Excellent Discussion on OSAS

[JLB]

Since you are preaching to everyone on this forum, that because I don't go around murdering people who don't respect God in His Sabbath Commandment, or Adultery commandment, or murder those who curse their father, I am disobedient to God, because the God says:

I’m not preaching to anyone about you.


I just asked if you believe people should be put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.


I was hoping to have a good discussion with you, however I see that isn’t going to happen since you went stark raving nutzoid when I just asked you a question.

 

[synergy]

No he is not saying this

He said plainly ALL CALVINISTS ARE UNIVERSALISTS

he is trying to make an argument against them that fails. because he knows they are not universalists

I should have known better than to think you would call someone out who is on your side.

What I'm saying is that if you do not allow them the luxury of redefining words then based on the fact that God wills that all are saved then all are unconditionally elected to salvation.

We should never just stand by and put up with their word redefinitions. That's my approach. Your approach seems to differs from that.

 

[Red Baker]

So... I standby what I wrote.

It’s reasonable to assume that having first been followers of John, several of the Lord’s disciples had been baptized. But there’s nothing in the Biblical record indicating that they all were, and even those who were did not receive the Holy Spirit at the time. Neither did a baptism precede either the event in the Upper Room or the Day of Pentecost.

What you have posted here comes from two sources: Church of Christ; RCC; both teach baptismal regeneration, both have a work system based gospel; and truly most of your post is copied and pasted, which I have no problem with, if you had posted truth that is from the word of God, but you have not.

It is not even debatable if the apostles were baptized or not, of course they were, just as their Lord and Master was, and for the "same reason" ~ not for the forgiveness of their sins, but to identified themselves with the only true religion from heaven, approved by God, whereby, man's sin are forgiven through God appointed means, the Lamb of God given for the elect of God.

You and others continuously say: "who were did not receive the Holy Spirit at the time" Every child of God has the Spirit of God when they are born again, impossible not to have the Spirit of God, for without the Spirit, one is not of God. The manifestation and the full evidence of the Spirit, and the full knowledge of the Spirit came on Pentecost, but to even think one could do spiritual acts pleasing to God without the God's Spirit is so unscriptural and shows a serious lack of bible knowledge.

Romans 8:9​

“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

Even David said of old: Psalms 51:11~“Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.”

God can and often does remove the Spirit's presence, help, guidance, and power from his children for different reasons, just as David fear might could happen to him, because of his great sin. God's children often grieve and quench the Spirit, but he will neve leave us nor forsake us.... he is with us until we leave this world. Thank you blessed God that this true.

Red, you need to quit adding your thoughts into the written word.

Coming from a person who have never been baptized into the faith and religion of Jesus Christ. You need to arise and be baptized, and then we could have a serious biblical discussion concerning truths of the scriptures, one being.... we are commanded to be baptized if we believe in Jesus Christ, be baptized and commit ourselves to his teaching/religion/faith, etc., baptism is not an option for you, me, or anyone else, it is a command.

Verse 5: Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Verse 6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

I'll let this one be for you to figure out. I am tired of explaining it.

I have already above. You never have even attempted to explain John 3:5, and I think I know why. You reject truth that I teach, and you cannot accept @Jim and other's interpretation, since you have neve been baptized in water, being sprinkled as an infant does not count as NT baptism, not even close. Ask @Jim does it count, I know his answer.

Nora, the only good thing about you not ever being baptized is, that there will be millions who will inherit eternal life that had never been baptized into the religion of Christ, yet not many who had opportunity and have heard the truth hundred's of times over and still refused water baptism per NT example that were able to be baptized, some may not be able to do so, for different reasons.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Do you understand the difference between the logical clause of "IF" and the logical clause of "IF and ONLY IF"? It seems not.

I understand the logical understanding that if someone says sins are forgiven at baptism.

then they should own what they say. that baptism is required.

if you do not believe sins are forgiven at baptism. then just say so.

otherwise. we will understand what we see
'

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

What I'm saying is that if you do not allow them the luxury of redefining words then based on the fact that God wills that all are saved then all are unconditionally elected to salvation.

We should never just stand by and put up with their word redefinitions. That's my approach. Your approach seems to differs from that.

But you did not say that, Even when I called you out. You said they are all universalists.

and you kept fighting and saying you were right.

but the point still stands. You saying this is not going to change their minds. because it is a false accusation (whether you mean it or not) and all your going to get is a hand to the face.

which is what I have been trying to tell you.

False accusations whether not intended or on purpose. do not win arguments, It makes them more damaging to the one whjo is making the accusation.

 

[Red Baker]

@Studyman

I disagree, based on what is actually written in Scriptures

Sir, you did not, stop trying to convinced yourself that you did, because, as a person reading both of you two back and forth post, you failed to address his simple question.

