The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
no parans, but lots o' dots...
no parans, but lots o' dots...
Jerry, are you enjoying this dialogue as much as I am? I hope so...
Repent - To feel remorse for past conduct and to resolve to change that conduct in the future.
Believe - To accept as true or real
We also see 'believe' used by John, Paul, Jesus and others with a broader meaning. If someone 'believes' the Gospel, they are expected to act according to what they believe, which will necessarily include repenting, among other things, because the Gospel tell us we must repent. But the Gospel also tells us we must obey His commands, one of which is baptism. You repeatedly told me in your posts regarding the baptism of Cornelius that Peter knew the lord had 'commanded' the apostles to baptize, so baptism is a command of the Lord by your own admission. So, if believe means we must repent, it must also mean we must follow all the commands He gave us through the Gospel, including the commands concerning baptism.
If we are 'born again ... by the Word of God', then we are born again by the WHOLE Word of God. That WHOLE Word of God includes repentance and the obedience of the commands of God, one of which is baptism.
God commanded that a red heifer be sacrificed and burned, and water was to be passed over the ashes of the burned sacrificed red heifer. The water that passed over the ashes of the red heifer was purified. The people who received a sprinkling with this water did in fact recieve the benefit of the sacrifice that was performed. And that benefit was a washing from their unclean condition after they touched a dead person. Because God gave this command to Moses to always be performed on people who had touched a dead body, we know this was not a symbol for other men.
You are correct in saying this is a 'type' of rebirth, but not of rebirth by the Word, as you are trying to claim. This lustral water (what the water that passed through the ashes was called) removed the unclean condition of the person who was sprinkled with it. It was not a symbol, but a command that had to be followed. And the penalty for not following this command was the unclean person could not enter the camp of the Israelites. The unclean person was cut off from Israel.
Baptism with water, as commanded by Jesus, is a much more efficacious washing from uncleanness because of the nature of the sacrifice, that being Jesus Christ instead of a red heifer. So those washed in Christian baptism do in fact receive the benefit of the sacrifice that was performed, and that benefit is a washing away of our sins. And this is exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 6:
'How can we who died to sin yet live in it? Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin. For a dead person has been absolved from sin.
So Christian baptism cleanses us, or as Paul says here 'absolves' us, of our sins.
Notice their is no mention here of a public symbol for men. Their is only very clear terms showing that baptism joins us to the death of Christ whereby we are made worthy to share in the likeness of His resurrection through the cleansing of our sins.
The first thing I notice is that you use the same strategy, that being to ignore some of the words, but you switched tactics from put-it-in-parans-and-ignore-it to put-dots-in-it's-place-and-hope-they-don't-know-scripture. You should know better than to try to pull the wool over good old Francisco's eyes, because I'll expose you every time Jerry. Let's take a look at your attempt to deceive us:
Your quote:
“Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you…a new heart also will I give you,and a new spirit will I put in you”(Ez.36:25,26).
Hmmm.... I wonder what the dot, dot, dot is hiding.....
"Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean from all your iniquities, from all your idols I will cleanse you. And a new heart also will I give you,and a new spirit will I put in you;"
Now why Jerry, did you try to dot, dot, dot those words out? Did you not want us to see that through the 'sprinkling of clean water' God promised to remove their iniquities, their sins? Of course you wouldn't want us to see that because it severely damages you argument. Or are you going to argue God didn't mean he would REALLY remove their iniquities by the sprinkling of clean water, so you just threw some dots in there so we didn't get confused?
You were absolutely correct that this is a 'type' of rebirth, but again it doesn't even vaguely resemble your premise that we are 'born again' through hearing the Word.
What it is, is an undeniable 'type' of Christian baptism, the washing away of our sins in clean water, and the installation of a new spirit within us. And by this very type you should find it easy to understand that water baptism and the receipt of the Holy Spirit go together, in a single event, like I keep trying to show you.
Yes, Jesus was telling Nicodemus he should have understood His words about being born of WATER AND SPIRIT, because of the two separate 'types' of Christian rebirth we just examined. He shouldn't have been shocked at all when Jesus said we must be 'born of WATER AND SPIRIT to enter the kingdom of heaven' when Nicodemus should have known an unclean man couldn't enter the camp of the Israelites without first being 'sprinkled' with the purified water.
There are at least 3 other problems with your 'born again' when we hear the Gospel theory. First, Jesus never mentions anything close to hearing the Word to Nicodemus.
Second, even if Jesus had told Nicodemus he must be born again by hearing the Word, why would He expect Nicodemus to understand the Christian Gospel??? Because he was a 'teacher of Israel'??? It would seem to me that Nicodemus would be totally unfamiliar with such a concept since it was so radically different from the teachings of Jesus Christ!
The third additional problem develops from your refusal to accept scripture in it's entirety as the context of every single verse. If we look one verse past the Jesus/Nicodemus dialogue we see that Jesus and his disciples go into Judea and start baptizing:
'After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where He spent some time with them baptizing.' (John 3:22)
So you expect us to believe John's Gospel was going to drive home the message Jesus just gave to Nicodemus about being 'born again' by hearing the Word, by showing Jesus and His disciples BAPTIZING?????????? You've got to be kidding me!
Francisco
no parans, but lots o' dots...
Jerry, are you enjoying this dialogue as much as I am? I hope so...
I disagree, and so does every dictionary I can find. I won't quote them all for brevity's sake, but generally the dictionaries say 'believe' and 'repent' have two totally different meanings.
Repent - To feel remorse for past conduct and to resolve to change that conduct in the future.
Believe - To accept as true or real
I disagree again. Repent and Believe are two different words with two different meanings, even in Greek.
However, you have a point about the use of 'believe' in scripture. We do see 'believe' used in the sense defined above, 'to accept as true or real'. For instance, the devil believes, but he is obviously not saved.
We also see 'believe' used by John, Paul, Jesus and others with a broader meaning. If someone 'believes' the Gospel, they are expected to act according to what they believe, which will necessarily include repenting, among other things, because the Gospel tell us we must repent. But the Gospel also tells us we must obey His commands, one of which is baptism. You repeatedly told me in your posts regarding the baptism of Cornelius that Peter knew the lord had 'commanded' the apostles to baptize, so baptism is a command of the Lord by your own admission. So, if believe means we must repent, it must also mean we must follow all the commands He gave us through the Gospel, including the commands concerning baptism.
It is your customization of the broader meaning of 'believe' that doesn't fit Jerry. As you showed above, 'believe' can mean to accept as true and then follow the commands included in that truth. What you try to do with your definition of 'believe' is only include what you want to, while excluding other commands also included in that same truth. In your definition of 'believe', we are only to follow the command to repent, while ignoring the commands to obey Jesus, one of which is to be baptized. That's what doesn't fit.
Your argument still can't stand the test.
If we are 'born again ... by the Word of God', then we are born again by the WHOLE Word of God. That WHOLE Word of God includes repentance and the obedience of the commands of God, one of which is baptism.
Now you are trying to say that Jesus didn't really mean 'water' at John 3:5 because Nicodemus should have known about this 'type' of being 'born again' at Numbers 19. So, let's take a closer look at this 'type' you point to.
