AGC said:

---

FIDO95 said:

---

So as a consequence an unborn child, who had a soul since the time of conception, is denied salvation if they die in the womb? It is either true 100% of the time that a water baptism is required or there are exceptions? If you do not believe the unborn are damned, for where do you get your source for those exceptions?

---

I think we can distinguish between God's commands (for us to follow) and God's desire to provide systematic theology. We baptize because it's what we're told to do (and in my tradition, a sacrament and not a symbol, so meaningful). It doesn't preclude God's providence or mercy.

---

Yes. We need to recognize the "ordinary" means of grace vs the 'inordinary."

That is to say, if someone is a new Christian, and wants to be be baptized. On the way to be baptized, this he's in a car accident and dies. NOBODY is saying this person is condemned to hell for not being baptized. This person desired to follow Christ and was a believer.

However, that is different than someone saying they are a Christian, reads they should be baptized, knows he should be baptized, but actively refuses to follow God's Word.

But honestly, it's a pretty novel concept to argue that Paul, Peter, Jesus are not talking about baptism by water.

The biggest arguments in Church history, are not about baptism, everybody as far as I can tell fully accepted that. The real question is the timing of the baptism, with most Church Fathers supportive of infant baptism, but some contingent, of which we know Tertullian was one, preferred an "end of life" baptism to wash away sin before death.

And since Tertullian doesn't have a saint by his name, there's good reason to accept he was wrong about that.

"I think we can distinguish between God's commands (for us to follow) and God's desire to provide systematic theology. We baptize because it's what we're told to do (and in MY TRADITION, a sacrament and not a symbol, so meaningful). It doesn't preclude God's providence or mercy."

"All capped" text above I think the key issue. I believe issues like these demonstrate some of the limitations within the concept of Solo Sciptura. Which scripture is being used? The text in its original language or some modern variation and which variation/translation? I suspect we would agree in the usefulness of Apostolic tradition. I agree that baptism is necessary for salvation as per scripture. However, I understand that God's mercy is not bound by the sacraments by tradition.

Zobel said:

---

And since Tertullian doesn't have a saint by his name, there's good reason to accept he was wrong about that.

---

I guess.

He had a huge impact on early Christianity with significant contributions. He was the first person to really use the concept of Logos for example.

The lack of saint is probably has to do more with his legalism and joining the Montanist than anything else.

He was not the first person to use logos. Even in a Christian / Jewish context Philo has him beat by a couple of centuries. Nevermind St John…

And yeah, ending his life as a schismatic outside the church is a pretty good guess as to why he's not considered a saint, by East or West.

Zobel said:

---

He was not the first person to use logos. Even in a Christian / Jewish context Philo has him beat by a couple of centuries. Nevermind St John…

And yeah, ending his life as a schismatic outside the church is a pretty good guess as to why he's not considered a saint, by East or West.

---

Dudes like Origen and Tertullian were so incredibly early in it is hard to fault them for some of their hererodoxical musings since so little canon had been developed by their time.

I'm not sure if this is brilliant sarcasm or not.

Zobel said:

---

He was not the first person to use logos. Even in a Christian / Jewish context Philo has him beat by a couple of centuries. Nevermind St John…

And yeah, ending his life as a schismatic outside the church is a pretty good guess as to why he's not considered a saint, by East or West.

---

D'oh. That's what I get for multi-tasking.

You're right..he's not the first to use the logos, but he's considered the first to tie the logos to the concept of the Trinity. Not completely as it would be defined, but in terms of understanding God to be a/the Trinity.

And to be clear, I'm not defending Tertullian on his view of Baptism. My point is simply that even with someone like him, who was on the outer edges with respect to Baptism, even he understood there was was importance in a water baptism. He, and many early Christians had an incorrect view of sin, which steered their view here, but they understood the importance of baptism.

Edit: Wanted to add one additional thought. While I can appreciate the sentiment of saying, "This person is deemed a saint and so we can more trust what they say," I think it can be used a club to incorrectly attack "non-saints." Stephen DeYoung did this recently in a conversation with Gavin Ortlund, and while in some sense it can be helpful, it can lead to a dismissal of ideas, contributions, concepts of "non-saints."

So we can and should appreciate what people like Tertullian/Origin offered to the Church, while understanding that they were wrong on other aspects (as was every saint).

