Baptism:Luther, Knox, Calvin, Augustine...

JSM17: I am doing my best to be patient with you, but for the second time, you have given a `clarification' where you continue to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

First you say that "does faith include repentance: yes"

WHILE​

you talk about "faith that leads one to repent" and "faith alone" as "faith all by itself apart from repentance."

It is really, really simple: IF FAITH INCLUDES REPENTANCE THEN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAITH APART FROM REPENTANCE.

It does not exist even for a moment. "Faith alone" would include repentance without saying. There would be no point in talking about faith without repentance.

I realize you want to have both so that you can shift sides of your mouth as convenient for debate. You know that separating faith and repentance is convenient to try to get around Ephesians 2:8-10 and other passages that teach that we are saved by faith. On the other hand, you know that the Bible does not acknowledge that one can believe on Jesus Christ without repentance; you do not want to acknowledge `watering down' what faith means in Scripture. However, it is this simple: you cannot have both -- either faith includes repentance or it does not.

It is for you to determine once and for all which is it.

• If you decide that faith can exist without repentance, then I do not want to read any more claims from you that faith includes much more than a meaningless assent -- if anything.

• If you decide that faith includes repentance, then I do not want to read any more from you about how "faith alone" excludes repentance.

Pick one, and stick with it.

If you need to take some time to decide, please take it. I do not want you to make a rush decision if you need time. I am not going to pull any `still waiting' nonsense. If you need time to think about it, I will be happy to give it to you -- but I insist that you make a permanent decision as to what "faith" does and does not entail.

Otherwise, I will soon start calling this like I see it. Right now, you are looking more like a weasel who wants to keep any tricks available in order to `win' by any means, as opposed to an honest person. I hope you step up and give me reason to doubt my suspicion.

 

Academic sterility, is all this much ado about nothing, all because the place of the apostles has been taken in by a Denominational Structure and the work of the Holy Spirit has been taken over by a religion of salvation by works.

 

I am not playing the "True or False" game with you.

It is beneath my intelligence, and what it is used for is unbecoming of Christians.

Further, after being called on to choose a `side of your mouth' regarding what faith includes or does not include, you have still avoided doing so. In fact, this game is your latest weaseling.

Since you have chosen to weasel away from your practice of speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and further, have digressed to this, I will no longer be assuming the best of you.

You have shown that you are someone who is here to `win' debates, regardless of the means, and regardless of the truth.

For all we know, you yourself do not believe all the positions or arguments you advance to be genuine truth.

 

Oh, believe me, I know.

They are very effective in setting up an uninformed person to be deliberately misrepresented and smeared.

Once that gets started, discussion that is truthful both ways is over. They have nothing to do with seeking truthful discussions about the truth -- they entirely undermine that.

Your resorting to that the true/false tactic is consistent with your `Now I deny it, now I affirm it, now I deny it' game you have been playing with what faith includes/does not include. You `deny' normally, then `affirm' when it would be expedient, then promptly you go back to `deny.'

In regards to that `Now I deny it, now I affirm it, now I deny it' game you have been playing, all that you were asked to do was decide once and for all whether you affirm or deny. If this thread was about truth, you yourself would want to have a solid view -- but you actually evaded doing so. The reader can go back and see how you handled that.

I am just calling it as I see it. At this point, I would be `burying my head in the sand' if I `saw' otherwise. I have given you chance after chance to show otherwise -- not only did you not step up, but you made a crafty effort to avoid it, and then you crawled down.

 

JSM14:
"There are those in N.T scripture that believed in Christ, yet did not repent, that would not confess. "

GE:
This, is utterly, untrue!

 

So is this part of the pre-Acts 2 part of Scripture that is considered applicable?

I know that in your church group, some are considered applicable to `the New Testament church' and some are not. Is this passage one of them that applies?

Also, will your position on that be shifting according to the circumstances of the discussion?

Oh, and were there some whom you claim believed but did not repent? Please explain.

Also, if/when you explain, could you specify whether or not you are including repentance within faith at the moment? You deny or affirm according to the circumstances on this, and so we need you to clarify which you will do at that moment.

 

You are straining. Paul said "do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe" which means that Agrippa believed the prophets.

It is debatable whether or not Agrippa spoke his true sentiment or was using sarcasm.

So I take it this is one of those passages before Acts 2 that you consider applicable to the modern church?

I will assume so -- and I hope you do not shift according to convenience as is your habit.

So based on this, you say that they had no change of heart? Did the text say so? Not in what I read. How do you know? Are you just passing judgment against them because they did not all should have in one thing? Wow! If one failure to do all we should have = no change of heart, then none of us who are Christians have had a change of heart. Your judgment criteria is invalid, and your judgment against those people a sweeping judgment.

