Why We Are Justified by Faith Alone

[beloved57]

Why do you not understand that before a person can come into the reconciliation wrought by God he must first be reconciled to God?

That is why we are to tell unbelievers to "be reconciled to God:

"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor.5:20).​

If an unbeliever is already reconciled to God why would we tell him to "be reconciled to God"?

Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies by His Death Rom 5:10!

 

[Samie]

I respectfully disagree. When we look at Paul's wording he uses we a lot and at the end calls them brethren and is rejoicing over their obedience.

16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. 19 For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you He addressed his letter to all in Rome. Rom 1:7. This tells us the audience to whom Paul was addressing is not to a specific group BUT to all in Rome, Christians or otherwise.
, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.

As far as I understand, after Acts all letters are written to Christians.

Consider the ff:

1. When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he had not been to Rome yet anytime before. Rom 1:9-11; 15:22-24. This tells us he had not preached in Rome yet.

2. He wanted to go there because he wanted to have fruits (or converts) among the Romans. Rom 1:13-15. This tells us he has no converts in Rome yet.

3. He only preached Christ to places where Christ had not been preached yet. Rom 15:21-24, 28, 29. This tells us no one has preached Christ in Rome before him, otherwise he would not have so much longed to go there.

4. He used "we" a lot in his letter and called those in Rome his brethren as is customary for Paul. This was the same attitude he displayed in Mar's Hill, Athens where he identified himself with the Athenian by saying "in as much as WE ARE the offspring of God". Acts 17:22-30.

5. He addressed his letter to all in Rome. Rom 1:7. This tells us the audience to whom Paul was addressing is not to a specific group BUT to all in Rome, Christians or not. And he told the Romans: we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.

 

[turbosixx]

Thanks for your input.

Consider the ff:

1. When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he had not been to Rome yet anytime before. Rom 1:9-11; 15:22-24. This tells us he had not preached in Rome yet.

I agree.

2. He wanted to go there because he wanted to have fruits (or converts) among the Romans. Rom 1:13-15. This tells us he has no converts in Rome yet.

Not sure if that is exactly what he means by fruit. In Gal. 5:22 he lists fruit of the Spirit, this could be what he’s talking about so that it will be for their benefit, Phil. 4:15-17. In Rom. 15:24… and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company for a while-

It could be converts as well.

3. He only preached Christ to places where Christ had not been preached yet. Rom 15:21-24, 28, 29. This tells us no one has preached Christ in Rome before him, otherwise he would not have so much longed to go there.

I had never noticed this before, thanks for pointing it out. In reading those verses it appears the reason Paul was prevented from going there is so he wouldn’t build upon someone else’s work.
20 And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man's foundation;….. 22 For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you;

But now that he has nowhere new to go so he’s ready to come to them.
23 but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you 24 whenever I go to Spain-for I hope to see you in passing,

4. He used "we" a lot in his letter and called those in Rome his brethren as is customary for Paul. This was the same attitude he displayed in Mar's Hill, Athens where he identified himself with the Athenian by saying "in as much as WE ARE the offspring of God". Acts 17:22-30.

It applies for Mar’s Hill because we are all God’s children.
Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,

They are Christians and he talks about their converting to Christ in past tense. Few examples:
6:21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

5. He addressed his letter to all in Rome. Rom 1:7. This tells us the audience to whom Paul was addressing is not to a specific group BUT to all in Rome, Christians or not. And he told the Romans: we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.

I still understand saints to be Christians, if you have evidence otherwise I would be glad to look at it.

In most of Paul’s greetings to the various churches he calls them saints. Here he says to those called as saints, not just to all people in Rome.
7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies by His Death Rom 5:10!

Those same people, who are described as being his enemies, are not yet reconciled to God. That is why we are to tell them to be reconciled to God:

"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor.5:20).​

An unbeliever remains an enemy of God but by the time he is reconciled to God by faith he is no longer God's enemy but instead is a child of God.

You fail to understand that "reconciliation" is not just one sided but involves something from both parties--God and man.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I believe we can be in agreement if we can agree on what “exercises” his faith means. What does it mean to you?

