So, you don't understand. You don't see it. By all encompassing you mean "add" works - additions or modifications to salvation through belief/faith in contradiction to scripture. (Romans 4:5-6; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9)
At what point in our salvation is the blood of Christ applied?
- Thread starter Beckworth
- 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.
It is you who is insisting that these verses mean faith is the definitive, all-encompassing and absolute requirement for salvation without the verbiage being in the passage. In other words you are taking these general statements of the need for faith and modifying them by adding the "alone" into its meaning without the proper verbiage from the author.
This is the irony of your statement. You are railing against adding or modifying these verses but it is you who is doing the supplementing.
This is your blind spot. I simply accept these verses as written without the need to supplement its meaning. You do not.
We are not saved by works but by obedience to the Word of God.
If obedience to the Word of God is a work of merit then label me guilty.
If someone states that the proper amount of postage is needed to mail a personal letter, does this make it a all-encompassing requirement? Of course not.
A proper address would be needed as well.
I understand your loyalty to Faith Alone Regeneration Theology (I was once in the Campus Crusade for Christ) but it is a theology without an example (alone).
You are making this out to be much more complicated than it really is. Try not to over think it. Faith that saves involves belief, trust, reliance in Jesus Christ alone for salvation which means we are trusting in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation and not in Jesus Christ + something else.
We are saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9) and not through faith and works. Obedience which "follows" having been saved through faith is works. You can't have it both ways. If obedience/works which "follow" salvation through faith become the basis or means by which we receive salvation then those works become works of merit. This is your blind spot.
Your statement - "We are not saved by works but by obedience to the Word of God" is an OXYMORON unless you are talking about the act of obedience that saves us which is choosing to believe the gospel. (Romans 1:16; 10:16) Not to be confused with multiple acts of obedience/works which "follow."
? from you how to be new, born again, led by God Father in God Father's Spirit, thanks
Being born again, new from God Father in there risen Son Jesus
New life is a gift, those that God gives to see it are those that are sincere in it. Not caring to use it for any self gain
You ask, you do not get, why? Could it be, one, anyone might desire to spend it on their own pleasures?
That be in James
That above is what you asked, revealed by God not me, as God reveals it to whoever is sincere, and not those that will use it for any self gain
Answered, answered again John 4:23-24, John 19:30, Hebrews 9:14-17
What is the problem, did I share anything that came out of my pastors mouth???
Yea I did, but the same things' came out of JESUS mouth!!!!
I could certainly say the same for you.
I believe this is the crux of the matter.
You like many in the Faith Alone Regeneration Theology groups are fixated on trusting in this theology, even to the absurd.
Jesus said many things about faith but none of your verses is all-encompassing in nature. Because there are none.
Your theology may be all-encompassing but your verses are not. This is the missing card that causes the Faith Alone Regeneration Theology house to crumble.
This is the issue with your theology, you forget that you are pushing not faith regeneration but faith alone regeneration.
You are pushing faith alone to the point of negating other commands about salvation. You have become the modern day version of the Sadducees.
Obedience does not "follow" salvation anymore then the walls of Jericho fell before the Hebrews obeyed the commands of God.
Obedience does not "follow" salvation anymore then Peter finding the coin in the mouth of the fish before casting the line.
Obedience is not something we do only "because of" but also "in order to".
Followers of Faith Alone Regeneration Theology do not get to choose what is to be obeyed and what is an option.
The Word of God certainly does not teach Faith Alone Regeneration Theology, I know I looked for it.
Precious friend, so then what theology do we use in order to understand, 'trust and obey'
ALL(?) of the following harmoniously?:
I have decided to follow Jesus?
Amen.
Its really simple and not complicated. That salvation is by grace through faith and is not by works is not hard to understand. (Ephesians 2:8,9) It's just hard for works-salvationists to ACCEPT. It's a shame that human pride will not allow works-salvationists to place their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. (Romans 4:5-6) Their hands are full of their works, and they will not let go in order to receive Christ through faith.