You should go into the business of teaching dancing lessons, because it seems you would be very good doing so, as much as you practice dancing around others questions.

I consider all the lusts and rebellion written as example for me, as thoughts in my mind, where the Temple of God is supposed to dwell. There are preachers/prophets in this world God placed me into who preach doctrines and traditions of men that promoted by the prince of this world "to turn me away from the LORD my God" . But only if I allow them to live in God's Temple. And if I find his teaching in the temple of God, or God reveals in me this man of Sin, I am to "put him to death".

So if a thought about another woman enters my mind, it is to be destroyed completely. The man in me who brought that thought, put to death, and in doing so, I "put away "from among myself" that wicked person". If I bring your sermon, or Kenneth Copeland, or the Pope or no matter who it is, into my mind, that if listened to "would turn me away from the Lord my God, the Christ "of the Bible", I am to utterly destroy that thought, man woman, children, cattle, every part of that wicked thought must be destroyed. I am not to hide some of it from others, like Akin did. I am not to keep some of the spoil, like King Saul did. I am to wipe the "man of Sin" within me, completely out. I am to "Rule over" the man of Sin. This has been the Gospel of Christ since Cain and Abel.

Studyman, there you go again, teaching basically a truth called mortification....mortifying our members of the flesh, which every sincere child of God should do, and are commanded to do. Even though you have a very strange way of saying this, but, I will not make you an offender over words. I see what you are attempting to say, and I commend you for practicing this. But, Studyman, following the Jewish dietary laws is not mortifying the deed of our flesh. You are adding to the scriptures, and in some cases allowing some to think by following the Jewish dietary law, they are pleasing God, when maybe they might not war against the sins of the flesh, as you say you do, which I give you that, since I know no man's heart and truly do not even know you personally.

 

[JLB]

What you have posted here comes from two sources: Church of Christ; RCC; both teach baptismal regeneration,

Very true sir.

No bueno.

 

[JLB]

Studyman, there you go again, teaching basically a truth called mortification....mortifying our members of the flesh, which every sincere child of God should do, and are commanded to do.

Amen.

 

[Jim]

I understand the logical understanding that if someone says sins are forgiven at baptism.

then they should own what they say. that baptism is required.

if you do not believe sins are forgiven at baptism. then just say so.

otherwise. we will understand what we see
'

Okay, you do not understand what you see.

You do not know and understand the difference between the conditional or implicational statements of "if" and "only if". I probably should just stop there and let you remain in your state of ignorance of logical reasoning.

However, another way to state that is that some statements present necessary conditions for a relational connection; some statements present sufficient conditions for a relation; some statements present both necessary and sufficient conditions for a relation. For example, a square is a plane figure having four sides. A plane figure having four sides is a necessary condition for being a square. However, being a plane figure having four sides is not a sufficient condition for being a square. A parallelogram is a plane figure having four sides, but it is not a square. A plane figure being a square is a sufficient condition for being a quadrangle which is a plane figure having four sides. Being a parallelogram is a sufficient condition for being a quadrangle. Neither being a square nor being a parallelogram are necessary conditions for being a quadrangle.

I think that what Peter said to the crowd at Pentecost in Acts 2:38 established repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin and for receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as a sufficient condition for the repentant believer to be saved. I have said that I believe that is true. I HAVE NOT SAID what Peter said to the crowd at Pentecost in Acts 2:38 established repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as necessary conditions for the repentant believer to be saved.

I hope that is clear enough for you to understand. But I won't bet on it.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Okay, you do not understand what you see.

I understand perfectly well what I see

You do not know and understand the difference between the conditional or implicational statements of "if" and "only if". I probably should just stop there and let you remain in your state of ignorance of logical reasoning.

lets revisit and read your own words
yy

I have never said people were saved by baptism. God is the only savior. And He has promised to save the repentant believer who is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and to receive the gift, the indwelling, Holy Spirit..

the word if is not in your statement. so trying to change the subject as if I missed something is on you.

you have also stated, as @mailmandan has shown, - But nowhere in the NT does God ever say that He will save anyone who is not baptized.

again the word IF is not there the onus is on you.. Me ignorant.

when a person can not back what they say in clear words. and has to try to deflect. what do you call that? Because that is what you are doing

once again, If what you said as shown is true. You believe water baptism is required.. You even said John's baptism gave remission of sin (Which I have never heard anyone on this earth say)

so you are on your own.

 

[Studyman]

I’m not preaching to anyone about you.


I just asked if you believe people should be put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.


I was hoping to have a good discussion with you, however I see that isn’t going to happen since you went stark raving nutzoid when I just asked you a question.