God commanded that a red heifer be sacrificed and burned, and water was to be passed over the ashes of the burned sacrificed red heifer. The water that passed over the ashes of the red heifer was purified. The people who received a sprinkling with this water did in fact recieve the benefit of the sacrifice that was performed. And that benefit was a washing from their unclean condition after they touched a dead person. Because God gave this command to Moses to always be performed on people who had touched a dead body, we know this was not a symbol for other men.
You are correct in saying this is a 'type' of rebirth, but not of rebirth by the Word, as you are trying to claim. This lustral water (what the water that passed through the ashes was called) removed the unclean condition of the person who was sprinkled with it. It was not a symbol, but a command that had to be followed. And the penalty for not following this command was the unclean person could not enter the camp of the Israelites. The unclean person was cut off from Israel.
Baptism with water, as commanded by Jesus, is a much more efficacious washing from uncleanness because of the nature of the sacrifice, that being Jesus Christ instead of a red heifer. So those washed in Christian baptism do in fact receive the benefit of the sacrifice that was performed, and that benefit is a washing away of our sins. And this is exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 6:
'How can we who died to sin yet live in it? Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin. For a dead person has been absolved from sin.
So Christian baptism cleanses us, or as Paul says here 'absolves' us, of our sins.
Notice their is no mention here of a public symbol for men. Their is only very clear terms showing that baptism joins us to the death of Christ whereby we are made worthy to share in the likeness of His resurrection through the cleansing of our sins.
Now let's take a closer look at the 'type' of Christian rebirth you point to in Ezekial 36.
The first thing I notice is that you use the same strategy, that being to ignore some of the words, but you switched tactics from put-it-in-parans-and-ignore-it to put-dots-in-it's-place-and-hope-they-don't-know-scripture. You should know better than to try to pull the wool over good old Francisco's eyes, because I'll expose you every time Jerry. Let's take a look at your attempt to deceive us:
Your quote:
“Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you…a new heart also will I give you,and a new spirit will I put in you”(Ez.36:25,26).
Hmmm.... I wonder what the dot, dot, dot is hiding.....
"Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean from all your iniquities, from all your idols I will cleanse you. And a new heart also will I give you,and a new spirit will I put in you;"
Now why Jerry, did you try to dot, dot, dot those words out? Did you not want us to see that through the 'sprinkling of clean water' God promised to remove their iniquities, their sins? Of course you wouldn't want us to see that because it severely damages you argument. Or are you going to argue God didn't mean he would REALLY remove their iniquities by the sprinkling of clean water, so you just threw some dots in there so we didn't get confused?
You were absolutely correct that this is a 'type' of rebirth, but again it doesn't even vaguely resemble your premise that we are 'born again' through hearing the Word.
What it is, is an undeniable 'type' of Christian baptism, the washing away of our sins in clean water, and the installation of a new spirit within us. And by this very type you should find it easy to understand that water baptism and the receipt of the Holy Spirit go together, in a single event, like I keep trying to show you.
Yes, Jesus was telling Nicodemus he should have understood His words about being born of WATER AND SPIRIT, because of the two separate 'types' of Christian rebirth we just examined. He shouldn't have been shocked at all when Jesus said we must be 'born of WATER AND SPIRIT to enter the kingdom of heaven' when Nicodemus should have known an unclean man couldn't enter the camp of the Israelites without first being 'sprinkled' with the purified water.
There are at least 3 other problems with your 'born again' when we hear the Gospel theory. First, Jesus never mentions anything close to hearing the Word to Nicodemus.
Second, even if Jesus had told Nicodemus he must be born again by hearing the Word, why would He expect Nicodemus to understand the Christian Gospel??? Because he was a 'teacher of Israel'??? It would seem to me that Nicodemus would be totally unfamiliar with such a concept since it was so radically different from the teachings of Jesus Christ!
The third additional problem develops from your refusal to accept scripture in it's entirety as the context of every single verse. If we look one verse past the Jesus/Nicodemus dialogue we see that Jesus and his disciples go into Judea and start baptizing:
'After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where He spent some time with them baptizing.' (John 3:22)
So you expect us to believe John's Gospel was going to drive home the message Jesus just gave to Nicodemus about being 'born again' by hearing the Word, by showing Jesus and His disciples BAPTIZING?????????? You've got to be kidding me!
Sure Jerry, you really fooled good old Francisco on this one. Yep, you pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, with three little dots and a convoluted explanation.
Francisco
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
You say that the devils "believe",but they are not saved!
Do you think that the "gospel" if for anyone but "man"?
That just shows that you will say ANYTHING,no matter how irrelevant in order to support the fairy tales of the church at Rome.
You use that in order to undermine the plain words of Paul when he answered the question as what one must do to be saved.He said:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).
Since Paul´s plain words do not match the teaching of Rome,then you must do everything in your power to explain away what Paul actually said.And you did that by showing that the demons believe but they are not saved.Does the church at Rome teach that the "gospel" is for anyone but for "men"?
Next,the vey meaning given for "repent" is "to change one´s mind"("Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon").
And we can see that Paul says that "to the Gentiles hath God granted REPENTANCE unto life."(Acts11:18).Thn,speaking about the same event,Paul says that God has "opened the door of FAITH unto the Gentiles"(Acts14:27).And at another place Paul speaks again of the same evnt,and this time he speaks of the "CONVERSION of the Gentiles"(Acts15:3).
So even though the church at Rome teaches that "repentance" must mean more that "a change of mind",the Greek experts say that that is what it means,and you can see that Paul also uses it in that same way.
And if "repentance" as you define the word is necessary for salvation,why did John not use that term even once in his gospel?
After all,he says that he wrote that gospel so that men might believe what he rote and by believing receive eternal life.
If "repentance" as you define it was a "condition" of salvation then surely John would have made sure that that was included in his gospel,but that word cannot be found in his gospel.
Next,in your effort to pervert what Scripture actually says,you say that "believe can mean to accept as true and then follow the commands included in the truth."
But the "truth" which the sinner must believe says nothing about any "commands" that must be followed.
And there can be no doubt that the "truth" which must be believed is the "gospel":
"...the gospel of Christ;For it is the power of GOd unto salvation to everyone who believeth"(Ro.1:16).
If you can believe Paul´s words,then it is obvious that it is the "gospel"--the gospel and the gospel alone--which is the power of God into salvation!!!
And the "gospel" has not a word about being baptized with water:
"I declare unto you the GOSPEL...by which ye are saved...that Christ died for our sins,according to the Scriptures;and that He was buried,and that He rose the third day,according to the Scriptures"(1Cor.15:1-4).
Not a word about being baptized in water!
So your idea that one must first believe and then follow the commandments contained in the gospel is exposed for what it really is--nothing but hot air.It is not supported by Scripture.
And you only prove that you have no idea of the teaching of the Lord concerning the birth of water and the Spirit,which concerns being "born again".
That experience is also called being "born of God".And Scripture makes it plain that this new birth is NOT accomplished by the will of man.And that completely rules out the idea that submitting to the rite of water baptism is the same thing as the new birth:
"Who were born,not of blood,nor of the will of the flesh,NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN,but of God"(Jn.1:13).
