"Works Salvation"

[brightfame52]

Rom 5:10 does not say Christ died for only a few elect.

Thats who its about, I told you Rom 5 is about the elect. Rom 8:33-34

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

 

[brightfame52]

you are still making assumptions about the thief....assume he was a thief his whole life.

He was a thief on the cross when Jesus saved him.

 

[brightfame52]

you are still making assumptions about the thief....assume he was a thief his whole life..assume he was not baptized.

Im going to play this silly game with you. Lets say he was baptized as a teenager, who would have baptized him and whose name was he baptized in ?

 

[Seabass]

He was a thief on the cross when Jesus saved him.

--he was repentant. (The Bible does not explicitly state if he was baptized or not so either would be an assumption)
--Christ was still alive when He promised the their paradise (Heb 9:15-17) so the NT was not yet in effect.
--he therefore was not accountable to Acts 2:38 as we today are who are under the NT gospel of Christ, who can be baptized into the death of Christ Rom 6.

 

[brightfame52]

he was repentant.

Jesus gives repentance Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

 

[brightfame52]

-Christ was still alive when He promised the their paradise (Heb 9:15-17) so the NT was not yet in effect.
--he therefore was not accountable to Acts 2:38 as we today are who are under the NT gospel of Christ, who can be baptized into the death of Christ Rom 6.

Salvation has always been by Grace no matter what time period in world history.

 

[Seabass]

Im going to play this silly game with you. Lets say he was baptized as a teenager, who would have baptized him and whose name was he baptized in ?

the Bible does not say if he was or was not baptized, so saying he was baptized or saying he was not baptized would both be assumptions.

The thief is not my argument, it is your argument so YOU must prove that the thief was never baptized else your argument is based on assumption and is dead.

If I had to GUESS, my GUESS is he had been baptized (Mk 1:5) a disciple of John who later sinned and found himself being punished for that sin on a cross. From Luke's account, the thief knew there is a God, that God is to be feared, he knew he was guilty but knew Christ was innocent, he knew the death of Christ was not the end of Christ that Christ would have a kingdom. The thief expressed a knowledge of Christ some of Christ's own disciples did not. He did not learn all this while hanging on his cross but had to have learned it from someone, maybe from John.

My argument that baptism is necessary is based on the NT gospel, not based on the thief for the thief was not under the NT hence not accountable to Acts 2:38. Your argument is based on the thief and him not being baptized so you must prove the assumption he was not baptized. Your argument fails for other reasons but your argument is based entirely upon an assumption.

 

[Seabass]

Jesus gives repentance Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

give means repentance is a gift given to man whereby man can use that gift to have sins forgiven. It does not mean one cannot repent unless Christ allows one to repent by giving repentance to him and withholding it from others.

Jews were commanded to repent Acts 2:38 and the command requires a response from those Jews and logically implies ability and accountability on the Jews to respond to that command.

 

[brightfame52]

the Bible does not say if he was or was not baptized, so saying he was baptized or saying he was not baptized would both be assumptions.

It doesnt matter one way or other, the thief wasn't required to be baptized, join a church or nothing, he was one of Gods elect and Jesus had his sins charged to Him, that's what saved him, the Grace of God. This should show you the folly of requiring water baptism tom get saved.

 

[Jim]

you are still making assumptions about the thief....assume he was a thief his whole life..assume he was not baptized.

His entire soteriology is composed of bad assumptions.

 

[Jim]

Where did he get baptized at ? Was it in the name of Jesus at the neighborhood church of the Pharisees ? Lol. Maybe he was baptized by John the baptized and then went out and robbed somebody and got caught and they ;locked him up

Maybe, maybe, maybe. You should quit maybying and read the Bible.

 

[brightfame52]

give means repentance is a gift given to man whereby man can use that gift to have sins forgiven.

He gives repentance and then one will repent. The giving is causative of the repentance. Jer 31 19

Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

Peter preached Jesus does the turning Acts 3:26

26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

So again He gives repentance Acts 5:31

 

[brightfame52]

Maybe, maybe, maybe. You should quit maybying and read the Bible.

