Total Depravity or Free Will in this tract?

[JamesL]

I don't think you thought through the total implications of your view here. If it be so that they were saved even though they rejected their Messiah and believed not on Him, then all Jews, even today, who reject Jesus Christ as Messiah, yet have faith Messiah will come, are saved, even though they believe not in the One God has sent as Messiah.

I have thought it through. I never said they believed not.


There are a few things which distinguish those Jews from today's Jews.

Salvation is not simply "saved" from hell, it's also Eschatological. Those Jews were not only looking for Messiah to come establish righteousness in His Kingdom, they were hoping in God to redeem them from the consequences of their sin. There is evidence that the Essenes were looking for two Messiahs, because they couldn't wrap their brains around one Messiah who would die for the sins of His people, yet sit on David's throne forever.

His Kingdom was "salvation" for Israel. Salvation from earthly oppression, and full realization of the inheritance through Him.

Jews today are hoping for Him to come with a kingdom, but they're not hoping in Him for their redemption in a biblical sense. Also, just as in Paul's day, they are attempting to gain their inheritance by works. That's the "salvation" in Romans 10-11, which is an part of his exposition of what he wrote in chapter 8.

Not all Israel is Israel. It's a children of the promise thing.

Those Jews in Acts 2 were "believing in God" in the exact same way Abraham did. They were counted as righteous - before the cross. But after redemption was accomplished, they must hope in the redemption offered in Christ.

One line of thought I'm really curious about, and needing more study, is the unforgivable sin. That perhaps it was a sin only that generation would have been able to commit. Peter said to them "save yourself from this perverse generation"

Believe me, I have thought about implications.

 

[JamesL]

From a different thread a few months ago:

I've heard this explanation given quite a few times. And while I cannot disagree with the possibility, I think there is a more plausible explanation of what Acts 2:38 means.

Consider who Peter was speaking to - Men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem (2:14)and You that are Israelites (2:22). The ones "living in Jerusalem" would have been Israelites, just not permanently living there. Deuteronomy 16:2, 5-6 says
You shall offer the passover sacrifice to the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd, at the place that the Lord will choose as a dwelling for his name. You are not permitted to offer the passover sacrifice within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you. But at the place that the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his name, only there shall you offer the passover sacrifice, in the evening at sunset, the time of day when you departed from Egypt.

Mary and Joseph did this as well:
Luke 2:41
Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover.


Then, regarding the feast of Weeks, or Pentecost, Deuteronomy 16:11 says
Rejoice before the Lord your God....at the place that the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his name.

Considering the long travel, many would stay the entire 7 weeks from Passover to Pentecost. This is why there were so many people there from other nations (Acts 2:8-11). These were not just Jews who wanted a vacation, these were devout Jews. What's so special about being called devout?

Eulabes - inner reverence. Used only 4 times in the NT, it seems to always signify someone who is in righteous standing with God. In other words, saved people.

In Luke 2:25-26, Simeon was described as "eulabes" and was waiting for the consolation of Israel. It was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death until he had seen the Lord's Messiah.

In Acts 8:2, "eulabes" men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him after he was stoned to death. Stephen's enemies sure would not have lamented. It would have been his brothers in Christ who were deeply saddened

In Acts 22:12, Paul recounts how Ananias, a "eulabes" man, laid his hands on him to receive his sight after Paul (Saul) had become a believer.

It is this same "eulabes" which is used to describe the men who were gathered from all the nations in Acts 2. Verse 5 says
Now there were eulabes Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem.


These men, who were waiting for the consolation of Israel, would have been justified by faith before Jesus was crucified. In other words, they were already "saved"

They had been there to see Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey. Matthew 21:8-9 says that a very large crowd spread their coats and went ahead of Him singing "Hosanna"

If you read John 12, you see a great mix of people in this crowd. Some who believed in Him and some who did not. Verses 17 and 18 describe two groups of people - those who were with him when He raised Lazarus from the dead had gone about testifying. A different crowd heard about it and went to see Jesus. The English isn't real clear that there were two different crowds, but that is the case.

Matthew 27:20 also testifies that there were multiple "crowds" that were stirred into asking for Barabbas to be released. These "devout" men from Acts 2 were part of the crowds that cried out "Crucify Him"

That is why Peter said to them in Acts 2:26
Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.