If you will believe what John says,then there is only one conclusion--being "born of God" is not a result of the "will of man".And that excludes submitting to the rite of water baptism,since that act CANNOT be done WITHOUT the will of man being involved.The Apostle Paul also says:
"So,then,it is NOT OF HIM THAT WILLETH,nor of him that runneth,but of God Who showeth mercy"(Ro.9:16).
And what better term could the Lord use to describe the process whereby the sinner is regenerated--A BIRTH!
How much of your "will" was involved in your natural birth,Fancisco?
ZERO,right?
Well,what makes you think that man´s "will" would be involved in his "spiritual" rebirth?
The Lord uses the term "born again" to describe our regeneration because man´s "will" is not involved.And that absolutely rules out the idea that the sinner is born of God when he submits to the rite of water baptism.
And before the Moderators have to warn you again,would you please shorten your posts?
In His grace,--Jerry
You say that the devils "believe",but they are not saved!
Do you think that the "gospel" if for anyone but "man"?
That just shows that you will say ANYTHING,no matter how irrelevant in order to support the fairy tales of the church at Rome.
You use that in order to undermine the plain words of Paul when he answered the question as what one must do to be saved.He said:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).
Since Paul´s plain words do not match the teaching of Rome,then you must do everything in your power to explain away what Paul actually said.And you did that by showing that the demons believe but they are not saved.Does the church at Rome teach that the "gospel" is for anyone but for "men"?
Next,the vey meaning given for "repent" is "to change one´s mind"("Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon").
And we can see that Paul says that "to the Gentiles hath God granted REPENTANCE unto life."(Acts11:18).Thn,speaking about the same event,Paul says that God has "opened the door of FAITH unto the Gentiles"(Acts14:27).And at another place Paul speaks again of the same evnt,and this time he speaks of the "CONVERSION of the Gentiles"(Acts15:3).
So even though the church at Rome teaches that "repentance" must mean more that "a change of mind",the Greek experts say that that is what it means,and you can see that Paul also uses it in that same way.
And if "repentance" as you define the word is necessary for salvation,why did John not use that term even once in his gospel?
After all,he says that he wrote that gospel so that men might believe what he rote and by believing receive eternal life.
If "repentance" as you define it was a "condition" of salvation then surely John would have made sure that that was included in his gospel,but that word cannot be found in his gospel.
Next,in your effort to pervert what Scripture actually says,you say that "believe can mean to accept as true and then follow the commands included in the truth."
But the "truth" which the sinner must believe says nothing about any "commands" that must be followed.
And there can be no doubt that the "truth" which must be believed is the "gospel":
"...the gospel of Christ;For it is the power of GOd unto salvation to everyone who believeth"(Ro.1:16).
If you can believe Paul´s words,then it is obvious that it is the "gospel"--the gospel and the gospel alone--which is the power of God into salvation!!!
And the "gospel" has not a word about being baptized with water:
"I declare unto you the GOSPEL...by which ye are saved...that Christ died for our sins,according to the Scriptures;and that He was buried,and that He rose the third day,according to the Scriptures"(1Cor.15:1-4).
Not a word about being baptized in water!
So your idea that one must first believe and then follow the commandments contained in the gospel is exposed for what it really is--nothing but hot air.It is not supported by Scripture.
And you only prove that you have no idea of the teaching of the Lord concerning the birth of water and the Spirit,which concerns being "born again".
That experience is also called being "born of God".And Scripture makes it plain that this new birth is NOT accomplished by the will of man.And that completely rules out the idea that submitting to the rite of water baptism is the same thing as the new birth:
"Who were born,not of blood,nor of the will of the flesh,NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN,but of God"(Jn.1:13).
If you will believe what John says,then there is only one conclusion--being "born of God" is not a result of the "will of man".And that excludes submitting to the rite of water baptism,since that act CANNOT be done WITHOUT the will of man being involved.The Apostle Paul also says:
"So,then,it is NOT OF HIM THAT WILLETH,nor of him that runneth,but of God Who showeth mercy"(Ro.9:16).
And what better term could the Lord use to describe the process whereby the sinner is regenerated--A BIRTH!
How much of your "will" was involved in your natural birth,Fancisco?
ZERO,right?
Well,what makes you think that man´s "will" would be involved in his "spiritual" rebirth?
The Lord uses the term "born again" to describe our regeneration because man´s "will" is not involved.And that absolutely rules out the idea that the sinner is born of God when he submits to the rite of water baptism.
And before the Moderators have to warn you again,would you please shorten your posts?
In His grace,--Jerry
John Gault
New member
POP NEWS FLASH!!! Jerry Shugart Single Enters Top 20
POP NEWS FLASH!!! Jerry Shugart Single Enters Top 20
Jerry, you are just so popular down here at the Gates of Hell. Anyhow, your next to last post has entered the charts at number 20. It’s quite a catchy little tune. Sincerely, I applaud you.
The Hocus-Pocus
I put a dash right in,
I pull correct verbs out;
I sneak my own thoughts in,
And I shake it all about.
I use my Hocus-Pocus,
And I turn the Word around.
That's what I’m all about!
I put my own words in,
Paran the Lord’s on out;
I shove my dogma in,
Top it with a small umlaut.
I do the Hocus-Pocus,
And I turn the Word around.
That's what I’m all about!
Trivia -- Originally written by: Roland Lawrence LaPrise. Roland Lawrence LaPrise concocted the song along with two fellow musicians in the late 1940s for the ski crowd in Sun Valley, Idaho. The group, the Ram Trio, recorded the song in 1949. In 1953, bandleader Ray Anthony bought the rights and recorded The Hokey Pokey on the B-side of another novelty record, The Bunny Hop. After the Ram Trio disbanded in the 1960s, country star Roy Acuff's publishing company bought the rights to The Hokey Pokey. Copyright 1950, Acuff-Rose Music Inc.
POP NEWS FLASH!!! Jerry Shugart Single Enters Top 20
Jerry, you are just so popular down here at the Gates of Hell. Anyhow, your next to last post has entered the charts at number 20. It’s quite a catchy little tune. Sincerely, I applaud you.
The Hocus-Pocus
I put a dash right in,
I pull correct verbs out;
I sneak my own thoughts in,
And I shake it all about.
I use my Hocus-Pocus,
And I turn the Word around.
That's what I’m all about!
I put my own words in,
Paran the Lord’s on out;
I shove my dogma in,
Top it with a small umlaut.
I do the Hocus-Pocus,
And I turn the Word around.
That's what I’m all about!
Trivia -- Originally written by: Roland Lawrence LaPrise. Roland Lawrence LaPrise concocted the song along with two fellow musicians in the late 1940s for the ski crowd in Sun Valley, Idaho. The group, the Ram Trio, recorded the song in 1949. In 1953, bandleader Ray Anthony bought the rights and recorded The Hokey Pokey on the B-side of another novelty record, The Bunny Hop. After the Ram Trio disbanded in the 1960s, country star Roy Acuff's publishing company bought the rights to The Hokey Pokey. Copyright 1950, Acuff-Rose Music Inc.
Jerry changes his story
Jerry changes his story
You say my point is irrelevant only because it irritates your argument that 'believe' = 'repent'.
And thanks for another 'church at Rome' compliment Jerry! I can see your Christian love for your brother shining through! And so can everyone else.
