must first "change the mind" (repent) about God, sin, self, and place faith in Christ who died for our sins, was buried, and raised again as our hope of the new life, to be saved.

"Repentance and faith" is the witness of Scripture.

All you have to do is put your human logic aside and simply accept what Scripture says.

 

[DHK]

Now to your question: To answer your question directly I would certainly say No that he was not saved on the road to Damacus.

He addressed Jesus Christ as Lord, something an unsaved person would not do, and something he never would have done in the past. You can't reconcile that with what Paul says here:

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.
--and Paul said:
Acts 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
Acts 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

The Lord, as in the Lord Jesus Christ, is a title that belongs only to Christians, never used of the unsaved. Paul, unlike his past life, was now calling Christ Lord. A change had been wrought in his life. He was saved.

If he was saved on the road to Damascus then he was one miserable convert for three days. But that is not the reason why I think he was not saved.

This is the account given of his journey:

Acts 22:11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

In Acts 9 the account is the most detailed:
Acts 9:7-9 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
--First, there is nothing there that speaks of his emotional state, absolutely nothing.
--Second, blindness does not equate being miserable. Fanny Crosby was blind most of her life and refused to be miserable. She wrote a good percentage of the hymns in our hymn books, and was always a joy to be around. She had a sweet spirit about her. Read her biography.
--Third, he had just had a great burden of sin lifted off his heart. He would be rejoicing, not miserable.
--Fourth, you are reading your pre-conceived theology into just one verse in Acts 22, making an argument out of silence.

Why would the Lord make him blind for three days? Why would he be in fasting and prayer for three days until Ananias came, and still this is not the reason why I think he was not saved on the roaud to Damscus?

-Your "thinking" is wrong because it is just according to the COC brainwashing.
One reason was told to Ananias:
Acts 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
--This was just a foreshadow of the sufferings that were to come.
Another reason was given in Paul's theology:
"Tribulation worketh patience..." Paul would need much patience.
Look at your messed up theology in asking such a question.
Only a Christian would fast and pray. That is evidence that he was saved.
The unsaved don't fast and pray, all the while pretending to be Christians. They may fast and pray for another reason to another god. But why would one pretending to be a Christian do it. Paul was the real thing; a genuine believer.

If Paul was saved on the road to Damascus then he was saved while still having his sins, because it was not until three days later that he is told:
Acts 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'NKJV

If his sins were forgiven of him three days before then why is he asked why is he waiting?

This really shoots your theology in the foot doesn't it. Paul was saved at least three days before he was baptized definitely showing that baptism was not a part of his salvation. It was separated by three days.

Your second problem is a gross misunderstanding of Acts 22:16, not bothering to look into the Greek tenses of the verbs involved.

The last phrase of the verse could be better rendered "having called upon the name of the Lord." The command was to be baptized. His sins were washed away, "having called on the name of the Lord," which he had already done.

Calling upon the name of the Lord is shown in this passage to mean being baptized.

That is the heresy of baptismal regeneration, no where taught in the Bible. Paul called on the name of the Lord earlier on, on the road to Damascus. Why do you cling to the superstition of the Hindus that water can wash away sins?

 

[thegospelgeek]

John 3:3-7
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

I usually stay out of these and find them rather boring but for some reason I can't resist. I first must admit than I have questions regarding the CoC doctrine. If one repents and believes but them adds to the Gospel are they saved? I only know 2 who follow CoC. One has a great witness and the other has a terrible witness.

I do think that we under-emphasise Baptism in our Churches. We say one need not be Baptized to be saved, yet say one must be Baptized to be a member of the church (local). I find that rather strange. We also read where Jesus command baptism and find that we know we are saved if we keep his commands. Another oddity...

Back to the OP. I am in the minority because I belive Jesus is talkin about a natural birth (water) and a spriritual birth (spirit). IMO it is the only thing that makes sense in context. Nicodemus ask how can he be born again? Jesus responds with the answer in v5 and repeats it in v6 using another analogy. Either way, it definitely does not mean Water Baptism.

Yes, there are some verses, which if you interpet them in such a way, that could make it look like WB is a requirement. But to do so you must ignore other verses that clearly show faith in Christ as the means to salvation.

Can the Holy Spirit reside in an unsaved individual?

 

[DHK]

Actually saying Christ said we are born again by water and spirit, thats what I believe.

