Need a reason to believe Calvinists are who they claim to be?

[Red Baker]

@Seabass

God has promised a spiritual promised land to anyone that is willing to take it (Rev 22:17). To take possession of eternal life one must believe, repent of sins, confess with the mouth and be baptized which no more earns/merits the spiritual promised land than the Israelites efforts in taking possession of the promised land.

One must go to great lengths to purposefully misunderstand something so simple yet what great lengths some will go to protect a personal theological bias.

Boldness are mine for discussions.

You are missing so much, by believing in what you think and are declaring to be the truth, which is far from that.

Those in the Old Testament, which did spiritual acts pleasing to God only proves that God had "first" had given them a new nature to do so, not believing that to be so, goes against so many scriptures throughout the scriptures that teach one cohesive whole in its doctrines from Genesis to Revelation, and this golden link cannot be broken without doing corruption to God's word concerning his truth on a particular subject under consideration.

You said: "God has promised a spiritual promised land to anyone that is willing to take it (Rev 22:17)."
Again, none are willing, without a new nature enabling them to do so.

John 1:13​

“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

So clear, that to reject John's reaching is to reject God's truth on this subject. Paul said:

Romans 9:16​

“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

Jesus said these words to Peter:

Matthew 16:17​

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

And he went on this say this:

Matthew 16:18​

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The church of Jesus Christ is built upon the solid firm rock of divine revelation of God opening men hearts to the truth in the new birth by the Spirit of God alone, apart from the will of man's flesh, and the will of another man bringing the gospel to men!

You said: "God has promised"....Seabass, it is much more than just a promise, that's only half correct. Listen carefully to the Holy Ghost:

Hebrews 6:17,18​

“Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:"
Not only did God make a promise to the heirs of his promises, but he confirmed the same with an OATH, that he would secured the promise to them, without the possibility of a failure! Praise be to our God! The very same promise and oath to Abraham concerning Isaac, which we as Isaac was a child of God's promises AND His oath, which secured the promise!
You said: "To take possession of eternal life one must believe, repent of sins, confess with the mouth and be baptized which no more earns/merits the spiritual promised land than the Israelites efforts in taking possession of the promised land."

Seabass, you are so wrong, and I just proved it above to anyone willing to believe the scriptures over men's bias opinions to protect their work gospel that they have come to embraced over the truth of God's word. Those whom God has quickened to life, will gladly do these things with haste, yea, whatever God commands, they desire to do as he has commanded seeking their strength and power to follow them from him.

You said: "One must go to great lengths to purposefully misunderstand something so simple yet what great lengths some will go to protect a personal theological bias."

Seabass, you just proved your own words with your post above, well done!

 

[Seabass]

@Seabass

Boldness are mine for discussions.

You are missing so much, by believing in what you think and are declaring to be the truth, which is far from that.

Those in the Old Testament, which did spiritual acts pleasing to God only proves that God had "first" had given them a new nature to do so, not believing that to be so, goes against so many scriptures throughout the scriptures that teach one cohesive whole in its doctrines from Genesis to Revelation, and this golden link cannot be broken without doing corruption to God's word concerning his truth on a particular subject under consideration.

You said: "God has promised a spiritual promised land to anyone that is willing to take it (Rev 22:17)."
Again, none are willing, without a new nature enabling them to do so.

John 1:13​

“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

So clear, that to reject John's reaching is to reject God's truth on this subject. Paul said:

Romans 9:16​

“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

Jesus said these words to Peter:

Matthew 16:17​

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

And he went on this say this:

Matthew 16:18​

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The church of Jesus Christ is built upon the solid firm rock of divine revelation of God opening men hearts to the truth in the new birth by the Spirit of God alone, apart from the will of man's flesh, and the will of another man bringing the gospel to men!

You said: "God has promised"....Seabass, it is much more than just a promise, that's only half correct. Listen carefully to the Holy Ghost:

Hebrews 6:17,18​

“Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:"
Not only did God make a promise to the heirs of his promises, but he confirmed the same with an OATH, that he would secured the promise to them, without the possibility of a failure! Praise be to our God! The very same promise and oath to Abraham concerning Isaac, which we as Isaac was a child of God's promises AND His oath, which secured the promise!
You said: "To take possession of eternal life one must believe, repent of sins, confess with the mouth and be baptized which no more earns/merits the spiritual promised land than the Israelites efforts in taking possession of the promised land."

