Salvation: A doctrinal dilemma

[mailmandan]

According to your answers, there is absolutely no way a simple, person today, with very little education could possibly understand what the Holy Spirit is saying in such scriptures as in Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, James 2:14-24, 1 Peter 3:21, and a host of others. They would have to know the sentence construction, the intricacies of the English language, and the Greek language, definitions of words and have a knowledge of the manuscripts and know what “scholars” say in order to understand what the verse really means.

It does not take a genius to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying, although the natural man just cannot understand. (1 Corinthians 2:14) Apart from Greek scholarship, I came to understand through properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

Now you don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Hence, FAITH ALONE. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus works? NO. So, then it's faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Salvation by water baptism or any other works would be in contradiction. See how simple that is? You need to look beyond your "pet verses" and consider the totality of scripture instead of trying to force scripture to "conform" to your biased church doctrine.

In other words, you cannot just simply read Acts 2:38 and believe what is really written there. I know it says baptism is for the remission of sins, but that’s not really what it’s saying.

What happened to baptism in Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38,39; 26:18; Romans 3:24-26? So, once again, the only Biblical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is 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*

You can’t really believe 1 Peter 3:21 when it says baptism saves you. It’s really not saying that at all.

I can believe what Peter said after reading the rest of the verse and not simply stopping there, as you did. That's your problem.

And you can’t trust Mark 16:16, but of course a simple, ordinary person, unfamiliar with the manuscripts and what “scholars” say would have no way of knowing that.

I can trust Mark 16:16 and the second clause clarifies the first ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. If he who believes will be saved (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11;25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well, yet it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism.

But then you read 2 Cor. 11:3. And God reassures you that His scriptures are simple. Just believe what it says. You don’t have to have help in understanding these plain, “easy to understand” scriptures. They mean exactly what they say. And any effort by men to change what they say, is an effort by Satan to “corrupt your mind.”

Sure, just believe what you say that your pet verses say in contradiction to numerous other passages of scripture. No thanks! Roman Catholics made the same error with John 6:54-55 and came up with the false doctrine of transubstantiation (cannibalism). John 6:60 - On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” BTW not everything is as simple as you think. In 2 Peter 3:16, we read -as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[GWH]

It does not take a genius to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying, although the natural man just cannot understand. (1 Corinthians 2:14) Apart from Greek scholarship, I came to understand through properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

Now you don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Hence, FAITH ALONE. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus works? NO. So, then it's faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Salvation by water baptism or any other works would be in contradiction. See how simple that is? You need to look beyond your "pet verses" and consider the totality of scripture instead of trying to force scripture to "conform" to your biased church doctrine.

What happened to baptism in Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38,39; 26:18; Romans 3:24-26? So, once again, the only Biblical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is 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*

I can believe what Peter said after reading the rest of the verse and not simply stopping there, as you did. That's your problem.

I can trust Mark 16:16 and the second clause clarifies the first ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. If he who believes will be saved (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11;25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well, yet it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism.

Sure, just believe what you say that your pet verses say in contradiction to numerous other passages of scripture. No thanks! Roman Catholics made the same error with John 6:54-55 and came up with the false doctrine of transubstantiation (cannibalism). John 6:60 - On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” BTW not everything is as simple as you think. In 2 Peter 3:16, we read -as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

I agree with your understanding of Scripture regarding the role of faith in salvation, except that I would say faith first instead of alone (per Eph. 2:8-10). Also, re "the natural man just cannot understand" I would say that harmonizing GW yields the understanding that sinners WILL not understand until something prompts them to repent of atheism and realize their need for God's salvation. Those who
ignore such prompting may be deemed callous or totally depraved (Matt. 13:14-15).

 

[mailmandan]

I agree with your understanding of Scripture regarding the role of faith in salvation, except that I would say faith first instead of alone (per Eph. 2:8-10). Also, re "the natural man just cannot understand" I would say that harmonizing GW yields the understanding that sinners WILL not understand until something prompts them to repent of atheism and realize their need for God's salvation. Those who ignore such prompting may be deemed callous or totally depraved (Matt. 13:14-15).

It is faith FIRST (Ephesians 2:5-9) and when I say alone, I am stressing that our faith is in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and not Jesus Christ + something else (works) yet genuine faith does not remain alone "barren of works" (James 2:14-24)

Now although it is our responsibility to choose to believe/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and we will be held accountable for unbelief (John 3:18), saving belief/faith in Christ is never exclusively a matter of human decision. Unless the Father draws us in (John 6:44) and enables us (John 6:65) we would NEVER come to believe all by ourselves. The approach of the soul to Christ is initiated by the Father, but He doesn't force us to choose Christ, we must choose Him. The impulse to faith in Christ comes from God.

