We were taught in twi that doing Rm 10:9-10 guaranteed us a ticket to heaven when JC returns.
I have been re-thinking this concept lately. Now I think that Rm 10: 9-10 is more like just the beginning of our journey. I have read some of John Bevere's works--especially his fiction book Rescued, which has added more thoughts and musings to this old bird's head.
In my mind I pictured myself at the bema--which in Greek was where an athlete stood to find out if he REALLY won the event or not--they would pronounce whether or not the athlete had disqualified himself in any way and IF he hadn't, then he would receive the prize. Bema was also where the defendant and plantiff (in our terminology) would stand when involved in a court case.
Anyways--I thought about standing before my Lord and Savior who was crucified for me....and wanting to be able to show my faithfulness and thankfulness to JC and God by my actions throughout my lifetime.
Now I am currently exploring the concept of what I guess some would call covenant theology? That our new birth is a covenant or contract with God which entails specific terms being required in order for the contract to not be void.
Anyone else had similiar thoughts or know more about this covenant theology thing?
Is theology a Science? can theology explain the plans of GOD? Theology i thought only define certain terms and man made theories so how can this be?
Penguine, all I know is that there are folks that will arrive expecting to join with Jesus. They obviously believe that they have the right to be there.....they have done things in Jesus` name....but Jesus is going to tell them to *depart for I knew you not*
I think that we have a poor understanding of the new birth and who will have access to the kingdom of God.
The verses in galatians 5 say that those who manifest the fruits of the flesh will have no inheritance ....and I know plenty of people who manifest those very fruit who believe that recitation of romans 10;9 & 10 guarantee them access.
I like your analogy of a contract, a covenant that needs to be honored.
I don't know anything about covenant theology, but I have done alot of thinking about what happens to us after we die. What made the most sense to me was universal salvation, where everyone (without exception) will be with God.
Anyone else had similiar thoughts or know more about this covenant theology thing?
Funny I've been thinking about this recently. I don't know anything about a specific covenant theology but I am coming to the conclusion that Romans 10:9, 10 is as you say only the beginning of a journey. I think that it does ensure that a person escapes the "wrath" but it does not guarantee that a person will be allowed access to the kingdom of heaven.
From what I can figure, access to the kingdom requires faithful service to God. Almost like works but not works. Works cannot make a person righteous only God can do that but works as a faithful servant or child can garner favor. Similar to a child that cleans his room everyday. His parents are more likely to allow him to go to the movies with his friends than the child that doesn't do anything. (Simple analogy) We are His children, if we wish to go out and play in this life and beyond then we need to be obedient to His word and His will.
The part about it being a contract I think is a good analogy. We are adopted children. He adopted us but we also adopted Him. It was mutual, we both needed each other, and we both made a contract with each other. God has promised not to break His side of the agreement, we need to do the same. Then we both, us and God need to keep our word.
What Rascal said is also correct. There are those that think that God made a contract with them and He did not. So they will not be welcomed into the family when all is said and done.
We were taught in twi that doing Rm 10:9-10 guaranteed us a ticket to heaven when JC returns.
I have been re-thinking this concept lately. Now I think that Rm 10: 9-10 is more like just the beginning of our journey. I have read some of John Bevere's works--especially his fiction book Rescued, which has added more thoughts and musings to this old bird's head.
In my mind I pictured myself at the bema--which in Greek was where an athlete stood to find out if he REALLY won the event or not--they would pronounce whether or not the athlete had disqualified himself in any way and IF he hadn't, then he would receive the prize. Bema was also where the defendant and plantiff (in our terminology) would stand when involved in a court case.
Anyways--I thought about standing before my Lord and Savior who was crucified for me....and wanting to be able to show my faithfulness and thankfulness to JC and God by my actions throughout my lifetime.
Now I am currently exploring the concept of what I guess some would call covenant theology? That our new birth is a covenant or contract with God which entails specific terms being required in order for the contract to not be void.
Anyone else had similiar thoughts or know more about this covenant theology thing?
Consider this: Romans 10:9 says because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
What does that actually say? Let us first look at the logical construction of that verse:
There are three parts to that verse...
The first part is "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord" (Let's call that phrase "A")
The second part is "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" (Let's call that phrase "B")
The third part is "you will be saved" (Let's call that phrase "C")
If we use the above shortcuts for the phrases, we can come up with a construction that says: IF A AND B THEN C
The operator "AND" means that the variables on either side of the "AND" operator must be true in order for the whole to be true.
