This is a series of postings I had with a person in a Yahoo Group over the last few days. I will be going through and re-updating this page as I study each post that he made, addressing the issues biblically and humbly… at least to the best of my ability. I also realized that within the group, when you send a person a response, they are going to read in the “mood” that they are in or responded to you. So, if they sent you an email in anger, they will read the response in anger, whether you sent it in anger or not, which I think was much of the problem with this situation with Lloyd. It is currently resolved, but I think this type of issue is fairly common upon the internet… and since it is common, maybe it is worthy of a look-see. My Responses will always be bold within this study, to differentiate between what was said and the response.
April 26th, 7:51 AM
Greetings
Hebrews 4:2 mentions that unto us was the GOSPEL preached, as well as unto the OT saints.
Is it the same gospel? Yes! Are there two gospels? No!
Romans 1:1-2 verifies this by showing that Paul was separated unto the gospel that was promised afore by God's prophets in the Holy Scriptures.
CONCLUSION: Salvation in the OT is a pattern for us in the NT!
Lloyd
Hebrews 4:1-4
Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’” And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.”
Romans 1:1-6
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.
Now, I am still shaky on “ye old Queen’s English” but I think I am pretty much in agreement in all this. I am not all that sure what “afore” means. I do know that Salvation in the Old Testament was based on sacrifices, which were done by priests and whatnot. There were festivals and things of that nature… When Christ came, he was the atoning sacrifice… in today’s times, we still have festivals and such, Christmas, Easter, New Years, and others… most have lost a lot of the righteousness that went originally with it, but there is still questions as to how righteous were the people back in the day of the festivals of old. They may not have been any cleaner… but that is still no excuse to be dirty today, just because they were dirty yesterday.
April 26th, 5:18 PM
Hey J.D.
You responded to my post stressing the distinctiveness of justification and sanctification with the following:
JD.
First of all, we detect no pains taken either by Jesus or other characters spoken about or the writers, when reporting a baptism or speaking about baptism to separate the meaning of baptism from justification and certainly not from salvation.
Lloyd
This is true because the baptism happened to already saved people. There is not one verse in the Bible that shows water baptism comes BEFORE justification. If cults had not arisen that twist the clear teaching of God's Word, the insistence upon the details of theology would not be needed.
As I began in this forum, Heb 4:2 shows that all of the OT saints were saved by faith alone BEFORE and WITHOUT water baptism, rites, acts of obedience, etc.
Without the clarity and primacy of justification, theologies arise that blend sanctification with justification in a human-centered self-righteous system of death.
Salvation is not man seeking God. Salvation is God seeking men.
While your argument has some merit, it is not a refutation of anything.
Lloyd
April 26th, 8:33 PM
Hey J.D.
Again, even after being cautioned about the weaknesses inherent in the word salvation, you post the following:
[Regarding the horns of a dilemma about answering yes or no to believing in whether the Cross pertains to justification] "First of all, Jesus, in telling the disciples to go preach the gospel to all creation, told them, "He that believe and is baptized shall be saved." So Jesus connected baptism with the matter of receiving salvation. Notice, please, I have not said baptism was said to be the means of providing salvation. Jesus had already taken care of that matter before He even gave this command.
Again, the apostle Paul showed clearly in Romans 6 that one's baptism is a symbolic connecting the believer with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. If baptism so "speaks" of those events which affected our salvation, it is a pretty lame argument to say, "Baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation."
Your terminology allows such a dilemma. There is a salvation that pertains to our legal status before God the Judge (justification). There is a salvation that pertains to our fellowship with God our Father (sanctification). Both are required for the total life of the believer.
However, while birth and walking also describe our physical life, birth pertains to the start and walking is a description of the rest of our lives. While they do go together they are nevertheless distinct.
Your insistence on defending a word that could have many meanings depending on context is not wise.
We believe on Jesus with respect to the justification that receives God's gift of eternal life, forgiveness of sins, and pardon.
We believe on Jesus with respect to the sanctification that receives heavenly rewards.
So with your limited terminology you have a clever dilemma. If you use terminology sufficient to better comprehend the magnitude of God's gracious gifts bestowed upon us in and through Christ Jesus, then there is no such problem and your dilemma evaporates into nothingness.
