ECT If MAD is False What Does Hebrews 6:4-6 Mean for Us?

[Tattooed Theist]

Would you like a list of denominations that state that it is a requirement for salvation?

I am not "denominations."
I am an individual, who does not adhere.

So no, I grew up in a Catholic Church, whose teachings and practices I thoroughly reject.

I, unlike many, only speak for myself or those institutions that I am directly involved in.


Fixed it for you, buddy

 

[musterion]

So would you like a list of denominations that state that it is a requirement for salvation?

 

[musterion]

Oh. Nice edit.

Having come out of non-denominational evangeldom as well as independent fundamental Baptists (polar extremes, one might think), lots of non-denom churches will say water baptism is not required for salvation BUT solemnly warn their converts that they're disobedient [sinning] if they neglect or refuse to be water baptized. So either way, a legalistic burden is immediately placed upon a convert that does not exist in the writings of Paul per Eph 4:5.

 

[steko]

John 4

So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. And many more believed because of his own word;*And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard*him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Jesus preached the gospel to the Samaritans, and they believed his word and they believed that he was indeed the Christ the saviour of the world.

Sorry I must go and clean up the house.

The Samaritans understood this in the context of all prophecy concerning the nation of Israel and that the nations would be blessed through Israel's promised Messiah.
That was the context.
The ascended Christ through the Apostle Paul introduces a different context, the eternal salvation of Jew and Gentile, on equal footing, through their trust in Christ's substitutionary work of the cross and His resurrection, whereby those who so trust are declared not guilty in the sight of GOD.


Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The content of what is required to believe for salvation/deliverance for the Samaritans is obviously different from what the Apostle Paul teaches by revelation from Christ from heaven.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

Oh. Nice edit.

Having come out of non-denominational evangeldom as well as independent fundamental Baptists (polar extremes, one might think), lots of non-denom churches will say water baptism is not required for salvation BUT solemnly warn their converts that they're disobedient [sinning] if they neglect or refuse to be water baptized. So either way, a legalistic burden is immediately placed upon a convert that does not exist in the writings of Paul per Eph 4:5.

To which I would reject legalism as well.
I'll again say that I speak for myself, because myself is the only one I can speak for with accuracy.

 

[Interplanner]

The Samaritans understood this in the context of all prophecy concerning the nation of Israel and that the nations would be blessed through Israel's promised Messiah.
That was the context.
The ascended Christ through the Apostle Paul introduces a different context, the eternal salvation of Jew and Gentile, on equal footing, through their trust in Christ's substitutionary work of the cross and His resurrection, whereby those who so trust are declared not guilty in the sight of GOD.


Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The content of what is required to believe for salvation/deliverance for the Samaritans is obviously different from what the Apostle Paul teaches by revelation from Christ from heaven.

The Sams may have believed the OT directly too, but just as mistakenly. That is why Christ was clearing that up at the same time. He was not validating what she was saying nor Judaism, which we know from the 'neither in this place nor the other.' we also know that 'the time was coming and NOW IS.' So what he brought and did was the thing that was PLANNED. Not a Judaistic return to the old covenant etc.

 

[musterion]

The Sams were not hip to the overarching Holfordian paradigm, the fools.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The content of what is required to believe for salvation/deliverance for the Samaritans is obviously different from what the Apostle Paul teaches by revelation from Christ from heaven.

No. Heb.ch 11.

LA

 

[Interplanner]

The Sams were not hip to the overarching Holfordian paradigm, the fools.

He said the time was coming BUT NOW WAS. What he was meant to bring had come.

 

[Nihilo]

Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day

these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Chapter 2

1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

:argue:

 

[Interplanner]

they don't know what they are talking about so they make fun of Holford.

 

[Danoh]

they don't know what they are talking about so they make fun of Holford.

Actually, it is you they are making fun of.

To date; I have been the only one who has asserted his not having been as bending over backwards into three hand springs impressed with Holford as you have been :chuckle:

And what's the big deal.

You expect to just say as you please against MAD and or MADs in the same breath you have often admitted you could care less about what MAD holds to...

What's with your double standard on that?

Nevertheless, I shall continue to post where I might agree with you on some point or another; as I do as to anyone else.

Be well.

 

[Interplanner]

Actually, it is you they are making fun of.

To date; I have been the only one who has asserted his not having been as bending over backwards into three hand springs impressed with Holford as you have been :chuckle:

And what's the big deal.

You expect to just say as you please against MAD and or MADs in the same breath you have often admitted you could care less about what MAD holds to...

What's with your double standard on that?

Nevertheless, I shall continue to post where I might agree with you on some point or another; as I do as to anyone else.

Be well.

I could care less because it is contrived. Anytime an ordinary text is out there to discuss, it has a tortuous way around it not meaning that.

 

[Danoh]

I could care less because it is contrived. Anytime an ordinary text is out there to discuss, it has a tortuous way around it not meaning that.