Maybe the Pharisee church of Christ is where he got baptized, then grew up to be a cold blooded robber.

 

[Jim]

If water baptism is necessary for salvation, the thief on the cross is in hell. Jesus deluded him when He said to him :

Lk 23:43

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Under the Old Covenant, it was necessary that an animal be sacrifice in order to obtain forgiveness. Have you done that? If not, how were your sins forgiven?

 

[brightfame52]

how were your sins forgiven?

Eph 1:7-8

7 ;In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

 

[Studyman]

Red, nearly that entire post has no biblical basis of truth in it. It is totally wrong. In verse 18 the "all men" justified is the same "all men" condemned and in verse19 the "many" made righteous is the same "many" made sinners. Your changing the meaning of the words mid-sentence in both verses is unacceptable. Both relate to the condition of the spirit of mankind when they come into the world. Were it not for Christ's sacrifice on the cross the whole of mankind would be condemned from birth; however, with the death of Christ on the cross the whole of mankind are made righteous when they come into this world, thus effectively negating any effect of the sin of Adam on mankind at birth.

Rom 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Thus instead of Original Sin that might have been the curse against the spirits of mankind at birth, it is instead Original Grace on the whole of mankind at birth. They remain free from any condemnation until they, themselves, sin against God. God is not unjust monstrosity, you present Him to be, who would give dead spirits to men when they are born and have not yet committed any sin against God.

And that, my good friend in Christ, is in complete harmony with the whole rest of God's word, the Bible.

Absolutely Jim. As Prophesied by the Inspired Word of God.

Ez. 18: 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Cain was not punished for Adam's Sin.

Neither was Abel.

21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Great Post Jim.

 

[Jim]

Eph 1:7-8

7 ;In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

What makes you think that is talking about you?

 

[Seabass]

It doesnt matter one way or other, the thief wasn't required to be baptized, join a church or nothing, he was one of Gods elect and Jesus had his sins charged to Him, that's what saved him, the Grace of God. This should show you the folly of requiring water baptism tom get saved.

The thief cannot be used as "proof" that baptism is unnecessary for us today. The thief was promised paradise while he and Christ were still alive under the OT law, Heb 9:15-17. So the thief was not accountable to Acts 2:38 as we today are who are under the NT gospel.

For anyone to claim the thief was not baptized (an assumption) therefore we today do not have to be baptized is a very flawed, illogical, unbiblical argument.

 

[brightfame52]

The thief cannot be used as "proof"

Yes he can be used as proof. So can Cornelius, he was saved b4 he was water baptized. It came after he was a confirmed believer in Christ Acts 10:43-48

43;To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

God had already saved Cornelius and them and had given them the Gift of the Holy Ghost, b4 water baptism.

The water baptism was a ritual to identify with the New Covenant Faith and other believers. But Cornelius was saved even b4 Peter preached to him, Peter realized that from Vs 34-35

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

 

[Seabass]

He gives repentance and then one will repent. The giving is causative of the repentance. Jer 31 19

Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

Peter preached Jesus does the turning Acts 3:26

26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

So again He gives repentance Acts 5:31

Acts 17 then why command all men everywhere to repent if man himself is unable to repent unless God 'gives' repentance to him?

The command to man to repent requires a response from man to that command and the command itself implies ability and accountability to repent. How can those in Rom 2:4-5 be justly condemned for their impenitence if they were incapable to repent because God did not give repentance to them? How can they be culpable for their impenitence when God was withholding repentance from them?

Looking at the bigger context in Jer 31 instead of looking at one verse, the broader context shows Israel/Ephraim had sinned against God. As a result of their sinning God punished (exiled) them ‘You have disciplined me, and I was disciplined,
like an untrained calf" (v18). As a result of God's discipline they chose to repent. God's discipline turned them, instructed them creating shame leading them to choose to repent. God graciously gave them the opportunity to repent.

