ECT Which understanding lends itself to your theology?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'll pass. Learning to know God is not that complicated. All one has to be is as a child.

Ok, then.

AMR

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Baptism is not salvific, and it is not required for salvation in the technical sense. That is, a true believer will be welcomed by God even if they don't get an opportunity to be baptized.

Nonetheless, baptism is something that must be a desire of a believer, as baptism is an augmentation; a regeneration that reflects from the witness thereof, which is why baptism isn't done by one's private accord.

 

[TFTn5280]

From Cross Reference: So why the emphasis placed upon physical death?" (Jn 11:26)

I actually think I will camp out on this a bit. In my writing you will notice that I draw often and vociferously on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why? Because I interpret that act as THE paradigm event of all space and time. Like Paul, I think that if there be no resurrection of Christ then all of this figuring-it-out business is utter BS: We ought to be eating and drinking, for tomorrow we die.

That gets me to the point. A couple days ago I mentioned that infants when they die do find salvation in Christ's resurrection, a statement about which Cross Reference took offence, impolitely rebuking me for suggesting that innocent and blameless babes need to be saved by Christ. Then yesterday I commented that the reason baptism for the forgiveness of sins cannot be salvific is because even if it does issue forgiveness, that is not sufficient to grant eternal life, this because we're still going to die, and yes I'm talking about when we take our last breath, a statement again to which Cross Reference took offence, this time provoking the above question.

And so, why does it look like I emphasize physical death, and more to the point, what is it about the statements I made that evokes concern, even rebuke from my fellow Christian (and to be fair it is not only Cross Reference whom I've upset over the years with similar statements; it's pretty much every Christian I've met)? I think the answer to these questions boils down to this: By-in-large, Christians have an underdeveloped understanding of Christ's resurrection and the significance of that single event on the sweep of creation history. They think dead babies will go to be with God because they are innocent, missing the point that they cannot do this without first being resurrected. And they think forgiveness is all Christians need to go to heaven, missing the point that before they can go there, they're gonna die here, AGAIN missing the point that they cannot get there unless they're resurrected from the grave here on earth. Friends if it were not for humanity's inclusion in Christ in his resurrection no one would go to heaven PERIOD, not babies, not the forgiven, not anybody! Because apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ and humanity's inclusion in it, death reigns; it's the VICTOR. If Christ is not raised, it does not matter if you're innocent. Death has a hold of you and it's not letting go! It doesn't matter if you're forgiven. You're just a dead forgiven person. Death has it's grip on you forever.

Paul says, "... we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (1Cor 5.14-17). Too much quibbling has gone on over this passage. One will argue that the all here means all of the elect. The next counters with no he's talking about all everybody; everybody can believe if he or she wants to. Friends, both sides are missing the greater point. Paul is talking about the resurrection of Jesus Christ-and-all-humanity: unborn infants, Old Testament saints, New Testament sinners~EVERYBODY! Christ took them all to the grave with him, and when he rose again, they rose with him. Whether they're going to heaven or hell can be debated. The fact that they won't get there unless they're resurrected can't. Included in Christ is every human being who ever took a breath on this earth, even those who didn't. Don't tell me that dead babies go to heaven, unless you tell me about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because if you don't, you're throwing confusion into the conversation and you're selling him short!!!

Carry on

 

[Cross Reference]

Ok, then.

AMR

Thank you, AMR. Now will you kindly address my scriptural replies. Please explain why you don't believe they must be mis-prints for your supralapisarian position to be believed? I think you have an obligation to do that as well as any other scripture that counters your theology.

Start with Gen. 4:26, ". . . then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." Genesis 4:26 (KJV)
Thank you and I await your honest and sincere reply.

 

[Cross Reference]

From Cross Reference: So why the emphasis placed upon physical death?" (Jn 11:26)

I actually think I will camp out on this a bit. In my writing you will notice that I draw often and vociferously on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why? Because I interpret that act as THE paradigm event of all space and time. Like Paul, I think that if there be no resurrection of Christ then all of this figuring-it-out business is utter BS: We ought to be eating and drinking, for tomorrow we die.

But why do you believe I need to convinced of His death and resurrection?