In Luke 13:3, Jesus said repent or perish. For some people though, prior to coming to the end result of repentance in receiving salvation (faith in Christ), they must change their minds about other specific things in order to get there. Repentance, metanoia, focuses on changing one's mind about his previous concept of God (as in Acts 17:30) and disbelief in God or false beliefs (polytheism and idolatry) about God (see 1 Thessalonians 1:9). On the other hand, this change of mind, focuses on the new direction that change about God must ultimately take, namely, trusting in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. (Acts 20:21)

 

[PaulThomson]

It is written that the church should be in one mind towards the scriptures.

Where?

 

[Inquisitor]

The two groups are: 1) those chosen for salvation from before the foundation of the world; and 2) those who were not chosen. Therefore, as pertaining to salvation, there is neither Jew, Gentile, Greek, etc. And it is impossible that anyone can change groups
from one to the other.

I would classify the two groups as Jew and Gentile.

Regarding your reply.

Is it true that Israel was chosen way before the Gentiles?

 

[Inquisitor]

It is faith FIRST (Ephesians 2:5-9) and when I say alone, I am stressing that our faith is in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and not Jesus Christ + something else (works) yet genuine faith does not remain alone "barren of works" (James 2:14-24)

Now although it is our responsibility to choose to believe/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and we will be held accountable for unbelief (John 3:18), saving belief/faith in Christ is never exclusively a matter of human decision. Unless the Father draws us in (John 6:44) and enables us (John 6:65) we would NEVER come to believe all by ourselves. The approach of the soul to Christ is initiated by the Father, but He doesn't force us to choose Christ, we must choose Him. The impulse to faith in Christ comes from God.

In Luke 13:3, Jesus said repent or perish. For some people though, prior to coming to the end result of repentance in receiving salvation (faith in Christ), they must change their minds about other specific things in order to get there. Repentance, metanoia, focuses on changing one's mind about his previous concept of God (as in Acts 17:30) and disbelief in God or false beliefs (polytheism and idolatry) about God (see 1 Thessalonians 1:9). On the other hand, this change of mind, focuses on the new direction that change about God must ultimately take, namely, trusting in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. (Acts 20:21)

So you would say that faith without works is a dead faith.

Faith without the fruit of the Holy Spirit is a dead faith also?

Faith without love is an impossible position to occupy as a Christian.
Perfect Love is what heaven is all about and describes Jesus in the fullest sense.
If you are not primarily pursuing love in everything then don't ever call yourself a Christian?

 

[Inquisitor]

The two groups are: 1) those chosen for salvation from before the foundation of the world; and 2) those who were not chosen. Therefore, as pertaining to salvation, there is neither Jew, Gentile, Greek, etc. And it is impossible that anyone can change groups
from one to the other.

If what you say is correct rogerg, why is the law mentioned more than 52 times?

 

[rogerg]

I would classify the two groups as Jew and Gentile.

Regarding your reply.

Is it true that Israel was chosen way before the Gentiles?

Only the elect were always the chosen of God unto salvation and were chosen so from before the foundation of the world - they consist of people out of all lineages, races and creeds. As far as salvation is concerned, there were always only two groups: the elect and the non-elect

[Col 3:11-12 KJV]
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

Any other groupings are irrelevant

 

[rogerg]

If what you say is correct rogerg, why is the law mentioned more than 52 times?

I'm not sure which specific verses you're referring to, but there are only two laws with eternal consequence: the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus and the law of sin and death.

 

[Inquisitor]

Only the elect were always the chosen of God unto salvation and were chosen so from before the foundation of the world - they consist of people out of all lineages, races and creeds. As far as salvation is concerned, there were always only two groups: the elect and the non-elect

[Col 3:11-12 KJV]
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

Any other groupings are irrelevant

Your quoting from Colossians not Romans.

In Romans Paul is directly discussing the Jews and the Gentiles.

Ten chapters of the letter to the Romans involves Paul explaining why the Jews failed.

What use is the letter to the Romans if you regard those two critical groups as irrelevant?

You need Romans 101 to even start to understand the letter to the Romans.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'm not sure which specific verses you're referring to, but there are only two laws with eternal consequence: the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus and the law of sin and death.

Your knowledge of the letter to the Romans is non-existent.

Romans is a heavy doctrinal letter.

Without understanding what Paul is talking about how could you even comment on Romans?

 

[Inquisitor]

It does not take a genius to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying, although the natural man just cannot understand. (1 Corinthians 2:14) Apart from Greek scholarship, I came to understand through properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

Now you don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Hence, FAITH ALONE. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus works? NO. So, then it's faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Salvation by water baptism or any other works would be in contradiction. See how simple that is? You need to look beyond your "pet verses" and consider the totality of scripture instead of trying to force scripture to "conform" to your biased church doctrine.

What happened to baptism in Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38,39; 26:18; Romans 3:24-26? So, once again, the only Biblical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is 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*

I can believe what Peter said after reading the rest of the verse and not simply stopping there, as you did. That's your problem.