Where we disagree is this. If 'believe' is used in a broader sense to include not only what is accepted as true or real, but also to act upon what those things you accept, then repentance can certainly be included in the broader meaning of 'believe' as applied to the Gospel. However, my contention is the broader meaning must also include everything Christ said in the Gospel, not just 'repent' as you would have it. The broader meaning of 'believe' used this way must include acting upon the obedience Jesus commanded, and all the commands He gave, including the commands regarding baptism.
Strong's Number: 3340
Transliterated word: Metanoeo
Parts of Speech: Verb
Definition
to change one's mind, i.e. to repent
to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins
That second definition looks like it agrees with my definition very well, that being to 'To feel remorse for past conduct and to resolve to change that conduct in the future.' Which definition do you think Jesus intended at Matthew 4:17, to just change our minds or to change our minds out of remorse for the bad conduct we have exhibited?
Why did you only show part of Thayer's definition Jerry? Could it be that's because it agrees with good old Francisco's definition???
So have you changed your argument? Does 'believing in the Gospel' no longer include repenting, as you said it does?
Are you now arguing we can put parans around Matthew 4:17 and ignore the fact that Christ COMMANDED us to 'REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'???
And you say the 'truth' of the Gospel includes no 'command' that we must follow? What happened to YOUR argument that Jesus commanded many things? Are you changing your argument again because good old Francisco has blown it out of the water? Let's see what YOU were saying before about things Jesus COMMANDED:
Did you just forget you said this Jerry, or were you hoping we would forget you said this? And when did you tell us the truth, when you said Jesus COMMANDED us, or now when you say he didn't command anything?
Let's look at couple more of your posts regarding Jesus' commands:
And another one:
And you are now ignoring what you previously held out as a command to 'REPENT' which you now say is unnecessary:
And do you remember saying this:
Jerry, your attempt to change your beliefs about commands, the need to repent, and the command of Jesus to the apostles to baptize illustrates your deceit. But you are only decieving yourself. Good old Francisco won't allow you to deceive the rest of us.
As for following the commandments not being supported by scripture:
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these COMMANDMENTS, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)
So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the COMMANDMENTS." (Matthew 19:17)
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have COMMANDED you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)
He said to them, "All too well you reject the COMMANDMENTS of God, that you may keep your tradition. (Mark 7:9)
Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the COMMANDMENTS: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,' "Do not bear false witness,' "Do not defraud,' "Honor your father and your mother."' (Mark 10:17-19)
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the COMMANDMENTS and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luke 1:6)
Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.You know the commandments: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,' "Do not bear false witness,' "Honor your father and your mother."' (Luke 18:18-20)
He who has My COMMANDMENTS and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (John 14:21)
If you keep My COMMANDMENTS, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. (John 15:10)
You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. (John 15:14)
All four Gospels make it very clear that one must follow the commandments to enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew, Mark and Luke all three give the account of the rich man who asks Jesus 'What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life'. And every time Jesus answers 'if you want to enter into life, keep the COMMANDMENTS'.
But now you want us to believe following the commandments isn't necessary? So what are we to do Jerry, put parans around christ's words in all these places? Or should we use dots to replace the words?
It is the conforming of our will to God's will that makes us Christians Jerry. Is it your will by which you heard and believed in the Gospel, or did God just make all that pop into your mind without you doing anything.
Francisco
Jerry changes his story
Actually, it isn't the 'church at Rome' that says the devil believes, it is HOLY SCRIPTURE that says that, specifically James 2:19.
You say my point is irrelevant only because it irritates your argument that 'believe' = 'repent'.
And thanks for another 'church at Rome' compliment Jerry! I can see your Christian love for your brother shining through! And so can everyone else.
Wrong. If you wouldn't read my posts with your eyes closed, you would see that I agreed with you in regard to 'believe' being used in a broader sense as well as the more narrow definition as used in James. That was my point goober.
Where we disagree is this. If 'believe' is used in a broader sense to include not only what is accepted as true or real, but also to act upon what those things you accept, then repentance can certainly be included in the broader meaning of 'believe' as applied to the Gospel. However, my contention is the broader meaning must also include everything Christ said in the Gospel, not just 'repent' as you would have it. The broader meaning of 'believe' used this way must include acting upon the obedience Jesus commanded, and all the commands He gave, including the commands regarding baptism.
You seem to be using your strategy of 'ignore the part that doesn't fit my theology but fits Francisco's argument' again. Let's look at the complete definition of 'repent' as given in Thayer's Lexicon, and as used at Matthew 4:17 when Jesus commands us to 'REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand':
Strong's Number: 3340
Transliterated word: Metanoeo
Parts of Speech: Verb
Definition
to change one's mind, i.e. to repent
to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins
That second definition looks like it agrees with my definition very well, that being to 'To feel remorse for past conduct and to resolve to change that conduct in the future.' Which definition do you think Jesus intended at Matthew 4:17, to just change our minds or to change our minds out of remorse for the bad conduct we have exhibited?
Why did you only show part of Thayer's definition Jerry? Could it be that's because it agrees with good old Francisco's definition???
Are you now arguing that 'believe' doesn't also mean 'repent'? That is what you argued, and I agreed, providing you recognized the fact that believing the gospel not only includes the command to repent, but also EVERYTHING Christ commanded, including baptism. Remember what you said before Jerry? Let's look:
So have you changed your argument? Does 'believing in the Gospel' no longer include repenting, as you said it does?
Are you now arguing we can put parans around Matthew 4:17 and ignore the fact that Christ COMMANDED us to 'REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'???
No, you argued that 'believe' includes 'repent', and I agree that the broader meaning of 'believe' does include following what one believes.
And you say the 'truth' of the Gospel includes no 'command' that we must follow? What happened to YOUR argument that Jesus commanded many things? Are you changing your argument again because good old Francisco has blown it out of the water? Let's see what YOU were saying before about things Jesus COMMANDED:
Did you just forget you said this Jerry, or were you hoping we would forget you said this? And when did you tell us the truth, when you said Jesus COMMANDED us, or now when you say he didn't command anything?
Let's look at couple more of your posts regarding Jesus' commands:
And another one:
And you are now ignoring what you previously held out as a command to 'REPENT' which you now say is unnecessary:
And do you remember saying this:
Jerry, your attempt to change your beliefs about commands, the need to repent, and the command of Jesus to the apostles to baptize illustrates your deceit. But you are only decieving yourself. Good old Francisco won't allow you to deceive the rest of us.
And the Gospel Paul was speaking of was the WHOLE Gospel, including Jesus' command to REPENT and the COMMAND to BAPTIZE.
Well, that's not what you argued when we were discussing the baptism of Cornelius. You said Jesus commanded Peter to preach and baptize, so Peter must have known that he was going to baptize Cornelius. Let me refresh your memory once again:
Hmmm. Looks to me like your lies and deceptions have been exposed. It looks like Jerry's arguments evolve to what ever he needs them to be at the moment. It looks like Jerry says something in one breath, then deny's the very theing he proclaimed in the next breat.