Seabass, you are so wrong, and I just proved it above to anyone willing to believe the scriptures over men's bias opinions to protect their work gospel that they have come to embraced over the truth of God's word. Those whom God has quickened to life, will gladly do these things with haste, yea, whatever God commands, they desire to do as he has commanded seeking their strength and power to follow them from him.

You said: "One must go to great lengths to purposefully misunderstand something so simple yet what great lengths some will go to protect a personal theological bias."

Seabass, you just proved your own words with your post above, well done!

No verse says God must first give man a new nature before man can obey or the the Holy SPirit must first 'regenerate" one before they can obey. Such ideas come from Calvinism but not from the Bible.

Those in Acts 2 were lost, Peter convicted them of their sin, of their wicked hands that crucified Christ....they were you might say unregenerated. Yet while lost (unregenerated) they were willing and able to listen to Peter. understand Peter's words. understand thie lost state their sin put them in, were able to ask what they must do about that sin and were able obey Peter's word in v38 all while lost. Not one thing in the context even remotely suggest God had to first act upon them before they were able to do anything.

I made a post elsewhere on Eze 36:28 where God said he would give them a new heart and spirit. But Calvinist do not quote Eze 18:31 where God told them to make you a new heart and spirit. Hence salvation is not monergistic as Calvinism falsely claims but synergistic where God 'gives' man what he needs to be saved (the gospel) but mam must take the gospel God gave and obey that gospel by being baptized (Acts 2:38) else be lost by not obeying that gospel (2 Thess 1:8)

Acts 2:38 God's free gift of remission of sins came with conditions and meeting those conditions (repentance and baptism) earned nothing. When they asked what must we do Peter did not reply 'do nothing else you will earn your salvation" But Peter COMMANDED them to do something,...,repent and be baptized THEN have remission of sins..obedience BEFORE salvation.


The Bible is full of examples where God's gift came with conditions and meeting those conditions earned nothing. So yes, one must go to great lengths to purposefully misunderstand something so simple yet what great lengths some will go to protect a personal theological bias.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Matthew 16:17​

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

This is a typical "three card monte" move/game in Calvinism.

The assumption here that that the Father directly enlightened Peter.

Which has no bases in fact. Peter knew the Scriptures and what the message of God that he had received orally his entire life said. He held them in his hands. He had been taught these very facts his entire life. It didn't take a direct revelation from the Father for such. However, it did ALL originate from the Father.

Jesus is just simply acknowledging the obvious. All good and perfect things come from above. They are sent down (originate) from God. It doesn't mean anything originated from man.

Yet, this is the ruse that is Calvinism. They would have you think that God personally enlightened them when it is the message of God that originated from the Father that enlightened them.

It is ALL about ego and pride with Calvinism.

 

[Titus]

Taking Possession of What God Gives: A Case Study in Salvation - Apologetics Press

Relatively few within Christendom would deny that eternal salvation is a free gift from God.

apologeticspress.org

Above is a great article on what God 'gives' and how one must take possession of what God gives. Time and again in the OT the promised land was describes as a "gift" it was free yet being a 'gift" did not mean there was no effort on part of Israel to take possession of that gift....they had cross the Jordon, prepare victuals, they had to march around Jericho yet none of this effort made the promise land something earned or merited by Israel. Even after Israel had possessed the promised land for a long time, the land is still referred to as a gift that was 'given' to them by God, Jos21:43. God even gave them as a gift manna to eat but they still had to do the work of gathering it in order to fill their hunger but their work in gathering did not make the manna something earned/merited.

God has promised a spiritual promised land to anyone that is willing to take it (Rev 22:17). To take possession of eternal life one must believe, repent of sins, confess with the mouth and be baptized which no more earns/merits the spiritual promised land than the Israelites efforts in taking possession of the promised land.

One must go to great lengths to purposefully misunderstand something so simple yet what great lengths some will go to protect a personal theological bias.

Thank you good brother, Titus 2:1.