It means the moment when a person actually believes the gospel.

 

[beloved57]

jerry shugart

Those same people, who are described as being his enemies, are not yet reconciled to Go

Thats a flat out denial of Rom 5:10

[FONT=&quot]For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.[/FONT]

 

[Samie]

I still understand saints to be Christians, if you have evidence otherwise I would be glad to look at it.

In most of Paul’s greetings to the various churches he calls them saints. Here he says to those called as saints, not just to all people in Rome.
7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints:

I think when Paul said to all who are beloved of God in Rome, he means the same as Jesus meant when He said for God so loved the world, and that simply means since God so loved the world, then He loved all those in Rome.

I respect your position that you still understand saints to be Christians, and I admire your willingness to consider evidence that points otherwise. Please consider this verse, then tell me what you think about it:

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose

That's a verse telling of the resurrection of some people at the time of Christ's death. Note that Scriptures call them saints but I don't think they are Christians since the word "Christian" was coined only in Antioch a couple of years AFTER the death and resurrection of our Lord. see Acts 11:26.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ignoring Justification's Temporal Aspect

Ignoring Justification's Temporal Aspect

Be that as it may, and despite our having done this hoe-down many times already, theirs is the more logically consistent position according to TULIP. If one is personally elect from eternity past, etc etc...it follows as surely as links in a chain.

Perhaps it was missed in my Nov. 14 post, but it bears repeating given the confusion surrounding exactly what election means.

No non-believer genuinely wants or is able to seek after God's righteousness (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14), hence, thanks be to God for election (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9;John 17:22; John 18:9). Once regenerated (born anew), the non-believer instantaneously will genuinely want, will be able, and will not not believe.

Election is unto an end, that is salvation, not to salvation.

In other words, under ordinary circumstances, the elect will come to faith from the hearing of the Good News, being regenerated, now able and wanting to believe, per God's gift of faith, then irrevocably believing.

Faith must include "choice," if by that is meant an act of the will. Faith is simply the man believing. Man thinks, wills, and affects. Therefore faith is defined in terms of knowledge, assent, and trust. It is certain that man cannot will anything spiritually good in a fallen and unregenerate condition, but it is equally certain that when a man is regenerated he is enabled to believe in Our Lord for salvation. God does not believe for him. God works in him to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).

Hebrews 11:1 provides a definition of what faith does rather than what faith is. It is describing the function rather than the nature of faith. It is regrettable that it has been translated by some in subjective terms when it is indicating something that is objective.

That Hebrews 11:1 speaks of the function of faith, not the nature of it, is clear from the context, which is believing to the saving of the soul, Hebrews 10:38-39.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

Perhaps it was missed in my Nov. 14 post, but it bears repeating given the confusion surrounding exactly what election means.

[FONT="]No non-believer genuinely [I]wants[/I] or [I]is able[/I] to seek after God's righteousness (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14), hence, thanks be to God for [I]election [/I](John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9;John 17:22; John 18:9). Once regenerated (born anew), the non-believer instantaneously will genuinely [I]want[/I], will [I]be able[/I], and [I]will not [U]not[/U] believe[/I].

[/FONT][box][FONT="]Election is unto an end, that is salvation, not to salvation.[/FONT][/box][FONT="]

In other words, under ordinary circumstances, the elect will come to faith from the hearing of the Good News, being regenerated, now able and wanting to believe, per [U]God's gift of faith[/U], then irrevocably believing.

Faith must include "[I]choice[/I]," if by that is meant an [I]act of the will[/I]. Faith is simply the man believing. Man [I]thinks[/I], [I]wills[/I], and [I]affects[/I]. Therefore faith is defined in terms of [I]knowledge[/I], [I]assent[/I], and [I]trust[/I]. It is certain that man cannot will anything spiritually good in a fallen and unregenerate condition, but it is equally certain that when a man is regenerated he is enabled to believe in Our Lord for salvation. [I]God does not believe for him[/I]. God [I]works[/I] in him [I]to will and to do[/I] of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).