No, he never did. The water is emblematic of the Word, as Peter so clearly points out.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--You can't keep ignoring Scripture. There are only two agents by which a person is born again: one is the Word; the other is the Holy Spirit. Both are necessary.

Paul was told to wash away his sins in baptism, was Paul saying that the blood of Christ was not sufficient to atone for our sins.

No he wasn't. Do some study on the verse, its grammar and syntax. Find out what it is really saying, not just the KJV. Look at the Greek. Paul was not told to wash away his sins in baptism. That is a false statement. If that was true, then Paul wasn't saved for three days, and according to you Paul wasn't even saved at the end of his life. Paul wasn't saved when he wrote all 13 of the epistles of the Bible. He never was saved, and still isn't. He is in hell today, according to your theology.
Let me demonstrate your theology to all who read.
When asked about the relation of baptism to salvation, (that is being saved by faith), here is what was said. First my exact question to you was:

I was saved, trusted the Lord as my Saviour, and then (because of lack of teaching), was not baptized until two years later. I was sure at that time that I would go to heaven if I had died.

However, according to COC doctrine, and especially according to you, JSM17, would I have gone to heaven in those two months before I was baptized?

Now here is your reply to me.

You ask me to tell you if you would have gone to heaven during that two months or two years not sure which one, doesn't really matter, no. I still do not think your going to heaven.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1380173&postcount=197

You still do not think that I am going to heaven just because I didn't get baptized immediately after I put my trust in Christ.
The same thing happened to Paul. He did not get baptized immediately after he put his trust in Christ. Just like me he waited. He waited 3 days. I waited two months. The extent of the time period really doesn't matter does it. If I am still unsaved 30 years later, then Paul, who was martyred about 25 years later was still unsaved also. It only stands to reason. Thus Paul, according to your theology couldn't possibly have been saved all those years that he wrote the inspired Word of God. What he wrote then wouldn't be inspired. You better tear all those epistles out of your Bible since there is no possible way that they could be inspired, being written by an unsaved man, right?

It was Christ who instructed Ananias to tell Paul the things that came three days later.


Besides your arguement works just as well if you insert the word's "Your faith only" were you placed "Baptism"

The Bible states by faith and faith alone.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--There is no baptism there. The implication is faith alone. There is nothing to do but to be saved by faith; justified by faith: faith alone.

So no that is not what I believe, I do not believe that is what is meant when I speak of baptism or repentance or faith or confession or the blood of Christ or grace or the gospel or hope or love or the word, which are all things that save.

Baptism is a work. You have a works based salvation, by which no man can be saved.

Does you belief, which takes work, does that minimize the work of the blood of Christ? What about repentance, does that work minimize Christ's blood?

Repentance is the flip side of faith, and is a part of faith. It is not a work.
Faith is not a work, and cannot be a work. How can trusting someone be classified as a work. It is not something that one does. However baptism is a work; it is something that you do; it is an act.

My salvation is by grace through faith, and not by works.
It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
There are no works involved in my salvation; but there are in yours--the work of baptism.

You take away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ; an insult to Christ.
You imply that his atonement was not enough to cover your sins. You have to help him pay for your sins as well, by being baptized.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You imply that his atonement was not enough to cover your sins. You have to help him pay for your sins as well, by being baptized. How arrogant!

HP: First, you display a very bad habit of name calling. You could have simply disagreed with JSM17 and then made your point. There is no need to call anyone arrogant on this list. If they are, let the reader decide that for themselves.

I as well disagree with JSM17 on the baptism issue, but I will not make the mistake DHK makes and falsely accuses him of indicating that he, by the position he has taken, has to help Christ pay for his sins. That is nowhere implied in anything JSM17 has stated. That again is nothing but a false accusation without the least shred of evidence. DHK, your consistent refusal to distinguish between grounds and conditions shows a lack of understanding on your part, and generally ends, as in your last post, in a false accusation and a personal attack. Certainly I do not believe the condition of water baptism is a condition of salvation, but again he has simply set forth a false condition, and nothing in his position necessitates anything you have indicated.

Conditions do not pay for anything, and they are not meritorious in nature. They in no way compete with the grounds of salvation, nor do they in any way help God pay for sins or help God in His atonement. That is simply a false notion you would do well to rethink and reshape your understanding of. Conditions, false or real, are never thought of a payment for anything, or helping God pay for anything, nor ever thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of.’ Conditions are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ That again does not indicate payment or help with payment whatsoever.