These men were most certainly pricked in their hearts, having taken part in the murder of their long-awaited Messiah. They knew better, but had allowed themselves to be deceived, and they went along with the crowd.

When Peter told them to be baptized for the remission of sins, this was not justification. It was a cleansing of the conscience (2Peter 3:21) and a restoration into fellowship with God. It was also a public association with Jesus and His followers, which would have brought persecution.

See in John 12:42 how some Pharisees believed in Jesus, but would not confess Him, for fear of being put out of the synagogue.

Only when they had received forgiveness for this atrocity would these devout men receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It is always spoken of this event that "3,000 me were saved at Pentecost"

But nowhere does it say that these men were saved. Why is that? They already were saved before they came that day. Justified by faith in God, just like Abraham was (Romans 4:21-25)

What is actually said of these men, in Acts 2:41, is that
those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added.

Added to what? Added to the group of believing Jews who had recognized Jesus as their Messiah

Acts chapter 2 gives no evidence whatsoever that anyone was "saved" because they got baptized. It confirms that 3,000 pre-cross believers came to realize that they were accessories to the murder of the Messiah. But by being baptized as a public confession of their faith in Him, they were restored to fellowship with God and received the gift of the Holy Spirit

 

[steaver]

I have thought it through. I never said they believed not.

James, the fact that they consented to Jesus' death is proof they did not believe on Him.

I'm still interested in your answer to my previous questions concerning the receiving of the Holy Spirit when I asked.....

James, can you give us your evaluation of how one receives the Holy Spirit rebirth, the "when", the timing so to speak.

When Peter stood up and preached Jesus Christ crucified (Acts 2) and those listening were pricked in their hearts and asked "what shall we do?", did they ask this because unbeknown to them they had been born again while hearing the gospel, or did they ask this because they were not yet born again (saved) and were worried they had condemned themselves by rejecting the Christ?

 

[DHK]

Cornelius was a devout man.
He was a Roman centurion, a Gentile, unregenerated, not saved, and had not heard the gospel until Peter came to his house. Devout has nothing to do with regeneration nor salvation. Your argument is very weak.

 

[JamesL]

Cornelius was a devout man.
He was a Roman centurion, a Gentile, unregenerated, not saved, and had not heard the gospel until Peter came to his house. Devout has nothing to do with regeneration nor salvation. Your argument is very weak.

Cornelius was a different kind of "devout"

The bible wasn't written in English. Do some research.

 

[DHK]

Cornelius was a different kind of "devout"

The bible wasn't written in English. Do some research.

[FONT=&quot]Luke 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

Strong's
[/FONT]ευλαβης eulabes yoo-lab-ace' from 2095 and 2983; taking well (carefully), i.e. circumspect (religiously, pious):—devout.

Jamieson, Faucett, & Brown
devout--of a religious frame of spirit.

A.T. Robertson
Devout (eulabês). Used only by Luke (Ac 2:5; 8:2; 22:12) in the N.T. Common in ancient Greek from Plato on. It means taking hold well or carefully (eu and labein) and so reverently, circumspectly.

There is no way that the word "devout" has any relevance to regeneration or salvation. It means "circumspect," carefully, and the very most describes a religious person like a good Catholic. There is no reference to one who is saved or regenerated.

 

[JamesL]

James, can you give us your evaluation of how one receives the Holy Spirit rebirth, the "when", the timing so to speak.

When Peter stood up and preached Jesus Christ crucified (Acts 2) and those listening were pricked in their hearts and asked "what shall we do?", did they ask this because unbeknown to them they had been born again while hearing the gospel, or did they ask this because they were not yet born again (saved) and were worried they had condemned themselves by rejecting the Christ?

James, the fact that they consented to Jesus' death is proof they did not believe on Him.

I'm still interested in your answer to my previous questions concerning the receiving of the Holy Spirit when I asked.....

I did answer, in post 97

look at Acts 10, where Peter preached at Cornelius's house. Verse 43 says "while he was still speaking" the Spirit came upon them.

There are several expressions in the NT which tell us what happens

2Tim 2:25 Come to a knowledge of the truth
Gal 3-2 believing what you heard
1Pet 1:23-25 Born again by incorruptible seed, the word of God, the good news

There are others, too. But not without the Holy Spirit convicting of sin and righteousness, and enlightening the mind. Arbitrarily? Not at all. The soil has a responsibility to be receptive (passive, not active) of the seed.