 

[Red Baker]

@Seabass

No verse says God must first give man a new nature before man can obey or the the Holy SPirit must first 'regenerate" one before they can obey. Such ideas come from Calvinism but not from the Bible.

@Seabass, you worded this wrong ~ what you should have said is that no such doctrine is taught in the word of God, and then prove it, after you first have addressed from scriptures my points given to you, which you mad not even one attempt, not a very good sign that you have truth, and are very confidence of disproving others position and then prove yours.

The scriptures may not use the exact wording, but a doctrine is there on any given subject which can easily be proven by comparing scriptures with scriptures, here a little and there a little, etc. By saying such ideals come from Calvinism is an escape for folks like you and others just buy into it, and you know that to be so, and you know that to be so, so the way you and others discard others teaching, is by using the famous quote: that's Calvinism, not from the Bible, yet you never took the Bible and prove what I said was not coming from the Bible, that's deceiving yourself and others who just believe what folks like you say. So, that being said: what do you think would be the logically conclusion of such scriptures as:

Romans 8:7​

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Looking at these two scriptures are you saying that a man does not need first to be born of God, before he can be subject to God? Then Paul would say you are a liar, not me. Every man in the flesh is at enmity against God, not just an enemy, which is bad enough, but much worse ~ he is at war against the God of heaven and thinks the religion of Jesus Chris is pure foolishness, until God in mercy quickened his dead spirit and creates a new man with in after the image of Jesus Christ.There's so much more, but enough for now since I'm on little time, and this will be my last posit until Sunday probably since I'm leaving Florida heading back to South Carolina early tomorrow.

Those in Acts 2 were lost, Peter convicted them of their sin, of their wicked hands that crucified Christ....they were you might say unregenerated. Yet while lost (unregenerated) they were willing and able to listen to Peter. understand Peter's words. understand thie lost state their sin put them in, were able to ask what they must do about that sin and were able obey Peter's word in v38 all while lost. Not one thing in the context even remotely suggest God had to first act upon them before they were able to do anything.

Acts 2:38 God's free gift of remission of sins came with conditions and meeting those conditions (repentance and baptism) earned nothing. When they asked what must we do Peter did not reply 'do nothing else you will earn your salvation" But Peter COMMANDED them to do something,...,repent and be baptized THEN have remission of sins..obedience BEFORE salvation.

Quickly~Seabass, those in Acts 2:37 gave clear evidence that they were first quickened to life before Acts 2:38, and can easily be proven.

Peter, having spent three and half years under the greatest prophet ever, knew the signs of one that God had quickened to life, and he said what he said based upon what he just witnessed in Acts 2:37 of them being pricked inn their hearts, which no unregenerate person is ever after hearing the word of God taught. Compare Acts 2:37,38 with these scriptures, and see my point:

Acts 7:54​

“When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.”

These men in Acts 7, just heard maybe the best sermon ever preached in the scriptures outside of Matthew 5-7 by Christ. What was the result where God does not quicken hearts? This man of God was killed! Their hearts were not pricked because they did not have a new heart given to them and the result is totally different from Acts 2:37.

Based upon what Peter saw and KNEW as the results of what he saw, he said what he did in Acts 2:38!

Acts 2:38​

“Then 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.”

"For" in Acts 2:38 does not mean what you desire for it to means..."in order to obtain" ~but its true meaning is "because of" ....because Peter being a man of God looked for evidence, and he clearly saw it in their demeanor of their hearts being pricked and the manner they came with all humbleness of their new mind seeking to do what God would have them to do! For is often used in this sense in the scriptures, consider:

Mark 1:44​

“And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”

So yes, one must go to great lengths to purposefully misunderstand something so simple yet what great lengths some will go to protect a personal theological bias.

Well, my man, you just did it again! Great Job.

 

[Red Baker]

@praise_yeshua

It is ALL about ego and pride with Calvinism.

I'll answer this when I return...btw, is this all you have to offer? Attacking the person and not his teaching. Pitiful.

 

[Theophilus]

Believing that your Christian denomination is the only one chosen and that they are the only elect is rather prideful and egotistical.