AgLiving06 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

He was not the first person to use logos. Even in a Christian / Jewish context Philo has him beat by a couple of centuries. Nevermind St John…

And yeah, ending his life as a schismatic outside the church is a pretty good guess as to why he's not considered a saint, by East or West.

---

D'oh. That's what I get for multi-tasking.

You're right..he's not the first to use the logos, but he's considered the first to tie the logos to the concept of the Trinity. Not completely as it would be defined, but in terms of understanding God to be a/the Trinity.

And to be clear, I'm not defending Tertullian on his view of Baptism. My point is simply that even with someone like him, who was on the outer edges with respect to Baptism, even he understood there was was importance in a water baptism. He, and many early Christians had an incorrect view of sin, which steered their view here, but they understood the importance of baptism.

Edit: Wanted to add one additional thought. While I can appreciate the sentiment of saying, "This person is deemed a saint and so we can more trust what they say," I think it can be used a club to incorrectly attack "non-saints." Stephen DeYoung did this recently in a conversation with Gavin Ortlund, and while in some sense it can be helpful, it can lead to a dismissal of ideas, contributions, concepts of "non-saints."

So we can and should appreciate what people like Tertullian/Origin offered to the Church, while understanding that they were wrong on other aspects (as was every saint).

---

I do not know if "wrong" is the correct word. These are spirit filled, earnest theologians who read the exact same words and come up with different interpretations.

Still happens today.

John (the Baptist) said, "I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit"

Jesus later said, "…for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

To not recognize Baptism with the Holy Spirit as most significant, is to miss something.

I believe Jesus baptizes those whose hearts and whose faith are true. This includes the "thief" on the cross to Jesus' right, the unborn, the man on the way to be baltized, etc.
these also go on to do good works as, Zobel said, God does good works through these changed people; new creations.

With all this talk about baptism, it seems baptism with the Holy Spirit will a far more novel a concept among those in this discussion than it should be. I'm curious of your and others' thoughts on this.

Catag94 said:

---

John (the Baptist) said, "I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit"

Jesus later said, "…for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

To not recognize Baptism with the Holy Spirit as most significant, is to miss something.

I believe Jesus baptizes those whose hearts and whose faith are true. This includes the "thief" on the cross to Jesus' right, the unborn, the man on the way to be baltized, etc.
these also go on to do good works as, Zobel said, God does good works through these changed people; new creations.

With all this talk about baptism, it seems baptism with the Holy Spirit will a far more novel a concept among those in this discussion than it should be. I'm curious of your and others' thoughts on this.

---

How was the disciples' practice or that of the early church novel? Wouldn't it be the guy 2000 years later using a translation (likely) not done by the church, but a publishing house or some unattached academic, being informed by post-reformation theology, proclaiming 'Holy Spirit' baptism that's novel?

Edit: I need to add, to be less stinging, that this idea removes the actual people going about baptizing (John talks about what the disciples did as well before Jesus meets the Samaritan woman) from the text. Why is their understanding and practice ignored for the sake of the text itself?

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

He was not the first person to use logos. Even in a Christian / Jewish context Philo has him beat by a couple of centuries. Nevermind St John…

And yeah, ending his life as a schismatic outside the church is a pretty good guess as to why he's not considered a saint, by East or West.

---

D'oh. That's what I get for multi-tasking.

You're right..he's not the first to use the logos, but he's considered the first to tie the logos to the concept of the Trinity. Not completely as it would be defined, but in terms of understanding God to be a/the Trinity.

And to be clear, I'm not defending Tertullian on his view of Baptism. My point is simply that even with someone like him, who was on the outer edges with respect to Baptism, even he understood there was was importance in a water baptism. He, and many early Christians had an incorrect view of sin, which steered their view here, but they understood the importance of baptism.

Edit: Wanted to add one additional thought. While I can appreciate the sentiment of saying, "This person is deemed a saint and so we can more trust what they say," I think it can be used a club to incorrectly attack "non-saints." Stephen DeYoung did this recently in a conversation with Gavin Ortlund, and while in some sense it can be helpful, it can lead to a dismissal of ideas, contributions, concepts of "non-saints."

So we can and should appreciate what people like Tertullian/Origin offered to the Church, while understanding that they were wrong on other aspects (as was every saint).