That gets me to the point. A couple days ago I mentioned that infants when they die do find salvation in Christ's resurrection, a statement about which Cross Reference took offence, impolitely rebuking me for suggesting that innocent and blameless babes need to be saved by Christ. Then yesterday I commented that the reason baptism for the forgiveness of sins cannot be salvific is because even if it does issue forgiveness, that is not sufficient to grant eternal life, this because we're still going to die, and yes I'm talking about when we take our last breath, a statement again to which Cross Reference took offence, this time provoking the above question.

Innocence is salvific. That is reason enough. Ergo, forgiveness for sin, which there have been no committed, is not the issue ___ nor can it be. BTW, my so-called rebuke was because baptism , of any sort, is not what the OP is asking about.

And so, why does it look like I emphasize physical death, and more to the point, what is it about the statements I made that evokes concern, even rebuke from my fellow Christian (and to be fair it is not only Cross Reference whom I've upset over the years with similar statements; it's pretty much every Christian I've met)? I think the answer to these questions boils down to this: By-in-large, Christians have an underdeveloped understanding of Christ's resurrection and the significance of that single event on the sweep of creation history. They think dead babies will go to be with God because they are innocent, missing the point that they cannot do this without first being resurrected. And they think forgiveness is all Christians need to go to heaven, missing the point that before they can go there, they're gonna die here, AGAIN missing the point that they cannot get there unless they're resurrected from the grave here on earth.

And were they not when Jesus Christ "set the captives free"??????

Friends if it were not for humanity's inclusion in Christ in his resurrection no one would go to heaven PERIOD, not babies, not the forgiven, not anybody! Because apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ and humanity's inclusion in it, death reigns; it's the VICTOR. If Christ is not raised, it does not matter if you're innocent, death has a hold of you and it's not letting go! It doesn't matter if you're forgiven. You're just a dead forgiven person. Death has it's grip on you forever.

Why do believe any Christian worth salt doesn't know that?

Paul says, "... we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (1Cor 5.14-17).

Yes. And??

Too much quibbling has gone on over this passage. One will argue that the all here means all of the elect. The next counters with no he's talking about all everybody; everybody can believe if he or she wants to. Friends, both sides are missing the greater point. Paul is talking about all humanity -- unborn infants, Old Testament saints, New Testament sinners: EVERYBODY!

No, he isn't. He is NOT speaking of the unborn.

Christ took them all to the grave with him, and when he rose again, they rose with him.

Again, wrong. They were already in the grave. They had to be in order for the scriptures to be correct. Here:

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Matthew 27:50-53 (KJV) Notice that only the saints came out.
What more do you require for convincing?

Whether they're going to heaven or hell can be debated.

Wrong again. There is no debate! They were seen by many and all ascended with Him to heaven.

The fact that they won't get there unless they're resurrected can't. Included in Christ is every human being who ever took a breath on this earth, even those who didn't. ,

:nono:

Don't tell me that dead babies go to heaven, unless you tell me about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because if you don't, you're throwing confusion into the conversation and you're selling him short!!!

Dead babies do go to heaven. None go to hell.

. . . . . Unborn dead babies had never reached the point where they were ever a living soul. Now go back to your spiritual drawing board and ponder that that fact. Do come out until you get it right. . . :carryon:

 

[Cross Reference]

Baptism is not salvific, and it is not required for salvation in the technical sense. That is, a true believer will be welcomed by God even if they don't get an opportunity to be baptized.

Nonetheless, baptism is something that must be a desire of a believer, as baptism is an augmentation; a regeneration that reflects from the witness thereof, which is why baptism isn't done by one's private accord.

Amen!

 

[OCTOBER23]

DUALITY IS IMPLIED

BRAND NEW BABY = NO PAST SINS

BRAND NEW BABY GOD = PAST SINS WASHED AWAY - START ANEW

 

[TFTn5280]

From Cross Reference: So why the emphasis placed upon physical death?" (Jn 11:26)


But why do you believe I need to convinced of His death and resurrection?



Innocence is salvific. That is reason enough. Ergo, forgiveness for sin, which there have been no committed, is not the issue ___ nor can it be. BTW, my so-called rebuke was because baptism , of any sort, is not what the OP is asking about.