Similar case with Jonah:

God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh
Jonah ran from God and sinned by not going
God punished Jonah for his sin
Inside the fish, God's punishment 'turned' or lead Jonah to repent (Jonah 2)
God approached Jonah a second time to go to Nineveh, Jonah obeyed and went

In both cases with Ephraim and Jonah, men sinned, God punished (instruction), men chose to repent. Later the Nineveh was instructed they would be destroyed in 49 days, they choose to repent due to that instruction/impending punishment from God.

Jer 31:18 “Restore me, and I will return.” God's punishments or instructions graciously exposes sins giving one the opportunity to repent, to respond, "I will return"....man must be willing to respond to God's punishment/instructions by repenting.

Nothing here about people being unable to choose to repent, being unable to repent unless God allows them to repent.

In Acts 2 Peter preached God's word, instructed those Jews about their horrible sin. This instruction led to shame, 'turning' them, prompting them to ask what they must do. They were commanded to repent. Again the command is pointless and absurd if God alone determines who can or cannot repent.

God can use punishment and affliction or use preaching/instructing to lead or 'turn' people to repent. But what's the point of punishment, affliction or instruction if God alone will determine if people can repent or not? It would be pointless.
Yet the purpose of punishment or instruction is to expose people to their sin, create shame and guilt thereby 'turning' them to choose to repent.

God's punishment or instruction does not always 'turn' men to repent. Acts 2 Peter instructed, men were pricked in the heart, commanded to repent and they obeyed by repenting. Acts 7 Stephen likewise instructed, men were also cut in their heart but not 'turned' to repent but gnashed on him with their teeth and murdered him. They choose to not repent. If they could not repent because God did not give them repentance as you may claim, then how can they be held culpable for their actions when God withheld, made it impossible, for them to repent? Why command all men everywhere to repent then withhold repentance from them?

That is not the actions of the loving, just, true God of heaven but the actions of an evil king, Exodus 5. Pharaoh took from Israel the supplies they needed to make bricks but still expected them to not only make bricks but make as many as they had in the past, an impossible task. Yet you have God commanding all men to repent and then make repentance impossible....

Ex 5:
"Then the officers of the children of Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh, saying, Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants?
There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say to us, Make brick: and, behold, thy servants are beaten; but the fault is in thine own people. (Command all men to repent then make repentance impossible, who then is a fault for man's impenitence?)
Pharaoh says: 'Go therefore now, and work; for there shall no straw be given you, yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks"
And the officers of the children of Israel did see that they were in evil case, after it was said, Ye shall not minish ought from your bricks of your daily task."
Israel saw they were in a "evil case" seeing they must not reduce the number of bricks made even though not given supplies needed to make bricks. Men today would be in an 'evil case' having been commanded to repent yet not "given" repentance, having repentance withheld from them making repentance impossible.

Yet God is not responsible for men's impenitence: Men have freedom to repent or not. When men reject, the fault is entirely theirs. God can mourn over their refusal (see Matt 23:37 — “how often would I have gathered you… but ye would not”) without being the cause of it. Why would God mourn over what He caused?


=================================
Psalms 2:8
"Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."

"For example, David prophesied that Jehovah would “give” the “nations” (Gentiles) to Christ as an inheritance (Psa. 2:8; cf. Acts 4:25-26). Surely no one will contend that ALL Gentiles were unconditionally predestined to salvation, irrespective of their response to divine truth. Even the most cursory examination of the book of Acts, from chapter 10 onward, reveals that the Gentiles were admitted into redemptive favor by yielding to the requirements of the gospel. Salvation was not as a consequence of an eternal decree independent of human obedience (cf. Acts 10:34-35,43; 11:14; 15:8-9; 1 Pet. 1:22-23)."

Does John 6:37 Teach Calvinist "Predestination"?

It is commonly alleged that Jesus, in John 6:37, endorsed the idea of "predestination" as popularized by John Calvin in the 16th century. Did he? Study this question with us.

christiancourier.com

Hence when God "gives" repentance, God is giving man an opportunity to repent and man must respond by yielding to that gracious opportunity to repent.