In other words, both A and B must be true for C to be true.
Having said that:
- Does it say anywhere that C remains to be true if either A or B cease to be true? I don't see that in there, do you?
The rest of the "ticket to heaven" theology comes from making certain expressions synonymous that aren't, in fact, synonyms. For example, does "saved" equal "incorruptible seed?" VeePee says it does, but does it really?
So as a result, he has to somehow start doing contortions around perfectly obvious scriptures to make it work. For example, Galatians 5:21 says, in part, those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Perfectly obvious the meaning there, right? How does he work around that obvious phrase? He says that it's really talking about broken fellowship, not sin.
He does that in multiple places...I'm sure you see it when you think about it (that way of thinking became so ingrained in us that we must actually think about it, though).
Getting rid of false synonyms taught by VeePee is a key to regaining your freedom!
Yeah.. "converted, saved, born again, call it what you will.."
that is a pretty big assumption that they are indeed all the same thing.
I think what you are referring to is equivalence. A and B imply C, but for an equivalence relation, a person must show that If C implies A and B.
the vicster broke so many rules of logic. He had a minor in philosophy, didn't really have an excuse.
One other thing you could add was the Vicster's dispensational view of scripture (allowing him to ignore what he didn't like) cause him to completely disregard the application of the Prodigal Son.
Because the answer to Penguin's question is in that story.
Consider this: Romans 10:9 says because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
What does that actually say? Let us first look at the logical construction of that verse:
There are three parts to that verse...
The first part is "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord" (Let's call that phrase "A")
The second part is "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" (Let's call that phrase "B")
The third part is "you will be saved" (Let's call that phrase "C")
If we use the above shortcuts for the phrases, we can come up with a construction that says: IF A AND B THEN C
The operator "AND" means that the variables on either side of the "AND" operator must be true in order for the whole to be true.
In other words, both A and B must be true for C to be true.
Having said that:
- Does it say anywhere that C remains to be true if either A or B cease to be true? I don't see that in there, do you?
The rest of the "ticket to heaven" theology comes from making certain expressions synonymous that aren't, in fact, synonyms. For example, does "saved" equal "incorruptible seed?" VeePee says it does, but does it really?
So as a result, he has to somehow start doing contortions around perfectly obvious scriptures to make it work. For example, Galatians 5:21 says, in part, those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Perfectly obvious the meaning there, right? How does he work around that obvious phrase? He says that it's really talking about broken fellowship, not sin.
He does that in multiple places...I'm sure you see it when you think about it (that way of thinking became so ingrained in us that we must actually think about it, though).
Getting rid of false synonyms taught by VeePee is a key to regaining your freedom!
Mark, that's a very interesting and logical look at the verses in Romans. I've often thought about this myself and long ago I came to the conclusion that the key to understanding the verses lies in determining what Jesus is Lord of. I had always heard that that confession was pertaining to how we were to act as if Jesus was our Lord and therefore serve him in that capacity. However, I had come to the conclusion that (at least in my opinion) it means we confess Jesus as Lord of life, being the first one raised from the dead to everlasting life. In other words I'm not sure you can separate the belief from the confession just because there is that little word "and" between the two. It would do no good to confess Jesus as Lord if he didn't get up from the dead.
We believe our salvation is dependent on Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Son of God. Faith that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior having paid the penalty through His atonement for our sins. Faith that Jesus Christ broke the bonds of death. Last but not least, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
When all these have been met we rest assured that at the Final Judgement Chirst will claim us as his own.
If, as some claim, merely accepting the verses in Romans 10: 9-10 was sufficient then why does the NT repeatedly list those things that will cause a person not to inherit the kingdom of God?? Fornication, adultry, homosexualty, dishonesty... and the list goes on.
If as VPW and TWI taught, and others also, it is once saved always saved -why did the apostles find it necessary, after Christ's death, to continually remind those who would follow in His footsteps that these behaviors were not allowed? It should have made no difference--but it clearly did make a difference then, and now.
It isn't enough to pay lip service to the tenets of the Bible and specifically the teachings of Christ unless your actions and your life a a whole reflect those tenets and teachings.
Right here at GSC, we see the confusion and pain the idea that VPW and LCM etal are somehow exempted from their behaviors, an idea propounded by proponents of this pernicious doctrine, has caused and continues to cause. A doctrine truly of Heavenly father would not cause pain and confusion but rather joy and harmony.
