Featured Gonna Upset The Apple Cart

Elaborate your point (without the typical 'I knew you didn't know that passage' nonsense that comes from others)

 

There is nothing particularly wrong with you putting emphasis on those parts; I merely showed that the action of confession was the result of, not the catalyst to, salvation.

Consider the following two questions as perhaps a guide.

First: Can one confess (about anything) and not believe; that is can one give make a statement (a confession) that Jesus is Lord, and not believe (unto salvation)? (Mark 1, Matt. 7)

Of course they can. It is called hypocrisy in the biblical sense and perjury in the legal sense. It is and can be done.

Second: Can one believe and not confess; that is, can a person have a core of belief and it not come out?

No, for what is in the heart will come out. (Matt 15)

Is this not a true statement?

Because whoever publicly professes covenant agreement with Lord Jesus Christ with their mouth, even believing in their heart the resurrection, will be saved.
​

Just a note for folks who don't know:

The first words "thou shalt confess" is actually one Greek word (homologeo) which can be rendered as acknowledge, profess, assent - those words which are more public as one giving a testimony. It is not the establishment of a covenant, but stating that covenant is already existing.

The second "thou shat be saved" is also a single word (sozo) and it can be rendered: to preserve, to be made whole, to saved. It is a word that can be considered more forward looking with promise and security.

The verse is not specifically a condition needing fulfilled in order that a person becomes saved, but a statement of the results of salvation. The belief in the heart produces confession and preservation.

Those who use the "Romans road" (as I at times do, do), can then accurately show the security of those that believe in contrast to the insecurity of the ones unsaved.

Such would be more in keeping with Paul's writing to believers (in contrast to unbelievers) of the letter.




As always when I do any significant translation work, it must be submissive to those much younger and much closer to the original languages for correction. Should I post what is inaccurate, please do not hesitate to bring a more enlightened view.

 

You are full of stereotypes of the use of the Roman Road. I use the Roman Road and I assure you that I do not use it as you suggest. I do not believe that everyone is under conviction all the time. I do believe that the Holy Spirit must draw a lost person to Christ. I emphasize that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (You left that part out in your stereotyping) I emphasize repentance. You folks have no clue what you are talking about. You think you have it all wrapped up in a nice tight little box with a ribbon on top and that everyone else has it wrong. Some you need to get over yourselves. (emphasis on Salzer's post)

 

I must have gotten on the wrong road.:type:

 

The arrogant ignorance of some never ceases to amaze me.

 

Yes, yes, and yes. Whenever someone defines what someone else believes, and doesn't even bother to ask, I want to throw up!

Example:

Back at ya:
"You know Calvinists believe that God elects people to salvation from before the foundation of the world so they don't need to do missions."

How do you like it?

 

Good point.

"Of course you don't know that the passage..."

First it needs to be stated that at no point is Nicodemus told to accept Christ, but shown first the need, then the payment, and then the results of those given to belief. This is as I do, do when showing one who is unsaved their need of Christ.

Jesus took Nicodemus' statement about Jesus "Come(ing) from God" and pointed him to what is necessary to even see God's kingdom - the new birth.

All unsaved need born again.

Nicodemus though learned and schooled - even an aged teacher - had not known of the second birth - that which is by spirit.

The Lord Jesus illustrated the births and made certain that Nic. understood that the Spirit had to be involved.

At this point it is a bit important to note, the the water birth was not by choice, and neither is the birth of the Spirit by Choice. The Lord did not present the birth as other than what "must" be as prerequisites.

The Lord Jesus (imo) illustrates this point to Nic. using the wind. It comes and goes of its own determination, and humankind have no understanding of where it was from or going but the sound (results) could be heard. The same was with those who are born of the Spirit. They are led by the Spirit, and (in my thinking) the effective change of the heart will come out of the mouth to be heard by others. The world will take note that there is a person who is different than the world

In effect, the Lord was sharing with Nic. that the second birth brings a total change.

