It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Honest Question For ATS Preachers

page: 16
10
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Baptism did not die on the cross for humanity.


Neither did repentance, but we both seem to agree it is necessary.


Originally posted by borntowatch
it relies on our actions not Christs.


Nope. It is salvation by grace through faith.




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 

Peter said that repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit were necessary for salvation. How are you able to pick one and deny the other two? If baptism is a work to earn salvation as you say and not an act of faith as I say, what makes repentance different?
According to the Free Grace theory of salvation, repentance is "changing your mind" where, according to its advocates, the change is from not believing you are saved, to believing you are saved, and apparently has nothing to do with your behavior.
edit on 22-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen
 

I don't think that there is much of a case to be made for a Christian "by works alone" doctrine.

Apparently you missed my thread, Salvation By Works Alone, Why "Free Grace" is a False Doctrine.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The basis of my "doctrine" is the statement by Paul that it is the spirit that comes from God making you to do good works that raises you from the dead, so according to my logic, if you are not doing good works, your hypothetical "salvation" will do you no good since you will be dead.

ETA: even though it was only a little over four months ago that I started the thread I just linked to, I have changed my opinion on a lot of what I wrote in it. I still hold to the main theme though, as stated above in this post.


Yeah, I was AWOL for about a year, so I missed a lot, sorry.

I looked at the thread, but since you say that you've changed your mind about a lot of it, I'll skip an extensive review, as I see many of the same objections that I would have were raised there.

If we were to make a "salvation graph", and put "God does nothing" on one end, and "God does everything" on the other, I think that we can plot most Judeo-Christian beliefs on there. Judaism is pretty far down on the "God does nothing" side of things, while Reformed Theology is kind of the other end point, with Catholicism, the Lutheranism and a spectrum of Protestant sects filling the middle, left to right.

But I'm confused about where yours goes in there -- on the one hand I read what you're saying as putting you over there with the Jews -- God does little, or nothing, but on the other hand the whole "God made good people" makes me think you're more interpreting the evidence of good works, rather than the result of good works, as being indicative of salvation.

However, once we throw in the "grace" part, it really messes with it, because it's through God's Grace that we can have faith, it's through his Grace that we are saved, and if you believe that neither of those is true, then where does God fit into it? Because it seems like you're making him redundant.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 

Neither did repentance, but we both seem to agree it is necessary.

Right, but members of the Free Grace cult have a completely different definition of what repentance is, and it has nothing to do with anyone actually doing anything physically and it has to do with a transformation that convinces the believer he is already saved and that salvation requires no sort of activity on his part, including giving a declaration of faith, such as baptism, and I would guess that the adherents to this cult find offense in baptism in particular as an example of what non-cultists think is a necessary act of the believer to gain admittance into the family of God, in other words, the church.
edit on 22-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen
 

I don't think that there is much of a case to be made for a Christian "by works alone" doctrine.

Apparently you missed my thread, Salvation By Works Alone, Why "Free Grace" is a False Doctrine.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The basis of my "doctrine" is the statement by Paul that it is the spirit that comes from God making you to do good works that raises you from the dead, so according to my logic, if you are not doing good works, your hypothetical "salvation" will do you no good since you will be dead.

ETA: even though it was only a little over four months ago that I started the thread I just linked to, I have changed my opinion on a lot of what I wrote in it. I still hold to the main theme though, as stated above in this post.
edit on 22-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Paul said we are saved by grace through faith and NOT by works. Saving faith is the first cause, good works/fruit it the intended consequence. (Ephesians 2:8-10) You didn't come up with the idea that good works follow saving faith, you ripped that off from James. (James 2). But make no mistake, good works don't produce faith, good works are the consequence of saving faith. Faith is still the first cause. It's the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life that changes our wills to do God's will. (Philippians 2:13)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Repentance, "metanoia" in the Greek, means to change one's mind. If the mind never changes about the gospel one cannot accept it. People are not born believers, they must receive Christ and change their mind about their sinful condition. The mind is the rudder of our lives, if we don't change our minds about or sin and need for Christ we cannot be saved and any attempt to change our actions to align with God's Word will never have lasting effects. That's why the recidivism rate is so high amongst convicts. They feel remorse for being caught or blame their incarceration on a "snitch" instead of "metanoia" that what they did was wrong.

And I am not addressing any more Trinity questions from you until you answer my previous ones I asked of you.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew
 

Peter said that repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit were necessary for salvation. How are you able to pick one and deny the other two? If baptism is a work to earn salvation as you say and not an act of faith as I say, what makes repentance different?
According to the Free Grace theory of salvation, repentance is "changing your mind" where, according to its advocates, the change is from not believing you are saved, to believing you are saved, and apparently has nothing to do with your behavior.
edit on 22-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


No. The change of mind is from not believing you are a sinner in need of Christ to believing you ARE a sinner and in need of Christ. One cannot trust in their need and receive Christ until they change their mind about their condition and need of Him as Savior and Lord. And "metanoia" is defined as a change of mind apart from the Bible, that's the definition in Greek. You can verify that with any Greek Lexicon or dictionary.


edit on 22-7-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

I looked at the thread, but since you say that you've changed your mind about a lot of it, I'll skip an extensive review, as I see many of the same objections that I would have were raised there.

