Commandment keeping

Indeed the future judgment of 2Cor 5:10 is explained "in detail" in Rom 2:5-16

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

 

BillySunday said: "What does it say there, DHK? It says “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Nowhere does scripture state that “…Baptism is a step of obedience after salvation.” That would be your reformed theological opinion and one that cannot be backed up by scripture, which I find rather ironic in that Sola Scriptura is the doctrinal mainstay of many (but not all) Protestant denominations."

SPOT ON!!

 

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that [b]if you confess[/b] with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, [b]you will be saved; [/b]
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and [b]with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/b]
11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES[/b] IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

1 Peter 3
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves[/b] you not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience[/b] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

 

Here is what I believe to be a good summary of the issue at hand:

"Romans 10:9 is just one of a number of abbreviated accounts of salvation that do not mention everything necessary. The message preached by both Jesus and John the Baptist was "Repent and believe," but in Acts 2:38 Peter said, "Repent and be baptized," without even mentioning belief. Later in Acts, Paul tells the Philippian jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 2:31), without mentioning repentance or baptism. All of these descriptions of salvation are partial. To get the complete picture requires that we look at the totallity of scripture.

Those who insist on a closed-box interpretation of Romans 10:9 run into the opposite extreme when confronted with passages that speak of those who do good or who persevere and are saved: They deny causality altogether, arguing that the saved will in fact do these things, but they are not saved because they do these things.

Those who believe in and confess Jesus can be saved but not merely because they believe in and confess him. It takes more than that." (Steven D. Greydanus)

Peace!

 

What has John 6:66--Jesus speaking to the public, have to do with Mat. 6--Jesus speaking to his disciples. In the Lord's Prayer, as we know it, Jesus was giving specific instructions to his disciples. We find a parallel passage in Luke 11:1

Luke 11:1-2 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
--The teaching given in the Lord's prayer is given to the disciples of the Lord, not to the public in general.
--Secondly, the Lord's Prayer has nothing to do with going out and giving the gospel to anyone. You are way off topic here.
--Third, your remark about confession of sins deals directly with the forgiveness of sins of believers, not of those of unbeliever. Context is of utmost importance.

So what is the teaching here? The teaching is clear. Before we come to God in prayer we need to make sure that we we have a clean conscience. Look at another Scripture:
Psalms 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:
--Sin separates us from God. If I want God to hear my prayers, I must first ask forgiveness for my sin. That is the principle being taught.

I never said that. Quote me where I did. Don't falsely accuse me. I used the word "automaton" in reference to the Catholics for they blindly follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church, unable to think for themselves. Whatever it teaches they must believe.
Contrary to that we have the command given in Scripture:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--This the Bereans did even when they were taught by the Apostle Paul.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--It is our duty to search the Scriptures daily; to learn with all readiness of mind--not to mindlessly believe what any organization spoon-feeds you.

When a person is truly saved, the Holy Spirit comes and takes up residence within, and begins to change that person. He also helps him learn. He changes and learns because the Holy Spirit gives him the desire to do so, not because he is an "automaton."

Since the old nature is still present free will is not ruled out. The believer must choose to obey Christ over and above the old nature. That is why Paul said "I die daily." Every day he had to put the flesh, this body of sin to death, and live for Christ. Sin is never absent. It is a struggle, a battle every day. Read Romans chapter 7. Paul describes that battle very descriptively.

 

Salvation is the same for everyone. There is only one gospel. Here is what Jesus said to that individual who asked "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" That is, How can I have eternal life?
Here is the answer of Christ:
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
In another gospel it is put this way:
Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
--It was not a question of being perfect, but one of having eternal. In Mark the work "perfect" is not even mentioned. He simply says that the young ruler lacks: go thy way, sell all, give to the poor, take up your cross, and follow me.

Don't beat around the bush. If that is the gospel message have you done that? There is only one gospel, one message fits all. That is what you must do. If that is what he had to do to have eternal life that is what you must do. Have you done that? If not there is no hope for you. For there is only one gospel message.

Throw out your Bible then. All that Jesus ever said is passe. It is no longer relevant today. He and the people he spoke to are not alive any more they walked this earth 2000 years ago. Jesus gave the gospel to his disciples 2000 years ago. He gave the Great Commission 2000 years ago. The gospels and even the epistles are no longer relevant. Throw it all out.

"He is not longer on the Earth so it would be impossible for me."

What an excuse that is!