---

I do not know if "wrong" is the correct word. These are spirit filled, earnest theologians who read the exact same words and come up with different interpretations.

Still happens today.

---

Spirit filled or not, someone can be wrong, but in an honest way as they try and work out what Scripture is saying. We shouldn't be afraid to say that someone's view is not the best interpretation of the Scriptures.

In this case, there were some pretty wild views on sin during the first couple centuries. Some felt you could only sin once after conversion or you'd no longer be a Christian. Others, like Tertullian, saw the absolute value of Baptism as the removal of sin, but felt that once this act was performed, you need to never sin again or you'd ruin the benefits of the baptism.

Both of these kinds of views were effectively addressed with Augustine vs Pelagian as not being the best understanding of Scripture.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

He was not the first person to use logos. Even in a Christian / Jewish context Philo has him beat by a couple of centuries. Nevermind St John…

And yeah, ending his life as a schismatic outside the church is a pretty good guess as to why he's not considered a saint, by East or West.

---

D'oh. That's what I get for multi-tasking.

You're right..he's not the first to use the logos, but he's considered the first to tie the logos to the concept of the Trinity. Not completely as it would be defined, but in terms of understanding God to be a/the Trinity.

And to be clear, I'm not defending Tertullian on his view of Baptism. My point is simply that even with someone like him, who was on the outer edges with respect to Baptism, even he understood there was was importance in a water baptism. He, and many early Christians had an incorrect view of sin, which steered their view here, but they understood the importance of baptism.

Edit: Wanted to add one additional thought. While I can appreciate the sentiment of saying, "This person is deemed a saint and so we can more trust what they say," I think it can be used a club to incorrectly attack "non-saints." Stephen DeYoung did this recently in a conversation with Gavin Ortlund, and while in some sense it can be helpful, it can lead to a dismissal of ideas, contributions, concepts of "non-saints."

So we can and should appreciate what people like Tertullian/Origin offered to the Church, while understanding that they were wrong on other aspects (as was every saint).

---

I do not know if "wrong" is the correct word. These are spirit filled, earnest theologians who read the exact same words and come up with different interpretations.

Still happens today.

---

Spirit filled or not, someone can be wrong, but in an honest way as they try and work out what Scripture is saying. We shouldn't be afraid to say that someone's view is not the best interpretation of the Scriptures.

In this case, there were some pretty wild views on sin during the first couple centuries. Some felt you could only sin once after conversion or you'd no longer be a Christian. Others, like Tertullian, saw the absolute value of Baptism as the removal of sin, but felt that once this act was performed, you need to never sin again or you'd ruin the benefits of the baptism.

Both of these kinds of views were effectively addressed with Augustine vs Pelagian as not being the best understanding of Scripture.

---

I agree for the most part. Augustine also believed in double pre destination which most theologians do not agree with. And that unbaptized babies who died went to limbo or even a milder form of hell. I do not think most theologians believe that.

NT Wright and John MacArthur, both brilliant theologians, disagree on many non salvific issues. I think both are Holy Spirit filled and earnest. They read the same words and disagree.

That is why to me the Creeds are so important as they become the rock solid foundation of what we should believe.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

He was not the first person to use logos. Even in a Christian / Jewish context Philo has him beat by a couple of centuries. Nevermind St John…

And yeah, ending his life as a schismatic outside the church is a pretty good guess as to why he's not considered a saint, by East or West.

---

D'oh. That's what I get for multi-tasking.

You're right..he's not the first to use the logos, but he's considered the first to tie the logos to the concept of the Trinity. Not completely as it would be defined, but in terms of understanding God to be a/the Trinity.

And to be clear, I'm not defending Tertullian on his view of Baptism. My point is simply that even with someone like him, who was on the outer edges with respect to Baptism, even he understood there was was importance in a water baptism. He, and many early Christians had an incorrect view of sin, which steered their view here, but they understood the importance of baptism.

Edit: Wanted to add one additional thought. While I can appreciate the sentiment of saying, "This person is deemed a saint and so we can more trust what they say," I think it can be used a club to incorrectly attack "non-saints." Stephen DeYoung did this recently in a conversation with Gavin Ortlund, and while in some sense it can be helpful, it can lead to a dismissal of ideas, contributions, concepts of "non-saints."