Reality check if you truly believe Romans 10:9-10 and intend to follow Christ then you will automatically (not forced by the Holy Ghost) seek to do those things that He would have done. You will avoid doing those things that would cause Him and Heavenly Father pain. Will you always succeed? Of course not, that is what grace is for, that you can be forgiven when you fail and get back on the right path.
There is a vast difference between the follower of Christ who stumbles and falls, dusts himself off and gets back to work perfecting his life, and the person who claims Romans 10: 9-10 and then carries on with business as usual no matter how it affects those around him.
We are to live our lives so that we are a light unto the rest of the world, we become lights to others not by our words but by our actions.
This is not salvation by works--since we can not perform works perfectly and perfection is what God requires, It is salvation by grace since the price Jesus Christ paid covers our less than perfect works.
- Does it say anywhere that C remains to be true if either A or B cease to be true? I don't see that in there, do you?
I no longer have ready access to any "research" tools, but i think it would depend on what parts of speech 'confess" and "believe" are.
There is one tense that describes a one-time action, another that indicates continuing action.
If the tense of "confess" and "believe" is the one that shows one-time action, then it wouldn't matter whether A or B remained true for C to be true, on the other hand, if the tense describes continuing action, then it would be as you said, if A and B did not remain true, then C waould not be true.
"Could it really be that simple?" Nicholus Cage Natioal Treasure.
I think it applies here,Why cannot we accept God simply giving the new birth by grace?
I know all men want to do it by works,To that I say good luck!
Of course God gives the new birth by grace. No one is disputing that. What is being diputed is the fact that one you recieve the new birth you can go commit any kind of sin you want and stilll have your salvation. The new birth is one thing, you are made clean before God by Christs Atonement.
Salvation is another thing, salvation means that you are covered by the atonement for the sins you commit after the new birth.
The two are not the same
In order for them to be the same the following would have to be true
A person receives the new birth and then goes out and deliberately kills a person in an armed robbery of a store in order to get the money he needs--but because he experienced the new birth his salvation is secure and he will occupy the same place in heaven as a person who has always lived the best Christian life they could.
This is so completely counter to everything that the Bible teachs that it would be laughable but for the fact that there are so many people out there who accept it as true.
Living your life in a way that glorifies God and exemplifies Christ-like behavior is not an attempt to gain salvation through works. Rather it is the actions of someone who truly embraces the message that Christ brought.
If any kind of behavior is acceptable after the new birth, then VPW and LCM's actions should have never had an adverse effect on those around them since they were not contrary to the teachings of Christ.
You can't have it both ways--
VPW and LCM experienced the new birth and therefore any acts they commited that would be regarded as sin in most circles were rendered null and void by that birth. Since they were rendered null and void not only were VPW and LCM not to be held to be held to account for them, they did not have to ask forgiveness for them on any front because having had the new birth they were automatically "held harmless" for them and they could continue on their merry way. It is just too bad if the people they victimized don't feel unharmed.
OR
VPW and LCM experienced the new birth and when they commited sinful acts, they were required to, repent, and ask God for forgiveness, AND THEN LIVE THEIR LIVES IN SUCH A WAY AS THOSE SINS WERE NOT REPEATED ESPECIALLY NOT DELIBERATELY.
The part of the previous sentance that is in bold capitals is what is called "works", folks. That is what the Bible means by "works"--not always some grand action towards others, although that too is considered a "work"-- but the continual perfection of your individual life in order to attempt to bring it in harmony with the life and walk of Christ.
To say that "works" is not necessary for salvation, as TWI maintained was the case, just doesn't stand up to Biblical standards on any level.
Faith without works is dead. Having the new birth is meaningless if it brings no changes or improvements to the character and actions of the person experiencing it. the Bible mentions that it would be preferable to God that you were cold, rather than neither hot or cold, since he will "spew you out of His mouth" ion that case. "Neither Hot nor cold', refers to the the people with the new birth whose "works" do not reflect the same.
Be very clear --the co mingling of the idea of the "new Birth" with "salvation" to make them one and the same was concieved of and promoted in TWI, just as elsewhere, for the sole purpose of permitting the guilty to continue their lives without having to apologize or in any way make restitution for their sinful actions.
Salvation is the gift given by God at the judgement seat when Christ steps forward and says" Father, I paid for this persons sins, with my blood", and God reponds to the soul standing before Him "well done, good and faithful servant."
