Are gifts evidence of salvation?
- Thread starter Lamar
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matt 7:22-23 (KJV)
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 1 Cor 13:1 (KJV)
Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. Acts 19:13-16 (KJV)
God's promise in Scripture, "hath everlasting life", is all the proof that a believer in Christ needs in order to know he's saved.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matt 7:22-23 (KJV)
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 1 Cor 13:1 (KJV)
Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. Acts 19:13-16 (KJV)
God's promise in Scripture, "hath everlasting life", is all the proof that a believer in Christ needs in order to know he's saved.
-
1
- Show all
Follow that same link on post #148 and see post #2.
A common argument used in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the Old Testament mandate before Jesus died.
So let's see, after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." and before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, while still under the old testament mandate, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
So, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or was it or FOR (in regard to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? It would have to be the latter in order to agree with the Old Testament mandate argument. In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. Now did John baptize with water "in order to obtain" repentance or FOR (in regard to/on the basis of) repentance? Obviously, the latter.
Whatever baptism is "for" in Acts 2:38, it's "for" in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 - "in regard to" remission of sins received upon repentance. So, the water baptism is not necessary for salvation under the Old Testament mandate but is necessary for salvation under the New Testament mandate argument doesn't hold water.
Under the old testament and the new testament mandate, salvation is through belief/faith "apart from water baptism" (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43-47; 11:17-18; 13:39; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
A common argument used in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the Old Testament mandate before Jesus died.
So let's see, after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." and before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, while still under the old testament mandate, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
So, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or was it or FOR (in regard to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? It would have to be the latter in order to agree with the Old Testament mandate argument. In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. Now did John baptize with water "in order to obtain" repentance or FOR (in regard to/on the basis of) repentance? Obviously, the latter.
Whatever baptism is "for" in Acts 2:38, it's "for" in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 - "in regard to" remission of sins received upon repentance. So, the water baptism is not necessary for salvation under the Old Testament mandate but is necessary for salvation under the New Testament mandate argument doesn't hold water.
Under the old testament and the new testament mandate, salvation is through belief/faith "apart from water baptism" (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43-47; 11:17-18; 13:39; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
Where does scripture support that? It doesn't. If you die while still in sin, you are lost, not saved since upon baptism your sins are remitted per Acts 2:38. Jesus was clear and unequivocal in the cited scripture, Mark 16:15-16. Both words are inextricably tied together, one dependent upon the other; belief + baptism to be saved.
DJT_47,
You are quite correct and is obvious to most. But.......
Many here are neck deep into faith alone regeneration theology and hence cannot see past their church bias. You are simply banging your head against a brick wall. But your effort is noble.
You are quite correct and is obvious to most. But.......
Many here are neck deep into faith alone regeneration theology and hence cannot see past their church bias. You are simply banging your head against a brick wall. But your effort is noble.
By the way, did you pay for the licensed reproduction use of that copyrighted image that has the watermark registered trademark? Just curious...
MM
There is no need to present an argument until someone can prove that the thief was not baptized for the remission of sins. IOW, the question is moot. Claiming the promise given to the thief on the cross for yourself is like claiming the promise given to King Hezekiah (2nd Kings 20:5-6).
The promises of King Hezekiah and the thief on the cross were never given to us.
Their promises cannot be used to negate the promises given to us in Acts 2:38-39:
38 Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. 39 This promise belongs to you and to your children and to everyone who is far away. It belongs to everyone who worships the Lord our God.”
The promises of King Hezekiah and the thief on the cross were never given to us.
Their promises cannot be used to negate the promises given to us in Acts 2:38-39:
38 Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. 39 This promise belongs to you and to your children and to everyone who is far away. It belongs to everyone who worships the Lord our God.”
What other conclusion is left to one when water baptism is upheld as the means to eternal life? What are they saying, then if you wouldn't mind elaborating?
If we go along with the over-simplistic interpretation style applied to the water baptism dogma divorced from systematic study of what ALL scripture has to say on the matter, then we would also have to partake in a ceremony of walking through a door with Jesus' name written on it to be saved as well:
John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Or we could believe that there must also be a formal ceremony additive depicting grace:
Acts 15:11 KJV] 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
And that communion must also be a formula item as well before one is saved:
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
I also didn't see any mention of the following in that formula posted by another member, so does it mean that leaving any one of these items out nullifies one's salvation?
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Here is another example of where simplisticism runs aground of doctrinal catastrophe, with no mention of faith in Christ or water baptism.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
I wouldn't pat myself on the back so easily...
So, given all those other elements that point to the acquisition of being saved, which ones are valid, not valid, one, or all? The salvation formulas presented thus far simply don't jive with the scriptures, even though some love chirping about how biblical they are where others are not. Which is it? What is it? The cacophony is deafening!
MM
If we go along with the over-simplistic interpretation style applied to the water baptism dogma divorced from systematic study of what ALL scripture has to say on the matter, then we would also have to partake in a ceremony of walking through a door with Jesus' name written on it to be saved as well:
John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Or we could believe that there must also be a formal ceremony additive depicting grace:
Acts 15:11 KJV] 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
And that communion must also be a formula item as well before one is saved:
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
I also didn't see any mention of the following in that formula posted by another member, so does it mean that leaving any one of these items out nullifies one's salvation?