Again, your tactic, as evidenced in your post, that simply creates a false end to the others argument and suggests that your attached conjecture by necessity must be true, is not in keeping with reality, nor does it by any means help your position to go down that rabbit trail of error, one iota.

 

[DHK]

I as well disagree with JSM17 on the baptism issue, but I will not make the mistake DHK makes and falsely accuses him of indicating that he, by the position he has taken, has to help Christ pay for his sins.

Perhaps you are offended because you believe the same thing. In other posts you talk of an "obedient faith" that is necessary to be saved. So, although it may not be "the work of baptism," it is works. You also believe that works are necessary for salvation. Any person that believes that works are necessary for salvation does not believe that the blood of Christ is sufficient enough to take away all our sins, and that includes you.
Yes, I can understand your frustration and offense at my post as it applies to you.

That is nowhere implied in anything JSM17 has stated. That again is nothing but a false accusation without the least shred of evidence. DHK, your consistent refusal to distinguish between grounds and conditions shows a lack of understanding on your part, and generally ends, as in your last post, in a false accusation and a personal attack.

One doesn't have to come out and say it word for word. If one says that a person must keep the Ten Commandments to be saved, then he believes in salvation by works, and the conclusion is that the blood of Christ is not sufficient enough to atone for our sins. That is true of every person that believes in salvation by works. It is true of yourself. You don't have to say it outright. It is a logical conclusion. Jesus paid for all our sins: past, present and future. There is no sin that Jesus did not pay for. If he paid for them all; then why does one think they must pay the penalty themselves with their own works. Is "It is finished," the words that Jesus spoke while on the cross, spoken in vain? What works can you do that will help Jesus atone for your sins? It is the gift of God, not of works.

Certainly I do not believe the condition of water baptism is a condition of salvation, but again he has simply set forth a false condition, and nothing in his position necessitates anything you have indicated.

No you don't believe it is water; but you do believe it is an "obedient faith" which is just as bad. Salvation is not of works, as you demand it is. Why do you take away from the blood of Christ, thinking that you can pay for your own salvation? You can't do it. Only Christ can save; only Christ can pay for your sins. Your works of righteousness are as filthy rags (Isa.64:6).

Conditions do not pay for anything, and they are not meritorious in nature. They in no way compete with the grounds of salvation, nor do they in any way help God pay for sins or help God in His atonement. That is simply a false notion you would do well to rethink and reshape your understanding of. Conditions, false or real, are never thought of a payment for anything, or helping God pay for anything, nor ever thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of.’ Conditions are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ That again does not indicate payment or help with payment whatsoever.

Considering that salvation is unconditional it is a position you need to rethink. Every condition you put on salvation is a work--something that takes away from the blood of Christ; the work that he has done on the cross. There are Catholics in the province of Quebec that crawl on their hands and knees up the many stairs of to a statue of Ste. Anne, after having made a pilgrimmage, thinking that that sacrifice will help atone for their sins. Is that Christianity? They think it is. It is just another variation of what you believe but taken to a greater extreme. Works do not save: whether you look at as a condition for salvation, or to maintain salvation. Works have nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

Again, your tactic, as evidenced in your post, that simply creates a false end to the others argument and suggests that your attached conjecture by necessity must be true, is not in keeping with reality, nor does it by any means help your position to go down that rabbit trail of error, one iota.

I don't have a tactic except to point out the heresy that works cannot save: whether they be baptism or any other work such as an "obedient faith." Works do not save. Faith in Christ does. If one is not saved through faith in Christ then he is not saved at all.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Post deleted by HP:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: There are Catholics in the province of Quebec that crawl on their hands and knees up the many stairs of to a statue of Ste. Anne, after having made a pilgrimmage, thinking that that sacrifice will help atone for their sins. Is that Christianity? They think it is. It is just another variation of what you believe but taken to a greater extreme

.

HP: Understanding clearly DHK’s position that “DHK: all men are liars” makes it a small thing when he makes this sort of comment. …….or comments like the following.

DHK: No you don't believe it is water; but you do believe it is an "obedient faith" which is just as bad. Salvation is not of works, as you demand it is. Why do you take away from the blood of Christ, thinking that you can pay for your own salvation?

 

[OldRegular]

The COC belief in the necessity of baptism for salvation [which eventually led to the heresy of baptismal regeneration] would be more defensible if they would explain why when a person, according to COC doctrine, loses his salvation for whatever reason, baptism is not required for their regained salvation. As far as I am concerned unless they can explain this anomaly in their doctrine their argument that baptism is required for salvation not only is not Biblical, it is foolish.