So we can and should appreciate what people like Tertullian/Origin offered to the Church, while understanding that they were wrong on other aspects (as was every saint).

---

I do not know if "wrong" is the correct word. These are spirit filled, earnest theologians who read the exact same words and come up with different interpretations.

Still happens today.

---

Spirit filled or not, someone can be wrong, but in an honest way as they try and work out what Scripture is saying. We shouldn't be afraid to say that someone's view is not the best interpretation of the Scriptures.

In this case, there were some pretty wild views on sin during the first couple centuries. Some felt you could only sin once after conversion or you'd no longer be a Christian. Others, like Tertullian, saw the absolute value of Baptism as the removal of sin, but felt that once this act was performed, you need to never sin again or you'd ruin the benefits of the baptism.

Both of these kinds of views were effectively addressed with Augustine vs Pelagian as not being the best understanding of Scripture.

---

I agree for the most part. Augustine also believed in double pre destination which most theologians do not agree with. And that unbaptized babies who died went to limbo or even a milder form of hell. I do not think most theologians believe that.

NT Wright and John MacArthur, both brilliant theologians, disagree on many non salvific issues. I think both are Holy Spirit filled and earnest. They read the same words and disagree.

That is why to me the Creeds are so important as they become the rock solid foundation of what we should believe.

---

I think we are saying the same things though? Man is fallen and we are tainted by sin and that impacts every aspect of what we do. So that someone may say something wrong, or may not be a saint, doesn't mean we should dismiss them. We should understand their claims and test it against Scripture and if it holds, we say "yes and amen." If it doesn't we correct the error.

There's no need to drive a wedge between them. Baptism is one thing, receipt of the Holy Spirit another, but both are related. Ritual participation in Christ's life actualizes that experience. Just as Christ embodied and recapitulated the story of Israel in Himself, we participate in His life when we follow the commandments.

When we are baptized we partake in His baptism, death, and resurrection.

Becoming a part of the People of God was necessary before joining in the ritual reenactment, participation, and partaking of the Passover. Likewise, we become part of the people of God through baptism; in baptism, we are joined to His circumcision.

During the ritual of baptism we have the laying on of hands through the oil of Chrismation where we receive the Holy Spirit. And after, when we partake of the Bread and the Cup we participate in His death and resurrection in the new Passover, and eat Him who is the Paschal lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

All of these are for the forgiveness of sin, for our receipt of grace, and for us to have life.

I think if we stop talking about whether you need something to be saved we can avoid the natural minimalistic approach that follows. We should embrace spiritual maximalism. I don't think this question really matters all that much.

Catag94 said:

---

John (the Baptist) said, "I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit"

Jesus later said, "…for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

To not recognize Baptism with the Holy Spirit as most significant, is to miss something.

I believe Jesus baptizes those whose hearts and whose faith are true. This includes the "thief" on the cross to Jesus' right, the unborn, the man on the way to be baltized, etc.
these also go on to do good works as, Zobel said, God does good works through these changed people; new creations.

With all this talk about baptism, it seems baptism with the Holy Spirit will a far more novel a concept among those in this discussion than it should be. I'm curious of your and others' thoughts on this.

---

You're mixing events up.

The Holy Spirit has begun doing His work, well before any physical baptism takes place.

Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

The Holy Spirit is the one converting hearts toward God and away from the "old Adam" that wants to sin. If I tried to argue that the Holy Spirit was not part of us until baptism, that would introduce a whole host of problems. This is why in the example above, I said someone who is a Christian, but dies before they can get baptized, they are still saved.

But we also recognize that God has commanded us to be baptized physically. It's a means of God's grace, just as receiving the Body and Blood of Christ each week is receiving God's grace each week.

Luther would always point those who were struggling with sin back to their baptism, because that is God's promise that we are truly forgiven.

I'm not arguing against baptism. I also recognize the command to go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I was baptized (for me, it after my personal Romans 10:9-10). And, I proclaim that Iam baptized with/in the Holy Spirit.

I know the Holy Spirit has been at work long before, but it wasn't until the upper room, when Jesus breathed on them that the disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit as prophesied by John and promised by Jesus. After that, many others also received or were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

So, my question was more out of curiosity as to why this, more complete I'd suggest, concept of baptism is not discussed among mature believers within the framework of a baptism discussion. With both John and Jesus raising it, I find it strange that it is glossed over so much.