The Holy Spirit is in the world, convicting men and drawing them to Christ. He is not arbitrarily regenerating men, He is drawing men. How? Scripture doesn't say, as fat as specifics. But every believer can look back and recognize that God was "dealing" with him/her (imho).

I rely on Romans 1-4 for how it transpires, at least from our angle. Paul wrote that men are without excuse, that being a Jew didn't help, following the Law is futile. The bottom line of our condition is that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Does a person have to hear this preached, or does the Holy Spirit "deal" with us independently of bad news preached? As far as I know, scripture is silent. I've heard testimonies both ways. Without explicit scriptural truth in the matter, who am I to say? But I always include it.

But He convicts men of sin. In some cases, years before they hear the good news. In my case, I had all the bad news I could handle from my earliest memory.

Then comes the gospel, the good news. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, men come to a knowledge of the truth, born again by incorruptible seed, the word of God which is preached.

That word is that Jesus died, bearing our sins in His body, to reconcile us to God. To redeem us from the Law with its demand for perfect obedience. To free us from the consequences of our sin. To become our substitute in death, to do on our behalf something we could never do for ourselves. To save us.

As the "seed" is strewn about, the devil snatches the word from some, to keep them from believing and becoming saved. How does this work? Deception, confusion, etc. Working to keep them thinking that their own efforts will appease God's righteous judgment. Some, who have been indoctrinated by an effort based "gospel" are offended by the preaching of the cross.

Some want to earn God's grace, while some want to do something to access it. Either one is futile.

For those who aren't rejecting the gospel, they are becoming persuaded. It's an inner persuasion, like an epiphany. The truth is sinking in, and they are becoming convinced. Not because of someone slick presentation of the gospel, but by the work of the Holy Spirit. But through the word which us preached.

They become believers. They don't have to decide, or "accept", or anything else which requires active effort. The Holy Spirit is doing all the work. Man's responsibility is to stop rejecting Christ's efforts on his behalf.

When someone believes the gospel, he has received to seed. Then, the Holy Spirit knowing the condition of each man's heart (soil), and the faith he has in Christ, God credits his faith as righteousness.

It's not by works of a man, it's by the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JamesL]

[FONT=&quot]Luke 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.



There is no way that the word "devout" has any relevance to regeneration or salvation. It means "circumspect," carefully, and the very most describes a religious person like a good Catholic. There is no reference to one who is saved or regenerated.

Compare to eusebes. Look into some lexicons.

You encounter something you've never heard before, and in 3 minutes you've investigated it thoroughly? Real berean you are

 

[steaver]

The Holy Spirit is in the world, convicting men and drawing them to Christ. He is not arbitrarily regenerating men, He is drawing men........

......They become believers. They don't have to decide, or "accept", or anything else which requires active effort. The Holy Spirit is doing all the work. Man's responsibility is to stop rejecting Christ's efforts on his behalf.

This appears to me to be contradictory.

Secondly, would not man's responsibility to stop rejecting equate to a decision to accept?

 

[JamesL]

This appears to me to be contradictory.

Not at all. Arbitrarily would mean He's drawing straws out of a hat, with no responsibility on the part of man. He does do all the work to convince a man of truth. Scripture supports that. Scripture also says (all thru Acts) that some became believers, but others would not

Secondly, would not man's responsibility to stop rejecting equate to a decision to accept?

Only in certain lines of philosophical thought. And that's not a jab. In a beginning philosophy textbook, Philosophy 101, the very first issue is whether believing comes byway of decision or if it is entirely passive.

Scripture never once commands anyone to "decide" to believe, nor is there any mention of anyone deciding to believe the gospel.

All through Acts, we are told that some "became" believers, or that some were being persuaded. It's passive reception of truth.

Like if you always believed the earth is flat, then one day you go up in a rocket ship. As you go up, it will become evident to you that the world is round. You wouldn't have to decide to believe. All you have to "do" is look.

Christ was lifted up to draw all men to Himself, and anyone who looks to Him (believes in Him) will have eternal life - John 3:14, 12:32

 

[DHK]

Compare to eusebes. Look into some lexicons.

You encounter something you've never heard before, and in 3 minutes you've investigated it thoroughly? Real berean you are

In Acts 22:12, Paul recounts how Ananias, a "eulabes" man, laid his hands on him to receive his sight after Paul (Saul) had become a believer.

It is this same "eulabes" which is used to describe the men who were gathered from all the nations in Acts 2. Verse 5 says
Now there were eulabes Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem.

These men, who were waiting for the consolation of Israel, would have been justified by faith before Jesus was crucified. In other words, they were already "saved"

This is just bunk.
You are mixing up the account or events at Pentecost to fit your own theories. There were men of all nations at Pentecost. They were not all devout, particularly those of Judea in which Jerusalem was located. Peter addresses them as wicked: "by wicked hands you took him and slew him." Those words do not describe devout ones who were waiting for the Messiah, or devout ones already justified.
They were the ones who were awaiting their own doom. They had cried out: "Let his blood be upon us and our children." Crucify Him! These men were not devout; not justified at all. Yet these were the ones that Peter was preaching to; that were present on the Day of Pentecost.

It doesn't take me long to look up other resources. They all confirm the same thing that I have already mentioned--"lit. taking hold well" primarily cautious, "cautious," signifies in the NT, "careful as to the realization of the presence and claims of God, reverencing God, pious, devout." (Vince) [Just as a Catholic would do]. It is a religious person, a careful person.
It also has the inference of piety, like most religious people.
That is what the word means. They were devout and not saved.

 

[steaver]

Not at all. Arbitrarily would mean He's drawing straws out of a hat, with no responsibility on the part of man. He does do all the work to convince a man of truth. Scripture supports that. Scripture also says (all thru Acts) that some became believers, but others would not

Would not or could not? Would not declares a decision must be made. And why would they not believe? Did they not all have the same evidence presented to them? Judas walked with Jesus, he was chosen to see all the miracles, even given the power to perform miracles in Jesus' name, yet Judas choose to reject Jesus as the Messiah.

Only in certain lines of philosophical thought. And that's not a jab. In a beginning philosophy textbook, Philosophy 101, the very first issue is whether believing comes byway of decision or if it is entirely passive.

Scripture never once commands anyone to "decide" to believe, nor is there any mention of anyone deciding to believe the gospel.

A command in and of itself is an order to DO something, in this case the command is to believe, thus a decision to obey or not obey must be made.

All through Acts, we are told that some "became" believers, or that some were being persuaded. It's passive reception of truth.

Like if you always believed the earth is flat, then one day you go up in a rocket ship. As you go up, it will become evident to you that the world is round. You wouldn't have to decide to believe. All you have to "do" is look.

Christ was lifted up to draw all men to Himself, and anyone who looks to Him (believes in Him) will have eternal life - John 3:14, 12:32

This doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If a group of people were all presented the exact same evidence and some believed and some did not, then who is to blame for the ones who could not believe? If it is totally passive, then the Holy Spirit fails most of the time. You seem to have concocted this theory in order to appease both positions of Calvinism and Armeniansm. It's not jiving my brother! The Holy Spirit must draw, but Decisions must be made.

 

[JamesL]

Would not or could not? Would not declares a decision must be made. And why would they not believe? Did they not all have the same evidence presented to them? Judas walked with Jesus, he was chosen to see all the miracles, even given the power to perform miracles in Jesus' name, yet Judas choose to reject Jesus as the Messiah.

Would not, and could not. It's not either/or.

What you're doing is trying to press the scenario into something you can understand. Doesn't scripture say lean not on your own understanding? But acknowledge Him?

You're not taking into account the condition of the heart, or the soil. You're also not taking into account God's sovereignty and foreknowledge. Or the power given to Satan to deceive. There's a difference between time and eternity, too.

The question is, are we going to rely upon what scripture tells us, or are we going to bend scripture to fit what we can always comprehend?

The bottom line is that scripture never once says that Judas made a choice to reject Jesus. He was filled with Satan, that much we do know. But he was an exceptional case. Why build up an elaborate doctrine on one exceptional case?

Others build an elaborate doctrine on the exceptional case of John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit in Elizabeth's womb.

A command in and of itself is an order to DO something, in this case the command is to believe, thus a decision to obey or not obey must be made.

Only if philosophy trumps scripture.

If you command a classroom full of students to stop talking, what's the "do" ?
If you command them to listen, what's the "do? ?