There is nothing absurd about the simplicity of the gospel. (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) Works-salvation regeneration groups (including Roman Catholics and Mormons) are fixated on trusting in works for salvation (and not in Jesus Christ alone) with a heavy emphasis on water baptism. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21)
Feel free to elaborate further. Are you talking about what precedes faith, like repentance (Acts 20:21) or what follows belief/faith, like water baptism? (Acts 10:43-47)
You seem determined to "shoehorn" works "into" salvation through faith, not works. The faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation theology house is on the Rock. (Ephesians 2:8,9) Works-salvation/works righteousness theology is on sinking sand. (Romans 4:5-6; 11:6; Philippians 3:9)
Faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation regeneration. Works-salvationists only seem to understand the word "alone" meaning an empty profession of faith/dead faith that remains alone/barren of works (James 2:14) and cannot seem to grasp a deeper faith that trusts in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. It's no wonder these folks have so much faith in works for salvation.
Which commands am I negating? Modern day version of the Sadducees? Really?
Obedience/good works do follow having been saved through faith. (Ephesians 2:8-10) The Hebrews obeyed, and the walls of Jericho fell. The Hebrews did not receive the gift of eternal life for marching around the walls of Jericho. So, flawed logic.
More flawed logic.
Your idea of obedience culminates in works salvation. False religion turns symbols and shadows of salvation into the substance and the source.
In regard to your pet verse (Acts 2:38) Greek scholar AT Robertson explains: Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson authored Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he said, - “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So, I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Genuine believers who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation understand the difference between what is to be obeyed in order to become saved (Acts 10:43) and what is to be obeyed after we have been saved. (Acts 10:47-48) Works-salvationists do not understand. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
The Word of God does not teach salvation by works or baptismal regeneration heresy. The gospel is hidden to those who do not believe. (2 Corinthians 4:3,4)
The word "alone" is in connection with the object of our faith which is Jesus Christ alone for salvation. It's not faith + works. What part of "his faith is accounted for righteousness" and "God imputes righteousness apart from works" (Romans 4:5-6) along with "saved by grace through faith, not works" (Ephesians 2:8,9) are you having a hard time understanding? I'm not implying that faith is not all encompassing in the sense that nothing "preceded" faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17) We must first hear before we can repent (change our mind) and place our faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Two sides to the same coin. So, repentance also "precedes" faith. (Acts 20:21) It's by God's grace (unmerited favor) that we are saved through faith (not faith and works, hence faith, rightly understood, in Jesus Christ alone for salvation). So, hearing the word, repentance and God's grace are not negated in regard to salvation through faith. Is that what is bothering you? Or are you more concerned with turning water baptism into a "prerequisite" for salvation and including the work of baptism "into" salvation through faith? False religions and cults place a heavy emphasis on water baptism for salvation, yet water baptism actually "follows" salvation through belief/faith. (Acts 10:43-47)
I'm railing against adding or modifying these verses to result in salvation through belief/faith AND works in contradiction to scripture. (Romans 4:2-6; 5:1-2; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9 etc..).
These same folks will say we are saved by "these" works and just not "those" works and teach salvation by faith + their personal definition of non-meritorious works.
You previously said that you attend the FAC Pentecostal church. My research on the "First Apostolic Pentecostal church" concludes that they teach a "Oneness" doctrine, emphasizing a single God manifested as Jesus Christ, (non-Trinitarian) and requires water baptism in Jesus' name (only valid formula) and baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues as necessary for salvation.
Do you confirm or deny?
Why would I denier it, IT'S ALL BIBLE.
Matter of fact I'm proud to be a JESUS follower.
So, it's confirmed. You are DECEIVED. You have a different Jesus, a different spirit and a different gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4) that you put up with easily enough.
So tell me how.So, it's confirmed. You are DECEIVED. You have a different Jesus, a different spirit and a different gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4) that you put up with easily enough.