John 16:24--Impossible for you to pray.
John 13:34,35--Impossible for you to love one another.
Mat.18:22--Impossible for you to forgive.
John 5:39--Impossible for you to search the Scriptures.

These commands were given 2000 years ago so they are not relevant to you. This is your philosophy. Why not just throw your Bible out.

I don't have a "reformed theological opinion." I am not of a reformed position, and never have been. Neither do I belong to a Protestant denomination.
Scripture does not contradict itself. You may contradict Scripture, but the Scripture does not contradict itself.
The Ethiopian eunuch was first saved. He believed. Then they went down off the chariot, down to the water, and was baptized.
The Philippian jailor was first saved. "He believed on the Lord Jesus and was saved." The he went to his house and was baptized.
All throughout Scripture they believed, and then were baptized. That is the order.
Acts 2:41. They first heard the Word, and then were baptized. First came their belief. Then baptism. Then church membership. That is the order in Scripture. You don't find any other.

The teaching is much clearer than you assume.
James asks a very necessary question and then sets out to demonstrate the answer to it.

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
--This is the key verse. James states that he show his faith by his works. In other works he has faith which is demonstrated by the works that comes as a result of a living vibrant faith. Works always follow faith. The Holy Spirit so changes a person that works follow. James was already speaking to believers. Always remember that this book was written to believers, not unbelievers.

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
--He is speaking to those who are saved and explaining how works follow salvation. But most people twist this to mean something different because they ignore the context.

Your first mistake is that you are basing your theology on the statement of a man that is born blind and is recently healed.
Your second mistake is that you have taken a statement out of context (as usual), for it is in the midst of a debate between a man just recently healed and the Pharisees who are interrogating him.
Your third mistake is like a veiled false accusation. Who said he would be like "some automaton." A quote would be good before you throw around false accusation (another word for lies).
Thus whatever you have concluded from John 9:31 would seem to be false.

Your sarcasm and ignorance for the Word of God is noted.

As I noted for you before, the "everyone" in that chapter is "all the Jews."
But you won't see that because you won't read the chapter. You are blind. You take things here and there out of context to fit your own paradigms.

Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

 

Jesus said that good trees produce good fruit. Your argument appears to say that bad trees produce good fruit until one day they become good trees.

In Romans 8 Paul makes the argument that bad trees cannot produce good fruit.

Rom 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are [b]in the flesh cannot please God.

Saved as in - born again and accepted by God - is what I am arguing for as the "good tree" that then produces good fruit.

in the texts you speak of above - saved is - taken to heaven. I agree that the one who is born-again today "saved" is not certain to go to heaven ten years from today -- unless they choose to "persevere".

in Christ,

Bob

 

That is simply an aside going to the point that you made earlier regarding OSAS. Clearly, Matthew 6:9-13 and Matthew 6:14-15 are stating categorically that if you do not forgive the transgressions of others against you, likewise the Father will not forgive you your transgressions! Why not address that issue and stop attempting to change the topic.

What? Do you even read scripture? Ref: the Sermon on the Mount as that's about as public as you can get.

Here we go with the doctrinal dance. I never said that it did - please address my points and stay on topic!

It most certainly is of the upmost importance. Unfortunately, I didn’t make a reference to confession in my post to which you are responding. Round and round we go….

I reiterate - address the import of Matthew 6:9-13 and Matthew 6:14-15 if you can.

That is hardly the prinicpal being taught. Sin separates us from salvation AND heaven. Consequently, if you do not repent and do what God expects of you (I.e .forgive those who sin against you for one thing), God will not forgive you. Ultimately, without God’s forgiveness, one cannot enter into heaven. This is the plain and simple teaching.

The implication is there, albeit blurred. However, I did ask you to clarify which you have yet to do.

The Bereans and the Thessalonians have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Great! Search the scriptures for a response to the points that I brought up.

Well then, do you think that, not being and automaton, an individual can fall away? That is the question.

Agreed – however, please reference the above.

Peace!

 

Agreed. Yet the verses exist none-the-less...

And I will repeat the relevant part of that which I provided in post #84:

"Romans 10:9 is just one of a number of abbreviated accounts of salvation that do not mention everything necessary. The message preached by both Jesus and John the Baptist was "Repent and believe," but in Acts 2:38 Peter said, "Repent and be baptized," without even mentioning belief. Later in Acts, Paul tells the Philippian jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 2:31), without mentioning repentance or baptism. All of these descriptions of salvation are partial. To get the complete picture requires that we look at the totallity of scripture.”