It is true that I don't have much tolerance for fake concern or fake interest. If you were honestly interested in having an good discussion, or honestly interested in understanding me you would have at least acknowledge my first reply and entered into a discussion there. But you didn't. Your questions were born of the same spirit and the same intent as the question the mainstream preachers of Jesus time asked Jesus.

John 8: 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, "that such should be stoned": but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have "to accuse him".

Their motivation was to trick Jesus so they could say "See, HE doesn't Keep God's Laws." But Jesus didn't fall for their trap, HE Followed God's LAWS Perfectly, as defined in the Law of Moses regarding the accused and the witnesses, and caused them, through the Law of Moses, to confront their own wickedness which is what God's Laws were about in the first place. You would do good to consider these things and check yourself.

You did the same exact thing to me, for the exact same reason and for the exact same intent, feigned as an interest to "understand what I believe".

Here are your own words.

"Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15 "Do you and your congregation" obey this commandment "to put to death" people who do any work on the Sabbath?" "Do you sacrifice animals for your sins"?

"If you don’t then you are not obeying the law of Moses God. It’s that simple.

The same intent, the same motivation, the exact same spirit, for the same exact reason as those who asked Jesus the same exact question about "putting people to death". At least those mainstream preachers of Jesus time, hung their head in shame and walked away when God's Word exposed them.

And when I answer you questions honestly, based on what is actually written, refusing to step into the trap you set, you accuse me; "You are spiritualizing the law of Moses to fit my own narrative".

How can you have an honest discussion, when you are not being honest?

 

[Jim]

I understand perfectly well what I see

Obviously, you do not.

lets revisit and read your own words
yy

the word if is not in your statement. so trying to change the subject as if I missed something is on you.

you have also stated, as @mailmandan has shown, - But nowhere in the NT does God ever say that He will save anyone who is not baptized.


again the word IF is not there the onus is on you.. Me ignorant.

when a person can not back what they say in clear words. and has to try to deflect. what do you call that? Because that is what you are doing



once again, If what you said as shown is true. You believe water baptism is required.. You even said John's baptism gave remission of sin (Which I have never heard anyone on this earth say)

so you are on your own.

Please, go get a textbook on formal logic and spend some time reading and studying it so that you do not present yourself as uneducated an uninformed.

 

[Studyman]

@Studyman

Sir, you did not, stop trying to convinced yourself that you did, because, as a person reading both of you two back and forth post, you failed to address his simple question.

The Spiritual intent of the Laws of God are for the exact purpose of "mortifying the deeds of the old man and putting him to death". It's Absurd to imply or preach to others, as do you and JLB, that unless I stone an adulterer, or a Sabbath Breaker, I am not obeying God.

The same spirit tried doing the same thing to Jesus. I learned not to fall you for the snares by listening to Him.

You should go into the business of teaching dancing lessons, because it seems you would be very good doing so, as much as you practice dancing around others questions.

There is that "Projection" again.

Studyman, there you go again, teaching basically a truth called mortification....mortifying our members of the flesh, which every sincere child of God should do, and are commanded to do.

This is true, from Adam and Eve to the end of Revelation, men are taught to rule over the wicked flesh. The only way to do this, according to what is actually written, is to "Yield ourselves" servants to obey God. This means, as Paul teaches, to submit to God's Righteousness, not to go about establishing your own Righteousness. And God's Righteousness is revealed in the Law and Prophets that Paul calls, "The Gospel of Christ". The Christ "of the Bible", created, Lived by and promoted this Gospel that was given to Israel in the Exodus, but they didn't believe in it.

I do believe in Him, that's why I strive to Live By His Words.

Even though you have a very strange way of saying this, but, I will not make you an offender over words. I see what you are attempting to say, and I commend you for practicing this. But, Studyman, following the Jewish dietary laws is not mortifying the deed of our flesh.

2 Cor. 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that "exalteth itself" against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to "the obedience of Christ";

God is not a Jew Red. God's Laws are not "Jewish Laws". The Commandment to abstain from drinking blood, or eating swine's flesh, or committing adultery, is not a Jewish Law.

Many, have adopted a religion that preaches that many of God's Laws, and Pagan rituals are no different one from another. These men promote a religion that creates their own righteousness, their own holiness, their own high days, their own sabbaths, their own judgments.

All I'm showing you, is that the religious men of the bible, who live in the exact same tradition, were rejected by God and His Son.

You are adding to the scriptures, and in some cases allowing some to think by following the Jewish dietary law, they are pleasing God, when maybe they might not war against the sins of the flesh, as you say you do, which I give you that, since I know no man's heart and truly do not even know you personally.

I's not about me, or even you Red. It's about the difference between the Philosophies and traditions promoted by this world's religious system that we are warned about over and over, VS. what God's Word actually says.