I agree that it seems to be misunderstood. There is a reason why the historical church has two sacraments at baptism - baptism itself, and chrismation. They are two separate things.

Catag94 said:

---

I'm not arguing against baptism. I also recognize the command to go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I was baptized (for me, it after my personal Romans 10:9-10). And, I proclaim that Iam baptized with/in the Holy Spirit.

I know the Holy Spirit has been at work long before, but it wasn't until the upper room, when Jesus breathed on them that the disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit as prophesied by John and promised by Jesus. After that, many others also received or were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

So, my question was more out of curiosity as to why this, more complete I'd suggest, concept of baptism is not discussed among mature believers within the framework of a baptism discussion. With both John and Jesus raising it, I find it strange that it is glossed over so much.

---

I think it's a languge thing, more than a lack of discussion thing. Sola Gratia is the short hand for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in man and at least in the Protestant world, this is something that is spoken widely about.

It just isn't talked about in terms of baptism because the greek word baptizo, which is generally translated at ""to dip in or under," "to dye," "to immerse," "to sink," "to drown," "to bathe," "wash." The NT uses bpt only in the literal sense, e.g., "to dip" (Lk. 16:24), "to dye" (Rev. 19:13), and baptz only in a cultic sense, mostly "to baptize."

Moot.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Belief in Jesus Christ as God also means obedience to all of His commands....

---

Everyone should at all times obey Jesus commands BUT...

Belief in Jesus for eternal life means trusting/receiving/accepting His life for you because you have not been successful in obedience to all of His commands.

This is the starting point for everyone, the new birth, the moment of adoption, the moment where God removes our debt of sin and credits his righteousness to our account.

Once that gift is received, God absolutely wants believers to walk in obedience to His commands for many reasons BUT it's never for adding to the work that He accomplished on the cross.

This moment of faith or justification is not the mere intellectual acknowledge that God exists and that Jesus died on the cross HOWEVER it is an invisible moment in time in which you believe/receive/trust/accept that what Jesus did in His death and shed blood and resurrection was for you and you are not trusting in anything you are bringing to the table.

DirtDiver said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Belief in Jesus Christ as God also means obedience to all of His commands....

---

Everyone should at all times obey Jesus commands BUT...

Belief in Jesus for eternal life means trusting/receiving/accepting His life for you because you have not been successful in obedience to all of His commands.

This is the starting point for everyone, the new birth, the moment of adoption, the moment where God removes our debt of sin and credits his righteousness to our account.

Once that gift is received, God absolutely wants believers to walk in obedience to His commands for many reasons BUT it's never for adding to the work that He accomplished on the cross.

This moment of faith or justification is not the mere intellectual acknowledge that God exists and that Jesus died on the cross HOWEVER it is an invisible moment in time in which you believe/receive/trust/accept that what Jesus did in His death and shed blood and resurrection was for you and you are not trusting in anything you are bringing to the table.

---

Amen

Zobel said:

---

Abraham's life isn't a rollercoaster of righteousness, it is a story about a person that shows growth and development, and in the end he was faithful. Yeah, his primary issue is fear and it plays out in how he treats his wife. And, at the end of his life, we see a love and respect for Sarah, and faith overcoming fear with Isaac. That's what faithfulness means. It isn't a moment of intellectual assent, it is being found faithful.

There is no parable that teaches a person is found righteous or not based on what they said or believed - but all of them are about what we do. Because that's what faithfulness is about. Love is a verb, faith is a verb.

We need to read St Paul much more carefully than this. First, there is a difference in his writing between the works of God and the works of the Torah (which of course is what he means by the Greek nomos). As St Paul himself says - "through the works of the Torah no one will be made righteous." How can he say "it is not the hearers of the Torah who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the Torah who will be declared righteous"? Is he having a stroke? No. You quoted it right there - "He is the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." And now we're right back to the same argument in Galatians 2 - "we also have faith in Christ Jesus, in order to be made righteous by faith in Christ and not by works of the Torah." St Paul is very consistent. Righteousness is not found by following the precepts of the Torah, as he says - there is no part of the Torah that was put in place that could give life.