In your view, Jesus is not a distinct divine person but a temporary manifestation of God the Father. Your view rejects the Trinity, which holds there is one God in essence/nature in three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Biblical accounts show the Father sending the Son, Jesus praying to the Father, the Father sending the Holy Spirit, which shows three distinct persons and not one person appearing in different ways. Modalism views the Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit as different manifestations or modes of a single, one-person God, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead. This means that Jesus is not a separate, eternal Son of God, but rather the Father appearing in the mode of a man. This understanding conflicts with the Biblical portrayal of distinct, inter-personal relationships between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
A different spirit refers to spiritual influence or teaching that is not from the Holy Spirit and leads people to believe in a false Christ and a corrupt gospel. It's a deceptive spiritual power that opposes the true Spirit of God which is the Spirit of truth. This different spirit is associated with false prophets and teachers who promote a different Jesus and a different gospel (a false gospel) rather than the true Jesus and the true gospel as preached by the apostle Paul.
The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) To "believe" the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. Your "different" gospel "adds" water baptism in Jesus' name only along with speaking in tongues as a prerequisite for salvation. Speaking in tongues is not the all-inclusive evidence that one is filled with the Holy Spirit. We see that John the Baptist, his mother Elizabeth, and his father Zacharias are all described as being filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15, 41, 67) yet in each case, it is related to clear proclamations they would make rather than speaking in tongues. Peter also spoke with boldness in Acts 4:8.
In the book of Acts we see another example - "And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness." (Acts 4:31) They are filled with the Holy Spirit, and the result is speaking the word of God with boldness, not speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is not the necessary evidence for all that one is filled with the Holy Spirit for all. Members of the New Apostolic Pentecostal church need to be freed from a false gospel taught by false prophets. Freedom is found in the simple message of saving grace contained in the true gospel of Jesus Christ. (Acts 15:7-9; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 15:1-4)
Total agree.
Hard to comment since I have never met anyone who claimed to be "works-salvationists". I have known many Roman Catholics and Mormons but none of them claimed to be working to merit their salvation. It seems you are simply painting them as such because they do not hold to your particular faith (rightly understood) alone regeneration theology.
The Word of God links repentance and water baptism to the moment of the gift of the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins, not I
I do not believe in "works salvation" but if you are implying that obedience to repentance and water baptism as "works" for the receiving of the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins then yes I am guilty.
The only "shoehorning" is you by adding and modifying your verses by supplementing the definitive "alone" into the passages.
Again, I have never met anyone who calls themselves "work-salvationist" but I am sure you have labeled many people as such.
Since you have added "alone" into every one of your verses then you are negating any and all commands.
It is not flawed logic, it is you not wanting to see the logical parallel to protect your theology.
The Hebrews received the promise for their obedience. Peter received the promise for his obedience.
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Regardless of what the promise is, it is granted at the point of obedience.
Your argument from authority falls flat and reeks of desperation. There is nothing in the verbiage of this passage to suggest such a translation hence the lack of it in the Bible.
Only a person with a disposition to believe faith alone regeneration theology would accept such a convoluted understanding.
I doubt you would accept this reasoning in other passages in the Bible, lets try.
This verse has the same sentence structure as Acts 2:38.
Luke 5:4
When he finished speaking to the crowds, he said to Simon, “Row out farther, into the deep water, and drop your nets for a catch.”
So why did Peter row out to the deep water and drop his nets?
a. "Because of" the fish he already had?
or
b. "In order to" catch the fish he did not have?
If you are intellectually honest you will answer b.
Be honest, mailmandan.
Here is the verse:
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
What defines a faith that is dead is the lack of works.
James clearly states that faith alone can not save.
Therefore faith alone regeneration theology can not save.
***In other words, it is not the empty profession of faith that does not save, it is the lack of works that does not save.***
We may debate what works must be done but not the need for them to be done.
You see this as convincing?
Here is Mr. Robertson's commentary on this subject:
Unto the remission of your sins (εις αφεσιν των αμαρτιων υμων). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of εις does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 εις δοξαν ημων (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of εις for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples εις ονομα προφητου, δικαιου, μαθητου where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (εις το κηρυγμα Ιωνα). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.