As for following the commandments not being supported by scripture:
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these COMMANDMENTS, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)
So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the COMMANDMENTS." (Matthew 19:17)
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have COMMANDED you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)
He said to them, "All too well you reject the COMMANDMENTS of God, that you may keep your tradition. (Mark 7:9)
Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the COMMANDMENTS: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,' "Do not bear false witness,' "Do not defraud,' "Honor your father and your mother."' (Mark 10:17-19)
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the COMMANDMENTS and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luke 1:6)
Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.You know the commandments: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,' "Do not bear false witness,' "Honor your father and your mother."' (Luke 18:18-20)
He who has My COMMANDMENTS and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (John 14:21)
If you keep My COMMANDMENTS, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. (John 15:10)
You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. (John 15:14)
All four Gospels make it very clear that one must follow the commandments to enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew, Mark and Luke all three give the account of the rich man who asks Jesus 'What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life'. And every time Jesus answers 'if you want to enter into life, keep the COMMANDMENTS'.
But now you want us to believe following the commandments isn't necessary? So what are we to do Jerry, put parans around christ's words in all these places? Or should we use dots to replace the words?
But your mistake here Jerry is that our will is involved in FOLLOWING THE WILL OF GOD. It is not our will that we be baptized, it is God's will. And He commanded baptism, as you said at first and now deny.
My will was not involved. It was the will of God which my parents willed to follow that caused me to be born.
It is the conforming of our will to God's will that makes us Christians Jerry. Is it your will by which you heard and believed in the Gospel, or did God just make all that pop into your mind without you doing anything.
If it is not by our will, why did Jesus tell Nicodemus we must be 'born again'? If man had no involvement then Jesus wouldn't have been wasting His breath on Nicodemus.
Man's will is involved from the beginning. We will to repent or not repent. We will to believe the gospel, or not believe the gospel. We will to submit to God's will, or we will to disobey God.
LOL. I answer your posts point for point. If you want my posts shortened, then shorten the length of your deceptions and lies.
Francisco
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
I asked you if you believe that the "gospel" is for anyone other than man!
And of couse you do not answer,but instead twist what I said and say that the Scriptures teach that the demons believe.I never argued that point.
Will you not answer my question?
In His grace,--Jerry
I asked you if you believe that the "gospel" is for anyone other than man!
And of couse you do not answer,but instead twist what I said and say that the Scriptures teach that the demons believe.I never argued that point.
Will you not answer my question?
In His grace,--Jerry
Jerry,
Jesus said the Gospel was to be preached to every creature. You cited the verse yourself.
And you twisted your own words around. First you jumped up and down and said Jesus commanded Peter to baptize, then you say Jesus never commanded anything.
Then you said he commanded us to Repent, but now you say Repentance is not necessary.
Then you said there is no scriptural evidence that we must Follow the Commandments, even though you have read every verse I quoted. And those verse clearly prove we must Follow the Commandments to inherit eternal life. Jesus says so, and in no uncertain terms.
Also, I notice you are not addressing my questions as to why you continue to ignore certain words, like the fact God told the Jews in Ezek. 36 that the sprinkling with clean water would cleanse them of their iniquities, and the fact you left out the larger part of Thayer's definition of 'repent', and it just happened to be the part that agrees with my argument.
Nor have you shown anywhere that these 'types' of rebirth had anything to do with just hearing the Word and accepting it.
Nor have you shown any evidence to refute the efficacious nature of baptism that Paul expounds upon in Romans 6. You just continue to say that baptism is just a symbol. Bunk. Show me anywhere in scripture that baptism is a symbol.
What you have shown is that you change your argument to fit your need.
You have shown your Christian virtue of love for neighbor, or actually your lack of this virtue, by insisting on the 'church at Rome' insults.
You have shown us many things and every one of them supports my contention.
And of course you've shown us all that you 'Do the Hocus-Pocus' on a regular basis.
Stop deceiving yourself and stop trying to deceive us.
Face it Jerry, YOU ARE WRONG and you have been from the beginning. I've repeatedly proven it. I'm sorry your throat isn't big enough to swallow your pride and do the right thing. You need to work on that, not for my sake, but for your own.
God Bless,
Francisco
Jesus said the Gospel was to be preached to every creature. You cited the verse yourself.
And you twisted your own words around. First you jumped up and down and said Jesus commanded Peter to baptize, then you say Jesus never commanded anything.
Then you said he commanded us to Repent, but now you say Repentance is not necessary.
Then you said there is no scriptural evidence that we must Follow the Commandments, even though you have read every verse I quoted. And those verse clearly prove we must Follow the Commandments to inherit eternal life. Jesus says so, and in no uncertain terms.
Also, I notice you are not addressing my questions as to why you continue to ignore certain words, like the fact God told the Jews in Ezek. 36 that the sprinkling with clean water would cleanse them of their iniquities, and the fact you left out the larger part of Thayer's definition of 'repent', and it just happened to be the part that agrees with my argument.
Nor have you shown anywhere that these 'types' of rebirth had anything to do with just hearing the Word and accepting it.
Nor have you shown any evidence to refute the efficacious nature of baptism that Paul expounds upon in Romans 6. You just continue to say that baptism is just a symbol. Bunk. Show me anywhere in scripture that baptism is a symbol.
What you have shown is that you change your argument to fit your need.
You have shown your Christian virtue of love for neighbor, or actually your lack of this virtue, by insisting on the 'church at Rome' insults.
You have shown us many things and every one of them supports my contention.
And of course you've shown us all that you 'Do the Hocus-Pocus' on a regular basis.
Stop deceiving yourself and stop trying to deceive us.
Face it Jerry, YOU ARE WRONG and you have been from the beginning. I've repeatedly proven it. I'm sorry your throat isn't big enough to swallow your pride and do the right thing. You need to work on that, not for my sake, but for your own.
God Bless,
Francisco
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
Let us examine your weak argument in your attempt to discredit what the Scriptures ACTUALLY say about the born again experience.
The Scriptures state in no uncertain terms that the sinner is "born,not of blood,nor of the will f the flesh,NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN,but of God"(Jn.1:13).
You say that "man´s will is involved from the beginning."
The "beginning of what",Francisco.Not of the process of being "born again".
It is the actual process of being born again that the sinner is regenerated and receives life.The Lord Jesus said:
The hour is coming,and now is,when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man,and they that hear shall live"(Jn.5:25).
It is when the sinner hears and believes the gospel when he is saved.Anything BEFORE that or anything AFTER that is not included in the process of being born again.
You say,"If a man had no involvement then Jesus wouldn´t be wasting His breath on Nicodemus".
Again,I never said that man does not have an "involvement",only that his "will" is not involved in the born again experience."Believing" is not a result of the will.No matter how much you might attempt to will yourself to believe something that you do not think is true,you will find that it is impossible.
It is by "believing" the gospel by which the sinner is born of God:
"Faith cometh by hearing,and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD"(Ro.10:17).
It is at the very moment when the sinner hears and believes the "gospel" when he is born again:
"Being born again,not of corruptible seed,but of incorruptible,by the WORD OF GOD"(1Pet.1:23).
Anything done after being born again by the WORD OF GOD,such as submitting to the rite of water baptism,has nothing at all to do with the born again experience.
You admit that your natural birth was not a result of your will.But you continue to insist that the birth of the Spirit cannot happen UNLESS your own will is involved,and that is by submitting to the rite of water baptism.