Poor Nicodemus could only respond in a bit of dismay, "How can these things be?"

Our Lord Jesus then went on to show Nic. that education isn't everything, and that the purposeful demonstration of God's love was in the complete sacrifice of His son.

The the redeemed are those of belief, and those of unbelief are condemned already. Now this is an important point (imo).

The fact that they are already condemned, shows that there is no "freedom of choice/will" decision to be made, for if such existed (exists) then John could not have rightly made the condition of the unbelief as already condemned. Rather, John would have had to place the condemnation as: might, possibly, perhaps...

Did Nic believe? John 7 (if I recall) has Nic. speaking up among the Jewish leaders opposed to Christ. John 19 (helping Joseph of Arimethea) suggests by opinion that he did. Especially considering that the purification rituals that Nic probably went through in prep. of the passover would have been negated.

It is also important to note the setting.

Nic came at night, secretly. What drove him to seek Jesus out? His own volition, his own innate desire?

No, that isn't consistent with John's statement about the condition of those who abide in darkness - they shun and do not comprehend.

Imo, Nicodemus came to the Lord Jesus because the Holy Spirit was impressing upon Him the need (another reason for Christ to remark about the working of the HS). The Holy Spirit is the force of conviction of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.

Jesus was to be lifted up, and Nic. helped Him be taken down, in my mind possibly reflecting on the talk he had with Christ that night.

Btw, isn't it interesting that Jesus was waiting up for Nic? He didn't have to be woken up, but (imo) new Nic was coming. I know that that is speculation, never-the-less, God knows who will be redeemed, already.

 

IMO, there is nothing wrong with the Roman Road, as we call it. It is the Word of God. If anything, not enough verses are in the Road, Romans 3:10, 3:23, 6:23, 10:9-10, Eph 2:8-9 and John 3:16 need other verses. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is an excellent illustration of the gap between sin and a Holy God, and the salvation experience of Paul is also a great starting point.

However, the walk up the aisle and endless verses of a hymn is the one of the most ridiculous man made parts of a worship we have ever thought of, along with the "sinner's prayer." No doubt if we walked up with a "skip to my lou" in beat with the hymn it would be more effective. For all the threads we start condemning creeds and chants because they become nothing but parroting words, what does one think a sinner's prayer is? Now repeat after me, and voila, you are saved. It might as well be a magic act. There is absolutely no linkage between the Roman Road and the antics at the end of a service. Walking up the aisle on verse four of "Just As I Am" is nothing but a sales gimic, and nothing of God. If one wants a song with many verses, try "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall." That way all will eventually walk up just to stop the repetition.

Does anyone ever wonder who invented this nonsense? Salvation of a lost human soul is the greatest miracle ever performed by the Lord. It is a solemn moment, a Holy transformation, and was never meant to be a circus act.

The Roman Road, if inclusive, points out the need for a Savior, the gap between sin and a Holy God, confession, repentence, and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

 

I didn't realize a "U-turn" was a condition of being saved

 

Perhaps it's an evidence instead.

 

If you could get lots of people walking up at the end of a particular service, and they go in formation, it does about this much good.

 

Was Saul/Paul saved on the Roman road or on the Damascus road.

Please elaborate. How was the Damascus road the Roman road?

 

sage wrote :The arrogant ignorance of some never ceases to amaze me. [/QUOTE] I will pray for you that the Lord will take the hate for me out of your heart.

 

The essential question is not that, but "If there was no life change in some, does that mean I stop preaching (using the Romans Road) to all"? Why would I?

 

also think Billy graham made it well known by his bent 'tent services"

think some were really saved by the lord during those events and at altars, but also think many were ffalsely holding their confidence in that "one time event!"

 

That's the very meaning of repent in the Bible.

 

I agree. I have a big problem with much Billy Graham has done over the years. I believe there will be quite a few people on judgement day saying "Lord, Lord, did I not repeat a counselor's prayer after filing in a huge line and waiting for a half hour"?