And were they not when Jesus Christ "set the captives free"??????



Why do believe any Christian worth salt doesn't know that?



Yes. And??

Too much quibbling has gone on over this passage. One will argue that the all here means all of the elect. The next counters with no he's talking about all everybody; everybody can believe if he or she wants to. Friends, both sides are missing the greater point. Paul is talking about all humanity -- unborn infants, Old Testament saints, New Testament sinners: EVERYBODY!

No, he isn't. He is NOT speaking of the unborn.




Again, wrong. They were already in the grave. They had to be in order for the scriptures to be correct. Here:

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Matthew 27:50-53 (KJV) Notice that only the saints came out.
What more do you require for convincing?




Wrong again. There is no debate! They were seen by many and all ascended with Him to heaven.



:nono:

Dead babies do go to heaven. None go to hell.

. . . . . Unborn dead babies had never reached the point where they were ever a living soul. Now go back to your spiritual drawing board and ponder that that fact. Do come out until you get it right. . . :carryon:

:nono::nono: I wish before you started typing you would have read they whole thing in context; for had you, you would not have started typing at all.

 

[Cross Reference]

:nono::nono: I wish before you started typing you would have read they whole thing in context; for had you, you would not have started typing at all.

Not so. I did read it and r-read it, several times. Please explain where you believe I didn't "get it"?

 

[TFTn5280]

Not so. I did read it and r-read it, several times. Please explain where you believe I didn't "get it"?

You got my final word already

 

[Cross Reference]

You got my final word already

Please permit my final word in the form of a question:

Since we both know the wages of sin is death, what do you believe the implications are in these words of Jesus:

". . . . . woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Mark 14:21 (ESV)

Why would being unborn be a better fate?

 

[TFTn5280]

Please permit my final word in the form of a question:

Since we both know the wages of sin is death, what do you believe the implications are in these words of Jesus: ". . . . . woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Mark 14:21 (ESV)

Why would being unborn be a better fate?

That is a good question. I will address it, still within the context of Christ's resurrection. Many Christians assume that there would be hell, even if Christ had not come, lived his life, died, and been resurrected. But that is not the case. When Christ rose again he changed the nature of death forever. Death before the resurrection was back-to-dust. Yes, God preserved humanity un-judged until the resurrection but that only presupposes that there would be the resurrection. No resurrection equals back to dust. No heaven. No hell. Nothing.

But in the resurrection of Christ, all humans are raised, some to go to heaven, others to hell, via final judgment. Those who go to hell experience what Revelation calls the "second death." We can discuss what that entails at a later time. But we can be confident that this second death carries with it judgment resulting in condemnation.

The gospel, taken to the world, is really very simple: When Christ died, you died. When he rose again, you rose again. You are lifted up in him to the right hand of the Father. This is the gospel. Therefore repent and believe it.

To understand Jesus' words one must first realize that basic message. When Christ says "woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!" He is speaking to the person who rejects him specifically. Because in that rejection, that person condemns him- or herself to die the second death on his or her own merit, for this is the death for which Christ did not die. It is therefore to condemn oneself to hell, separation from Christ. That is why the only sin that leads to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ, via the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, Christ the one who redeemed you.

Therefore, given this context, when Jesus says, "It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” He is not demarcating between birth and the gestation period; he is talking about existence and non-existence. It would have been better for this person not to have come into existence, not to have experienced anything: life, death and resurrection in Chirst, only to betray him, and send him- or herself to the second death alone~thus to hell.

 

[Cross Reference]

Therefore, given this context, when Jesus says, "It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” He is not demarcating between birth and the gestation period; he is talking about existence and non-existence. It would have been better for this person not to have come into existence, not to have experienced anything: life, death and resurrection in Chirst, only to betray him, and send him- or herself to the second death alone~thus to hell.

I also will address it within the context of the resurrection of Jesus.

One's life must be birthed into existence for it to have a soul. Context says that. No soul, no existence, no resurrection, no nothing. That is the context of what He declared. That is the comparison Jesus was making with probably the most severe degree of eternal damnation.