And that message depends largely on the denominational lenses through which you are reading scripture.

Why – because my interpretation of scripture is different than yours? Me thinks not!

And I suppose that the historical context and audience to which a particular scripture is addressed is meaningless to you. How myopic.

What we see here ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of sheer bloviated sophistry and nothing more!

You are a Baptist – or at least that is your claim, and all denominations are in some way direct descendants of the Protestant reformation – like it or not – a Protestant thou be!

I simply gave you scripture that upsets your very thin theological comfort zone. If scripture does not contradict itself (and it doesn’t) then what you are left with is the fact that your interpretation of scripture must be logically flawed.

So, we now dance over to the salvific nature of Baptism…. OK – I’ll bite. This chronological order of yours is a fallacy. Oh… and please don’t accuse me of contradicting scripture – I am only presenting you WITH scripture.

Acts 2:38 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16 16And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

1 Peter 3: 20-21
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Just as Noah and his family were saved by water, water baptism now saves us. There it is; explicitly stated in the Bible. Look at Jesus’ own word in John’s gospel…

John 3:5
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Baptism is the context in which one must be born of water and the spirit.

Ultimately, let us examine Jesus’ own Baptism. Jesus is baptized with water and look what happens to him when he comes up out of the water (or is sprinkled)... the spirit descends upon him – water and the spirit.

Look at what these verses say DHK. They are clearly showing Baptism as coming first, yet the verses that you have provided would seem to indicate the opposite. How do you reconcile this chronological dichotomy, DHK? Would it be to claim that I am contradicting scripture? You always accuse me of that when scripture contradicts your own fallible interpretation. This is the ultimate result a smorgasbord theological approach based upon one's own infallible authority (or that of others) to interpret scripture.

continued...

 

continued...

It becomes key to your interpretation only when you divorce it from the context of the entire scripture section that I quoted – a practice, I might add, that you employ with perfect regularity.
Since you see fit to eradicate my relavent posting in your replies, let me post it again for the benefit of those who are following along.

Not so fast. Where do you see that James is speaking of “…those who are saved and explaining how works follow salvation.” It’s certainly not in scripture. Chapter and verse please!

Non-sequitor – I think you need a break there, DHK.

Ditto...

1. I said that in an attempt to summarize the point that I thought you were attempting to make.
2. When did I attribute that to you? I asked for clarification.
3. Lies? Me thinks you see Satan under every rustling leaf there, DHK.

My goodness! I never even quoted John 9:31 in any recent posting – what blatant scatological twaddle!

And sarcasm is an effective way of shinning light on the ridiculous as is your refusal to once again address a direct question.

I see - so everyone does not mean everyone. It only means all of the Jews. You see DHK, you must necessarily jump though these hoops in order to obfuscate scripture toward your own ends. Exactly who is guilty of the above charge? Hmmm…

Just minute there me bucko...You started this missive with the following statement “…Salvation is the same for everyone. There is only one gospel.”

Yet, now you are claiming that the Jews are to be judged differently than everyone else? You cannot have it both ways there, DHK.

Peace!

 

Well, at least we have that in common. There are some folks here with which I can find no common ground.

Peace!

 

Look, you are the one that is totally inconsistent in your position.
You insist that a person must do works in order to be saved.
One of the verses you quote to support your view is in the story of the rich young ruler quoted both in Matthew 19 and in Mark 10.
The question of the rich young ruler was: "how can I have eternal life?"
The answer of Jesus was:

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

First you say that we must keep the commandments of Jesus.
Now, when the command of Jesus is pointed out to you, you are aghast, and think to yourself "I can't do that!" So you make a retreat.
You hypocritically say that that command only applied to that man 2000 years ago. It doesn't apply to me. If you are consistent then all the commands of Jesus applied only 2000 years ago. Remember you were the one that first used this verse in support of the contention that we must keep the commands of Jesus in order to go to heaven. You quoted it first. It is your premise. Now you don't want to carry it to its conclusion. You are a hypocrite. You just want to pick and choose which of the commands of Jesus are convenient for you to obey--the ones that don't cause you to upset your life--where no sacrifice is required.

There was no exegesis of this passage on your part. You just chose a verse at random and tried to use it to further your own agenda. As it was it worked against you, not in your favor.
No doubt you still don't know the meaning of this story and why Jesus commanded the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give to the poor. But I will tell you this: It isn't the gospel.