The "new birth" is the original cleansing of a person in this life of all his past sins as he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in anticipation of theday he will stand at the Judgement Seat.
What falls between these two events is most definitely governed by the "works" we perform. whether good or bad, and how we approach the Almighty when we fall short of the mark.
I no longer have ready access to any "research" tools, but i think it would depend on what parts of speech 'confess" and "believe" are.
There is one tense that describes a one-time action, another that indicates continuing action.
If the tense of "confess" and "believe" is the one that shows one-time action, then it wouldn't matter whether A or B remained true for C to be true, on the other hand, if the tense describes continuing action, then it would be as you said, if A and B did not remain true, then C waould not be true.
The word ὁμολογήσῃς is the 2nd person aorist active singular subjunctive of ὁμολογέω
LIkewise, the word πιστεύσῃς is the 2nd person aorist active singular subjunctive of πιστεύω
The question is whether it is the inceptive aorist, cumulative aorist, or punctiliar aorist...and I'm not that good with Greek to know the answer to that one...
The word ὁμολογήσῃς is the 2nd person aorist active singular subjunctive of ὁμολογέω
LIkewise, the word πιστεύσῃς is the 2nd person aorist active singular subjunctive of πιστεύω
The question is whether it is the inceptive aorist, cumulative aorist, or punctiliar aorist...and I'm not that good with Greek to know the answer to that one...
Recommended Posts
Bolshevik
I have no clue.
twi discouraged bible study with any real seriousness.
yes, I wonder what will happen with me and those I'm concerned about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Spiritural
Is theology a Science? can theology explain the plans of GOD? Theology i thought only define certain terms and man made theories so how can this be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Penguine, all I know is that there are folks that will arrive expecting to join with Jesus. They obviously believe that they have the right to be there.....they have done things in Jesus` name....but Jesus is going to tell them to *depart for I knew you not*
I think that we have a poor understanding of the new birth and who will have access to the kingdom of God.
The verses in galatians 5 say that those who manifest the fruits of the flesh will have no inheritance ....and I know plenty of people who manifest those very fruit who believe that recitation of romans 10;9 & 10 guarantee them access.
I like your analogy of a contract, a covenant that needs to be honored.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
I don't know anything about covenant theology, but I have done alot of thinking about what happens to us after we die. What made the most sense to me was universal salvation, where everyone (without exception) will be with God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Funny I've been thinking about this recently. I don't know anything about a specific covenant theology but I am coming to the conclusion that Romans 10:9, 10 is as you say only the beginning of a journey. I think that it does ensure that a person escapes the "wrath" but it does not guarantee that a person will be allowed access to the kingdom of heaven.
From what I can figure, access to the kingdom requires faithful service to God. Almost like works but not works. Works cannot make a person righteous only God can do that but works as a faithful servant or child can garner favor. Similar to a child that cleans his room everyday. His parents are more likely to allow him to go to the movies with his friends than the child that doesn't do anything. (Simple analogy) We are His children, if we wish to go out and play in this life and beyond then we need to be obedient to His word and His will.
The part about it being a contract I think is a good analogy. We are adopted children. He adopted us but we also adopted Him. It was mutual, we both needed each other, and we both made a contract with each other. God has promised not to break His side of the agreement, we need to do the same. Then we both, us and God need to keep our word.
What Rascal said is also correct. There are those that think that God made a contract with them and He did not. So they will not be welcomed into the family when all is said and done.
Those are some of my thoughts on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Consider this: Romans 10:9 says because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
What does that actually say? Let us first look at the logical construction of that verse:
There are three parts to that verse...
The first part is "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord" (Let's call that phrase "A")
The second part is "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" (Let's call that phrase "B")
The third part is "you will be saved" (Let's call that phrase "C")
If we use the above shortcuts for the phrases, we can come up with a construction that says: IF A AND B THEN C
The operator "AND" means that the variables on either side of the "AND" operator must be true in order for the whole to be true.
In other words, both A and B must be true for C to be true.
Having said that:
- Does it say anywhere that C remains to be true if either A or B cease to be true? I don't see that in there, do you?
The rest of the "ticket to heaven" theology comes from making certain expressions synonymous that aren't, in fact, synonyms. For example, does "saved" equal "incorruptible seed?" VeePee says it does, but does it really?
So as a result, he has to somehow start doing contortions around perfectly obvious scriptures to make it work. For example, Galatians 5:21 says, in part, those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Perfectly obvious the meaning there, right? How does he work around that obvious phrase? He says that it's really talking about broken fellowship, not sin.