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Here is another example of where simplisticism runs aground of doctrinal catastrophe, with no mention of faith in Christ or water baptism.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
I wouldn't pat myself on the back so easily...
So, given all those other elements that point to the acquisition of being saved, which ones are valid, not valid, one, or all? The salvation formulas presented thus far simply don't jive with the scriptures, even though some love chirping about how biblical they are where others are not. Which is it? What is it? The cacophony is deafening!
MM
-
1
- Show all
Yes, I did indeed point out in a previous post that BOTH of the thieves had reviled Christ, which points to the fact that those who believe he was previously water baptized must prove that he had abandoned his public declaration of an inner work already done...no, wait. That can't be! After all, John himself point this out:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
Hey, that means that I wasn't saved by physical water, but rather through the baptism of Holy Spirit and with fire. I haven't seen the formula gang talking about the latter. The physical water was outward evidence of my repentance, and that baptism with what the eyes cannot see is that inner work through which one is BORN AGAIN:
John 3:3, 7
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. ...
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
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.
We also have this:
1 John 2:26-27
26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
So, the lurkers here who have not or do not comment, we have Holy Spirit to teach us in the midst of all this noise and bickering so that we all have access to the same Source for all Truth.
MM
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
Hey, that means that I wasn't saved by physical water, but rather through the baptism of Holy Spirit and with fire. I haven't seen the formula gang talking about the latter. The physical water was outward evidence of my repentance, and that baptism with what the eyes cannot see is that inner work through which one is BORN AGAIN:
John 3:3, 7
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. ...
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
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.
We also have this:
1 John 2:26-27
26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
So, the lurkers here who have not or do not comment, we have Holy Spirit to teach us in the midst of all this noise and bickering so that we all have access to the same Source for all Truth.
MM
-
1
- Show all
The first question anybody should ask themselves is- "Is my so-called 'gift' from God or from Satan?"..
Before assuming such a thing, I would ask if it is even supernatural.
The majority of claims of supernatural events are simply loosely interpreted mundane events or glossolalia.
-
1
- Show all
'
Eternal salvation for the sinner is the same in all eras of human history: by grace, though faith, not of works. That includes Hezekiah and the thief.
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Gen 15:6 (KJV)
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse ... Gal 3:8-10 (KJV)
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:29 (KJV)
Eternal salvation for the sinner is the same in all eras of human history: by grace, though faith, not of works. That includes Hezekiah and the thief.
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Gen 15:6 (KJV)
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse ... Gal 3:8-10 (KJV)
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:29 (KJV)
What you and your buddy are missing is that if Jesus was alive the NT had nor taken effect yet which is clear discussed on the Hebrew letter that I pointed out since it states that a testament is not in force until the death of the testator, Jesus.
In regards to baptism, it's a moot point, since the requirement of baptism as relates to salvation did not take effect likewise until after the death of Christ. You couldn't be baptized into Christ or his death if he were still living. What this means, as relates to the forgiven thief, is that Jesus forgave him as he did others during his earthly ministry such as the adulterous woman. His forgiveness has nothing to do with OT law, it was simply done as Jesus determined it to be while the OT was in effect. Even if the thief was baptized, it would have been unto John's baptism which wasn't a one time event as being baptized into Christ is. John's baptism would have had to been repeated upon committing new sin, not so with baptism into Christ.
The baptism of the Holy Ghost happened to the apostles on the day of Pentecost as promised to them by Jesus as part of the power from on high as recorded in Luke 24:49. That baptism was unique to them. Gifts of the Spirit were subsequently manifested by the laying on of the apostle's hands.
Who was Matt 3:11 being addressed to? Go back to 3:7; the Sadducees and Pharisees, and John referred to them as a generation of vipers! So, what does Matt 3:11 really mean?
In regards to baptism, it's a moot point, since the requirement of baptism as relates to salvation did not take effect likewise until after the death of Christ. You couldn't be baptized into Christ or his death if he were still living. What this means, as relates to the forgiven thief, is that Jesus forgave him as he did others during his earthly ministry such as the adulterous woman. His forgiveness has nothing to do with OT law, it was simply done as Jesus determined it to be while the OT was in effect. Even if the thief was baptized, it would have been unto John's baptism which wasn't a one time event as being baptized into Christ is. John's baptism would have had to been repeated upon committing new sin, not so with baptism into Christ.
The baptism of the Holy Ghost happened to the apostles on the day of Pentecost as promised to them by Jesus as part of the power from on high as recorded in Luke 24:49. That baptism was unique to them. Gifts of the Spirit were subsequently manifested by the laying on of the apostle's hands.
Who was Matt 3:11 being addressed to? Go back to 3:7; the Sadducees and Pharisees, and John referred to them as a generation of vipers! So, what does Matt 3:11 really mean?