For those who seek to pull away from false doctrine, justification is primal. For Luther, it is the chief article by which the church or an individual stands or falls. Nothing with respect to this doctrine must be compromised though an angel should seek to persuade us.
Sanctification depends on justification not the other way around. The difference between these is the difference between Rome and Bible believing churches today.
Lloyd
April 27th, 7:35 AM
Hey J.D.
Great Verse! What is your application? I suspect it is your attempt to vindicate the continuance of your weak terminology.
Have you never read Romans? There Paul lays down a treatise on God's salvation. He begins by showing how salvation is not something we humans seek from God. In 3:21, God presents salvation as Him seeking us humans through the righteousness of Christ. God is both just and the justifier of all those who believe in Jesus. Chapter 4 is Abraham's vivid example of justification by faith. We have been justified by faith (Rom 5:1) and by Jesus' blood (5:9).
Only after his presentation of justification does Paul turn to issues of sanctification.
1st Corinthians 1:30 shows the event aspect of both righteousness (justification) and sanctification. However, the event aspect is associated with Christ. It is a deception to now apply this to us humans outside of Christ.
One wonders why someone would so adamantly hold to a loose terminology. Perhaps you have never studied Romans - or Galatians.
Perhaps you have never been taught the precious truths of justification.
It matters not about the past. I have now laid before the truths of justification. Will you search the scriptures to learn?
Otherwise, I fear that we have a living example of pride and ego resisting posted truths on a public forum just to avoid any pretense of inferiority. Having set one's self up as a standard, the proud are not willing to humble themselves and learn.
I pray this is not you.
Lloyd
April 27th, 10:34 AM
Hey J.D.
You boast far too much of your abilities. You dared to write: "You have discounted the words of Jesus (Mt 28; Mk 16; and other places); and of Paul (Rom 6); and of Peter (I Pet 3); as well as in numerous other places in the scriptures."
This is a joke. I've spent several posts now showing you how justification and sanctification relate within the overarching umbrella of salvation. While you acknowledge Paul's detailed exposition of justification by faith followed by sanctification, you refuse to apply that to baptism allowing only the generic overarching term "salvation."
This is blindness. Not one of the verses you referenced associates water baptism with the salvation that gives one eternal life (justification).
Matt 28 clearly makes baptism dependent upon the event of becoming a disciple (justification). Your prideful resistance to the truth that water baptism has no part in justification is quite amazing.
Likewise Mark 16 puts justification by faith together with sanctification only as an overarching description of one's life. With respect to justification, water baptism is absent. Your amazing resistance to correct terminology would allow all the cults free reign.
Similarly 1 Pet 3, justification comes BEFORE the saga. Confusion comes from an unreasonable insistence on grouping the two together.
One never knows whether or not the people you exchange posts with will rise to the truth or not. I honor your request to evade a terminology that would allow an honest discussion of God's Word.
Lloyd
April 27th, 11:20 AM
Greetings
Lately I have been looking through a variety of "Protestant" journals. It is amazing how they are almost totally preoccupied with religious experience. Everyone seems to be lusting after "a satisfying Christian experience" and making that the central point of concern. Says one of these publications: "The gospel is about an experience of Jesus Christ in your own heart." Another declares: "Righteousness by faith is simply a real, vibrant experience with the Lord." Another proclaims: "The gospel is about a mighty inward change of the heart and an experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit."
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
The gospel that was proclaimed by the apostles and recovered by the Reformers was an objective truth completely outside, beyond, and above our experience. It was about God's liberating act in Jesus Christ (see Rom. 3:24 NEB). While the whole world was lying in sin and rebellion, God did something for all men. In the person of His Son God satisfied the claims of the law for us, put away the sins of the world, satisfied justice, opened the floodgates of mercy, defeated Satan, destroyed death, and opened Paradise for the most guilty of Adam's race. In the words of Martin Luther, "Christ has vanquished! This is the joyful news! And we are saved by His work, and not by our own."
The Christian religion is the only religion that bases its message of salvation on objective historical events rather than on subjective experiences. Our salvation was secured by historical events outside the realm of our own experience – that is, by the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Acting in Jesus Christ, God did something for us two thousand years ago. "He has taken us into His favor in the person of His beloved Son." Eph.1:6 Knox. "In Christ our release is secured and our sins are forgiven." Eph. 1:7, N.E.B. And there is an empty tomb to prove what God has done for us. Good news! Good news! Ring throughout the world!
