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.
Originally posted by borntowatch
Baptism did not die on the cross for humanity.
Originally posted by borntowatch
it relies on our actions not Christs.
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.
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?
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.
Neither did repentance, but we both seem to agree it is necessary.
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)
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew
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.
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?edit on 22-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who was it that told you that was the meaning of that verse? One of your cult leaders?
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)
Repentance, "metanoia" in the Greek, means to change one's mind.
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)
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.
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.
Originally posted by autowrench
My question is how do you "know" someone who has been dead for several thousand years?
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 keep thinking like that, you are going to get kicked out of your cult.
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 he chose you as one of the Elect, that's grace that you can't say no to.
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.
. . . 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.