He does that in multiple places...I'm sure you see it when you think about it (that way of thinking became so ingrained in us that we must actually think about it, though).
Getting rid of false synonyms taught by VeePee is a key to regaining your freedom!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yeah.. "converted, saved, born again, call it what you will.."
that is a pretty big assumption that they are indeed all the same thing.
I think what you are referring to is equivalence. A and B imply C, but for an equivalence relation, a person must show that If C implies A and B.
the vicster broke so many rules of logic. He had a minor in philosophy, didn't really have an excuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm sittin' here with my grandbaby Clara Belle(That's short for Helen).
She said "Golly Zed, Grandpaw, what about folks who can't talk on account of a physical problem?
How do they confess 'with their lips' even if they do believe in their heart the raisin' up part?
I said,"Now, Lambchop(she reminds me of the sock puppet on that old kid's show),
maybe you best be askin' your brother Cletus(That's his name) on account of he knows a bunch about how A=B if C=12+73 or somethin' like that.
Now where do you 'spose that youngen come up with a sayin' like "GOLLY ZED"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
One other thing you could add was the Vicster's dispensational view of scripture (allowing him to ignore what he didn't like) cause him to completely disregard the application of the Prodigal Son.
Because the answer to Penguin's question is in that story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Mark, that's a very interesting and logical look at the verses in Romans. I've often thought about this myself and long ago I came to the conclusion that the key to understanding the verses lies in determining what Jesus is Lord of. I had always heard that that confession was pertaining to how we were to act as if Jesus was our Lord and therefore serve him in that capacity. However, I had come to the conclusion that (at least in my opinion) it means we confess Jesus as Lord of life, being the first one raised from the dead to everlasting life. In other words I'm not sure you can separate the belief from the confession just because there is that little word "and" between the two. It would do no good to confess Jesus as Lord if he didn't get up from the dead.
Just my two cents worth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
LDS are a covenant people.
We believe our salvation is dependent on Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Son of God. Faith that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior having paid the penalty through His atonement for our sins. Faith that Jesus Christ broke the bonds of death. Last but not least, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
When all these have been met we rest assured that at the Final Judgement Chirst will claim us as his own.
If, as some claim, merely accepting the verses in Romans 10: 9-10 was sufficient then why does the NT repeatedly list those things that will cause a person not to inherit the kingdom of God?? Fornication, adultry, homosexualty, dishonesty... and the list goes on.
If as VPW and TWI taught, and others also, it is once saved always saved -why did the apostles find it necessary, after Christ's death, to continually remind those who would follow in His footsteps that these behaviors were not allowed? It should have made no difference--but it clearly did make a difference then, and now.
It isn't enough to pay lip service to the tenets of the Bible and specifically the teachings of Christ unless your actions and your life a a whole reflect those tenets and teachings.
Right here at GSC, we see the confusion and pain the idea that VPW and LCM etal are somehow exempted from their behaviors, an idea propounded by proponents of this pernicious doctrine, has caused and continues to cause. A doctrine truly of Heavenly father would not cause pain and confusion but rather joy and harmony.
Reality check if you truly believe Romans 10:9-10 and intend to follow Christ then you will automatically (not forced by the Holy Ghost) seek to do those things that He would have done. You will avoid doing those things that would cause Him and Heavenly Father pain. Will you always succeed? Of course not, that is what grace is for, that you can be forgiven when you fail and get back on the right path.
There is a vast difference between the follower of Christ who stumbles and falls, dusts himself off and gets back to work perfecting his life, and the person who claims Romans 10: 9-10 and then carries on with business as usual no matter how it affects those around him.
We are to live our lives so that we are a light unto the rest of the world, we become lights to others not by our words but by our actions.
This is not salvation by works--since we can not perform works perfectly and perfection is what God requires, It is salvation by grace since the price Jesus Christ paid covers our less than perfect works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
There is one tense that describes a one-time action, another that indicates continuing action.
If the tense of "confess" and "believe" is the one that shows one-time action, then it wouldn't matter whether A or B remained true for C to be true, on the other hand, if the tense describes continuing action, then it would be as you said, if A and B did not remain true, then C waould not be true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
"Could it really be that simple?" Nicholus Cage Natioal Treasure.
I think it applies here,Why cannot we accept God simply giving the new birth by grace?