It is unquestionably true that faith in this good news brings to us a new experience of joy, for we have become conscious of something already in existence. There is cause to be exceedingly glad, for our salvation does not rest on our experience, but upon Christ's experience for us. The prophet says, "By His knowledge [that is, by His experience of doing and dying] shall My righteous Servant justify many." Isaiah 53:11.
Certainly the gospel is related to human experience. Its acceptance renews, transforms and sanctifies lives by the power of the Holy Ghost. But the gospel must never be confused with Christian experience. This is the essential error of Romanism, mysticism, and Pentecostalism.
- To exhort people to draw nigh to God is not preaching the gospel.
- To call men to repentance is not preaching the gospel.
- To urge men to believe on Christ is not preaching the gospel.
- To tell men to make peace with God is not preaching the gospel.
- To proclaim the necessity of the new birth is not preaching the gospel.
- To invite people to seek for the baptism of the Spirit is not preaching the gospel.
All these things have their place and should be preached, but in themselves they do not constitute the gospel. For the gospel does not tell us to do something. It proclaims what God has done. The gospel does not tell us how to get to God. It tells how God gets to us. It is not man's way to God, but God's way to man. When sinners hear the gospel, the Spirit is present to draw them to Christ and to give them repentance, faith and a new birth. Yet the Spirit's activity in human lives is not the gospel and must never be substituted for the gospel.
Protestantism was born out of protest. It protested against that great medieval system which extinguished the light of the New Testament by putting Christian experience in the place of the gospel. The same error is with us today in the modern charismatic movement. Protestants must protest or perish!
Lloyd
See:
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/III/3-1.htmApril 27th, 12:21 PM
Greetings
Here are some quotes on this crucial subject from Martin Luther.
"This doctrine [justification by faith] is the head and the cornerstone. It alone begets, nourishes, builds, preserves, and defends the church of God; and without it the church of God cannot exist for one hour…. For no one who does not hold this article – or, to use Paul's expression, this 'sound doctrine' (Titus 2:1) – is able to teach aright in the church or successfully to resist any adversary… this is the heel of the Seed that opposes the old serpent and crushes its head. That is why Satan, in turn, cannot but persecute it."
"Whoever departs from the article of justification does not know God and is an idolater . . . For when this article has been taken away, nothing remains but error, hypocrisy, godlessness, and idolatry, although it may seem to be the height of truth, worship of God, holiness, etc."
"If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time. And all the people in the world who do not hold to this justification are either Jews or Turks or papists or heretics; for there is no middle ground between these two righteousness: the active one of the Law and the passive one which comes from Christ. Therefore the man who strays from Christian righteousness must relapse into the active one, that is, since he has lost Christ, he must put his confidence in his own works."
"When the article of justification has fallen, everything has fallen. Therefore it is necessary constantly to inculcate and impress it, as Moses says of his Law (Deut. 6:7); for it cannot be inculcated and urged enough or too much. Indeed, even though we learn it well and hold to it, yet there is no one who apprehends it perfectly or believes it with a full affection and heart. So very trick’s is our flesh, fighting as it does against the obedience of the spirit."
"The article of justification and of grace is the most delightful, and it alone makes a person a theologian and makes of a theologian a judge of the earth and of all affairs. Few there are, however, who have thought it through well and who teach it aright."
"Of this article [justification] nothing may be yielded or conceded, though heaven and earth and whatever will not abide, fall to ruin; for 'there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,' says St. Peter (Acts 4:12); 'and with His stripes we are healed' (Is. 53:5). And on this article all that we teach and practice is based, against the pope, the devil, and the world. That is why we must be very certain of this doctrine and not doubt; otherwise all is lost, and the pope and the devil and all things gain the victory over us and are adjudged right."
Lloyd
April 27th, 2:53 PM
Hey J.D.
Again, your inability to grasp terminology causes you to make questionable statements.
Baptism is associated with justification. However, it is the Spirit's baptism. Water baptism is associated with sanctification.