Anyone reading these 14 sentences can see the bias of the author. The following states it all.
One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.
There are no Bibles that translate Acts 2:38 in the way this gentleman is suggesting!!!
You say that you totally agree, but then you "add" the work of water baptism to salvation through faith, not works, anyway, and so do Roman Catholics and Mormons.
Don't let them fool you. Both groups clearly teach salvation by faith AND WORKS.
I once told a Roman Catholic that we are saved by grace, through faith, not works, and he responded by saying, "I know that." But after we discussed it, a little further, I realized what that Roman Catholic actually taught was that we are saved by grace through faith "infused with works" (good works and just not works on the law) and then those good works become meritorious towards receiving salvation. Here is what that Roman Catholic said to me:
We are saved by faith as long as you properly define "faith." Faith is not simply "believing". Faith includes: (here comes the works!) Being water baptized, eating His body and drinking His blood/partaking the Lord's Supper during Mass, works of mercy and charity, obeying His commandments, etc..
Roman Catholics try to "shoe horn" works "into" salvation through faith, not works and still try to call it salvation through"faith," even though it's salvation through AND works.
https://www.justforcatholics.org/a14.htm
Mormons teach that salvation is a combination of Gods grace through Jesus Christ's atonement in an individual's faith repentance, obedience to the gospel's laws. And ordinances and righteous actions or works. While God's grace is considered essential and primary, they believe that a person's own diligent effort to live a righteous life is also necessary to qualify for exaltation or the highest degree of salvation. Mormons even believe in three different levels of glory in heaven, celestial terrestrial and telestial. Joseph Smith "added" the word "telestial" in his so called "inspired" version of the Bible in Corinthians 15:40 in order to reach his conclusion on that false doctrine.
Repentance (change of mind) is not a work, but water baptism is a work that you turned into a prerequisite for salvation. You believe we are saved by faith "plus water baptism" (works). Even if you only believe that we are saved by works "in part" you are still a works-salvationist.
Unlike you, along with Roman Catholics and Mormons, I don't try to "shoehorn" works "into" salvation through faith, not works I understand that we are saved by grace through faith, not works.
Certain works-salvationists define works salvation as salvation by perfectly obeying the law of Moses,
but that is not the only form of works salvation. It only takes one work "added" to salvation through faith (like water baptism) to still make you a works-salvationist. It's either salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone or else it's salvation by faith + works. You can't have it both ways.
Not at all. What is the one condition that alone results in receiving eternal life in every one of those verses that I quoted? You don't need to spell out the word "alone" next to belief/faith in all of those verses in order to figure this out.
I'm protecting gospel truth.
What obedience was that and how much obedience "in addition to faith" did it take?
In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
No desperation on my part. Just flawed Hermeneutics on your part. The only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
Biblical Hermeneutics are on my side. Work-salvationalists typically hang their hat on a few pet verses, while ignoring the multitude of verses that destroy their case. Such folks are more interested in accommodating their biased church doctrine than they are in seriously considering the truth.
I accept that salvation is by grace through faith and is not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9) and to believe anything else is to miss salvation.
Luke 5:4
When he finished speaking to the crowds, he said to Simon, “Row out farther, into the deep water, and drop your nets for a catch.”
So why did Peter row out to the deep water and drop his nets?
a. "Because of" the fish he already had?
or
b. "In order to" catch the fish he did not have?
If you are intellectually honest you will answer b.
Be honest, mailmandan.[/QUOTE] Repentance is for "in order to obtain" the remission of sins, just as it is in Acts 3:19, but not baptism, so save me your sales pitch.
As Greek scholar AT Robertson stated: Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson authored Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he said, - “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Now in Matthew 3:11, we read - I baptize you with water "for" repentance.. Was this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance? OR was this baptism for "in regard to/on the basis of" remission of sins received upon repentance? Getting water baptized in order to obtain repentance makes no sense at all. Repentance "precedes" water baptism.[/QUOTE]