The changes is more of an attitude such as I am not that interested right now in drawing distinctions between the various books of the New Testament as to their level of authority. I think now it is more important to find out what the writers were trying to say exactly.
One major change I have made is in how I understand the word justification. Here is an example I came across last night that may be illustrative, in Acts 13 and is the account of "Paul and Barnabas at Pisidian Antioch", where the writer of Acts is giving his idea of what sort of speech Paul was giving, concluding with:

Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you.

I am quoting from the NetBible version. It gives translator's notes and it may be helpful to quote those on the words justified and justify.

2 tn Or “is freed.” The translation of δικαιωθῆναι (dikaiwqhnai) and δικαιοῦται (dikaioutai) in Acts 13:38-39 is difficult. BDAG 249 s.v. δικαιόω 3 categorizes δικαιωθῆναι in 13:38 (Greek text) under the meaning “make free/pure” but categorizes δικαιοῦται in Acts 13:39 as “be found in the right, be free of charges” (BDAG 249 s.v. δικαιόω 2.b.β). In the interest of consistency both verbs are rendered as “justified” in this translation.
3 tn Or “could not free.”
Up until recently I had been under the influence of Lutheran (as in the reformer, not the church) idea of justification only in the legal sense of a verdict of judgment, rather than the wider meaning that it seems Paul had in mind, of being freed from the slavery of sin.
edit on 22-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

If we were to make a "salvation graph", and put "God does nothing" on one end, and "God does everything" on the other, I think that we can plot most Judeo-Christian beliefs on there. Judaism is pretty far down on the "God does nothing" side of things, while Reformed Theology is kind of the other end point, with Catholicism, the Lutheranism and a spectrum of Protestant sects filling the middle, left to right.
I'm not exactly very happy with any specific church's doctrines on salvation and am trying to get at what the New Testament writers thought about it. I think the general message of the NT is to be righteous but not by following a code, but the spirit. We have now a high priest, according to Hebrews, to mediate the system, which according to Paul involves Jesus' transference of spirit from God to us by in between becoming the spirit of Christ. That spirit becomes our spirit, replacing the natural spirit that was prone to sin.

But I'm confused about where yours goes in there -- on the one hand I read what you're saying as putting you over there with the Jews -- God does little, or nothing, but on the other hand the whole "God made good people" makes me think you're more interpreting the evidence of good works, rather than the result of good works, as being indicative of salvation.
We do things by just living but the motivating spirit behind our actions is the major difference, and not an amount of how much we do towards salvation. There seems to be an emphasis on free will from those who theorize on different salvation plans, so I should make a comment in that direction, I suppose, and it would be that we make choices constantly. I reject the idea of "free grace" that grace is this overwhelming thing that makes it impossible for the recipient of that grace to do anything against it, including to not be saved, if one was to choose that.

However, once we throw in the "grace" part, it really messes with it, because it's through God's Grace that we can have faith, it's through his Grace that we are saved, and if you believe that neither of those is true, then where does God fit into it? Because it seems like you're making him redundant.
Grace to me is the open door you walk through to enter into the path that leads to eternal life, where it does not require on to come to the realization of some doctrine, or formula for salvation, such as the "free grace" advocates believe, that you have to "know" something first in order to be saved. To me that is the opposite of free grace, that you solve the riddle of the sphinx and then get admission. So, to make this clear, grace means you just take a step forward in faith, without having first some assurance by being convinced of certain "facts", then the spirit is there to guide you. If you already are convinced you are saved forever, then who needs any spirit? I would say to be a true "free grace" cultist, you have to make yourself totally devoid of any of God's spirit.
edit on 22-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

It's the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life that changes our wills to do God's will. (Philippians 2:13)
Who was it that told you that was the meaning of that verse? One of your cult leaders?
You are using that as a proof text, I am guessing to support you cult's doctrine of lack of free will.
All that is saying in Philippians is that it was God's will that there was a church raised up in that city.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Repentance, "metanoia" in the Greek, means to change one's mind.

Repentance as understood by traditional Christianity means to turn around, meaning to turn away from a life of sin, to a life of good works.
What your cult is doing is pretending it means something else, in order to fit their "free grace" doctrine, by going back to the constituent parts, the root words that were combined in the dim past, that formed the word we know from the New Testament. This is a fallacy by these cultists, passing off a theorized etymology of the word as if it was a definition. This of course is not how you define words, which is normally by usage, so is nothing but a deception made up in hell to destroy the souls of those would welcome the opportunity to carry on with a life of sin.
edit on 22-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
It's not about converting or saving anybody, it's about information and truth.
People have to save themselves, once they attain accurate knowledge of truth, and believe it.