And yes,the Lord told the rich man that to inherit eternal life he must keep the commandments.But you left out what happened after the rich man left.The Lord told His disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.In response,they asked,"Who,then,can be saved".
"But Jesus beheld thm,and said unto them,WITH MEN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE,but with God all thigs are possible"(Mt.19:26).
It is IMPOSSIBLE for man to keep his commandments to a degree that is acceptable with Him.That is why Paul says that "by the deeds of law shall no man be justified in Hs sight" and that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:20,23).
But you do not believe,and instead of believing you go about teaching that man must establish his own righteousness before he can be saved.And Paul describes you perfectly in the following verse:
"For they,being ignorant of God´s righteousness,and going about to establish their own righteousness,have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God"(Ro.10:3).
You and them will not believe that the Lord Jesus died so that the sinner could receive the "righteousness of God":
"For He made Him,Who knew no sin,to be sin for us,that we might be made the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD in Him"(2Cor.5:21).
This "righteousness of God" is APART from law,and it comes upon all who believe God:
"But now the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD APART FROM LAW is manifested...even the righteousness of God which is by the aithfulness of Jesus Christ UNTO ALL AND UPON ALL THEM WHO BELIEVE"(Ro.3:21,22).
This is the same "righteousness" which Paul speaks of in the following verse:
"And be found in Him,not having mine own righteosness,which is of law,but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ,THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF GOD BY FAITH"(Phil.3:9).
You just hang on to your own "righteusness",Francisco.By doing so you only prove that you have not submiited to the righteousness which is of God.
The following verse describes PERFECTLY how the Lord views your "righteousness":
"But we are ALL as an unclean thing,and all our righteousnesses are AS FILTHY RAGS"(Isa.64:6).
In His grace,--Jerry
Let us examine your weak argument in your attempt to discredit what the Scriptures ACTUALLY say about the born again experience.
The Scriptures state in no uncertain terms that the sinner is "born,not of blood,nor of the will f the flesh,NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN,but of God"(Jn.1:13).
You say that "man´s will is involved from the beginning."
The "beginning of what",Francisco.Not of the process of being "born again".
It is the actual process of being born again that the sinner is regenerated and receives life.The Lord Jesus said:
The hour is coming,and now is,when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man,and they that hear shall live"(Jn.5:25).
It is when the sinner hears and believes the gospel when he is saved.Anything BEFORE that or anything AFTER that is not included in the process of being born again.
You say,"If a man had no involvement then Jesus wouldn´t be wasting His breath on Nicodemus".
Again,I never said that man does not have an "involvement",only that his "will" is not involved in the born again experience."Believing" is not a result of the will.No matter how much you might attempt to will yourself to believe something that you do not think is true,you will find that it is impossible.
It is by "believing" the gospel by which the sinner is born of God:
"Faith cometh by hearing,and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD"(Ro.10:17).
It is at the very moment when the sinner hears and believes the "gospel" when he is born again:
"Being born again,not of corruptible seed,but of incorruptible,by the WORD OF GOD"(1Pet.1:23).
Anything done after being born again by the WORD OF GOD,such as submitting to the rite of water baptism,has nothing at all to do with the born again experience.
You admit that your natural birth was not a result of your will.But you continue to insist that the birth of the Spirit cannot happen UNLESS your own will is involved,and that is by submitting to the rite of water baptism.
And yes,the Lord told the rich man that to inherit eternal life he must keep the commandments.But you left out what happened after the rich man left.The Lord told His disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.In response,they asked,"Who,then,can be saved".
"But Jesus beheld thm,and said unto them,WITH MEN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE,but with God all thigs are possible"(Mt.19:26).
It is IMPOSSIBLE for man to keep his commandments to a degree that is acceptable with Him.That is why Paul says that "by the deeds of law shall no man be justified in Hs sight" and that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:20,23).
But you do not believe,and instead of believing you go about teaching that man must establish his own righteousness before he can be saved.And Paul describes you perfectly in the following verse:
"For they,being ignorant of God´s righteousness,and going about to establish their own righteousness,have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God"(Ro.10:3).
You and them will not believe that the Lord Jesus died so that the sinner could receive the "righteousness of God":
"For He made Him,Who knew no sin,to be sin for us,that we might be made the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD in Him"(2Cor.5:21).
This "righteousness of God" is APART from law,and it comes upon all who believe God:
"But now the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD APART FROM LAW is manifested...even the righteousness of God which is by the aithfulness of Jesus Christ UNTO ALL AND UPON ALL THEM WHO BELIEVE"(Ro.3:21,22).
This is the same "righteousness" which Paul speaks of in the following verse:
"And be found in Him,not having mine own righteosness,which is of law,but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ,THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF GOD BY FAITH"(Phil.3:9).
You just hang on to your own "righteusness",Francisco.By doing so you only prove that you have not submiited to the righteousness which is of God.
The following verse describes PERFECTLY how the Lord views your "righteousness":
"But we are ALL as an unclean thing,and all our righteousnesses are AS FILTHY RAGS"(Isa.64:6).
In His grace,--Jerry
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
Why will you not answer my qustion?
You attempt to use a verse that says that the demons believe to prove that "belef" is not enough for salvation.
But when I asked you if the "gospel" is for anyone other than men,you EVADE my question.
Now tell me,are you under the impression that the gospel is intended for anyone other than man?
And if your answer is in the negative,then you might explain why you even used that erse in the first place.
How you can call anyone a "deceiver" is beyond me.After all,you showed exactly what you are made of when you made up a lie about me.And when confronted,you admitted that you did in fact make up a lie about me.
In His grace,--Jerry
Why will you not answer my qustion?
You attempt to use a verse that says that the demons believe to prove that "belef" is not enough for salvation.
But when I asked you if the "gospel" is for anyone other than men,you EVADE my question.
Now tell me,are you under the impression that the gospel is intended for anyone other than man?
And if your answer is in the negative,then you might explain why you even used that erse in the first place.
How you can call anyone a "deceiver" is beyond me.After all,you showed exactly what you are made of when you made up a lie about me.And when confronted,you admitted that you did in fact make up a lie about me.
In His grace,--Jerry
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
I did say that the gospel was to be preached to every creature.However,I NEVER aid that "Jesus never commanded anything,as you accuse me of saying.
I will give you a chance to back up your words with the evidence.If I said that the Lord "never commanded anything",then I m sure that you can find and QUOTE my words to prove it.
And by using my definition of "repent" (which you yourself now admits that it is a VALID definition),then it is a fact tht I NEVER said that "repentnce" is not necessary.
Again,I challenge youto QUOTE my words whre I never said that a "change of mind" is not necessary!
I will await the QUOTES.
In His grace,--Jerry
Jerry,
The reason I used the verse about 'the devil believes' is to show that there is both a narrow definition of 'believe', and as I showed in the same post there is a broader meaning. Here it is again, clipped from my post to you:
Did you not understand that I was agreeing 'believe' is used in two different senses?
Where we diagree is just as I said in the quote above. You want to say 'believe' (broader sense) means 'believe and repent', obviously because repentance is one of the things the Gospel call us to do.
My contention is, if 'believe' is used in the broader sense, it means to 'believe and do ALL things Christ commanded', and that includes baptism.