Unfortunately, Calvinists sometimes seem to have a blind spot for the love of God. Consider this question from The Shorter Catechism, which is an abbreviated version of The Westminster Confession of Faith, a classic Calvinist statement of faith.

The Catechism asks this most fundamental theological question: “What is God?” Here is the answer that is given: “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”
Do you notice anything missing from this definition? Where is love?

That's "The $64,000 Question." Where is the love in Calvinism?

Thread 'In Calvinism... where is the love?'

Oct 30, 2023

Unfortunately, Calvinists sometimes seem to have a blind spot for the love of God. Consider this question from The Shorter Catechism, which is an abbreviated version of The Westminster Confession of Faith, a classic Calvinist statement of faith. The Catechism asks this most fundamental theological question: “What is God?”

Here is the answer that is given: “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”

Do you notice anything missing from this definition? Where is the love? The definition mentions God’s power...

• Theophilus
• Replies: 99
• Forum: Calvinism vs. Arminianism

• 

 

[praise_yeshua]

@praise_yeshua

I'll answer this when I return...btw, is this all you have to offer? Attacking the person and not his teaching. Pitiful.

The theological position is full of pride and ego. I didn't mention you at all. Facts are facts.

 

[Titus]

"For" in Acts 2:38 does not mean what you desire for it to means..."in order to obtain" ~but its true meaning is "because of

The Greek word here is eis.
Acts 2:38 for(eis) the forgiveness of sins

This Greek word eis NEVER means because of.
You can find this word in every single new testament passages and it never means because of.

Its true definition means in order to obtain.
Therefore it is impossible for it to be correctly translated as because of.

The two definitions are polar opposites,
One cannot mean the other!!!!

Because of, refers to the past.
In order to obtain, refers to the future.

Red Baker says in order to obtain means because of.

"For" in Acts 2:38 does not mean what you desire for it to means..."in order to obtain" ~but its true meaning is "because of

This proves Red Baker does not understand Greek or does understand Greek but deceptively perverts it, in order to fit his theological bias.

So yes, one must go to great lengths to purposefully misunderstand something so simple yet what great lengths some will go to protect a personal theological bias.

Let's pretend Red Baker understands Acts 2:38.

Here's his interpretation of the verse,
Acts 2:38,
- then Peter said to them repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for(eis, because of) the forgiveness of sins

This implies their sins were already forgiven (because of)
Therefore Peter is telling them to be baptized because their sins are already forgiven.

But wait,
- then Peter said to them  repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins are forgiven.

If they are baptized because their sins are already forgiven.
Then they also repented because their sins were already forgiven!!!

Who believes we repent because we are already saved?

2 Corinthians 7:10,
- for godly sorrow worketh repentance to(eis) salvation

I challenge anyone to go to Bible hub, type in this verse and read the definition of to(eis) in the greek.

This word always means towards, in order to obtain etc. But never because one has already obtained.

Let's use Red Baker's definition in this verse also.

2Corinthians 7:10,
- for godly sorrow worketh(to accomplish) repentance to(eis) because we are already saved.

So we recieve salvation before we repent(before godly sorrow, before we change our minds to believe in Jesus.

Now salvation occurs before one believes in Jesus.
Before one has sorrow for Christ's suffering on the cross.
Before one chooses to follow Jesus.

This word eis is never translated the way Red Baker translates it.

Acts 2:38 accurately translated.
- ...repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for, eis( in order to obtain) the forgiveness of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

Notice only until they repent and are baptized do they recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Red Baker teaches before they repented and before they were baptized, they already received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

He claims this in the previous verse,
Acts 2:37,

Quickly~Seabass, those in Acts 2:37 gave clear evidence that they were first quickened to life before Acts 2:38, and can easily be proven.

No Sir it cannot be proven.

They were born again before they repented?

Now here' the most obvious reason they had not been saved in verse 37.
They ask Peter in verse 37, what they must do to be saved!
Acts 2:37,
- now when they heard this they were pricked in their heart and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren what shall we do

That is not the response of someone who had just been saved and given the gift of the Holy Spirit.

They do not recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit until Peter answers their question.