I can trust Mark 16:16 and the second clause clarifies the first ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. If he who believes will be saved (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11;25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well, yet it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism.

Sure, just believe what you say that your pet verses say in contradiction to numerous other passages of scripture. No thanks! Roman Catholics made the same error with John 6:54-55 and came up with the false doctrine of transubstantiation (cannibalism). John 6:60 - On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” BTW not everything is as simple as you think. In 2 Peter 3:16, we read -as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

You may need to add the Orthodox, Reformers, Protestants also.

If you summarize the N.T you get; saved by grace through faith for the goal of love from a pure heart.

Without elevating love why would you call yourself a Christian?

Christ's atonement was strictly to conform you to Christ's image, which is love in human form.

Love is all that's left when Jesus returns and it's who God is, God is love.

Love is mentioned in the N.T hundreds of times.

 

[rogerg]

Your knowledge of the letter to the Romans is non-existent.

Nope, the lack of knowledge is fully yours. Not only with Romans but also the Bible in general given as you would ignore entire verses from other books because they don't agree with your preconceived, incorrect assumptions

 

[Inquisitor]

Nope, the lack of knowledge is fully yours. Not only with Romans but also the Bible in general given as you would ignore entire verses from other books because they don't agree with your preconceived, incorrect assumptions

All I do is read the plain text and understand the context.

The N.T is just letters after all.

I don't have to assume anything.

One thing I never have to do is ignore verses.

Romans 11:17-21
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them
and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches;
but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off
for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare
the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

Do you understand what Paul is saying?

Or do you follow an interpretation that contradicts the letter to the Romans?

 

[PaulThomson]

Oh, the irony. That salvation is by grace through faith and is not by works is not hard to understand. It's just hard for you to ACCEPT. It's a shame that human pride will not allow you to place your faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Your hands are full of your works (with a heavy emphasis on water baptism) and you will not let go in order to receive Christ through faith.

This seems to be a major mischaracterisation of Beckworth's position. Beckworth has not denied that one must receive Christ through faith. It seems defamatory to accuse him of being unwilling to receive Christ by faith.

Do you not agree that the phrase (saved by grace through faith without works could mean that God does not choose who is worthy to be saved by grace through faith on the basis of their past history of works, i.e. He does not choose to call and justify only those with fewer major transgressions in their past?

 

[mailmandan]

This seems to be a major mischaracterisation of Beckworth's position. Beckworth has not denied that one must receive Christ through faith. It seems defamatory to accuse him of being unwilling to receive Christ by faith.

Do you not agree that the phrase (saved by grace through faith without works could mean that God does not choose who is worthy to be saved by grace through faith on the basis of their past history of works, i.e. He does not choose to call and justify only those with fewer major transgressions in their past?

Beckworth is a member of the church of Christ (which I once temporarily attended) so I'm very familiar with what that church and what she teaches. Folks in the church of Christ place repentance "after" faith and turn it into a work for salvation, along with confession and water baptism which is not salvation through faith but salvation through faith + works.

 

[PaulThomson]

Beckworth is a member of the church of Christ (which I once temporarily attended) so I'm very familiar with what that church and what she teaches. Folks in the church of Christ place repentance "after" faith and turn it into a work for salvation, along with confession and water baptism which is not salvation through faith but salvation through faith + works.

You said, "Your hands are full of your works (with a heavy emphasis on water baptism) and you will not let go in order to receive Christ through faith."
The church of Christ receive Christ by faith. You are a false accuser. They do have that in common with many other self-identifying Christian sects.

 

[PaulThomson]

Beckworth is a member of the church of Christ (which I once temporarily attended) so I'm very familiar with what that church and what she teaches. Folks in the church of Christ place repentance "after" faith and turn it into a work for salvation, along with confession and water baptism which is not salvation through faith but salvation through faith + works.

You also did not answer my question.

i.e. Do you not agree that the phrase (saved by grace through faith without works could mean that God does not choose who is worthy to be saved by grace through faith on the basis of their past history of works, i.e. He does not choose to call and justify only those with fewer major transgressions in their past?

 

[Inquisitor]

Beckworth is a member of the church of Christ (which I once temporarily attended) so I'm very familiar with what that church and what she teaches. Folks in the church of Christ place repentance "after" faith and turn it into a work for salvation, along with confession and water baptism which is not salvation through faith but salvation through faith + works.

Are the Church of Christ into the law?

 

[Inquisitor]

I'm not sure which specific verses you're referring to, but there are only two laws with eternal consequence: the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus and the law of sin and death.

Paul mentions the word "law" from 52 to 70 times in Romans depending on the translation.

If Paul is talking about what you wrote below.

Only the elect were always the chosen of God unto salvation and were chosen so from before the foundation of the world

Why does Paul mention the law 52 to 70 times in that same letter?

Why does Paul refer to the Gentiles being "grafted" into the root and Israel being "severed"?

Romans is discussing why Israel failed do you get that or not?