Rather than argue with JSM17 about the necessity of baptism for initial salvation require him to explain why baptism is not required for those who presumably lose their salvation and then are saved a second, or third, or fourth, or on and on ad infinitum.

I have challenged JSM17 to do so and he has ignored that challenge. Why allow him to monopolize discussion on this forum leaving the above question unanswered?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

OR: Rather than argue with JSM17 about the necessity of baptism for initial salvation require him to explain why baptism is not required for those who presumably lose their salvation and then are saved a second, or third, or fourth, or on and on ad infinitum.

HP: I personally have no idea how one in the COC would answer, but I see your comments as stemming from a misunderstanding of the nature of salvation. It is also true that those promoting OSAS have their difficulties in multiple salvations as well. OSAS provides fodder for great confusion in the church and even denial of ones standing before God. Here is a scenario I have personally witnessed.

A person gets saved that believes in election from a Calvinistic position. He believes that when a person gets saved that they come into the understanding that they have been foreordained or predestined to eternal life by God from the foundations of the world. Their salvation is best thought of as not when they got saved, but rather their salvation is best understood as simply the time that they came to a full realization that they have in reality been saved all along, it is just that now they came to understand it for themselves or become cognizant that in reality had been fixed for all of eternity.

Having now this salvation experience, coming into the realization that they have always been one of the elect, they proceed down the path of life again. Some time after, they fall into sin and condemnation sets into their heart. For a while they try and convince themselves that there is no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus, but the condemnation is relentless. They end up discouraged due to the knowledge that there life is not consistent with their faith, and end up falling by the wayside discouraged.

They are now in a real pickle. When the alter call is given they know in their heart that they need to get right with God, but they do not know what they should testify to. If they were really saved there should have been no condemnation, which they know in reality they certainly have, so they cannot testify that they were saved. They know they cannot say they fell from grace and needed to be resaved, for that is not believed possible in the Church they are in attendance to, so we hear this strange testimony instead. I have heard those that have been in the Church for years, teaching and even elders and deacons in the church, that stand up after conviction sets in over a besetting sin, and testify like this. “I thought I was saved years ago, but today I realize that I was never saved, but I got saved today.”…..and so on ad infinitum. The end result of complete discouragement after they have claimed something they had to abandon, just to repeat the cycle over and over again or lie to themselves as to their state before God, knowing full well that while they profess OSAS their heart condemns them.

Certainly that does not ‘have’ to be the case but I have seen it for myself to be the case in OSAS circles.

Back to JMS17 and the COC. For all I know they might well believe as I do, that salvation is not ‘lost’ until they pass from this world to the next with a heart of unrepentance, therefore no need of being baptized again. One would simply repent and get back on the right road again. One can certainly get sidetracked by the enemy of our souls for a time, but all is not 'lost' until one remains in a state of refusing to repent and turn from their sins until they pass from this life to the next in judgment. Their salvation might have gotten off track, their assurance clouded, but was not lost, was not hopeless, until the time of repentance and turning was gone forever.

Once one has committed their life to Christ, their salvation is not lost until no hope remains to get back on the right track. This notion of loosing and gaining ones salvation ad infinitum is a figment of the OSAS’ers imagination, IMHO of course. I will allow the COC individuals to answer for themselves.

 

[JSM17]

Have Things Changed?




From the beginning GOD has had the same plan for mankind. GOD has always demanded the same response from His creation, humanly speaking. At no given time has GOD left us without instruction--guessing what we should do to please Him. God has given us a mind so we can choose whether we will obey or not, those things He has put before us.

Ever since the start of life in the garden, GOD made man and then gave him laws and regulations--limits. But because GOD is not in the Calvinistic robotics manufacturing business, He allowed Adam and Eve and every other man and women, to have choices to do what they will. Adam and Eve chose wrong and GOD knew that they would. But, it was worth the love that would be given to GOD for those who really do love Him and seek after Him.

From the garden until the end of this world, every human being has had the same choice. Because of the freedoms we have, we will all make the mistakes of pride and sin against GOD (Romans 3:23). God knew before the foundation of the world that man would need saving from himself, so GOD explains to us how this happens. A promise is made and fulfilled for you and me today! GOD allows man to choose whether he will obey or deny the promises of GOD for their soul. It is only by GOD's grace and power that we can obey in faith what GOD has promised. Simply outlined it looks like this:

GOD’s standards are placed before man.
Man exhibits inability to uphold GOD’S standards, because of man’s pride.
GOD reveals to man a safe passage to receive that in which GOD wants for every man.
Man responds the way God has said and in doing so, we are showing God we love Him more than ourselves.
The end result is a people who truly love GOD and obey Him because He is worthy.
These principles have always been in existence, from the garden to today.

Consider three examples that easily show this pattern. Start with the account found in Numbers 21:4-9 known as the bronze serpent. Here you have a people who were taken out of Egyptian bondage, a people set apart for GOD. GOD told them they were a people belonging to Him and all they did was bicker and complain. GOD had enough with their sinning, so He brought upon the rebellious people--snakes. The people are bitten and cry out to Moses to speak with GOD for redemption from the snake bites or else they will all die. They realized they had sinned and now were seeking GOD’S favor. Notice the principle here, just as I had shown you in the outline.

Then we have the account of the walls of Jericho falling (Joshua 6:1). When did the walls fall and why did they fall? Here is this obstacle before the people of GOD. So GOD tells them that the city is theirs, but not until they do ALL that GOD had instructed them to do. Through obedience to the words of the LORD, the city is granted to them and not one step or second before. The LORD gives the city to them while it is still standing and accessible. It is only after the promise of the blessing that GOD gives them the required actions to receive the blessing. If they had chosen not to walk the seventh time and to blow the horns and to yell, then GOD would not have given it to them because of their disobedience to His standard.

The last account is about the commander of the Syrian army whose name was Naaman of 2 Kings 5:1-19. A man stricken with leprosy is told by the servant girl were he can be healed. GOD allows him to hear of the prophet who would explain what he must do to be healed. So Naaman goes to the prophet Elisha and is told what he must do. Naaman is to dip himself in the river Jordon seven times and he would be healed. After a little hesitation, Naaman finally obeys and receives cleansing from his disease. The pattern is the same. Here is a condition that needs attention. The solution is placed before Naaman and now Naaman must hear and obey the words of the prophet. When Naaman obeys, he is healed. What if Naaman only dipped six times? Would he have been saved? What if he went back to the waters of his own land and dipped seven times? Would he have been saved?

Here is the summation of all this. Today, we have many who are in need of salvation, but who do not realize it or have not received mercy. They may think they have through other means than what GOD has prescribed. All people everywhere have sinned (Romans 3:23). We are all in need of Christ’s saving power. Has GOD changed the way that he brings that blessing upon mankind? NO, He has not! You sin; GOD explains what you must do to receive His blessing. We must respond to the words of GOD in faith--knowing that GOD will cleanse us.

In the three accounts investigated today we see a need for faith, but faith all by itself cannot and will not ever save you all by itself (James 2:24). Faith must be working in order to save. The snake bitten Israelites must not only believe that GOD would save them, but they would have to actually look with obedience at the bronze serpent in order to be saved. The walls were given by GOD because of obedience, but they did not receive them until they did all that GOD commanded them to do. Naaman, if he had not obediently acted out the commands of GOD, certainly would not have received the blessing of skin cleansed from his disease. Every man and women found in scripture received GOD’s blessings only when they were obedient to His words in faith. God may change the elements, but the principle is always the same. Today we MUST obey the gospel of Christ.

 

[TCGreek]

In the three accounts investigated today we see a need for faith, but faith all by itself cannot and will not ever save you all by itself (James 2:24). Faith must be working in order to save. The snake bitten Israelites must not only believe that GOD would save them, but they would have to actually look with obedience at the bronze serpent in order to be saved. The walls were given by GOD because of obedience, but they did not receive them until they did all that GOD commanded them to do. Naaman, if he had not obediently acted out the commands of GOD, certainly would not have received the blessing of skin cleansed from his disease. Every man and women found in scripture received GOD’s blessings only when they were obedient to His words in faith. God may change the elements, but the principle is always the same. Today we MUST obey the gospel of Christ.

I see that you have learned quite well from your COC preachers and teachers - the same old arguments that are actually mishandling of Scripture.

First up, James is writing to folks who are already believers (read v.14).

Second, Abraham was already justified as a man by faith alone in God (Gen. 15:6).

His faith is what was now put to the test. That's the genius of James argument from v.14.

We are justified by faith alone, but this justifying-faith is evident in our works. That's what James is arguing.

Which also agrees with what Paul says in Eph. 2:8-10:

We are saved by grace when we believe (v. 8), but this saving is unto good works which God have prepared in advanced for us to do (v. 10).

James and Paul are in perfect harmony.

 

[JSM17]

DHK Wrote:
He addressed Jesus Christ as Lord, something an unsaved person would not do, and something he never would have done in the past. You can't reconcile that with what Paul says here:

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.
--and Paul said:
Acts 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
Acts 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

The Lord, as in the Lord Jesus Christ, is a title that belongs only to Christians, never used of the unsaved. Paul, unlike his past life, was now calling Christ Lord. A change had been wrought in his life. He was saved.

1. Paul says Who are you, Lord? Is this the question of a saved man, who are you?
2. In no part of scripture from the time that Paul is on the road until three days later is there one shred of evidence that Paul was saved, nor does it say it.
3. If calling upon the Lord means that he was saved and when he called upon the Lord he sins were washed away then why does Paul in Roman 10 say:

Rom 10:13-14

13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
NASU

I wonder if people will say that belief and calling upon the name of the Lord are the same thing? Because says one leads to the other.
Paul says in verse 14 that on must believe before he can call upon the Lord, but I thought we are saved when we believed, now here we have three conditions being spoken of, hearing, believing, and calling upon the name of the Lord.

So Paul three days after the road to Damascus was calling upon the name of the Lord, which according to Paul will be saved.

Ananias told him this three day after. While many believe salvation by faith alone, apart from anything else, Paul has shown in these two scriptures that one believes and then calls upon the name of the Lord.

If one can call upon the name of the Lord only after he believes(faith), then again he was not saved by faith alone.

Why does Ananias tell him this three days later if he did it three days ago and he was saved then but is being told now to call upon him?

I wonder why Luke put "Calling upon the name of the Lord" three day after Pauls conversion?

 

[DHK]

We must respond to the words of GOD in faith--knowing that GOD will cleanse us.

If only you believed this, but you don't. Responding to the words of God in faith; why are you not able to do that? Faith and faith alone.

In the three accounts investigated today we see a need for faith, but faith all by itself cannot and will not ever save you all by itself (James 2:24).

Let's see you make your case without using James. You can't do it can you? You take James 2:24 out of its context, particularly the context of the book itself. The theme of James is "practical Christian living." It has nothing to do with salvation. Thus your argument is moot. Faith has an object. The object of my faith is Christ and Christ alone. I am saved by faith and faith alone in Christ and in Christ alone.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--Salvation is by God's grace. You say it is by works. The Bible says grace. The Bible also says that if it is by works it is not of grace. Therefore it is you that is wrong. You take away from the grace of God, from the blood of Christ that paid for our sins.

Faith must be working in order to save.

Faith doesn't work. If faith "works" it is not faith.

The snake bitten Israelites must not only believe that GOD would save them, but they would have to actually look with obedience at the bronze serpent in order to be saved.

That is not true. They were commanded to look upon the serpent in faith alone. There was no work involved. They had to believe in simple faith that looking at that serpent would heal them, just as one has to believe in simple faith that "looking (believing) on Jesus will save them." The picture is the same. There is no work, only faith.

The walls were given by GOD because of obedience, but they did not receive them until they did all that GOD commanded them to do.

This has nothing to do with salvation. It is not a correct analogy. The Israelites were already saved. God gave them victory over a pagan city.

Naaman, if he had not obediently acted out the commands of GOD, certainly would not have received the blessing of skin cleansed from his disease.

Apples and oranges. Naaman was an unsaved Syrian, and there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that he got saved. What are you trying to prove?

Every man and women found in scripture received GOD’s blessings only when they were obedient to His words in faith. God may change the elements, but the principle is always the same. Today we MUST obey the gospel of Christ.

There were 10 lepers healed. Only one came back to thank Christ. How did they obey the Lord? Yet they received the blessings of God. Your theology is messed up.
God blesses all of us every day, even those of us who don't obey him.
In the words of Christ Himself:
The rain falls upon the just and the unjust alike.
The sun shines upon the just and the unjust alike.

You think that God only blesses the COC??
Perhaps you have never tasted the fullness of his blessing, and have no idea what you are really talking about.