It's not even about, nor has ever been about diet as "many" deceptively imply. It's about choosing God over the Lusts of you own flesh. And I am thankful for God's instruction in righteousness, even for something as basic and universal as a Father deciding for His Children, what is food and what is not food. You demand and exercise the right to define for your own kids what to drink and what to eat. But deny the God and Father of all, the Same Right, when it was HIM who established your right in the first place.

What spirit would move me to engage in such behavior?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Obviously, you do not.

Please, go get a textbook on formal logic and spend some time reading and studying it so that you do not present yourself as uneducated an uninformed.

Please show us your logic.

explain how your words below do not mean what they say. or how I have misrepresented you.

I have never said people were saved by baptism. God is the only savior. And He has promised to save the repentant believer who is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and to receive the gift, the indwelling, Holy Spirit..

show me how these words mean anythign other than what they say

God is the only savior. And He has promised to save the repentant believer who is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and to receive the gift, the indwelling, Holy Spirit..

please. instead of continuing to attack me.

show how this means anything other than baptism is required for remission of sin and the gift of the spirit.

it should not be to hard. just break it down for everyone to see what you really mean

 

[Jim]

Please show us your logic.

explain how your words below do not mean what they say. or how I have misrepresented you.

I just did. But apparently you do not understand. I can't solve that problem.

 

[Studyman]

Do you believe men are required to become physically circumcised to be in the New Covenant?

First of all, your definition of God's New Covenant, and how God actually defines HIS New Covenant are two different things, according to your posts that I have read.

And you won't answer my questions, but somehow expect others to answer yours?

But let's go with your story for now, about how you are just looking for a good discussion, and you are just really interested in understanding what I believe. Let's start with a question to you first that is prudent to this topic. Let's see where your heart is really at.

If you met me in person, how would you know if I was physically Circumcised or not? If we lived in Jesus Time, how would we know if Jesus was physically Circumcised? If I lived in Caleb's time, how would we know if he was physically circumcised or not?

Please answer this question honestly, so as to establish some basic truths about Scriptures. If you can do that, then maybe we can have a discussion.

 

[synergy]

But you did not say that, Even when I called you out. You said they are all universalists.

and you kept fighting and saying you were right.

Huh? I stopped using the word universalism as I mentioned below. My message is still the same.

You want another name for it, fine. Salvation for all sounds good

but the point still stands. You saying this is not going to change their minds. because it is a false accusation (whether you mean it or not) and all your going to get is a hand to the face.

which is what I have been trying to tell you.

False accusations whether not intended or on purpose. do not win arguments, It makes them more damaging to the one whjo is making the accusation.

So you're saying that it's a "false accusation" to defend the English & Greek languages when it comes to the word of God? I will not accept blatant word redefinitions like "all" to "elect" or "the Faith" to "that Faith". You seem ok with others or even you doing that. I'm not. You have your approach and I have mine.

Nobody be given the license to alter meanings of words to whatever they fancy then anything goes.

You took issue with my usage of universalism and that's fine. I stopped using that word and became more precise in my words. That's because I value words and their common usage. Do I see the same appreciation of words from calvinists? Unfortunately not. Do I just accept that and move on? I cannot in good conscience do that. If someone is on the road to destruction do you just understand them and move on? You might but not me.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I just did. But apparently you do not understand. I can't solve that problem.

You mean this?

I think that what Peter said to the crowd at Pentecost in Acts 2:38 established repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin and for receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as a sufficient condition for the repentant believer to be saved. I have said that I believe that is true. I HAVE NOT SAID what Peter said to the crowd at Pentecost in Acts 2:38 established repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as necessary conditions for the repentant believer to be saved.

yet you said this

He has promised to save the repentant believer who is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and to receive the gift, the indwelling, Holy Spirit..

those are you words not might. there is no might or anything else. So you just contradicted yourself saying you never said it

I hope that is clear enough for you to understand. But I won't bet on it.

it does not get you out. YOU DID SAY what I accused you of..

as once again I proved.

dude, its on you not me, Own your words. or admit you made a mistake. or keep fighting to repent. and I will keep exposing what you did say

 

[MTMattie]

Do you believe people are to be put to death for picking up sticks to make a fire on the Sabbath?

That what the law of Moses requires.


Yes or no.


You have dodged this question several times now.


Why don’t you just answer?

I wish that one of there two we know that constantly are on the Sabbath worship would chime in. One is a member here, but seems to not have seen this or is avoiding.

I wont tag them because they may be avoiding.

The other one is not a member here so Ill just wait and see....

 

[Tranquil]

Let me say this about that...you can't become un-saved. Once you're in the Jesus Bus you're on your way to Heaven by God's Grace. See you there.