I find generally posters at ATS are the most aware of different facets of truth, even agnostics posters are able to see through some of the lies that have been propagated by the TPTB. Many non-religious type ATS posters are smart enough to see the current world system cannot continue. The big question is what will replace it when it falls? Truth is like a epiphany, and you just never know what will trigger it.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Repentance, "metanoia" in the Greek, means to change one's mind.

Repentance as understood by traditional Christianity means to turn around, meaning to turn away from a life of sin, to a life of good works.
What your cult is doing is pretending it means something else, in order to fit their "free grace" doctrine, by going back to the constituent parts, the root words that were combined in the dim past, that formed the word we know from the New Testament. This is a fallacy by these cultists, passing off a theorized etymology of the word as if it was a definition. This of course is not how you define words, which is normally by usage, so is nothing but a deception made up in hell to destroy the souls of those would welcome the opportunity to carry on with a life of sin.
edit on 22-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


The mind is the rudder of the life. Good luck changing your behavior if your mind doesn't first change. The idea behind "metanoia" is to have life-changing and permanent results, not a temporary good effect. Please explain how a life can change and a person can live to glorify God if their mind is still reprobate and they still don't think they are a sinner and their sins are against God? The recidivism rate with felons is so high because most never "metanoia" about their crimes. They feel remorse for being caught or complain that they were arrested because someone "snitched" on them. They never "metanoia".



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I reject the idea of "free grace" that grace is this overwhelming thing that makes it impossible for the recipient of that grace to do anything against it, including to not be saved, if one was to choose that.


Well, you're mostly just pushing off the Reformed side of things, which makes sense. "Irresistible Grace" is sort of a universal thing, in the notion that what God wants, God gets, but it's really only in the predestination piece that we find an obvious instance of God intentionally imposing that grace -- if he chose you as one of the Elect, that's grace that you can't say no to.



However, once we throw in the "grace" part, it really messes with it, because it's through God's Grace that we can have faith, it's through his Grace that we are saved, and if you believe that neither of those is true, then where does God fit into it? Because it seems like you're making him redundant.


Grace to me is the open door you walk through to enter into the path that leads to eternal life, where it does not require on to come to the realization of some doctrine, or formula for salvation, such as the "free grace" advocates believe, that you have to "know" something first in order to be saved.


I'm not sure that it's as cut and dry as that. My view of that "knowledge" is that people who don't know Jesus, in the sense that they lived before him, or they lived in a place that never had exposure to Christian teachings, or even (and a lot will disagree with this) those who are in a culture today that prevents them from "knowing Christ fully", actually do have the ability to know him and his teachings in their hearts, through God's grace, and if they respond to that favourably, they are saved through him.
edit on 22-7-2012 by adjensen because: oopsies



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I'm not sure that it's as cut and dry as that. My view of that "knowledge" is that people who don't know Jesus, in the sense that they lived before him, or they lived in a place that never had exposure to Christian teachings, or even (and a lot will disagree with this) those who are in a culture today that prevents them from "knowing Christ fully", actually do have the ability to know him and his teachings in their hearts, through God's grace, and if they respond to that favourably, they are saved through him.

My question is how do you "know" someone who has been dead for several thousand years? Most Christians fully deny Ghosts, and claim they are in fact Demons.
Secondly, you talk like people have lost the ability to read. Nothing prevents people from reading the NT, they are everywhere. Some just will not fall into the mindset of religious dogma, that's all. They were not "prevented," no, they just chose differently. Some even researched the origins of the NT, and searched out the so called writers of the book. To those of us who did that, the NT is a story book of fictions and myth, and nothing more than that.
Thirdly, what is it Christians are trying to save us from? This?
Gehenna



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
My question is how do you "know" someone who has been dead for several thousand years?


Because he's not dead, Ace.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


And I am not addressing any more Trinity questions from you until you answer my previous ones I asked of you.


If you would really want answers to those questions that I apparently missed you would repost them so that I could answer them. I think you are just afraid of the truth.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Please explain how a life can change and a person can live to glorify God if their mind is still reprobate and they still don't think they are a sinner and their sins are against God?
If you keep thinking like that, you are going to get kicked out of your cult.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

-- if he chose you as one of the Elect, that's grace that you can't say no to.

I don't think God "saves" people against their will.

. . . actually do have the ability to know him and his teachings in their hearts, through God's grace, and if they respond to that favourably, they are saved through him.
They can get on with it, even if they don't have pat this convoluted doctrine which the "free grace" cult thinks is a prerequisite to salvation. I think the cult actually makes grace not free, and dependent on membership to the cult.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Have you died to sin and been buried with Christ? Those who reject baptism in the name of Jesus Christ have not.

"God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin." (Romans 6:2-8 KJV)

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" (Colossians 2:11-14 KJV)




top topics



 
10
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join