Acts 2:37-38,
- now when they heard this they were pricked in their heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall we do

Heres Peter's answer,
- Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ in order to obtain forgiveness of sins and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit

In order to obtain forgiveness of sins.
In order to obtain the gift of the Holy Spirit.
They were commanded by Peter to repent and be baptized.
Acts 3:19,
- repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord

Repentance to obtain forgiveness of sins.
Never repentance because your sins are already forgiven.

So yes, one must go to great lengths to purposefully misunderstand something so simple yet what great lengths some will go to protect a personal theological bias

 

[Titus]

Mark 1:4 Red Baker's interpretation.
- John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for(because their sins were already forgiven)

No way Sir.

Rightly divided,
- John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance eis(in order to obtain) forgiveness of sins


If Red Baker's greek scholarship is correct.
Then John the Baptist baptized the Jews because they were already saved.

 

[Red Baker]

@Titus

The Greek word here is eis.
Acts 2:38 for(eis) the forgiveness of sins

I have a few minutes that I can spare.

Titus, I go with the context which drives the interpretation for us, not the Greek! Context is king, not the Greek. A wise mean once wrote shortly after the KJV came out in 1650:

" Priests say that we know not the original, and our Bibles are not rightly translated, nor cannot be pronounced according to the original; besides in translations there are errors, for no translation is simply authentical, and the undoubted Word of God. We demand of you, answer if you can; as to how know you that your Hebrew and Greek copies are true copies? Is it not possible for any to write contrary to their copy, if copies may beprinted false, they may be written false, the art of Printing is not above 350 years old. Can you produce the first original copy, or any of those the Apostles wrote? If not, the cause is the same and you know the original no more than those that know not Greek or Hebrew? If you may depend upon the faithfulness of the Writer and Printer of your Copies, why not others upon those that did it upon oath? Doctor Fulke in his confutation of the Rheims Testament justifieth the English Translation of the Bible, in his “New Testament Confutation,” printed in 1589. But we receive not the truth by tradition. I would know of you that are so for Hebrew and Greek, &c., if the knowledge of the tongues be sufficient to teach those that have those tongues the mind of the Spirit of God in the Scriptures or no? If yea, then all that know these tongues know the mind of God; if no, then it is but an insufficient help, and what is an insufficient help worth more than nothing. The knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is a help to read a Greek and Hebrew Bible, because else they cannot read them. So the knowledge of the English tongue is of necessity to read the English Bible. The cause is the same; but the understanding the English tongue, and reading it in the Bible cannot give them to understand, the meaning of it no more than the knowledge of the tongues Greek and Hebrew though it helps them to read the Bible in those tongues, yet is not able to give them to understand the meaning of it. That this is so, some of them, who know the tongues confess; for Apollo was a learned man, he saw the first copies of the Bible, and if that could have caused him to know the mind of God what need had he to learn of Aquila a tradesman {one of the laity as the Priests use to say} and Priscilla his wife the mind of God as he did. Acts.18:26. Also what is the reason that those that know the tongues cannot agree among themselves? What is the mind of God in his Word, that some of you in your expositions are as contrary to each other as light is to darkness; the natural man cannot perceive the things that be of God; a natural man may be, and some are learned men it’s confessed; some of the Jesuits are good Scholars, &c., for they know the tongues, &c.; then it will follow a man may be such a learned man and yet cannot understand nor perceive the things of God. Nicodemus was a great scholar and teacher in Israel yet how simple was he concerning the meaning of Christ’s words. Tell me then what a help their human learning is to them in spiritual knowledge in the things of the Spirit. The Word saith that he reveals to us the deep things of God by his Spirit, I Cor.2:10; he saith not by Greek and Hebrew. If our translation be true then we can tell the meaning of it as well as you; if it be not true tell me what is that Preaching worth that is proved by a false translation, and if we must believe contrary to our translation because you say so, what is this but an implicit faith and human? And seeing you so differ among yourselves about the meaning of the word or the mind of God in it, tell me, how I may know which of you I am to believe? Also you confess that one word {in the ‘original’} could bear nine or ten divers significations; how know you which of them is the mind of God in that place, unless he reveal it to you? And if God please he can reveal it to a simple man, and God doth do so, and this is that for which Christ thanks his Father, because he hath hid these things from the wise and the learned, and revealed it unto babes, “the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed; and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned.” “For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.” Isa.29:10-12. Neither of them can read it, both put it off for they cannot understand it, the unlearned thinks as he hath been taught, that if he were learned in Greek and Hebrew he could understand it; but the former who was such a learned man could not do it, it is hid from the learned; for it’s not in being learned, nor in not being learned. What then will some say, it is because God hath not revealed it to them therefore they do not know it. The Lord saith that none can know the things of God, but he to whom the Spirit will reveal them. “But as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him. But we have the mind of Christ.” I Cor.2:9-16. “I have more understanding than all my teachers, for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.” Psal.119:99-100. The knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and English are all human learning of equal excellency, necessity, and use for the translation and reading of the Bible; and as without the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, the Bible could not be translated into English, so he that translated the Bible into English, could not have done it without the knowledge of the English tongue; therefore there is the same use and help and necessity of the English tongue as of the Greek or Hebrew tongue; so there is the same to be said for the French and Dutch tongue, and all other tongues and therefore why the Greek and Hebrew tongues should be of any more use and excellency than other tongues, there is no reason to be given for it. As Aaron the Priest set up the golden calf it was called a god and Aaron made Proclamation, Exod.32:4-8, &c., and the people idolized it and danced about it, so the Priests have set up Greek and Hebrew as a god, and the people rejoice exceedingly in it, for they idolize it and fall down and worship it, because the Priest have made a Proclamation for it and commended it for such a rare thing to help them to the knowledge of the mind of God. A golden business by custom is turned into necessity and it is in such an esteem as they do idolize it and worship it, as they did the calf. " Samuel Richardson, 1650 A Particular Baptist in England. One of my favorite writers, if not my favorite. Back to the context as being king,