There are plenty of scenarios where a command is made, expecting something negative or passive. Commands do not always expect active response

But, the question has to be, what does scripture says? Can you point to any scripture which says there's a "decision" ?

Scripture explicitly says "not by the will of man".

This doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If a group of people were all presented the exact same evidence and some believed and some did not, then who is to blame for the ones who could not believe? If it is totally passive, then the Holy Spirit fails most of the time. You seem to have concocted this theory in order to appease both positions of Calvinism and Armeniansm. It's not jiving my brother! The Holy Spirit must draw, but Decisions must be made.

No, I'm not trying to appease either side of that futile debate. The fact is, this position inflames Calvinists, too.

I don't care about appeasement, or consensus, or philosophical meanderings. I care about one thing.....what sayeth the scriptures?

Do I have a philosophical position on active/passive elements of faith? Of course I do. But my philosophical position has changed several times through the study of scriptures.

 

[steaver]

Would not, and could not. It's not either/or.

What you're doing is trying to press the scenario into something you can understand. Doesn't scripture say lean not on your own understanding? But acknowledge Him?

You're not taking into account the condition of the heart, or the soil. You're also not taking into account God's sovereignty and foreknowledge. Or the power given to Satan to deceive. There's a difference between time and eternity, too.

The question is, are we going to rely upon what scripture tells us, or are we going to bend scripture to fit what we can always comprehend?

The bottom line is that scripture never once says that Judas made a choice to reject Jesus. He was filled with Satan, that much we do know. But he was an exceptional case. Why build up an elaborate doctrine on one exceptional case?

Others build an elaborate doctrine on the exceptional case of John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit in Elizabeth's womb.



Only if philosophy trumps scripture.

If you command a classroom full of students to stop talking, what's the "do" ?
If you command them to listen, what's the "do? ?

There are plenty of scenarios where a command is made, expecting something negative or passive. Commands do not always expect active response

But, the question has to be, what does scripture says? Can you point to any scripture which says there's a "decision" ?

Scripture explicitly says "not by the will of man".




No, I'm not trying to appease either side of that futile debate. The fact is, this position inflames Calvinists, too.

I don't care about appeasement, or consensus, or philosophical meanderings. I care about one thing.....what sayeth the scriptures?

Do I have a philosophical position on active/passive elements of faith? Of course I do. But my philosophical position has changed several times through the study of scriptures.

James, with all due respect, I believe your pov is an island unto itself. It is the first time I have ever heard of it in the past 16 years I have been participating in debates. I find it absolutely in conflict with Scripture.

Is there anyone here on this board agreeing with this pov James has come up with?

James, is there any commentary espousing this pov of yours? Or is this all of your own study?

 

[DHK]

I looked on your profile James. It is public.
After googling your church, here is what is on the site that your church believes:

Steps to Faith ABC's of Saying "Yes" to God...
begins with your desire to respond to His gracious Gift of Jesus Christ.
Discover for yourself life the way it was meant to be. Receive God's Gift today!
Admit that you need a right relationship with God.
Belive that God's Son, Jesus Christ, makes possible your having a right relationship with God.
Confess your sins to God and accept His forgiveness.
Dedicate yourself as a fully devoted follower of Christ.
Express your faith in Christ publicly.
"If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and belileve in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. " Romans 10:10.
If you would like to receive this forgiveness and start a new life by trusting in Christ as your personal Savior and Lord, pray this prayer, "Dear Lord Jesus, I believe that you died on the cross for my sins and that you arose from the grave. I now ask You to forgive me of my sins and save my soul. Lord I now turn from my sinful life and ask you to keep me in my new walk. Amen."
If you prayed this prayer, we would like to help get you off to a good start. Please contact us and share your decision.

You don't seem to agree much with your church do you?

 

[JamesL]

James, with all due respect, I believe your pov is an island unto itself. It is the first time I have ever heard of it in the past 16 years I have been participating in debates. I find it absolutely in conflict with Scripture.

Is there anyone here on this board agreeing with this pov James has come up with?

James, is there any commentary espousing this pov of yours? Or is this all of your own study?

I asked you at least a half dozen questions in my last post. Can you specifically address them with precise answers?

 

[JamesL]

I looked on your profile James. It is public.
After googling your church, here is what is on the site that your church believes:

You don't seem to agree much with your church do you?