 

[OldRegular]

JSM17

In Hebrews we read:

12:2. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. Salvation is entirely the work of the Triune God. You want to make man the author and finisher of his own salvation.

 

[DHK]

1. Paul says Who are you, Lord? Is this the question of a saved man, who are you?

You quote half of one verse and try to make an argument from it?? Do you honestly think that people are going to believe your methods here are "rightly dividing the word of truth," or sound hermeneutics? I think not!

It is akin to the one who also says: "The Bible declares, 'There is no God.'" And he is right. For the Bible does declare, "there is no God." But as you pull Scripture out of context so that is pulled out of context. Look at the full verse:

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
--And indeed it is a food who takes Scripture out of its context.

Now look at the complete context of what is said in Acts 9:

Acts 9:5-6 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
--After Saul asks for the identity of the Lord, the Lord answers:
I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Now Paul knows who Jesus really is. He is Lord, the Lord Jesus.

What is his reaction?
1. He trembles.
2. He is astonished--meaning his heart is broken because of sin (Gill).
3. He immediately asks direction from the Lord and how to obey him.
4. He immediately obeys the Lord.

These are the marks of a new believer in Christ.

You are deceptive in that you quoted only one half of one verse to try and prove your point.

2. In no part of scripture from the time that Paul is on the road until three days later is there one shred of evidence that Paul was saved, nor does it say it.

Your deceptiveness knows no bounds. If you just read the Scriptures you will find plenty of Scripture. Read the above answer that I gave you.

3. If calling upon the Lord means that he was saved and when he called upon the Lord he sins were washed away then why does Paul in Roman 10 say:

Rom 10:13-14

13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
NASU

Paul did call upon the name of the Lord. He believed. And then he obeyed. What else would a born again Christian do. What other evidence would one need. Certainly not baptism. Baptism came three days after his conversion.

I wonder if people will say that belief and calling upon the name of the Lord are the same thing?

Yes, they are. When one believes they call upon the name of the Lord just like Paul did.

Paul says in verse 14 that on must believe before he can call upon the Lord,

No, Paul does not say that. You are confused.

but I thought we are saved when we believed, now here we have three conditions being spoken of, hearing, believing, and calling upon the name of the Lord.

There are NO conditions. It is Christ that saves. His salvation is unconditional. Until you reach that conclusion salvation is impossible. Salvation is not of works. It is by grace through faith--the gift of God; not of works. as you say it must be. Every condition that you attach to salvation is a work. Every work takes away from the blood of Christ. It tells us that the belief of the COC is that Jesus death on the cross of Christ was not sufficient enough to pay for the sins of mankind; man must help Jesus to pay for our sins. And that is blasphemy.

So Paul three days after the road to Damascus was calling upon the name of the Lord, which according to Paul will be saved.

No he did not. You don't study the Greek; but ignore it. The correct translation in Acts 22:16 is "after having called upon the name of the Lord."

Ananias told him this three day after. While many believe salvation by faith alone, apart from anything else, Paul has shown in these two scriptures that one believes and then calls upon the name of the Lord.

It shows plainly that when one believes he calls upon the name of the Lord, which is evident everywhere in the Bible.

If one can call upon the name of the Lord only after he believes(faith), then again he was not saved by faith alone.

You differentiate between two things which are one and the same thing. You are straining at a gnat.

Why does Ananias tell him this three days later if he did it three days ago and he was saved then but is being told now to call upon him?

He doesn't. Remember the correct rendering: "after having called upon the name of the Lord."

I wonder why Luke put "Calling upon the name of the Lord" three day after Pauls conversion?

He didn't. You just think he did.

 

[TCGreek]

Calling upon the Lord is seen either as an expression of prayer or an expression of worship, in Scripture.

That is why those who call upon the Lord from a heart of faith are saved.

 

[OldRegular]

Post by OldRegular
Rather than argue with JSM17 about the necessity of baptism for initial salvation require him to explain why baptism is not required for those who presumably lose their salvation and then are saved a second, or third, or fourth, or on and on ad infinitum.

Response by Heavenly Pilgrim
I personally have no idea how one in the COC would answer, but I see your comments as stemming from a misunderstanding of the nature of salvation.

It is apparently you who do not understand the nature of Salvation. Salvation is only by the Grace of God and is a once for all time event in the life of the elect. That is God keeps eternally secure those He chose to salvation before the foundation of the world and made accepted in the beloved, Jesus Christ [Ephesians 1:3-6].