[/FONT][FONT="]Hebrews 11:1 provides a definition of what faith does rather than what faith is. It is describing the function rather than the nature of faith. It is regrettable that it has been translated by some in subjective terms when it is indicating something that is objective.

That Hebrews 11:1 speaks of the function of faith, not the nature of it, is clear from the context, which is believing to the saving of the soul, Hebrews 10:38-39.

AMR[/FONT]

It is true that man is a depraved sinner, however, God is just and merciful and has created man with the ability to hear and believe the Gospel. This is why Paul wrote,

"So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (which is the Gospel) Romans 10:17.

The Gospel is for everyone, not just someone.

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor: THAT HE BY THE GRACE OF GOD SHOULD TASTE DEATH FOR EVERYONE" Hebrews 2:9.

Salvation has been provided for ALL MEN, not just some men, 1 Timothy 2:4.

This way God is off of the hook. All men are responsible for their own salvation and not God. This also allows God to be just, merciful and righteous. He provides, but its up to man to receive what he has provided.

"For as many as RECEIVED HIM to them gave he the power to become Sons of God" John 1:12.

If you want to be saved you need to receive Christ as your savior.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Error of Eternal Justification

The Error of Eternal Justification

For example:
Given TULIP -- particularly the U, L, I and the P -- that would of necessity be true: they were never at risk of wrath because God would not countermand and contradict His own eternal elective decree regarding them. They were safe in Christ before they were ever born. Indeed, with His blood already shed for them before creation (Rev 13:8), it could not possibly be otherwise.

In speaking on this subject we ought to be very careful and allow ourselves to be guided by the explicit statements of Scripture rather than by our bold inferences from the secret counsel of God. There is far more in God than we can reduce to our logical categories.

Are the elect in this life the objects of God's love only, and never in any sense the objects of His wrath? Is Moses thinking of the reprobate when he says: "For we are consumed in thine anger, and in thy wrath are we troubled" (Psalm 90:7)? Does not the statement of Jesus that the wrath of God abideth on them that obey not the Son imply that it is removed from the others when, and not until, they submit to the beneficent rule of Christ (John 3:36)? And does not Paul say to the Ephesians that they "were by nature children of wrath even as the rest" (Eph. 2:3)? Evidently the elect can not be regarded as always and exclusively the objects of God's love.

Such a view undoes all of Scripture's teachings about the first and second Adam. Scripture is in nothing more plentiful than in laying and charging all the misery and wrath of and due to an unreconciled condition upon the elect of God, until they actually partake in the deliverance by Our Lord. If God were fully pleased with the present condition of the believer, the believer himself would have no reason to bemoan his condition, contrary to the express statements of Scripture.

Our Lord underwent not only that wrath of God (taking it passively) which the elect were under, but that also which they should have undergone had not He borne it for them: Our Lord “delivered them from the wrath to come.” The elect do, in their several generations, lie under all the wrath of God in respect of merit and procurement, though not in respect of actual endurance— in respect of guilt, not present punishment, So that, notwithstanding these exceptions, it stands firm that “he was made sin for us, who knew no sin.”

When God views you "in Christ," all the Trinitarian divine love flows to you by virtue of your union with the Son. When God views you "in Adam," all the wrath of God against sin is directed toward you in rebellion, without any mitigation. The wrath of God due to His elect for their sin is poured out upon the Son in their place. Covenant and Election matter. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

The elect in the Bible are the ones that have elected to believe on Jesus Christ for their salvation.

They have chosen Christ to be their savior. It is foolish to believe that God has only chosen some certain ones to be saved. Not only is it foolish, it is not biblical.

The Calvinist doctrine of election has its roots in Pharisaism. The Pharisees also thought that they were God's special chosen ones. If you want to know what God thought of them read Matthew chapter 23.

Calvinism makes God unjust. Who can have faith in an unjust God?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

TULIP Owes Its Genesis to the Anti-Calvinist

TULIP Owes Its Genesis to the Anti-Calvinist

Again...I didn't formulate TULIP. Your side did.