I know all men want to do it by works,To that I say good luck!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Of course God gives the new birth by grace. No one is disputing that. What is being diputed is the fact that one you recieve the new birth you can go commit any kind of sin you want and stilll have your salvation. The new birth is one thing, you are made clean before God by Christs Atonement.
Salvation is another thing, salvation means that you are covered by the atonement for the sins you commit after the new birth.
The two are not the same
In order for them to be the same the following would have to be true
A person receives the new birth and then goes out and deliberately kills a person in an armed robbery of a store in order to get the money he needs--but because he experienced the new birth his salvation is secure and he will occupy the same place in heaven as a person who has always lived the best Christian life they could.
This is so completely counter to everything that the Bible teachs that it would be laughable but for the fact that there are so many people out there who accept it as true.
Living your life in a way that glorifies God and exemplifies Christ-like behavior is not an attempt to gain salvation through works. Rather it is the actions of someone who truly embraces the message that Christ brought.
If any kind of behavior is acceptable after the new birth, then VPW and LCM's actions should have never had an adverse effect on those around them since they were not contrary to the teachings of Christ.
You can't have it both ways--
VPW and LCM experienced the new birth and therefore any acts they commited that would be regarded as sin in most circles were rendered null and void by that birth. Since they were rendered null and void not only were VPW and LCM not to be held to be held to account for them, they did not have to ask forgiveness for them on any front because having had the new birth they were automatically "held harmless" for them and they could continue on their merry way. It is just too bad if the people they victimized don't feel unharmed.
OR
VPW and LCM experienced the new birth and when they commited sinful acts, they were required to, repent, and ask God for forgiveness, AND THEN LIVE THEIR LIVES IN SUCH A WAY AS THOSE SINS WERE NOT REPEATED ESPECIALLY NOT DELIBERATELY.
The part of the previous sentance that is in bold capitals is what is called "works", folks. That is what the Bible means by "works"--not always some grand action towards others, although that too is considered a "work"-- but the continual perfection of your individual life in order to attempt to bring it in harmony with the life and walk of Christ.
To say that "works" is not necessary for salvation, as TWI maintained was the case, just doesn't stand up to Biblical standards on any level.
Faith without works is dead. Having the new birth is meaningless if it brings no changes or improvements to the character and actions of the person experiencing it. the Bible mentions that it would be preferable to God that you were cold, rather than neither hot or cold, since he will "spew you out of His mouth" ion that case. "Neither Hot nor cold', refers to the the people with the new birth whose "works" do not reflect the same.
Be very clear --the co mingling of the idea of the "new Birth" with "salvation" to make them one and the same was concieved of and promoted in TWI, just as elsewhere, for the sole purpose of permitting the guilty to continue their lives without having to apologize or in any way make restitution for their sinful actions.
Salvation is the gift given by God at the judgement seat when Christ steps forward and says" Father, I paid for this persons sins, with my blood", and God reponds to the soul standing before Him "well done, good and faithful servant."
The "new birth" is the original cleansing of a person in this life of all his past sins as he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in anticipation of theday he will stand at the Judgement Seat.
What falls between these two events is most definitely governed by the "works" we perform. whether good or bad, and how we approach the Almighty when we fall short of the mark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
there better be something better for me after this frucking life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
I know there is more than "just getting saved" Cannot say what.If you confess your sins
Jesus is just to forgive them.The Vic and Mrtin!ale well there must be a lack of something
I am in my life saying point blank it is incoruptable seed.We can be as judgmental as we wanna be
God keeps the score,
I do think we are responsible for our actions in this life,but who is to say,who falls short?
Ole Vic is stone cold dead,will he be saved?Is it up to us to say?
Loy on the other hand is still "suckin air" as he liked to say.Will he go to heaven?
Law was not made for the righteous but the unrighteous.
To each thier own.As a forum we can have different ideas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The word ὁμολογήσῃς is the 2nd person aorist active singular subjunctive of ὁμολογέω
LIkewise, the word πιστεύσῃς is the 2nd person aorist active singular subjunctive of πιστεύω
The question is whether it is the inceptive aorist, cumulative aorist, or punctiliar aorist...and I'm not that good with Greek to know the answer to that one...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...and of course, this is where the religious hucksters come in...poised and ready to make a dollar off someone's guilt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ha !
make a dollar off of someone's guilt ?
i hope you realize you followed that comment after a CATHOLIC's comment
ha ha NO guilt there :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I found an old document that says it's _______ .
But I lost it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'll just have to trust you on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.