The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace
- Thread starter Bob Hill
- Start date
lightninboy
Member
Pastor Hill, you remind me of the boy who cried "Wolf!" too many times.
Damian
New member
godrulz said:
Since you did not respond to my post (# 473). I will ask you once again.
Why should I disregard Mark 16:15,16? Besides you believe in "conditional security." This implies that a believer can lose his salvation. Therefore, if a believer is commanded to be baptized and fails to do so, it logically follows that he will lose his salvation. According to your own belief in conditional security, baptism is required to be saved.
Damian said:
A non-biblical Christianity is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. You have pseudo (false) Christianity like the kingdom of the cults (JW, Mormon, Christian Science), not biblical, historical, orthodox (correct, not Greek) Christianity.
There is a false gospel and a counterfeit Christ that are worthless. Paul used strong language (anathema/cursed) about those who teach falsehood (Gal. 1:6-10; 2 Cor. 11:4).
Damian said:
What on earth are you talking about?
If you want to disregard those verses, then do it based on the fact that they are not in the best and oldest Greek MSS. They may be spurious additions, though I accept them as fact and consistent with the rest of the NT.
The conditions (not without which) of salvation are repentant faith and continuance in the faith (vs a one time faith that reverts back to godless unbelief= apostasy). Baptism is an external witness of internal faith. Believers are commanded to do many things, including the Lord's Supper and Church attendance. If one misses communion, that does not make them unsaved. Some believers call on the name of the Lord right before death. Just because they were not dipped does not mean the blood of Christ did not cleanse them. According to Scripture, they are saved (Rom. 10:9,10). I gave you lists of verses that do not talk about baptism. I also gave you an alternate understanding for a text that you are trying to pit against other texts to create a contradiction. Your understanding, not the text, is faulty.
Your logic is a non-sequitur. Most Arminians reject OSAS and baptismal regeneration. There is no direct correlation unless you wrongly make circumcision or baptism a condition like faith.
The verse does not say that those who do not believe and do not get baptized are not saved. Simply, those who do not believe (no mention of baptism in the next phrase) are condemned (consistent with Jesus' explicit words in Jn. 3:16, 36).
I am starting to lose patience with someone who rejects the authority of Scripture, interprets it willy nilly, and then tries to create contradiction and confusion for no apparent good reason.
lightninboy
Member
godrulz and I discussed Judas Iscariot on Sozo's Exchanged Life: Questions and Comments thread. I posted some links in post #24.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33941&page=1&pp=15
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33941&page=1&pp=15
lightninboy
Member
Dear godrulz buddy,
I really appreciate your allying with me on The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace.
Let's settle our differences.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1304552#post1304552
I really appreciate your allying with me on The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace.
Let's settle our differences.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1304552#post1304552
Damian
New member
godrulz said:
That you suspect that "they (Mark 16:15,16) may be spurious additions" tells me that you really don't accept them.
godrulz said:
Baptism is an external witness of internal faith?
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:32.
So what happens if someone refuses to get baptized even though he had accepted Christ?
godrulz said:
Interesting. I don't remember you telling Bob Hill that his understanding of the text was faulty. Why is mine? After all, I have the same understanding of the text as Bob Hill.
Case scenario:
Let's assume that "Emily" accepted Christ at 18, died at 82. But was never baptized after conversion. Is she going to Heaven or Hell?
godrulz said:
Do most Arminians reject Mark 16:15, 16?
Okay. So an Old Testament Jew who refused to get circumcized will be saved?
godrulz said:
I am not losing patience because my mind is in Christ and I am able to endureth all things.
But I imagine that what is upsetting you is that you do not have an answer for Mark 16:15,16. We already know that you have previously stated that the verse "may be spurious." Doesn't this speak volumes? Or am I guilty of committing another non-sequitur?
By the way, what is the difference between the Aminian view of conditional security and the Catholic idea of dying in or out of grace?
godrulz,
In case you were not aware of it, Damian is not a Christian as one might suspect from reading a handful of his posts. He's into the ACIM (A Course in Miracles) cult.
Just thought you'd want to know since you're discussing a book he could just as easily live without.
Resting in Him,
Clete
In case you were not aware of it, Damian is not a Christian as one might suspect from reading a handful of his posts. He's into the ACIM (A Course in Miracles) cult.
Just thought you'd want to know since you're discussing a book he could just as easily live without.
Resting in Him,
Clete
What are you nuts?!Damian said:
I would never read ACIM! :kookoo:
http://contenderministries.org/courseinmiracles.php
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/thcourse.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c08.html
Yeah, I knew that before you told me, thanks!
Damian said:
I am being honest with the textual criticism issue of Mk. 16. The NIV mentions it in a footnote without throwing it out. I believe the passage is consistent with biblical truth, so I keep it in.
There are Mid-Acts people here that are not baptized (they say it was for the circumcision gospel). They are still my brothers in Christ. Other denominations make it essential for salvation (some Church of Christ groups, for example). They are wrong, but they still trust Christ for salvation.
Jesus and Paul made faith, not ritual, the criteria for eternal life. Jn.1:12; 3:16, 36 and Rom. 1:16, 10:9,10 mention nothing of baptism because it is not salvific (essential for salvation), period.
Emily goes to heaven. My family, except my daughter, has been baptized in water (not immediately after conversion...in your view, if someone waits a few months they risk going to hell? Cmon). We all love and serve Jesus. My daughter is as 'born again' as the rest of us, despite not getting wet in a tank. Heart, not externals. Get out from under legalism and learn to read the whole Bible, not just proof text out of context.
Most Jews were circumcised as babies. This did not seal eternal life. Those that rejected God later in life were damned. Those that embraced Him by faith (whether they had a foreskin or not) were saved. Obedience as an evidence of love and faith in God is different than a condition of salvation. This is why people who call on the name of the Lord before a plane crashes can go to heaven (based on what Christ has done, not a ritual that you do) even though they could not get baptized. God is not a legalist. Salvation is a reconciled relationship, not an external ritual. Don't bother inventing loopholes and exceptions. Either baptism is necessary (thief on the cross is classic for no baptism and no circumcision, yet went to paradise) or it is not.
Catholics have a works based system, limbo (recently changed), purgatory, indulgences, etc. Arminians are in the Reformed tradition of grace/faith alone, apart from works.
Conditional security is based on faith vs unbelief, not works.
The Catholic issue is more works oriented and misses the boat completely.
HA! You are insane!Damian said:
By what convoluted logic did you come to this idiotic conclusion? This is typical cultist thinking. Only those who are official experts are even qualified to speak on your stupid, self-contradictory holy book. The truth is that most of the people who have read it with any amount of interest are probably less qualified to speak about that most everyone else! You have to be a certified wacko to get past the first page without having dismissed the entire work as nothing more than yet another new age mantra about how we are all really good and sin is only a misunderstanding of the truth about the fact that we are all god or something along those lines.
ACIM is the opposite of Christianity and shares nothing but terminology in common (which is designed to intentionally confused genuine Christians). If you worship anything at all you worship demons. You are hopelessly lost (well almost hopelessly) and I'm sick to death of your deception and lies. You've got people around here discussing the Holy Scripture as though you are a Christian! Godrulz here may as well be talking about the integrity of the book of John with Satan himself! The only thing he should be doing is laughing at your stupidity and ridiculing your so called "Christianity" for what it is, a lie and an intentional one at that.
Resting in Him,
Clete