I've responded adequately, as the bulk of your complaints rest in unwarranted assumptions of the secret counsel of God or matters related to God's eternal existence. The formulation of the doctrines of grace, which, hundreds of years later came to be called TULIP, was actually summarizing the response to the Remonstrant's complaints. In other words, your side lies at the root of all of this. :AMR:

These complaints, if constructed into a statement of faith, are as follows:

Spoiler

An Anti-Calvinist Confession of Faith - Remarks

The anti-Calvinist Arminians have no historical confessions to point to for catechesis, so confessing what they believe resorts in a hodge podge of localized views, written and unwritten. Such folks are better off taking their own talking points from the Canons of Dordt, and claiming them as their confessional starting point. Accordingly, I have done the heavy-lifting for them along these lines shown below.

Unfortunately, the Arminian's systematic theology of doctrine is but one comprising apophaticism and cavils against those that have come before them.

The Thirty-Four Articles of the Arminian Confession of Faith
(As Adopted From The Canons of Dordt)

1. It is the will of God to save those who would believe and persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decision of election to salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decision has been revealed in God's Word.

2. God's election to eternal life is of many kinds: one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and the latter in turn either incomplete, revocable, non-peremptory (or conditional), or else complete, irrevocable, and peremptory (or absolute). Likewise, who teach that there is one election to faith and another to salvation, so that there can be an election to justifying faith apart from a peremptory election to salvation.

3. God's good pleasure and purpose, which Scripture mentions in its teaching of election, does not involve God's choosing certain particular people rather than others, but involves God's choosing, out of all possible conditions (including the works of the law) or out of the whole order of things, the intrinsically unworthy act of faith, as well as the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation; and it involves his graciously wishing to count this as perfect obedience and to look upon it as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

4. In election to faith a prerequisite condition is that man should rightly use the light of nature, be upright, unassuming, humble, and disposed to eternal life, as though election depended to some extent on these factors.

5. The incomplete and non-peremptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness. And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

6. Not every election to salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the chosen can perish and do in fact perish eternally, with no decision of God to prevent it.

7. In this life there is no fruit, no awareness, and no assurance of one's unchangeable election to glory, except as conditional upon something changeable and contingent.

8. It was not on the basis of his just will alone that God decided to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation or to pass anyone by in the imparting of grace necessary for faith and conversion.

9. The cause for God's sending the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely God's good pleasure, but rather that one people is better and worthier than the other to whom the gospel is not communicated.

10. God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.

11. The purpose of Christ's death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.

12. Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.

13. What is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ's death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ's merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

14. All people have been received into the state of reconciliation and into the grace of the covenant, so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation, or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin.

15. We make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

16. Christ neither could die, nor had to die, nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life, since such people do not need the death of Christ.

17. Properly speaking, it cannot be said that original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race or to warrant temporal and eternal punishments.

18. The spiritual gifts or the good dispositions and virtues such as goodness, holiness, and righteousness could not have resided in man's will when he was first created, and therefore could not have been separated from the will at the fall.

19. In spiritual death the spiritual gifts have not been separated from man's will, since the will in itself has never been corrupted but only hindered by the darkness of the mind and the unruliness of the emotions, and since the will is able to exercise its innate free capacity once these hindrances are removed, which is to say, it is able of itself to will or choose whatever good is set before it--or else not to will or choose it.

20. Unregenerate man is not strictly or totally dead in his sins or deprived of all capacity for spiritual good but is able to hunger and thirst for righteousness or life and to offer the sacrifice of a broken and contrite spirit which is pleasing to God.

21. Corrupt and natural man can make such good use of common grace(by which they mean the light of nature)or of the gifts remaining after the fall that he is able thereby gradually to obtain a greater grace-- evangelical or saving grace--as well as salvation itself; and that in this way God, for his part, shows himself ready to reveal Christ to all people, since he provides to all, to a sufficient extent and in an effective manner, the means necessary for the revealing of Christ, for faith, and for repentance.

22. In the true conversion of man new qualities, dispositions, or gifts cannot be infused or poured into his will by God, and indeed that the faith [or believing] by which we first come to conversion and from which we receive the name "believers" is not a quality or gift infused by God, but only an act of man, and that it cannot be called a gift except in respect to the power of attaining faith.

