Featured An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

I don't and yes this would be correct.

I don't follow your conclusion. I think you are refering to Galatians chp 1

I think in this passage Paul isn't commenting so much on whether the false teachers will or will not be saved but rather that the Galatians will not recieve any teaching apart from what was passed on already to them from the apostles. Ie the deposit of faith. Also the impression I get from Paul is that this group of false teachers are not only knowledgeable about teaching contrary to the deposit already preached but are intentionally getting people to leave that deposit. In the modern case where we are now there is obvious difference in thought regarding that deposit but where there are mistakes it is honest mistakes not intentional to lead people from God. As Christians we all hold to certain truths no matter what denomination you are a part of. IE. The Trinity, Virgin Birth, Incarnation, Water Baptism for the faithful (despite what priority, emphasis is given to that practice all Christians believe one needs to be baptized whether its just symbolic as a proclimation of faith or sacramental), the suffering, and death of Jesus Christ which was a sacrifice for us (despite all the nuances of disagreement), all believe in a bodily resurrection of Jesus, his assention to sit at the right hand of the Father, we all believe in the Holy Spirit and his enableing us to live faithful lives, we all believe that Jesus will come again, and that there will be a judgement. These beliefs are in common to all Christians. How we nuance them are another matter.

Despite their contention they are not Christian and are intentional of leading people away from the consistently held truths of Christianity. They are no different than the Muslims leading Christians away. Now they may be convinced of their rightness but really that is irrelevant. And of all the points I made above both groups have seperated themselves from the very first point...Trinity.

I'm not certain this is true. We nuance the phrases slightly differently. However we both agree that the gospel or the Good News is that God became man and redeems us. We both believe that God wants to save us from sin and death and restore to us his life. That he wants to bring us into heaven. So we do hold many things similarily. But nuance things differently. For instance neither of us say salvation is realizing you are one with the universe. Contrarily we both believe man is fallen and Jesus saves us by his redemptive work and sacraficial atonement and apart from that we are incapable of salvation. A mormon's salvation is to become another god in a plethera of gods.

I'm not sure what you mean by tares. But the weeds are those people with in the church that aren't converted to God they are secular non-believers playing at church. And I accept the fact that there are these in the church. But it doesn't matter what they believe because in fact they don't believe at all and do what they want no matter what Jesus, the apostles, or scripture tells them.

 

God os able to take the Grace of the Cross, the death of jesus as a propiation for sins, and effectually apply that towards children not yet held responsible and accountibile for their sins, mentally challenged persons etc...

water not required, for salvation is by the blood of christ, not in water!

 

did King David baby die, and yet david would see him after he died?

 

He is not refering to "THE faith" but to "another GOSPEL". This disagreement reinforces are actual and serious differences even though we use the same terms. I could have just as easily quoted 2 Cor. 11:4 as much as Galatians 1:8-9. He defines what he means by the "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15:3-4.

More proof we are not even on the same page much less the same gospel. More proof that there is a REAL difference in definition of terms.

Anyone who defines the "gospel" as you do cannot possibly say our differences are mere "nuances" as that is rediculous. There is about as much "nuance" difference betweek regeneration and justification as there is between the Catholic view of the gospel and the Baptist view of the gospel. You just as well as say glorification and degeneration are mere difference of "nuance."

That is my point exactly and it is not because they use DIFFERENT TERMONOGLY as they use the SAME termonolgy for their salvation experiencea and Mormons would insist our differences in minor "nuances" because they think we are that stupid! Likewise Roman Catholocism use the same termonology as Baptists in regard to salvation and merely suggest it is a matter of "nuances" thinking we are that stupid! Catholicism is no more a "Christian" religion" than Mormonism or Hinduism are regardless of other similarites as the gospel and salvation is the bottom line distinction between all false religions and Christianity.

Mormonism and Hinduism believe in different gods but even if they believed in the same God they are as pagan as Catholicism as they both are agreed in the same basic view of salvation - by works but call it grace.

 

Romans 4:5-11 and the fact that Paul demands the example of Abraham is for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and for all who are "children" of Abraham!

 

what bothers our RCC friends here is probably the truth that no matter how we live our lives, or how many good works we have done, we gain NO extra justification from God, for he either justifes us fully at time of faith in Christ, or not at all!

 

repent of, and believe in what though?

 

That is absolutely false as well as irrrational and foolish! Indeed, claiming to be "saved" is completely absurd if there never an "unsaved" condition that you were ever conscious about. How can such a person even say they are "saved' if they were never conscious of ever being lost? This is the rediculous that paedobaptism drives some to.

 

It says nothing about women either! It says nothing about old men versus young men either! But it does include ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH and ALL who are "children" of Abraham! Does that exclude women because it does not name them?

the father of ALL them that believe, - Rom. 4:11

Gal. 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Gal. 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

 

Actually, I agree with Wittenberger on this one.

 

Then you are equally as wrong as he is as that is absurd. Jesus said I came not to save "the righteous but sinners and you and Wittenberger have someone being saved who never was conscious of a sinful condition! We are saved "from sin" not from a sinless mindset!

All who claim they were always saved are still lost in their religous sins.

Gentlemen,

There has NEVER been one way of salvation prior to the cross (Mt. 7:13-14; Acts 10:43) and it is the very same way after the cross (Heb. 4:2) as there never has been any other name given under heaven to men at any time other than the Old Testament "Christ" who is the New Testament "Jesus" or Yahweh our Savior (Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6).

If divine ordinances are related and/or essential at all to salvation and in particular to remission of sins they were just as essential prior to the cross as after the cross. However, the scriptures clearly repudiate that relationship in a UNIVERSAL PRE-circucmision example for "ALL" who are "OF FAITH" in the case of Abraham who did exist prior to the cross and who is the example for ALL who are of faith AFTER the cross (Rom. 4:11).

Hence, prior to the cross, prior to circumcision remission of sins were obtained by faith in the gospel of Christ - Acts 10:43 - the very same gospel preached now - Heb. 4:2 - and external ordinances prior to the cross NEVER TOOK AWAY SINS but were ("shadows") FORMS empty of LITERAL substance in regard to remitting sins.

 

You have answered your own question when you said:

"those who place their faith in Christ and repent" and this is precisely what the scripture repeat over and over again by precept and by example.

However, your concept of NEVER experiencing a time in one's life of ever beleiving or repenting and yet still be saved contradicts that very statement and indeed is a contradiction in terms. If there was never a time you experienced a lost condition then it could only have occurred when one came to that realization NOT BEFORE!

That is the point, your hypothetical example HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS OF SUCH A PAST CONDITION. Whatever point in time they grasped that concept is the time they were saved and not a moment before.