Interpretations must agree with their context.​

Remember this law: A text used out of context is a pretext. we must not Don’t violate it; learn to spot it.

A text is a word, clause, verse, paragraph, chapter, or book you are seeking to interpret.

Context is the surrounding information, which shows the author’s meaning by the text.

Out of context is using words and their sound contrary to the surrounding information.

A pretext is a false and incorrect impression designed to hide or disguise the real intent.

Using a verse contrary to its context gives a misleading and deceitful sound of words to teach something the author did not intend and/or is not true. Titus, have had your words used out of context before, and you hated the corruption of your intent and meaning. We must make sure we never do it with the precious Word of God.

This rule applies to all writings and conversations of every sort, and so context is well understood by most people. Contracts, court records, novels, promises, and poetry are all understood in context, or surrounding information, to truly understand their meaning. Even single words are meaningless without a context, which is why we asked our teacher to use them in a sentence before we would try to spell them in a spelling bee! Even if we use a verse to teach a true point, we make sure we still honor its context. For using the wrong verse to teach the right point is the first subtle step to heresy.

So, my understanding is based 100% on the context of Acts 2:37, with a comparison of other scriptures to form a true biblical understanding of Acts 2:38, which understanding will flow with other scriptures that teaches us the true spiritual condition of all men apart from the new birth, happening first. They cannot contradict each other and for one to still have the truth on that particular doctrine, which it does with all of those that have men "in the flesh doing spiritual acts pleasing to God", and by doing those spiritual acts obtain the forgiveness of sins. A serious corruption of God's word. A position in essence making void the death of Jesus Christ, by saying that righteousness comes by man's obedience instead of by Christ's faith and obedience alone securing eternal life for all those he stood as a surety for by God's appointment.

Later when I return.

 

[Red Baker]

@Ttius

Then John the Baptist baptized the Jews because they were already saved.

He did btw! They had to bring forth fruits MEET FOR REPENTANCE.

Matthew 3:8​

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:”

 

[praise_yeshua]

@Ttius

He did btw! They had to bring forth fruits MEET FOR REPENTANCE.

Matthew 3:8​

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:”

By all means, define what those fruits are.

 

[Titus]

@Ttius

He did btw! They had to bring forth fruits MEET FOR REPENTANCE.

Matthew 3:8​

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:”

So you believe that John the Baptist baptized already saved jews.
What other jew that refused John's baptism was saved?