23. The grace by which we are converted to God is nothing but a gentle persuasion, or (as others explain it) that the way of God's acting in man's conversion that is most noble and suited to human nature is that which happens by persuasion, and that nothing prevents this grace of moral suasion even by itself from making natural men spiritual; indeed, that God does not produce the assent of the will except in this manner of moral suasion, and that the effectiveness of God's work by which it surpasses the work of Satan consists in the fact that God promises eternal benefits while Satan promises temporal ones.

24. God in regenerating man does not bring to bear that power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man's will to faith and conversion, but that even when God has accomplished all the works of grace which he uses for man's conversion, man nevertheless can, and in actual fact often does, so resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him, that man completely thwarts his own rebirth; and, indeed, that it remains in his own power whether or not to be reborn.

25. Grace and free choice are concurrent partial causes which cooperate to initiate conversion, and that grace does not precede--in the order of causality--the effective influence of the will; that is to say,that God does not effectively help man's will to come to conversion before man's will itself motivates and determines itself.

26. The perseverance of true believers is not an effect of election or a gift of God produced by Christ's death, but a condition of the new covenant which man, before what they call his "peremptory" election and justification, must fulfill by his free will.

27. God does provide the believer with sufficient strength to persevere and is ready to preserve this strength in him if he performs his duty, but that even with all those things in place which are necessary to persevere in faith and which God is pleased to use to preserve faith, it still always depends on the choice of man's will whether or not he perseveres.

28. Those who truly believe and have been born again not only can forfeit justifying faith as well as grace and salvation totally and to the end, but also in actual fact do often forfeit them and are lost forever.

29. Those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit).

30. Apart from a special revelation no one can have the assurance of future perseverance in this life.

31. The teaching of the assurance of perseverance and of salvation is by its very nature and character an opiate of the flesh and is harmful to godliness, good morals, prayer, and other holy exercises, but that, on the contrary, to have doubt about this is praiseworthy.

32. The faith of those who believe only temporarily does not differ from justifying and saving faith except in duration alone.

33. It is not absurd that a person, after losing his former regeneration, should once again, indeed quite often, be reborn.

34. Christ nowhere prayed for an unfailing perseverance of believers in faith.

To these unfortunate sets of beliefs, it was rightly responded, no, as they suffer from erroneous views of the doctrines of grace taught within Scripture. Specifically, in contradistinction to the Remonstrants, it was declared that Scripture teaches us that (1) humanity is sin-dead, and incapable of contributing anything toward salvation (Ps. 14:1-3; 51:5, Rom. 3:10, 23; Jer. 17:9; Eph. 2:8-9); (2) God chose to save us despite our complete unworthiness (Eph. 1:4, 2:8-9; John 1:12-13; 15:16, Rom. 8:28-30, 9:11); (3) Our Lord's sacrifice secured salvation for all the elect (Col. 1:21-22; John 6:37, 44, 64; 10:26; Acts 13:48); (4) God will efficaciously draw all the elect to Himself and none will be lost (John 6:37, 39; 10:28; 18:9; Rom. 8:31-39; Eph. 2:8-9); and (5) as Christians, we are eternally secure; none of the elect can ever lose the gift of salvation (John 5:24; 6:39; 10:28; Rom. 3:29; II Tim. 4:18; Heb. 7:23-25; 10:14; I Peter 1:4-5; II Cor. 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30).

After reviewing the Arminian Confession of Faith above, some will complain that this is not an accurate summary of what he or she believes. No matter, for the above is actually taken from the complaints lodged by the followers of Arminius in 1618 against what would later be called Calvinism, a label set by the Lutherans. Today's Arminian does not understand nor bears close resemblance to the classic Arminians of yesteryear. Most moderns have not even taken the time to study the developments of the church in history such that they can determine for themselves what and why they think they believe what they believe. Instead the uninformed think they just discovered it all by themselves, as if there is actually something new under the sun.

AMR

 

[turbosixx]

It means the moment when a person actually believes the gospel.

This is the point where I can’t agree with you. Today the way someone becomes a Christian is by believing and saying the sinner’s prayer. I hear it all the time. Nowhere in scripture do we see this taught or practiced. Where did it come from? There are only two sources.
25 The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?"