 

[oatmeal]

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5 (ESV)

One interpretation has it as first being by water, physical birth, from the womb, followed by the second birth from above by the choosing of Christ Jesus or the other that has it being by water baptism that implies simultaneous regeneration? Which understanding are you compelled to believe as scriptural. Can you give your reasons?

Water baptism does not get a person born. That is not the purpose of water baptism. The water baptism is referred to as baptism of repentance

Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Acts 13:24
When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

John stated that they should believe on him that came after him, on Christ Jesus

Water baptism does not have anything to being born let alone born again.

It is the word of God that lives and abides forever, believed, that get a man born again.

I Peter 1:23

Was Jesus simply stating that a person must be be born out of his mother and be born of the spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God? Yes, that is what it says.

Unless there is a first birth, there will be no second birth.

Unless a person is born, they cannot become born again (born from above)

 

[TFTn5280]

I also will address it within the context of the resurrection of Jesus.

One's life must be birthed into existence for it to have a soul. Context says that. No soul, no existence, no resurrection, no nothing. That is the context of what He declared. That is the comparison Jesus was making with probably the most severe degree of eternal damnation.

Thanks, Cross Reference, I understand that that is what you believe

 

[Cross Reference]

Thanks, Cross Reference, I understand that that is what you believe

Indeed, it is. And there is no reason for you to not believe it as well unless you need to protect a pet doctrine that this understanding won't fit __ otherwise, why not? Why stay with speculative reasoning?

 

[TFTn5280]

I also will address it within the context of the resurrection of Jesus.

One's life must be birthed into existence for it to have a soul. Context says that. No soul, no existence, no resurrection, no nothing. That is the context of what He declared. That is the comparison Jesus was making with probably the most severe degree of eternal damnation.

In fact, I will even concede your point for the sake of the larger, far more important context. Now, in the safety of this concession, please go back to my last two posts and read them again with a mind to understanding.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Something which always struck me about being "born of water" is that, if this were merely referring to physical birth, our Lord was stating something painfully obvious: if you don't exist, you can't be born again. But I believe He was saying more than this. While I can fully accept the fact of physical birth that fits the context, that is, flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit, also fully agreeing with those that water baptism does not save, I have always believed our Lord was saying something of a finer point concerning being born of water: water also symbolizes repentance, and repentance is necessary for salvation. Our Lord Jesus spoke from the mind of God, some statements of great depth, layers of truth to be discerned. I thought I would offer this point, as being born of water having to do with the act of repentance and coming to the Lord in faith has always been great meaning I've found in this passage of scripture, which to me reflects the wondrous depths of the mind of God.

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Psalms 119

9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
10 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
12 Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.

 

[oatmeal]

Something which always struck me about being "born of water" is that, if this were merely referring to physical birth, our Lord was stating something painfully obvious: if you don't exist, you can't be born again. But I believe He was saying more than this. While I can fully accept the fact of physical birth that fits the context, that is, flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit, also fully agreeing with those that water baptism does not save, I have always believed our Lord was saying something of a finer point concerning being born of water: water also symbolizes repentance, and repentance is necessary for salvation. Our Lord Jesus spoke from the mind of God, some statements of great depth, layers of truth to be discerned. I thought I would offer this point, as being born of water having to do with the act of repentance and coming to the Lord in faith has always been great meaning I've found in this passage of scripture, which to me reflects the wondrous depths of the mind of God.

Interesting point.

Taking Jesus at face value makes sense, was there more to it? Could be.

He could have also been stating that it was as necessary to be born of spirit to enter the kingdom of God as it was necessary to be born of water to enter into physical life.

However, without scriptural evidence, it is conjecture on my part.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Interesting point.

Taking Jesus at face value makes sense, was there more to it? Could be.

He could have also been stating that it was as necessary to be born of spirit to enter the kingdom of God as it was necessary to be born of water to enter into physical life.

However, without scriptural evidence, it is conjecture on my part.

Same here, find a primary meaning that our Lord is differentiating between physical and spiritual birth, pointing out the necessity of being born of the Holy Spirit. As to repentance, to me it's like seeing another truth present in the depths of His word. You see similar in some of His parables, the illustrations going deeper than what is the surface lesson of the story, sheer genius that can only come from the mind of God.