So then how can it be that, right there, he says that the doers of the Torah will be declared righteous? It is not a riddle if we stop trying to make this a discussion about works righteousness. By following Christ, by being faithful, you will follow the Torah. By living in the Spirit you will have the fruits of the Spirit, and you will live in a manner that is consistent with the Torah. Because, if we remain in Him, we will bear fruit, and the works we do will not be the works of the Torah, they will be the works of God Himself. He will work in us, as we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, and it is His work we do with Him as His co-workers.

Not merely avoiding breaking laws and avoidance of sin - that is what the Pharisees did, but on the inside they were full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Read the words of the Lord carefully - it is possible to perfectly follow the Torah externally and be full of lawlessness! But if we have faith, we will be filled with the Spirit, and streams of living water will flow from us, and there will be no law against the things will do. Or, as St Paul says in another place, when those who are apart from the Torah follow the Torah, they become a law unto themselves - even to be judged by Christ.

St Paul and the Lord teach this - "the one who loves another has fulfilled the Torah," and "whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Torah and the Prophets" and "For the whole Torah is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" If you do that, you will be a doer of the Torah, and you will be declared righteous.

As St John says, the person who sins and continues to sin unrepentantly does not know God, has neither seen Him nor knows Him. But the person who practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous. Whoever does not love, does not know God, because God is Love.

You cannot be saved by mere intellectual assent. There is a reason the entire second half of Romans is filled with instructions - be humble, work hard, be genuine in love, shun evil and seek good, love each other, strive to show honor, serve the Lord, rejoice, pray, be generous, bless your enemies, weep with those who weep, live in harmony, live in peace, be subject to authority. And every one of St Paul's letters is like this. We are to have faith, and remain in that faith, abide in Christ, and have life. If you do that, you will do the works of God, and you will become like Him, you will be a doer of the Torah (like Christ!) and you will be righteous. That is the promise of scripture.

---

You wrote: "It isn't a moment of intellectual assent, it is being found faithful."

Faith is a BOTH-AND and not an EITHER-OR

Faith is a moment in time in which one enters a relationship with God. This is the moment our sin debt is removed, we go from being enemies of God to being adopted into His family, the moment we receive the Holy Spirit indwelling our physical bodies, the moment we become a new creation, the moment we are born again..

AND

Faithful living is what God desires of all Christians

Abraham had a moment of faith in which He was declared righteous AND made some pretty big choices on Faith after that.

A few examples of the Both/AND
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. John 10:10

Romans 1 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "But the righteous man shall live by faith."


Your position: You cannot be saved by mere intellectual assent.
My Position: The moment of faith includes intellectual assent and trust.
To "Believe" means one is 'trusting' or 'believing' in something they didn't believe previously.

To believe in Jesus in reference to justification in the eyes of God is the very moment a person understands their a sinner, and they believe/accept Jesus' life and resurrection for the payment of those sins.


God wants born again Christians empowered by the Holy Sprit to live lives of fruitful obedience for the purpose of:
honoring God
our own good
eternal rewards
relationships that are fruitful
attracting the world to Christ

BUT never for adding to the finished work of Christ on the cross.

It can only be both and in the sense that one cannot be faithful without having a start of faithfulness.

By your reckoning falling away is impossible, and of course the scriptures directly contradict this in multiple places.

Quote:

---

Your position: You cannot be saved by mere intellectual assent.

---

Quote:

---

My Position: The moment of faith includes intellectual assent and trust.
To "Believe" means one is 'trusting' or 'believing' in something they didn't believe previously.

---

The problem with your position is it requires man to turn inward into themselves instead of outward toward Christ.

I know more about Christ then I did in high school. So maybe I wasn't intellectually a Christian then? I know more than when I was in college. Maybe I wasn't truly a Christian then? Maybe when I fell away and came back, I didn't have true faith or the intellectual assent then (or I wouldn't have fallen away), so maybe I wasn't a Christian then.

Should I get baptized every time I think I'm more intellectually prepared? Should I be baptized everytime I come out a valley because my faith was weaker in those moments.

Remember, what Jesus said, "At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 18).


Do we look to children for strong intellect?

Or do we see in children, that when they are with their parents, they have complete faith in them, not because they could articulate why, but because they are their parents?