Jesus taught no one was in the kingdom until they were baptized by John,
John 3:5,
- Jesus answered,
- ...except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God



John preached the same message.
John preached to enter the kingdom one had to be baptized first by him,
Mark 1:4-5,
- John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins
- and they went out unto him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem and were all baptized of him in the river Jordan confessing their sins

This is a strange thing to do, if one is saved before the baptism of John.
Why would saved folks be confessing their sins?

If one is confessing their sins.
They must be in sin.
No one confesses sin that they have already been forgiven of.
Red Baker,

Do you go around today confessing your sin that God already forgave you of?
They were confessing the sins that they were gulity of.
Why?
- John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance(confessing their sins) for(to obtain) the forgiveness of sins(the sins they were confessing)

If the Jews were all ready saved before the were baptized by John.
Then please list one jew that was born again and refused to be baptized by John?

 

[Titus]

Titus, I go with the context which drives the interpretation for us, not the Greek

You aren't fooling me.
You know the Greek does not say because of, therefore you are trying to get around the greek.

Interpretations must agree with their context.​

Remember this law: A text used out of context is a pretext. we must not Don’t violate it; learn to spot it.

A text is a word, clause, verse, paragraph, chapter, or book you are seeking to interpret.

Context is the surrounding information, which shows the author’s meaning by the text.

Out of context is using words and their sound contrary to the surrounding information.

A pretext is a false and incorrect impression designed to hide or disguise the real intent.

Context? By translators, translate what language in the new testament?

If what you teach does not fit the greek language.
Then guess who is out of context?

 

[Titus]

The thief on the cross was already a believer in Jesus as the Messiah.
He had faith in Jesus.
Then Jesus told him he was saved.
Calvinism teaches you are regenerated before you believe.
Just as Red Baker is teaching the Jews were saved before they repented in the baptism of John.
So was the thief on the cross saved before he believed and before Jesus told him, today you will
be with Me in paradise?
If Red Bakers religion is the truth, John 17:17.
Then the thief was also saved before he repented.

 

[JLB]

Yes

He who does not believe is condemned

No work involved you either believe or you do not

So we agree.

Believe = saved.

No “work”.

 

[Jim]

You're an Arminian that believes salvation is nothing more than the "smell of smoke". One minute you're saved and the next minute you're not. Thusly, you see everything you believe through this "lens" you're looking through that you've been falsely taught in your life. You are simply repeating what they say. It is their faith. It isn't your faith that you have. It isn't your belief. You got it from them.

That is not Arminianism. That, in fact, is Calvinism. The Calvinist believes that one minute you can't hear, you can't see, you are at enmity against God, you hate God, and the next minute you have been justified and regenerated, hence saved and you had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of it. In that moment, through nothing that you have done or thought previously, you are made to be alive, you have faith in God, you love Him with all your heart and soul. In that instant you understand God's word. That is Calvinism. And that is pure poppycock.

 

[Jim]

Interpretations must agree with their context.
Remember this law: A text used out of context is a pretext. we must not Don’t violate it; learn to spot it.

A text is a word, clause, verse, paragraph, chapter, or book you are seeking to interpret.

Context is the surrounding information, which shows the author’s meaning by the text.

Out of context is using words and their sound contrary to the surrounding information.

A pretext is a false and incorrect impression designed to hide or disguise the real intent.

Using a verse contrary to its context gives a misleading and deceitful sound of words to teach something the author did not intend and/or is not true. Titus, have had your words used out of context before, and you hated the corruption of your intent and meaning. We must make sure we never do it with the precious Word of God.

This rule applies to all writings and conversations of every sort, and so context is well understood by most people. Contracts, court records, novels, promises, and poetry are all understood in context, or surrounding information, to truly understand their meaning. Even single words are meaningless without a context, which is why we asked our teacher to use them in a sentence before we would try to spell them in a spelling bee! Even if we use a verse to teach a true point, we make sure we still honor its context. For using the wrong verse to teach the right point is the first subtle step to heresy.