Are you purposely being obtuse Jerry?
The reason I used the verse about 'the devil believes' is to show that there is both a narrow definition of 'believe', and as I showed in the same post there is a broader meaning. Here it is again, clipped from my post to you:
You see Jerry, the verse about the 'devil believes' was a FOR INSTANCE I used to illustrate the two meanings. Then I went on to say that I agreed with you, insofar as 'believe' has a broader meaning.
Did you not understand that I was agreeing 'believe' is used in two different senses?
Where we diagree is just as I said in the quote above. You want to say 'believe' (broader sense) means 'believe and repent', obviously because repentance is one of the things the Gospel call us to do.
My contention is, if 'believe' is used in the broader sense, it means to 'believe and do ALL things Christ commanded', and that includes baptism.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
The words in Ezekiel state plainly that it is the Lord Who will sprinkle "clean water" upon them.That is in reference to the "water of separation" which is "a purification for sin"(Num.19:9).
This refers to the Red Heifer,a sin offering.That sin offering was burned,and afterward water was poured over the ashes.It as with that water that the defiled Israelite was cleansed.
That Red Heifer represents the Lord Jesus Christ.The Jews received the benefit of that death by the water of purification.
We receive the benefits of His death by His word.The Lord Jesus said:
"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken to you"(Jn.15:3).
So the "water" is a "type" of the WORD of God--the gospel.It is by the word that the sinner is born of God.And that word comes in the power of the Holy Spirit (1Thess.1:5;1Pet.1:12).
And that is the meaning of being born again by the "water and of the Holy Spirit".
And it is not difficult to understand that the Lord was speaking in "types" to Nicodemus.A "type" is an illustration using "eartly" things in order to each "spiritual" or "heavenly" truths.The Lord told Nicodemus:
"If I havetold you EARTHLY THINGS,and ye believed not,how shall ye believe,if I tell you HEAVENLY THINGS?"(Jn.3:12).
Also,at Ezekiel 36:25 we read that it is the Lord who will do the sprinkling with clean water.But the rite of water baptism is not in regard to anything that the Lord does.It means that the sinner who believes should CLEANSE HIMSELF from all defilement by ceasing from his unrighteous way of living.Ananias told Paul:
"Arise,and be baptized,AND WASH AWAY THY SINS,calling on the name of the Lord"(Acts22:16).
In His grace,--Jerry
calvinistkid
New member
Wow, john. I must say, the intelectual maturity and theological depth of your last post has truly given me something to strive for. I will not even attempt to refute it lest I be forced to match my humble abilities against the obviously collosal power of your intelect. On a more serious note, as much as I may disagree with Jerry in certain areas, I think he is right on here. Good job my friend!
Last edited:
Jerry tries the Hocus-Pocus on Francisco's words...
Jerry tries the Hocus-Pocus on Francisco's words...
Jerry,
What I was referring to should be obvious to anyone reading the posts. You were arguing that Jesus did not give us any commands that had to be followed to receive salvation. You were arguing that you only had to 'believe'. In the course of your argument you said:
That is when I showed you 10 verses that support my position that following the commandments is necessary to recieve eternal life. And that is exactly the context of my words that you are now trying to twist.
Exposed again Jerry! I can say one thing for you , you are tenacious. But you'll eventually learn that, as my dear friend Kevin very eloquently stated earlier on this thread, THE TRUTH HAS AN ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING!
Jerry tries the Hocus-Pocus on Francisco's words...
Jerry,
Earlier today, you complained about the length of my posts in reply to you. One of the reasons my posts are so long when I dialogue with you is that I learned early on when dealing with Jerry Shugart I have to make sure the context of my argument is there so he can't twist my words like he does scripture.
What I was referring to should be obvious to anyone reading the posts. You were arguing that Jesus did not give us any commands that had to be followed to receive salvation. You were arguing that you only had to 'believe'. In the course of your argument you said:
That is when I showed you 10 verses that support my position that following the commandments is necessary to recieve eternal life. And that is exactly the context of my words that you are now trying to twist.
Exposed again Jerry! I can say one thing for you , you are tenacious. But you'll eventually learn that, as my dear friend Kevin very eloquently stated earlier on this thread, THE TRUTH HAS AN ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
You wrote:
"For instance,the devil believes,but he is not saved."
There is no doubt whatsoever that you were attempting to use that statement to prove that "faith" alone is not enough for the sinner to be saved.
Why else would you say that although he believes HE IS NOT SAVED?
But now you attempt to say that that was not your purpose in the first place.Now you say that you were merely making that statement to illustrate the two different meanings of "believe".
You are as transparent as are your arguments.
In His grace,--Jerry
You wrote:
"For instance,the devil believes,but he is not saved."
There is no doubt whatsoever that you were attempting to use that statement to prove that "faith" alone is not enough for the sinner to be saved.
Why else would you say that although he believes HE IS NOT SAVED?
But now you attempt to say that that was not your purpose in the first place.Now you say that you were merely making that statement to illustrate the two different meanings of "believe".
You are as transparent as are your arguments.
In His grace,--Jerry
Last edited:
Jerry,
I'll summarize again, what Numbers 19 tells us about this 'type' of Christian rebirth:
1. God commanded that a red heifer be sacrificed and burned, and water was to be passed over the ashes of the burned sacrificed red heifer.
2. The water that passed over the ashes of the red heifer was purified.
3. The people who received a sprinkling with this water did in fact recieve the benefit of the sacrifice that was performed.
4. And that benefit was a washing from their unclean condition after they touched a dead person.
5. The unclean person who failed to perform this washing with the lustral water was not allowed to enter the camp of the Israelites.
6. Because God gave this command to Moses to always be performed on people who had touched a dead body, and said the unclean person who failed to perform this cleansing was 'cut off from Israel', we know this was not a symbol for other men.
This directly parallels what Jesus told Nicodemus, and what Nicodemus should have understood. Jesus said we must be 'born again' of WATER and spirit. Nicodemus, being familiar with this required cleansing of the unclean should have known that the water of which Jesus spoke was to remove the unclean condition. And the water Jesus spoke of was the water of Christian baptism.
And as I showed, this is exactly what Paul speaks of in Romans 6:7 when he says that through burial with Jesus Christ in baptism, we are absolved of our sins, our unclean condition is removed from us.
In no way does this 'type' of Christian rebirth accounted in Numbers 19 resemble your idea that baptism is a symbolic ritual performed for the benefit of those who watch. In no way does it resemble your idea that the rebirth of Christians is only through hearing the word.
If you can show us how this cleansing with purified waters in Numbers 19 is a symbol, has no real effect, or really means 'hearing the Word', please do so.
Francisco
You are the one that held Number 19 out as a 'type' of Christian rebirth. And I agree, it is a 'type' of Christian rebirth.
I'll summarize again, what Numbers 19 tells us about this 'type' of Christian rebirth:
1. God commanded that a red heifer be sacrificed and burned, and water was to be passed over the ashes of the burned sacrificed red heifer.
2. The water that passed over the ashes of the red heifer was purified.
3. The people who received a sprinkling with this water did in fact recieve the benefit of the sacrifice that was performed.
4. And that benefit was a washing from their unclean condition after they touched a dead person.
5. The unclean person who failed to perform this washing with the lustral water was not allowed to enter the camp of the Israelites.