Jesus taught that the new birth is from above (another in John 3:3) - NOT from below. Your insistent on a lowly physical baptism is a direct contradiction of God's Word.
Only sloppy and/or uninformed terminology can support a link between justification and water baptism.
Water baptism wasn't required for any of the OT saints. It was required for the thief on the Cross. Zacchaeus, the weeping woman, the man sick of the palsy, etc, were all saved BEFORE and WITHOUT water baptism.
Belief is the Bible's sole requirement for the new birth. Justification is by faith apart from works - over and over again.
Your willful sloppy terminology is the bed of heresy.
Lloyd
April 27th, 2:56 PM
What foolishness!
Faith in faith. When did I ever say that?
Christ is the object of our faith. This is another refutation of your errant holding to sloppy terminology. If water is included with justification, then our dependence is not totally upon Christ.
This by itself is a huge demolition of your man-made religion of self-righteousness.
The Bible exhorts us to glory in Christ and Him alone! Put away your foolish desire to pull Christ off the Christ by endorsing a man-oriented washing rite.
Lloyd
April 28th, 7:14 AM
Hey Johnny
I'm glad you approve of the Lord's public example of baptism. Let's examine it in more detail!
Question 1: Was Jesus baptized to get saved?
Answer 1: Hilariously NO! As the Author of Eternal life, He is the pinnacle of salvation.
Question 2: Why was Jesus baptized?
Answer 2: To declare publicly to John that He was the Messiah doing God's will.
Question 3: When was Jesus baptized?
Answer 3: At the beginning of His public ministry doing God's will.
APPLICATION
Baptism is not required for salvation. It is to make a public announcement concerning the beginning of one's service for God.
Just like Noah, it is the appeal of an ALREADY CLEANSED CONSCIENCE to live for God in the new life.
Since there is but ONE GOSPEL, and ONE FAITH, the gospel message must not include water baptism. Water baptism is fit only for an after salvation public testimony to live for God.
Any other way is heresy!
Lloyd
April 28th, 7:18 AM
Hey Johnny Ray
Have you ever noticed how Cornelius received the remission of his sins by faith before he was baptized (Acts 10:43)??
Are you are willing to live with a theology that pits one part of the Bible against another part? I'm not! The harmonization is rather easy. I call it CONTEXT. In fact, there are three ways to look at this CONTEXT.
I. Surrounding context begins in Acts 1:6 where the disciples want to know if Jesus will "restore" (apokatistanoo) Israel's kingdom. Jesus did NOT rebuke them! They were right – except for the element of time. Likewise, in Acts 3:19-21, Peter preaches repentance regarding the "times of refreshing" and the "times of restitution of all things." Here, we see the noun form (apokatastasis) of the verb used in 1:6. Arminians dismiss this unmistakable parallel language. The parallel between 1:6 and 3:19-21 is reflected in Deut 30:1-6.
II. For the immediate context, if Peter is looking for the restoration of national Israel BEFORE and AFTER Acts 2, then he is IN Acts 2. With proper context in mind Peter first shows his fellow countrymen that they have crucified their Messiah (2:23). Jesus rose from the dead, will return, and will execute Messianic vengeance upon His enemies (2:35; Psa 110:1-2; Isa 61:1-2;l; Jer 46:10). He reminds them that they crucified the One (2:36) Who is both "Lord and Christ." Repent and be baptized (2:38). Save yourselves "from this UNTOWARD GENERATION" (2:40).
The immediate context is Peter's sermon to national Israelites who have crucified their Messiah. Peter quotes from several OT passages. Joel 2:28-32 is a reference to Jesus' return to rescue national Israel in the "day of the Lord." Psalm 16:8-11 is a reference to
Jesus not being left in corruption. Psalm 110 shows that the exalted Lord will rule from Zion and make His enemies His footstool. This same LORD will come to bring judgment on that UNTOWARD GENERATION. Everything of Peter's message refers to national Israel – judgment, salvation and blessings (2:40). Arminians deny these clear OT implications for national Israel and redefine them as a universal principle.
It is deceptive manipulation to misrepresent the great weight of scripture by a verse intended only for first century Jews looking for national restoration and wishing to avoid God's wrath on their UNTOWARD GENERATION before judgment falls in AD 70. That UNTOWARD GENERATION would be judged for the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world. (Luke 11:50) Common sense context shows that Acts 2:38 is not a normative principle today.
III. In the far context, Peter links Israel's national repentance to their Messiah (Acts 5:28-31). Stephen equates Israel's national deliverance via Jesus to Moses' leadership (Acts 7:37). Peter links the message of Jesus to Israel in his message to Cornelius (Acts 10:36). Jesus is linked with the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel (Acts 13:23-25). James prays for the restoration of Israel and David's earthly tabernacle (Acts 15:16-17; cf Amos 9:11-15). Paul preaches Israel's restoration (Rom 9-11). This is serious biblical support for the restoration of national Israel.
Immediate context, near context, and far contexts all give unparalleled and dramatic denial of water baptism for an individual salvation. The three contexts support a national baptism for the remission of rejecting Jesus Christ.
Lloyd
April 28th, 3:13 PM
A common example of analysis yanked out of context!
The OT context shows that Noah was justified BEFORE the Flood. The context of 1 Peter is totally about issues of sanctification.
You have to violate both contexts to make your heresy work.
Lloyd
April 28th, 3:19
Hey Johnny
I see you can't handle the truth very well. I guess it is because you are used to a watered down substitute.
It is nice to see you trying to use "CONTEXT." However, why do just the part of context in which you think serves your error? Why not use the entire book?! 1 Peter deals with issues of sanctification once Peter gets past his initial backward look to those already saved.
Why is it that you think he changes direction for a few verses? This is a most amazing twisting of context in the name of context.
This is easily verified by considering the passage from the OT. In Gen 6:8-9 and 7:1, we see that Noah was justified BEFORE the Flood Saga. The Flood had nothing to do with Noah's justification - everything to do with Noah's sanctification.
In fact, had Noah died in the Flood, he would have gone immediately into the presence of Christ since he was already justified. Noah's appeal to live for God on the basis of AN ALREADY CLEANSED CONSCIENCE is seen in the altar - not the water.
Truth will always be offensive to those not willing to release their lies.
Lloyd
April 28th, 3:20 PM
Hey Johnny Ray
This is another analysis cut away from context. The underlying Greek shows that the main verb is "making disciples." The word baptize is a dependent participle. It cannot happen until AFTER salvation.
How can you miss something this easy?
Lloyd
April 28th, 4:51 PM
Hey Johnny Ray
I also am a math person. I have an MS from the U of N Dakota. It goes along with Ph.D. in theology, another MS in Bible, and BS majors in Math, Psychology and minors in Physics, Linguistics and Greek.
I can't help that your denomination turns a blind eye to a first year Greek exercise. What I have written can be easily verified.
The "POINT" of salvation is faith, just like Paul showed us with Abraham, Jesus showed us with the murmuring Israelites, Peter showed us with Cornelius.
Underlying our exchanges is a critical need to discuss how "justification" and “sanctification” relate within the overarching term of "salvation." It is my premise that your denomination's emphasis upon water baptism can only be supported by silence on this topic.
I extend a challenge to you to find one use of the word "justify" (from the Greek word dikaioo) that links our justification before God to a process of human activity. I know in advance that you will not find one. Ask any of your preachers, deacons, elders or scholars. I won't hold my breath since I know what you will find.
There are lots of things going on at once in theology. We have to keep justification/sanctification, spirit vs. water baptism, Israel vs. non-Israel, OSAS, and other things together. With all this, we must pay special attention to CONTEXT. Since theology is an integrated whole, we could actually start with any one topic and realistically arrive at any other topic. The trouble with that is that we would need a white board to track our exchanges.
An analysis of justification will demolish your position as readily as noting your lack of support for water baptism.
Lloyd
April 28th, 7:16 PM
Hey Johnny Ray
First, I'm sorry you feel the heat. I'm merely presenting the Bible IN CONTEXT. I'm not prideful or boastful. But I have a ready BIBLE answer for every one of your slick partial truths.
Second, since you already claim to "see," I'm not trying to convert you. I'm trying to eradicate your self-righteous system of death. I attack your Catholic system - not you as a person. You've seen nothing in my posts that were personal. You've seen a lot in my posts decrying the errant system that you embrace.
Third, you are probably a pretty decent fellow with fine upstanding morals. However, on a public forum, I can only see the lies that you are spreading.
Fourth, I presented a detailed analysis of the context for both Acts 2 and 1 Peter 3. All I got back was denominational rhetoric and unfounded whimpers about being personally attacked. Latch on to God's Word and put aside the petty weights of denominational rhetoric that would hold you back from the truth.
Try using BIBLE as the basis for a response!
Lloyd
April 29th, 7:31 PM
Hey Johnny Ray
I said you were Catholic! You don't have to be a card carrying member of the RCC to be in bed with them. I suggest taking the questionnaire at:
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/II/2-2.htmThe questionnaire is only 10 questions long. It will give you a great refresher on the differences between us! It will help you focus upon the crux of theology.
I even bet that I know your answers ahead of time. Too bad it can't be proven other than me writing down what I bet you'd say while you take the test with both of us together in the same room at the same time. Oh well.
Lloyd
April 29th, 7:43 AM
Hey Johnny Ray
I hope you answer the 10 questions. Here are my answers:
- A
- A
- A
- B
- A
- B
- B
- A
- A
- A
I only wish the author had arranged it so that Protestant would have answered all "a" and Catholics would have answered all "b." Regardless, the crucial point of difference is quite vivid.
Protestants rely solely upon Christ; Catholics rely upon Christ and self-righteousness.
So are you a Catholic or not?
Lloyd
P.S. If you don't have the exact mirror opposite answers as what I provided, then you are either a fledgling theologian or totally mixed up.
My Response:First off, I attend a International Church of Christ service, and that is the doctrine I follow, irregardless of what and “A” and “B” questionnaire specifies. Catholic is defined as “including or concerning all humankind; universal.” Protestant is defined as Episcopalian.Question #1:
(I DON”T UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION)- God gives a man right standing with Himself by mercifully accounting him innocent and virtuous.
- God gives a man right standing with Himself by actually making him into an innocent and virtuous person.
Question #2:
(I DON”T UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, EITHER)- God gives a man right standing with Himself by placing Christ’s goodness and virtue to his credit.
- God gives a man right standing with Himself by putting Christ’s goodness and virtue into his heart.
Question #3:
(Neither, God accepts all people for who they are. God just wants the person to put forth an effort to be the best Christian they can and have a love for God)- God accepts the believer because of the moral excellence found in Jesus Christ.
- God makes the believer acceptable by infusing Christ’s moral excellence into his life.
Question #4:
(repentance in character, if that is what you mean)- If a Christian becomes “born again” (regenerate, transformed in character), he will achieve right standing with God.
- If the sinner accepts right standing with God by faith in Christ’s sinless life and atoning death, he will then experience transformation in character.
Question #5:
(We receive right standing with God by faith, by action of baptism and grace and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit)- We receive right standing with God by faith alone in the blood of Christ.
- We receive right standing with God by faith which has become active by love.
Question #6:
(actually, we imitate Christ’s life)- We achieve right standing with God by having Christ live out His life of obedience in us.
- We achieve right standing with God by believing that Christ obeyed the law perfectly for us.
Question #7:
I finally agree with one: “A”- We achieve right standing with God by following Christ’s example by the help of His enabling grace.
- We follow Christ’s example because His sinless life has given us right standing with God.
Question #8:
(It happens all at the same time. It can’t this, then this, and then, two years later this… At baptism, you get the spirit. That’s it. He’s been watching you your whole life… it’s not like he doesn’t know that you haven’t been good one minute and not the next. And to God, time isn’t linear. He knows you are going to screw up later. Maybe even mess up big time. Does that make you unworthy of the spirit at baptism? NO!)- God first pronounces that we are good in His sight, then gives us His Spirit to begin to make us good.
- God sends His Spirit to make us good, and then He will pronounce that we are good.
Question #9:
The bible does say that Christ does intercede for us: “A”- Christ’s intercession at God’s right hand gives us favor in the sight of God.
- It is the indwelling Christ that gives us favor in God’s sight.