Historical context always plays a part. But that still was a command of Jesus. You are the one that demands that we obey the commands of Jesus. So why don't you? What's your problem?

No, what we see is poor exegesis, or none at all, pulling Scripture out of context to fit one's own end, and when applied hypocritically dodging the application as he himself originally set it should be obeyed--to keep his commandments. He was the one that used the verse in the first place. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head again.

You can bluster all you like, but to the Baptists on this board, they read your boisterous posts and think: "aaah, just another poor soul totally ignorant of church history."

You gave Scripture that you can't even exegete. If you don't know the meaning of it, why should I even bother with it?

There is not one verse in the Bible that suggests baptism is salvic--not one. The fact that you misinterpret them and try to make them look like they do is another subject. Peter speaks of such people.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

There is not one of those Scriptures that say you need to be baptized to be saved. Not one. Like I said, because you don't know the meaning or how to properly exegete the verse is not our problem; it is yours.
Your suggestion here is that:
1. Baptism is necessary to salvation.
2. Jesus was baptized.
3. Jesus needed to be saved.

That is how ridiculous your post looks. Yes you are contradicting Scripture.

 

In essence the OSAS man-made tradition is consitently held by Calvinists and you can even find some Arminians that hold to that.

But most Arminians do not think that the OSAS tradition has good Bible support. You will find that any thread where OSAS is being debated - there is a "side of the fence" that is in strong agreement with some of your positions.

Feel free to join in with us. :godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob

 

So you say DHK.

And I have provided reams of scripture to support this yet, you have provided nothing in rebuttal except opinion, personal attacks, and entertaining (if not laughable) banter.

And indeed we must. Are you saying that we don’t need to keep the commandments of Jesus? I don’t want to be accused of lying again, but your response certainly leans in that direction.

I am neither aghast nor in retreat. I am, however, waiting on an intellectually rigorous response - and one, I might add, that I have yet to see from you.

I am perfectly willing to carry it to its conclusion and I have given you scripture clearly indicating this. You simply refuse to discuss it rationally.

What an ugly thing to say, DHK. Do you think that Jesus would approve of your accusations? Perhaps the word hypocrite now takes on a new meaning for you...

That is complete pap.

Well, I have yet to see the proof of such an assertion.

It isn’t the gospel? From the mouth of our savior and it isn’t the gospel? From where did you learn this?

Are you saying that we should NOT obey the commands of Jesus?

Indeed! However, it comes from what you may consider an unlikely source…you! Further, are you saying with a straight face that we should NOT keep the commandments?

I am very familiar with Church history – especially the Early Church Fathers. However, I assumed that you would only accept scripture as a basis for discussion. Therefore, I will be more than happy to oblige you on this front, DHK. Let's do it!

The meaning of it according to who – you? Calvin? Your pastor? Well, I would posit that in fact, it is you who cannot carry on honest logical discourse. You can only regurgitate the indoctrination with which you have been filled. You never answer any questions that are put to you, and you resort to name calling and innuendo when the going gets tough.

And I would think that you are well familiar with that verse having had it applied to you numerous times in the past.

You should be the poster child for shortsightedness.

John 3:5
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If one cannot enter the kingdom of God, one cannot enter into eternal life. You have issues here, DHK.

Well, I would posit the exact opposite. Now where does that leave us, DHK? Who has the authority here to resolve such a dispute?

And it most certainly is:
1 Peter 3: 20-21 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

My suggestion is that Jesus was baptized? Are you serious? He was – setting the example for all of us. You are fast losing any shred of credibility that have here, DHK.

I am contradicting your fallible interpretation of scripture and that chaps you royally doesn’t it?

No – I am contradicting your interpretation of scripture, and you are skating on an argument to which you have no rebuttal. Why not try engaging in meaningful intellectual discourse instead of constantly attacking the integrity of others. Could it be that this is the easiest way out of your dilemma? I suspect so!

Peace!

 

And which Baptist beliefs would that be? It appears that the majority leanings of Baptists is now to the side of the reformed view. Do you hold to that ann? If not, why not? I mean, all Baptists are supposed to be united in the same doctrines right?

Peace!

 

GE:
BobRyan, you ignorant preposterous hypocrite! In other words, You Seventh-day Adventist!

 

Can't you just feel the LOVE! :love2:

 

GE:
I would rather be honest and speak the truth than feign 'love'

 

Since you don't know what the "Baptist beliefs" are maybe you should go back to the RCC. The Baptists here know on which they are united. You are the one that is confused. And I think I know why.