Matthew 10:32-3 is claimed as teaching that if we do not confess Jesus before Him, He will deny us. Matthew 10:32 has "Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father" (ASV) and 10:33 has "whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father" (ASV). I stick with the text: He will acknowledge those who acknowledge Him before people, and He will deny anyone who denies Him.

Back to John 12, says that they "believed on him" (ASV) but it says they "they did not confess it" (ASV). It does not say that they denied Him -- the text suggests they simply and quietly continued to believe on Him.

They no doubt lived according to His teachings but kept quiet about it.

Why would they not be?

Jesus spoke to a mixed audience of Jews who believed on Him and those who did not. He stepped away from the dispute for a moment to insert those comments for that portion. It is a great example of how the Lord gives special attention for His followers.

The rest of the crowd continued in their rebellion against Him, and the disputation there continued. I cannot believe you would seriously suggest that people who believed on Him would speak to Him like the general crowd was. Therefore, I will assume you are not.

 

Yes Darron, it's nice to agree with you once. Agrippa believed like the devil believes (James), and those who truly believed but did not confess : it is clear they at that occasion confessed not; it does not say they never confessed. I believe that they would have confessed their faith eventually and somehow else; only under that ongoing circumstance they did not.

 

This was before the New Covenant, so I am unaware of any biblical indication that the Holy Spirit was converting anyone.

As for "Does this sound like they repented?" I answered this above.

I am not comfortable judging whether someone has repented before the Lord based upon one thing. It is not enough information.

Jesus said at Matthew 7:2 "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you" (ASV). I would not want to be judged based upon failure to do everything I should have.

Evidently, you are quite comfortable making such judgments. I could not imagine being so comfortable. I guess I no longer have the privilege of ignorance of my own shortcomings, or those of others that could have just as easily been mine.

I dare say that if you were to judge yourself with the same `zip' as you did these people, you would find out that you too have failed to do all that you should. If you were to take an honest look at your past, you would realize that you fail your own test about whether you had repented or not!

"Does this sound like they repented?" -- not necessarily so or no. It sounds like they failed do all they should have -- just like any Christian has, whether s/he has the humility to accept it or not.

I have no reason to assume they had not repented. Further, regardless of whether you want to accept it or not, you do not either.

 

Your point? No one denies that they did not confess. How does this improve upon what has actually been discussed?

 

I would like to add something to say on Matt. 10:32,33. This passage is deal with anyone who facing persecution, anyone who asking to a Christian, "Who are you a Christian?" as they are about to torture or kill a Christian at same time. Christian have to be gut and be strong with brave and dare tell to them, "Yes I am a Christian" that is confessing before men and before Christ too. That means, a Christian is not deny Christ.

But, while Christian facing question and persecute, do felling the fear inside for being facing suffer and death, do not want to be suffer or death, Christian have no choice, but to tell them, "No I am not Christian", Christian's life is saved, but Christian DENY Christ, therefore, Christ will deny this person, send this person to hell.

In 2 Tim. 2:11-12 telling us, if we suffer with Christ, we shall reign with him, if we deny, then Christ will deny us. That mean, if we deny Christ, then Christ will deny us, by send us away into everlasting punishment.

Notice Rev. 3:5 says, anyone who overcoming the world at death, Christ shall confess this person before Father and angels at Judgment Day. Or, if a person fails to overcoming the world, then Christ shall deny this person before Father and his angels, also, person's name shall be removed away from the book of life, and cast away into lake of fire according Rev. 20:14-15.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

I agree that water baptism does not save. Acts 10 demonstrates this:

43 speaks of salvation prior to water baptism
44-46 we have the historical conformation of receiving the spirit with the speaking of tongues which I personally believe ceased to function in this manner
47 water baptism came after the declaration that these were saved by believing

Chapter ten give order of the process.

Personally when I accepted Christ I was saved that moment. I experienced a make over in my heart that morning, new life. I was baptized several weeks later, but I can testify that I was new, different, and changed and the water did not cause me to experience anything more or less. Up to that point I had been baptized as a young boy around 12 and sprinkled when I married my late wife then. So if baptism saves I was saved in the Baptist Church and the Methodist Church. Of course those two baptisms did not save me. I was really saved in the Anderson Church of God not by the denotation but by God's miraculous work in my heart, born from above. I might add that when I left the CofG and because a Baptist again as a real believer by local church requirement I had to be baptized again, just a ritual as far as I am concerned, something to put on paper and turn in for recognition, a head count approach to membership. It did not do anything for me accept to comply with the local body rules.