As I said...yours is...a double-standard.

You ask for what you yourself do not give.

In this, you are no better than those you accuse of refusing to look into a thing as being the result on their part of their own practice of one sided confirmation bias.

Result?

The usual...

A stalemate...once more.

 

[Interplanner]

as though there was something double about "everything promised to the fathers is fulfilled for you their children in the resurrection of Jesus."

 

[Danoh]

as though there was something double about "everything promised to the fathers is fulfilled for you their children in the resurrection of Jesus."

Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Luke 14:14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

This in Acts 13 is about that promise...

Acts 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. 13:35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 13:36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: 13:37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Who qualifies for this promise?

13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Paul's repeat of this resurrection promise...

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Acts 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 26:7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. 26:8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

That is what one first proves to a Jew...about Christ...to this...very...day.

And that is what one first proves to a Gentile as well.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Verse 2's "unless ye have believed in vain" - what meaneth that?

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Acts 13 is merely asserting the Resurrection and who gets to be a part of it.

 

[Lighthouse]

It always ends up theoretical with them. It never happens to anyone they know and certainly won't happen to themselves (just ask him). It's always some hypothetical person out there somewhere...a person no one ever meets, much less can prove has fallen away forever, or had believed the saving Gospel in the first place.

Certainly.

Judas had a choice, he chose the world and flesh. And he fell because of his own doing, and so can we. It says clearly right through the new testament that we can fall away again. And it says that carrying on sinning brings forth death.

Judas is still irrelevant, because he was never saved, having died before salvation was even possible.

Now, where are the verses that say we can fall away?

I think you need to read that chapter again right the way through, it's clear by reading it that we can lose our salvation, it's not about it being impossible to lose our salvation, is the opposite.

You can't seriously be this stupid. I didn't say that it said it is impossible to lose salvation; I said that it says it is impossible to be saved again once you have lost it.:dunce::duh:

I first believed Jesus, and followed him, then as time progressed God has blessed me with the holy spirit who through Christ is helping me overcome and as I obey God, he is strengthening me to overcome more and more.

So Jesus didn't overcome?

If we're truly born of God, and walking in the spirit, then we'll be overcoming the flesh, and the things of this world will mean nothing to us.

So it's not already overcome?

I suppose my initial question would be, why do you care so much about baptism? Baptism has never been a prerequisite for salvation, nor is it today, within all non denominational churches I deal with. I do not speak for denominations that require, but only to my own. (Edited for musterion) It's a simple public declaration of faith. (per our use in my culture.)
For believers to argue it to the point of frustration or discontent, to me, Jesus would be and is very disappointed.

Because the commission of the 12 vs. the commission of Paul is different, and that is one point in which the difference is glaring. So in order to support my position I point out the most obvious difference I can see and ask those who disagree with me if they can tell me why the difference. Can you?

Next, the question arises, and then falls as virtually irrelevant. A better question would be, why do you believe Jews needed water baptism and Gentiles did not?

The reminiscence of the Law they knew. It was a new addition based on a previous command. It was symbolic, and reminded of them of the similar commands with which they had grown up as requirements. In summation: familiarity.

This changes literally nothing that I said. He still did it. Just like He still, against his wants, adhered to His mother's wishes in Matthew.
Why, how, etc. Doesn't matter, He did it.

:bang:

Why are you so pig headed? Hmm?

It most certainly matters that He initially rejected her. And it also most certainly matters why He eventually gave in. Because it tells us many things.

1. Yes, so one man. One single man, was sent out with a mission that was not baptism. So due to that fact, you assume all are meant to disregard baptism?

:doh:

English much?

The mission did not include baptism. To phrase it your way makes you sound exceptionally ignorant.

As for disregarding baptism, I never said we should. So don't lie.

2. There is nothing harmful of baptism. It does not distract or take away anything in terms of doctrine or a church community. So.... better safe than sorry? At the very least.

I never said it did any harm. Nor does it take anything away, unless someone insists upon it.

Paul even baptized some. There is nothing wrong with it. In fact it's a great expression of faith as it represents death and resurrection in Christ. But it isn't necessary.

3. You've shown that His mission was to Israel, yes. Although He DID minister, heal, etc. Those outside of that cultural group. Thus, it is not all inclusive.

How many outside said group?

And what makes you think this is cultural?

And have you ever heard of exceptions that prove the rule?

4. My Ignorance, sir, is certainly the majority among Scholars in how scripture is read on this topic (MAD).

A majority can be wrong.

Personal insults are unnecessary, and show very poorly of your conversation skills.

How is that an insult? Let alone a personal one? Do you not know the meaning of the word?

So to your insult, I will compliment you. I respect very much your resolve, as well as your thorough research on the topic. I also appreciate your taste in Television (per your avatar.)

I didn't insult you.

But thank you for the compliment.

And even Jesus himself said that the Father never leaves him because he always does that which pleased him.