So, my understanding is based 100% on the context of Acts 2:37, with a comparison of other scriptures to form a true biblical understanding of Acts 2:38, which understanding will flow with other scriptures that teaches us the true spiritual condition of all men apart from the new birth, happening first. They cannot contradict each other and for one to still have the truth on that particular doctrine, which it does with all of those that have men "in the flesh doing spiritual acts pleasing to God", and by doing those spiritual acts obtain the forgiveness of sins. A serious corruption of God's word. A position in essence making void the death of Jesus Christ, by saying that righteousness comes by man's obedience instead of by Christ's faith and obedience alone securing eternal life for all those he stood as a surety for by God's appointment.

Later when I return.

Red, you have just presented the very reason that you refuse to believe the word of God. Context to you is not what a passage says. It is not based upon the surrounding information, which shows the author's meaning by the text. Context to you is based upon what you need it to be to support your beliefs.

First and foremost, interpretation must use the words that God, by the Holy Spirit and through the author, wrote. Your interpretation of the word "for" in Acts 2:38 is not interpretation of what Luke wrote and what Peter said. Luke didn't write the English word "for" in Acts 2:38; instead, Luke wrote the Greek word "eis" in Acts 2:38. No interpretation of the word "eis" can mean "because of". It matters not one whit that the English word "for" can sometimes mean "because of". If God had intended Peter to say and Luke to write ""Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spiri", then God would have done that. There are a couple of Greek words that mean "because". But God didn't do that. You accuse God of being sloppy in His revelation.

That is true of your "context" which you have inserted into the text of Acts 2:37 also. The phrase "pricked to the heart" (KJV) or "cut to the heart" (ESV) does not mean regenerated, made alive again, or born again either literally or metaphorically.

 

[Titus]

No one was there for in Acts 8:36-37 but one man and God. Who do you think saved this Eunch?

Wrong, Philip was there. The Eunch confessed Christ before men, Acts 8:37,
- and Philip said(two men not one Philip and the Eunch) if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest, and he(Eunch, two men together, now listen closely) I believe the Jesus Christ is the Son of God

So you are mistaken. Philip and the Eunch and the Holy Spirit were prsent. Not what you teach,

No one was there for in Acts 8:36-37 but one man and God

You are denying the words of Jesus, Matthew 10:32-33.

Faith is confirmed in confession. Confession itself isn't a secondary means of salvation

Wrong, faith is a condition not in itself alone a confession. As proved by John 12:42,
belief is one condition. Confession is another condition. Two conditions not one.
- nevertheless even among the rulers many believed(condition) but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him( second condition) lest they should be put out of the synagogue....

You keep accusing me of dishonesty.
Paul said confession is with the mouth.Romans 10:9-10
Jesus said confession is before men, Matthew 10: 32-33.
But you said your confession saved you when you confessed to God alone not men.

I confessed to God. I didn't confess to you nor any man.

That is not the Biblical confession for salvation.
Paul didn't teach your doctrine on confession.
Jesus didn't teach your doctrine on confession.
You confession to be saved is foreign to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
This is why you cannot be saved by your private interpretation of the good confession.

1 Timothy 6:12-13,
- fight the good fight of faith take hold of eternal life to whivh you were called and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses

I confessed to God. I didn't confess to you nor any man

False gospel, Galatians 1:8.

You are still not dealing with the secret disciple of Jesus who begged for the body of Jesus. You know the one that wouldn't confess Jesus before man. You can't deal with this outlier to your theology and you're dishonestly ignoring it to sell your own interpretation

Joseph of Arimathea hid his faith but he did not openly deny Chridt as Peter did.
Peter openly denied Christ.
Both had to repent of their sins or they would have been lost. 1John 1:8-9.
- if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness

Public denial of Jesus = damnation, Matthew 10-32-33.
Hiding ones faith = damnation,

Mark 8:38,
- for whoever is ashamed of Me, and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angel's

. I confessed to everyone here and you still reject me. I do it over and over again here. Openly among men.

Irrelevant.
You said the confession that saved you was NOT before men.

I said that when I got saved, I didn't confess to anyone but God

The only confession that saves in Jesus' gospel is with the mouth before men.
Matthew 10:32-33
Romans 10:9-10
Acts 8:37
1Timothy 6:12-13