Jesus said make disciples by baptizing them IN his name. The apostles did exactly that including the apostle Paul.

In Acts 19 Paul would not give these men, who had heard the gospel, the Holy Spirit until they had been baptized “in the name of Jesus”. Paul himself did not have his sins washed away until he was baptized. Being baptized “in the name of Jesus” is how we are added to Christ.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

The bible never says “all” you have to do is believe. We are given around 12 conversions for a reason and the one thing that is consistent with them all is baptism.

I’m amazed that people vehemently deny the words of Jesus himself with boldness.
3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.

29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

 

[turbosixx]

I think when Paul said to all who are beloved of God in Rome, he means the same as Jesus meant when He said for God so loved the world, and that simply means since God so loved the world, then He loved all those in Rome.

I respect your position that you still understand saints to be Christians, and I admire your willingness to consider evidence that points otherwise. Please consider this verse, then tell me what you think about it:

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose

That's a verse telling of the resurrection of some people at the time of Christ's death. Note that Scriptures call them saints but I don't think they are Christians since the word "Christian" was coined only in Antioch a couple of years AFTER the death and resurrection of our Lord. see Acts 11:26.

I believe the blood of Jesus was applied to those who where faithful, under the system they lived and died under. I believe that is exactly what this verse eludes to about all those of faith who had lived before Christ.
Heb. 11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

Yes, the term Christian came later but the name doesn't change the fact of who they are followers of. God/Christ.
1 Cor. 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

I don't understand it all but that is how I can make sense of it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The bible never says “all” you have to do is believe.

What Paul answered here is either the truth or it is not true. There is no middle ground:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).​

According to your ideas Paul answered wrong here. That is because, according to you, a person must believe AND be baptized with water in order to be saved.

You think that you have it right but I think that it is Paul who gave the right answer.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Our Lord underwent not only that wrath of God (taking it passively) which the elect were under, but that also which they should have undergone had not He borne it for them:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

 

[turbosixx]

What Paul answered here is either the truth or it is not true. There is no middle ground:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).​

According to your ideas Paul answered wrong here. That is because, according to you, a person must believe AND be baptized with water in order to be saved.

You think that you have it right but I think that it is Paul who gave the right answer.

You're only seeing what you want to see. Believe is only the first step.

Did Paul baptize these people as Jesus instructed AFTER they heard the gospel?

 

[turbosixx]

It means the moment when a person actually believes the gospel.

Try to see if from my viewpoint. You say the moment one believes. If that is the case then Paul should be able to give these men, Acts 19, the Holy Spirit right away but he doesn’t. Why not? Because they haven’t been baptized “in the name of Jesus” placing them in Christ. What is the one thing he questions? Their baptism. I’m trying to see it your way but it doesn’t work when looking at scriptures.

Here it works based on the way I understand it. In Acts 8, the Samaritans were baptized “in the name of Jesus” so when the apostles arrive to give them the Holy Spirit they do just that because they had been baptized properly just as Jesus instructed.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You're only seeing what you want to see. Believe is only the first step.

Then you must think that Paul was wrong in his answer here:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).​

According to you believing is only the first step and no one is saved until they are baptized with water. So when Paul answered by saying this he made a giant blunder:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.​

Did Paul baptize these people as Jesus instructed AFTER they heard the gospel?

Yes, but they were already justified in the eyes of God by their faith:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Ro.4:5).​

I guess you think that Paul got it wrong again since you believe that it takes faith plus submitting to the rite of baptism in order to be counted for righteousness.

 

[turbosixx]

Then you must think that Paul was wrong in his answer here:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).​

According to you believing is only the first step and no one is saved until they are baptized with water. So when Paul answered by saying this he made a giant blunder:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.​

Yes, but they were already justified in the eyes of God by their faith:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Ro.4:5).​

I guess you think that Paul got it wrong again since you believe that it takes faith plus submitting to the rite of baptism in order to be counted for righteousness.

If belief is "all" that is necessary, then why did Paul baptize them?