First, I know my profile is public.

Second, that is not my "home" church anymore. I have made no secret of that. I was led to a different church several months ago. But my membership is still at FBC Buckner.

Third, no. I do not believe that, and that is/was no secret there, either. I was allowed to lead a bible study there last year, even after submitting an outline of exactly what I planned on teaching. And that pastor, Doug, is still a friend. He met my pastor here in Avondale about two months ago, too.

The phone number is on the website. Call him and ask him about me. I still love the people there, and it is reciprocal.

I was not afraid to voice what I called major concerns. Like the instance of a man coming to the front of the church and "praying the prayer", then being put on the baptismal roll. His baptism was 3 weeks later. That Sunday, in our Sunday School class, the teacher asked him what he thought.

He said, "today is my re-birth day", and the teacher said "awww, that's neat."

After class I asked her...."today is his rebirth day? I thought that happened three weeks ago."

Her jaw just about hit the floor, and her eyes got as big as saucers. I told Doug about that, too. And I voiced a major concern that what they've done is tied works to his rebirth.

If baptism is an outward "profession" of faith, and "confession" is required before one is born again.....

See where this confession nonsense can lead? And if it has the potential to confuse someone, is it really from God?

 

[steaver]

What you're doing is trying to press the scenario into something you can understand. Doesn't scripture say lean not on your own understanding? But acknowledge Him? Yes, so why are you leaning on your own understanding of Scripture?

The question is, are we going to rely upon what scripture tells us, or are we going to bend scripture to fit what we can always comprehend? Rely upon Scripture, so why are you bending it to fit what you cannot comprehend?

The bottom line is that scripture never once says that Judas made a choice to reject Jesus. He was filled with Satan, that much we do know. But he was an exceptional case. Why build up an elaborate doctrine on one exceptional case? I haven't.

If you command a classroom full of students to stop talking, what's the "do" ? Stop talking.
If you command them to listen, what's the "do? Listen.

But, the question has to be, what does scripture says? Can you point to any scripture which says there's a "decision" ? I have pointed to many already, I will not be redundant.

Scripture explicitly says "not by the will of man". Amen!

I don't care about appeasement, or consensus, or philosophical meanderings. I care about one thing.....what sayeth the scriptures? As do we all.

Ok, now you can answer my questions.....

James, with all due respect, I believe your pov is an island unto itself. It is the first time I have ever heard of it in the past 16 years I have been participating in debates. I find it absolutely in conflict with Scripture.

Is there anyone here on this board agreeing with this pov James has come up with?

James, is there any commentary espousing this pov of yours? Or is this all of your own study?

 

[DHK]

First, I know my profile is public.

Second, that is not my "home" church anymore. I have made no secret of that. I was led to a different church several months ago. But my membership is still at FBC Buckner.

Third, no. I do not believe that, and that is/was no secret there, either. I was allowed to lead a bible study there last year, even after submitting an outline of exactly what I planned on teaching. And that pastor, Doug, is still a friend. He met my pastor here in Avondale about two months ago, too.

The phone number is on the website. Call him and ask him about me. I still love the people there, and it is reciprocal.

I was not afraid to voice what I called major concerns. Like the instance of a man coming to the front of the church and "praying the prayer", then being put on the baptismal roll. His baptism was 3 weeks later. That Sunday, in our Sunday School class, the teacher asked him what he thought.

He said, "today is my re-birth day", and the teacher said "awww, that's neat."

After class I asked her...."today is his rebirth day? I thought that happened three weeks ago."

Her jaw just about hit the floor, and her eyes got as big as saucers. I told Doug about that, too. And I voiced a major concern that what they've done is tied works to his rebirth.

If baptism is an outward "profession" of faith, and "confession" is required before one is born again.....

See where this confession nonsense can lead? And if it has the potential to confuse someone, is it really from God?

I am sincerely glad that you left something that you cannot agree with. I trust you are now in a church that agrees with you, or that you at least have some agreement with their doctrine.

I outlined for you the entire chapter of Romans chapter 10.
It is a great missionary chapter. You must have heard many evangelistic sermons, and perhaps missionaries preach from it.

It is hard to get away from Rom.10:9,10; the basic teaching where:
[FONT=&quot]Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.[/FONT]
--That confession is prayer is it not? Prayer takes many forms. It is not just worshipful praise and adoration.
--Request, petition, asking, confessing, praising, thanking, etc.
Requesting Christ to come into your heart is prayer. Confessing him as Paul did on the road to Damascus is prayer.

