Welcome to the party — it won’t take you long to spot the heretics around here. I’ve been calling out their nonsense since the day I joined this forum.
Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View
- Thread starter LightBearer316
- 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.
You’re overcomplicating something Scripture makes simple. God isn’t just the “original cause” — He’s the only cause when it comes to regeneration and transformation. Our cooperation doesn’t create the change; it responds to it. Philippians 2:13 KJV says it plainly: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
When you start dividing “original cause” and “secondary cause,” you’re not doing exegesis anymore — you’re building theology out of philosophy.
Grace and Peace
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
This still doesn't have the conformity as the result of the activity of man. Outward conformity does not cause inward conformity. Inward conformity engenders outward conformity.
Putting on conformity never results in greater inward conformity. All inward conformity is the result of the activity of God.
The bible never defines two aspects ... smh
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. Romans 5:10
Nope. Only that inward growth has taken place.
Actually, Romans 5:10 KJV is precisely defining two aspects — reconciliation and salvation — and even separates them by tense and cause:
“We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son…” — that’s the completed work of the cross (past tense).
“…much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” — that’s the ongoing result of His resurrected life (future tense).
Paul distinguishes between being reconciled (relationship restored through His death) and being saved (life imparted through His resurrection). You can’t erase that grammatical and theological distinction just because it doesn’t fit your system — the verse itself draws the line.
Grace and Peace
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
You are such a DISHONEST and DECEPTIVE person. You clearly took your statement out of context.
What I Actually Said
In my original post (post #1339), my line was:
“If He isn’t raised, justification fails and salvation collapses with it — because they’re inseparably linked.”
I was not saying justification alone fails to save — I was pointing out that Christ’s resurrection is essential for both justification and salvation to exist at all. My argument was about the necessity of the resurrection, not about adding works or multiple steps to salvation.
What @ChristRoseFromTheDead Twisted It Into
He replied:
“I’m glad you agree justification alone doesn’t save.”
That’s a misrepresentation. He ignored my actual point — that justification and salvation are inseparable because both depend on Christ’s resurrection — and reframed it as if I had affirmed his view that justification by faith alone isn’t sufficient.
In other words, he cherry-picked my words and recast them to prop up his works-based framework, stripping away the resurrection context that was central to your argument.
That kind of reply just proves how disingenuous his approach is, @ChristRoseFromTheDead.
I never said justification alone doesn’t save — I said both justification and salvation stand or fall together because they depend on Christ’s resurrection (1 Cor 15:17 KJV).
Twisting that into something else is either deliberately misleading. Stick to what was actually written.
That’s not what I said, and you know it.
My point was that justification and salvation are inseparably linked because both depend on Christ’s resurrection (1 Cor 15:17 KJV).
If He isn’t raised, neither justification nor salvation exists — that’s not denying justification by faith; it’s affirming that its power rests entirely in the risen Christ, not in our performance.
Grace and Peace
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
Justification doesn't depend on the resurrection at all. It is based on Christ's death. Salvation is based on justification and the resurrection.
No interest in discussing the view that God changes us so we can believe. Just commenting in what looked like some potential confusion.
575 commands just in the epistles as I recall. Some limit his commands to Christians as just being "descriptive" - obedience not really required.
This proves how little you know about theology! You are not even qualified to speak on this subject! That reply from ChristRoseFromTheDead (“Justification doesn’t depend on the resurrection at all…”) is so biblically and theologically incorrect, and I can expose it cleanly.
That’s a stunning admission, because it flatly contradicts Romans 4:25 KJV:
“Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”
Paul couldn’t be clearer — justification depends on the resurrection.
If Christ stayed dead, there’s no justification, no imputed righteousness, no completed redemption — only an unpaid verdict.
To claim “justification doesn’t depend on the resurrection” is to gut the very foundation of the gospel. The cross pays for sin, but the resurrection proves it was accepted and declares us righteous before God (cf. 1 Cor 15:17 KJV).
Without the resurrection, you don’t have justification — you have a corpse and a cancelled gospel.
Your claim is not a matter of opinion—it contradicts Scripture.
“Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” — Romans 4:25 KJV
“If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” — 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV
Saving faith itself includes believing “that God hath raised Him from the dead.” — Romans 10:9 KJV
Christ’s death paid the penalty; His resurrection is the Father’s public verdict that the payment was accepted and righteousness is imputed. If justification doesn’t depend on the resurrection, Paul’s statements above make no sense—one could be “justified” and yet still “in sins.” Scripture says the opposite.
So no, this isn’t about my “theology”; it’s about biblical text. Your statement collapses under Romans 4:25 KJV and 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV. If you disagree, show how your view fits those verses as written.
Grace and Peace
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
This is your opinion which fits your systematic theology.
Strawman tactic again. A few posts ago I agreed that they are not "synonyms." Nor are they "identical"
Making obedience = work then using Rom4:5 to say obedience/work is not faith likely involves 3 fallacies being used to misinterpret Scripture.
I've explained how James in James2:17 & 24 and the verses between them refute your concept of faith-alone.
If you're inferring that I've said obedience defines faith, you'll need to point me to that statement. I does help to define and clarify that faith by itself is not genuine faith and is dead.
At least 4 more fallacies in your closing statement.
This is repetitive in content and fallacy. Anything new?
I wasn't referring to that so no worries. I was responding directly to inward change as a consequence of outward behavior. It's the cart before the horse. No physical behavior has ever brought inward change. The material doesn't impact the immaterial. It works the other way around. Putting on physical clothing doesn't change the heart of an individual, but changing the heart of an individual may well lead to his putting on different clothing.
Your reply clearly tries to blur your precise exegetical distinction by reframing it as a “systematic theology opinion,” when in fact I supported it with Greek lexical evidence and direct Pauline syntax.
You keep calling this “systematic theology,” but I literally cited the Greek terms Paul used — that’s textual exegesis, not theology-by-system.
πίστις (pistis, faith) ≠ ὑπακοή (hypakoē, obedience).
Paul never treats them as synonyms. Faith is the root; obedience is the fruit that flows from it.
Romans 1:5 and 16:26 both use ὑπακοὴ πίστεως (“obedience of faith”), not “obedience as faith.”
Romans 4:5 makes the contrast explicit:
“To him that worketh not, but believeth…”
That’s belief apart from works or obedience as a condition.
James 2 doesn’t contradict Paul — he’s exposing dead faith, not redefining faith as obedience. Living faith naturally acts, but action isn’t what faith is.
So no, this isn’t “systematic theology.” It’s straight Greek grammar and context. Your response dodges that by labeling it “fallacy” instead of engaging the text.
Grace and Peace
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
lol, first off, why are you always addressing the audience instead of the person you're replying to? It's really funny
Secondly, Mr Expert, this is what that verse really says
Who was delivered through (dia) our offences, and was raised again through (dia) our justification. Romans 4:25
So on both accounts the action is based on the existent state of something else. In other words, Jesus was raised on account of, or through, our justification, not for our justification. The justification already existed; Jesus wasn't raised to make it happen.You need to stop spending so much time on Typinator and Logos commentaires and start learning some Greek.
God is the original cause, and yes in this sense the only true cause.
But obedience to God's commands and doing what He says in effect become part of the cooperative cause of completing what God has graciously given and continues to graciously do in working in His Children (Phil2:13) in cooperatively completing salvation (Phil2:12) where they are commanded to accomplish by work their salvation with fear and trembling.
There are hundreds of commands in the NC epistles. God has graciously provided for His Children to faithfully/obediently work with Him in His Salvation Plan in Christ in Spirit.