And this is where it all falls apart. You deny Jesus Christ is who He said He is.

No there has always only been one gospel. And I'll pay attention to Jesus who mentioned only one gospel, never two!

There have been several. The good news preached before the cross did not include all the information preached after, for instance.

=/=

For you: ≠

lol, It isn't called anything! The accounts of Jesus aren't even called that in the original. The heading is just kata matheou "According to Matthew" etc. for each of them. The Gospel is the event, the whole event, of God being in Christ providing payment for the debt of mankind's sins. It is the 'fabulous announcement' or good news. It is why the Bible exists.

He wasn't referring to the "four gospels," dunderhead.*

He was referring to the times in which the good news being preached was referred to as "the gospel of the kingdom [of God]," "the gospel of Jesus Christ," "the gospel of the grace of God,"
"the gospel of God," or "the gospel of His Son."

* @Tattooed Theist Now, that's an insult.

That's the point. He didn't.

But Paul preached exactly that as the saving Good News (1 Cor 15:3-4).

So when you say there is only ONE saving Good News in all of the N.T., you're automatically saying they all preached the same thing.

They didn't. They didn't even call all of the good newses by the same name.

Yet you insist there's only one.

I can't make it any clearer to you than that. Maybe someone else can help you if you still don't see the implications of what you said.

No one preached that we are saved by having faith in the death of Jesus on the cross. Where does it say that in the Bible?

We are saved by the grace of God through faith, that's faith in God and Christ not faith in his death on the cross!

Paul preached it. And @musterion gave you an example with 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

 

[Interplanner]

Certainly.


Judas is still irrelevant, because he was never saved, having died before salvation was even possible.

Now, where are the verses that say we can fall away?


You can't seriously be this stupid. I didn't say that it said it is impossible to lose salvation; I said that it says it is impossible to be saved again once you have lost it.:dunce:duh:


So Jesus didn't overcome?


So it's not already overcome?


Because the commission of the 12 vs. the commission of Paul is different, and that is one point in which the difference is glaring. So in order to support my position I point out the most obvious difference I can see and ask those who disagree with me if they can tell me why the difference. Can you?


The reminiscence of the Law they knew. It was a new addition based on a previous command. It was symbolic, and reminded of them of the similar commands with which they had grown up as requirements. In summation: familiarity.


:bang:

Why are you so pig headed? Hmm?

It most certainly matters that He initially rejected her. And it also most certainly matters why He eventually gave in. Because it tells us many things.


:doh:

English much?

The mission did not include baptism. To phrase it your way makes you sound exceptionally ignorant.

As for disregarding baptism, I never said we should. So don't lie.


I never said it did any harm. Nor does it take anything away, unless someone insists upon it.

Paul even baptized some. There is nothing wrong with it. In fact it's a great expression of faith as it represents death and resurrection in Christ. But it isn't necessary.


How many outside said group?

And what makes you think this is cultural?

And have you ever heard of exceptions that prove the rule?


A majority can be wrong.


How is that an insult? Let alone a personal one? Do you not know the meaning of the word?


I didn't insult you.

But thank you for the compliment.


And this is where it all falls apart. You deny Jesus Christ is who He said He is.


There have been several. The good news preached before the cross did not include all the information preached after, for instance.


For you: ≠


He wasn't referring to the "four gospels," dunderhead.*

He was referring to the times in which the good news being preached was referred to as "the gospel of the kingdom [of God]," "the gospel of Jesus Christ," "the gospel of the grace of God,"
"the gospel of God," or "the gospel of His Son."

* [MENTION=18643]Tattooed Theist[/MENTION] Now, that's an insult.


Paul preached it. And @musterion gave you an example with 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

But when people refer to the 4 accounts as gospels, it is OK to do so because it is about that event. It is a literary form, for sure, but the fact that we don't call them individually 'the gospels' of Christ tells us that historically people have understood they have one coherent message.

The idea that there are two messages or offers there is modern 2P2P D'ism nonsense. And also a simple grammatical mistake.

 

[musterion]

But when people refer to the 4 accounts as gospels, it is OK to do so because it is about that event. It is a literary form, for sure, but the fact that we don't call them individually 'the gospels' of Christ tells us that historically people have understood they have one coherent message.

The idea that there are two messages or offers there is modern 2P2P D'ism nonsense. And also a simple grammatical mistake.

Aren't you embarrassed constantly making stuff up because you don't actually know what you're talking about? Your skills as a writer are not up to the task of hiding nonsense behind a needlessly voluminous vocabulary. We've seen thorough your schtick right from the start.

Sorry to be the one to break that to you.

 

[musterion]

For you: ≠

Thanks, I'd misplaced mine.

Paul preached it. And @musterion gave you an example with 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

I tried, anyway. When I realized he/she refused to even entertain the possibility of distinctions, I realized I'd been wasting my time and now have him/her on Ignore.