Now to the point on baptism. One can rightly exegete baptism about its symbolic meaning about being dead to a life of sin, and rising again to a new life in Christ. But is it more than that?
Is it also "an outward profession of faith"?
If you lived in the first century, yes. If you lived in an Islamic nation, yes.
If you live in America where you have freedom of religion and freedom to practice it in the privacy of your own church, then perhaps not. No one is going to stone you, put you to death, persecute you, etc.

In the first century when a person was baptized that is how they knew they were believers; not simply by association, but mostly by baptism. There were 3,000 baptized on the Day of Pentecost. I am sure that Saul was there noting who he could start persecuting for they all were formerly Jews.

Anyone in an Islamic nation that is baptized is making an outward confession of Christianity. They are basically receiving a death sentence. Somewhere some Muslim is watching. In the villages they don't have churches with "baptistries." They are too poor to build churches. They meet in the open. They baptize in the rivers. It is an open confession of their faith, one of the most difficult they will ever take in their lives.
Put things in their context before you say it is not an open confession of faith. It was. For persecuted Christians everywhere it still is.

Paul told Timothy:
All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Perhaps the problem is that there are not many living godly lives in western nations. They avoid persecution.

 

[JamesL]

I am sincerely glad that you left something that you cannot agree with. I trust you are now in a church that agrees with you, or that you at least have some agreement with their doctrine.

I outlined for you the entire chapter of Romans chapter 10.
It is a great missionary chapter. You must have heard many evangelistic sermons, and perhaps missionaries preach from it.

It is hard to get away from Rom.10:9,10; the basic teaching where:
[FONT=&quot]Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.[/FONT]
--That confession is prayer is it not? Prayer takes many forms. It is not just worshipful praise and adoration.
--Request, petition, asking, confessing, praising, thanking, etc.
Requesting Christ to come into your heart is prayer. Confessing him as Paul did on the road to Damascus is prayer.

Now to the point on baptism. One can rightly exegete baptism about its symbolic meaning about being dead to a life of sin, and rising again to a new life in Christ. But is it more than that?
Is it also "an outward profession of faith"?
If you lived in the first century, yes. If you lived in an Islamic nation, yes.
If you live in America where you have freedom of religion and freedom to practice it in the privacy of your own church, then perhaps not. No one is going to stone you, put you to death, persecute you, etc.

In the first century when a person was baptized that is how they knew they were believers; not simply by association, but mostly by baptism. There were 3,000 baptized on the Day of Pentecost. I am sure that Saul was there noting who he could start persecuting for they all were formerly Jews.

Anyone in an Islamic nation that is baptized is making an outward confession of Christianity. They are basically receiving a death sentence. Somewhere some Muslim is watching. In the villages they don't have churches with "baptistries." They are too poor to build churches. They meet in the open. They baptize in the rivers. It is an open confession of their faith, one of the most difficult they will ever take in their lives.
Put things in their context before you say it is not an open confession of faith. It was. For persecuted Christians everywhere it still is.

Paul told Timothy:
All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Perhaps the problem is that there are not many living godly lives in western nations. They avoid persecution.

I didn't leave a church I don't agree with. I was told explicitly by God to come to where I am currently. He told me almost 5 years ago that I would be here. I waited for Him to open the doors, and it was three major moves. First, my son's school transfer. Then change of residence. I was really content to drive 45 minutes to continue there for as long as God saw fit, and we did for several months. Then God told me it was time.

My current pastor was very adamant that he would not receive anyone who was running away from a different congregation, that my spiritual authority was in Buckner, and that authority is from God.

I agreed wholeheartedly. Where I "attend" is not by choice, it is by God's leading. That goes for FBC Buckner as well as where I'm at now. And I was heartbroken to be led from there - but at the same time, very excited for what I knew God wanted form me here.

As for Romans 10, the context is not conversion, as can be demonstrated through various elements in the chapter. But, most people can't "see" it because of a narrow view of salvation. I lead our Wednesday night bible study, and we spent 6 or 7 weeks going through it. People couldn't get past the words "saved" and "salvation"

There's a major confusion, a thinking that "saved" only means saved from hell