Question #10:
(Technically, it is love God and love your neighbor these days… the rest is taken care of with just those two. And I don’t know if it is faith or the Holy Spirit, but what would be the difference between the two in today’s day in age for a baptized disciple? I have the Holy Spirit and I have faith, so it’s really water under the bridge for me. I don’t worry about the Ten Commandments. It’s not an issue for me. I’m more concerned about winning souls for Christ. - Only by faith in the doing and dying of Christ can we fully satisfy the claims of the Ten Commandments.
- By the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we can fully satisfy the claims of the Ten Commandments.
April 29th, 8:21 AM
Hey Johnny Ray
Ok. I get it now. You really aren't interested in an honest exchange that discusses truths. You would rather hurl insults and ego-satisfying diatribes.
I suggest that you practice what you post. I was willing to take to the heights of theology; you want to rut around in the sty.
This is actually quite typical for those who are exposed by the truth. They are willing to do anything to run from an open exposure of their cultic denials of Christ.
Lloyd
April 29th, 4:22 PM
Hey Johnny Ray
Let's see here.
I posted a detailed analysis of Acts 2. I posted the contextual analysis of Peter's use of Noah from verifying that the message of 1 Peter is dealing with issues of sanctification and Noah was justified BEFORE the Flood.
Your responses don't use Bible. They are loaded with knowledge puffs up stuff. You cry love but write hate.
I posted a ready link to a questionnaire that deals with justification - a pillar of theology. You responded with "I don't care." A person seeking biblical truth should have been anxious to check out this new dimension.
Why are you at this forum if you don't want to enter into a genuine exchange? I think you are only looking to preach to the choir. Since I'm not in your choir and claim to have the real truth, you are afraid of what truth it is that I dare challenge you with because you might have to confront it. Thus, in fear of the real truth, you respond with personal ego-blasting issues.
Wisdom is known by her children.
Lloyd
April 29th, 8:14 AM
Greetings,First, why do you refer to yourself in the third person? It is easy to read the email addresses!Second, where was I judgmental? You have reacted against the truth and taken things personally.I wish to discuss justification. I believe that I can prove everything that I've brought to the forum! I can't get you to discuss anything of substance.
I tried with a detailed analysis of context in Acts 2. You merely gave a Bible-less denominational denial.
I tried the same with 1 Peter 3 to which you haven't responded.
I attempted to discuss the two views of justification to which you replied "I don't care."
What you have consistently done is bring up personal accusations based on hurt feelings. Get a grip on things! If you wish to discuss controversial items, then expect to be challenged. If you are seeking the truth, the get set to discuss the truth! Be prepared always to give a defense of your faith.
Stop trying to defend your whining.
Lloyd
April 30th, 9:19 AM
What a hypocrite!
In your humility, you are willing to put your spin on things to vindicate your wet diapers. What a Christian example!
Why not instead drop this emotional dribble and do something with God's Word?
There is no merit in exchanging posts with a 3 year old.
Lloyd
April 30th, 10:21 AM
Hey Johnny Ray
Let's assume that you are an adult. I'm tired of these banal emotive exchanges. Let's go to God's Word.
I hold that justification is a pillar of theology. I'm willing to pursue an exchange on this Bible subject.
The discussion should cover the basic definition, a look at lexical evidences, and a comparison of the two ways to view justification (EVENT or PROCESS).
What is your choice?
Do you wish to continue self-vindication of hurt ego?
- OR -
Do you wish to pursue a study of God's Word?
Lloyd
April 30, 1:41 PM
Hey Johnny Ray
Praise the LORD! It is easy to forgive someone that has done no harm or offense. It is a good problem in that we both believe that we embrace the truth. This is commendable for we could be discussing whether or not Jesus is the Christ.
We need to approach the truth in the Christian way based on God's Word alone. You have truly shown the marks of Jesus Christ. Rarely does this sort of thing happen. <Lloyd tips hat in salute>
I also ask forgiveness for my words and condescending attitude. My accusations were not in the Spirit's power. Since I feel so strongly that I embrace the truth, I am easily tempted to look down on those who disagree me. I easily go astray with inappropriate communications.Perhaps together, as recognized sinners still falling victim to the ravages of the devil's delusions, we can point to Christ and boast only in the sufficiency of His Cross.
The trick now comes in how to enter into a Christ honoring exchange between two people of two different views on theology.
Lloyd