6. Because God gave this command to Moses to always be performed on people who had touched a dead body, and said the unclean person who failed to perform this cleansing was 'cut off from Israel', we know this was not a symbol for other men.
This directly parallels what Jesus told Nicodemus, and what Nicodemus should have understood. Jesus said we must be 'born again' of WATER and spirit. Nicodemus, being familiar with this required cleansing of the unclean should have known that the water of which Jesus spoke was to remove the unclean condition. And the water Jesus spoke of was the water of Christian baptism.
And as I showed, this is exactly what Paul speaks of in Romans 6:7 when he says that through burial with Jesus Christ in baptism, we are absolved of our sins, our unclean condition is removed from us.
In no way does this 'type' of Christian rebirth accounted in Numbers 19 resemble your idea that baptism is a symbolic ritual performed for the benefit of those who watch. In no way does it resemble your idea that the rebirth of Christians is only through hearing the word.
If you can show us how this cleansing with purified waters in Numbers 19 is a symbol, has no real effect, or really means 'hearing the Word', please do so.
Francisco
Jerry,
Here is the quote from my original post, again. This time we'll take it one step at a time so you might come to understand that I was in agreement with you insofar as there are two meanings of the word 'believe' as used in scripture:
Then I said:
Then I go to the next paragraph of my response, where I expound upon the OTHER meaning of the word 'believe':
The post this was included in is still posted and has never been edited.
I do not use deceitful tactics, like some people on these boards. If I'm wrong, I admit it, apologize if appropriate, and move on. You know that Jerry.
Now you try to make it look like I am the deceptive one only because I continuously point out your deceptive tactics. However, you will never see me try to deceive anyone.
One time I stooped to your level, when you continuously said 'Catholics believe' something that was not correct. I said something about you not really living in Mexico, just to show you what it was like for someone to make a false statement about you. You went balistic. I felt like an idiot for stooping to your tactics and apologized 3 times. You never even aknowledged my apologies. But just by the fact that I did apologize and explained what I was trying to do, you should know, as I hope everyone at TOL does, that I don't lie and deceive. I don't change words, delete words, manipulate information, or use any other deceptive tactic. I don't need to because the truth has an HONEST answer for everything.
And good old Francisco is just going to keep exposing your little tricks and deceptions for all the world to see.
God Bless,
Francisco
PS - I was quite disappointed there were no 'church at Rome' insults in your last post. Does that mean you like me, or you don't like me?
Bunk! My statement is very clear to anyone who takes the time to actually read the words, rather than reading their own preconception into them. That seems to be a habit of yours, with my words and with scripture.
Here is the quote from my original post, again. This time we'll take it one step at a time so you might come to understand that I was in agreement with you insofar as there are two meanings of the word 'believe' as used in scripture:
Do you see this Jerry? I was talking to you and said 'YOU HAVE A POINT ABOUT THE USE OF 'BELIEVE' IN SCRIPTURE.
Then I said:
Do you see the words 'FOR INSTANCE'? That means I am giving you an EXAMPLE of something Jerry. And the example I was giving was of the narrower meaning of the word 'believe'. And by the way, the verse I took this from is not regarding the scripture at all, but rather the devil's belief that God is one!!!
Then I go to the next paragraph of my response, where I expound upon the OTHER meaning of the word 'believe':
Do you see the word ALSO there Jerry??? Open your eyes a little wider.... OK, now do you see??? I was showing you that I AGREED WITH YOU THAT THERE IS A BROADER MEANING, as well as the narrower meaning I illustrated with the words of James. ALSO actually means AS WELL AS.
As I showed you above, it was to illustrate the difference in the two meanings.
The post this was included in is still posted and has never been edited.
I do not use deceitful tactics, like some people on these boards. If I'm wrong, I admit it, apologize if appropriate, and move on. You know that Jerry.
Now you try to make it look like I am the deceptive one only because I continuously point out your deceptive tactics. However, you will never see me try to deceive anyone.
One time I stooped to your level, when you continuously said 'Catholics believe' something that was not correct. I said something about you not really living in Mexico, just to show you what it was like for someone to make a false statement about you. You went balistic. I felt like an idiot for stooping to your tactics and apologized 3 times. You never even aknowledged my apologies. But just by the fact that I did apologize and explained what I was trying to do, you should know, as I hope everyone at TOL does, that I don't lie and deceive. I don't change words, delete words, manipulate information, or use any other deceptive tactic. I don't need to because the truth has an HONEST answer for everything.
It was my purpose in the first place. Anyone who wants to read the UNEDITED post can look at my post to you on page 210 of this thread. I posted it at 7:12 AM 02-03-2003, and the post has not been edited.
You are the trickster Jerry, the 'Hocus-Pocus' expert on this thread. But your hand isn't quicker than my eye. And apparently you have failed to fool most of the others here.
And good old Francisco is just going to keep exposing your little tricks and deceptions for all the world to see.
God Bless,
Francisco
PS - I was quite disappointed there were no 'church at Rome' insults in your last post. Does that mean you like me, or you don't like me?
Jerry,
Are you even going to attempt to show us why you think the 'types' of Christian rebirth at Numbers 19, or Ezekiel 36 resemble your idea of 'born again' through the word rather than my idea of 'born again' through the purifying waters of Christian baptism?
Are you trying to deflect the discussion and turn it into a 'Francisco tried to trick me' thread to avoid your previous failures???
Francisco
Are you even going to attempt to show us why you think the 'types' of Christian rebirth at Numbers 19, or Ezekiel 36 resemble your idea of 'born again' through the word rather than my idea of 'born again' through the purifying waters of Christian baptism?
Are you trying to deflect the discussion and turn it into a 'Francisco tried to trick me' thread to avoid your previous failures???
Francisco
John Gault
New member
All intellect is flawed.
All intellect is flawed.
But I am nevertheless engaging in an intellectual argument on this thread. On this thread, however, I do not concern myself with whether or not others like the form my argument takes.
Christ often rebuked the self-righteous in a manner not unlike the one employed here. (But I am not Christ and certainly my efforts do not compare with those rebukes recorded in Scripture. Nevertheless, my efforts do, I am certain, expose the foolishness of mankind's arrogance and pride before God - and that includes arrogance within the Church.)
As I fully believe the Truth has set me free, I must therefore not reject any statements of truth recorded in the Scriptures if I intend to faithfully project (or "witness," if you will) that freedom to the lost.
But what do I know? It's all just mumbo-jumbo, isn't it?
All intellect is flawed.
But I am nevertheless engaging in an intellectual argument on this thread. On this thread, however, I do not concern myself with whether or not others like the form my argument takes.
Christ often rebuked the self-righteous in a manner not unlike the one employed here. (But I am not Christ and certainly my efforts do not compare with those rebukes recorded in Scripture. Nevertheless, my efforts do, I am certain, expose the foolishness of mankind's arrogance and pride before God - and that includes arrogance within the Church.)
As I fully believe the Truth has set me free, I must therefore not reject any statements of truth recorded in the Scriptures if I intend to faithfully project (or "witness," if you will) that freedom to the lost.
But what do I know? It's all just mumbo-jumbo, isn't it?
Last edited: