The washing of regeneration and water baptism

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post

dberrie-----***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"



http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html


What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.



Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of Christ, the Early Church Fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.


Billyray----T i t u s 3
4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,


Comments?

[Billyray]

Comments?
T i t u s 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

[Billyray]

Comments?
ESV Study Bible


T i t u s 3:5 The transformation described in vv. 3–7 (formerly … but now) is not based on human effort. “We … were once enslaved” (v. 3) but he saved us. God must act before salvation occurs. Salvation comes not because of works but by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. Some have understood this as saying that baptism (“the washing”) causes salvation. However, in this context human deeds are clearly downplayed (“not because of works”) and the emphasis is on divine action and initiative (“he saved us”). The “washing” described here is the spiritual cleansing, which is outwardly symbolized in baptism.

[Billyray]

dberrie-----***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"



http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html


What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.



Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of Christ, the Early Church Fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.



where is your Bible?
Where is YOUR Bible?. . .Comments?

[nrajeffreturns]

Where is YOUR Bible?. . .Comments?

I have a comment, or question, about the verse you quoted

("he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.")

How much mercy do you believe Jesus has on all those people you believe He didn't love enough to die for, thus dooming them to having no hope of being saved?

a) a lot of mercy

b) a mediocre amount of mercy

c) zero mercy

[Billyray]

I have a comment, or question, about the verse you quoted

("he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.")

How much mercy do you believe Jesus has on all those people you believe He didn't love enough to die for, thus dooming them to having no hope of being saved?

a) a lot of mercy

b) a mediocre amount of mercy

c) zero mercy
Every sinner has the opportunity to place their faith in Christ and be justified by faith resulting in salvation. For some reason you seem to forget that fact. Or the other alternative is that every person has the opportunity to perfectly obey the commandments and be saved. Therefore a sinner can place his faith in Christ and be saved OR a person can obey the commandments perfectly---everyone has the opportunity to be saved. In the final judgement God will judge those who choose not to place their faith in Christ by God's perfect standard and they will be judged by their works and by their own deeds they will be condemned. This shows God's justice.

[dberrie2000]

Every sinner has the opportunity to place their faith in Christ and be justified by faith resulting in salvation.

Even those God did not die for?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 ---***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"



http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html


What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.


Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of Christ, the Early Church Fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.


Where is YOUR Bible?. . .Comments?

***us3:5 is a verse found in the Biblical text, Billyray.

[Billyray]

***us3:5 is a verse found in the biblical text, billyray.
? ? ? ? ?


http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...got034331.html


what is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John wesley: "sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the holy ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of god" (one volume new testament commentary, wesley, clarke, henry, et. Al.).


Cambridge greek testament (j.h. Bernard): "that the 'washing of regeneration' is the water of baptism is undoubted; see eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical body of christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

the new bible commentary (a.m. Stibbs): "in status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the spirit."

the pulpit commentary (a.c. Hervey): "here we have the means through or by which god's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

william hendriksen: "it is clear from such p***ages as john 3:3,5 and especially ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (new testament commentary).

Albert barnes: "the word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (barnes' notes on the new testament).

Henry alford: "observe, there is here no figure: The words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." at hebrews 10:22, alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to christian baptism" and cites washing of water (eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (the greek new testament).

James macknight: "through the bath of regeneration: Through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (apostolical epistles).

G.r. Beasley-murray: Beasley-murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these epistles [1 timothy, 2 timothy, ***us], i can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "all things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.



Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of christ, the early church fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.


e

[dberrie2000]

dberrie-----***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"



http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html


What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.



Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of Christ, the Early Church Fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.


T i t u s 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

That's not going to help your cause--if the "washing of regeneration" in ***us3:5 is defined as water baptism--then water baptism is connected to salvation:---"he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,"

[nrajeffreturns]

Every sinner has the opportunity to place their faith in Christ and be justified by faith resulting in salvation. ...everyone has the opportunity to be saved.

But you believe that Jesus refused to do anything to save most of the human race. How do people He didn't die for have the opportunity to be saved? Isn't it true that you believe that those people never had a chance, since Jesus never died for them? If some people were deliberately made to be pottery whose PURPOSE was to be shattered and thrown away, how can you say they had the opportunity to be saved?

[Billyray]

But you believe that Jesus refused to do anything to save most of the human race. How do people He didn't die for have the opportunity to be saved?
The Bible teaches that Jesus gave his life for his sheep, but you seem to be forgetting the part where I have said that the Bible also teaches that ANYONE who comes to Christ and places their trust in Him will be saved. Those who reject Christ do so based on their own choice and they are responsible for that choice.

[nrajeffreturns]

The Bible teaches that Jesus gave his life for his sheep
but it doesn't say ONLY for his sheep. You are reading that Calvinistic idea into the text but it's not really there.
Yesterday I paid for some milk at the store. Does that mean that milk was the ONLY thing I paid for at the store? If you ***ume that, then you are jumping to a conclusion that logic says you shouldn't jump to.


the Bible also teaches that ANYONE who comes to Christ and places their trust in Him will be saved.
So then you believe that ANYONE has the potential to be saved. But that contradicts your belief that Jesus didn't die for everyone.


Those who reject Christ do so based on their own choice and they are responsible for that choice.
How about those who ACCEPT Christ--did they do that based on their own choice and therefore get the credit for making a wise choice? Or do you have a double standard?

[Billyray]

but it doesn't say ONLY for his sheep.
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

I am not asking you what it doesn't say I am asking you what this verse does say.

[Billyray]

So then you believe that ANYONE has the potential to be saved. But that contradicts your belief that Jesus didn't die for everyone.

The Bible says that ANYONE who places their trust in Christ to save them they will be saved. Even you, but thus far you are still relying on your works to save you.


How about those who ACCEPT Christ--did they do that based on their own choice and therefore get the credit for making a wise choice? Or do you have a double standard?
Those who come to Christ choose to come to Him. What credit is there for admitting you are a sinner, that you can't make it on your own, and that you are trusting in the completed work of Christ to save you?

[MacG]

Dosesn't this?:
Mt15:23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.” But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once." The chosen and the grafted.

[nrajeffreturns]

The Bible says that ANYONE who places their trust in Christ to save them they will be saved.
And that contradicts your belief that Christ failed or refused to die for most of humanity. If He failed or refused to die for most of us, then there is NO CHANCE for most of us to be saved, and makes Jesus a liar when He says that He wants everyone to be saved. If He wanted everyone to be saved, then He would have died for everyone, giving everyone an equal opportunity to benefit from that sacrifice. How can people benefit from a sacrifice that was never made for them? That is the huge, gaping hole in our Calvinism.


Even you, but thus far you are still relying on your works to save you.
Wrong. I am relying on Jesus to keep His promise that since He died for all of us, then eternal life is available to all of us, and all we have to do is obey Him.


Those who come to Christ choose to come to Him.
So you think it's a false doctrine that Calvinism teaches, that the only ones who come to Him did so NOT by their own free will, but were compelled to by God's irresistible grace?


What credit is there for admitting you are a sinner, that you can't make it on your own, and that you are trusting in the completed work of Christ to save you?
Simple: If all of us are free to choose either eternal life or eternal death, then one of those choices is an extremely wise choice, don't you think? So shouldn't those who make that wise choice get some credit for making the wise choice instead of the foolish choice? If they give all the credit to God because they believe He forced the decision on them, THAT'S when they would say they deserve none of the credit for choosing to obey God instead of choosing to reject Him.

So which group are you in, Billy? The "We get the credit or blame for our wise or foolish choices" group? Or the dysfunctional "We get all the blame if we end up in hell, but God gets all the credit if we end up in heaven" group, aka the Calvinists?

[Billyray]

And that contradicts your belief that [U]Christ failed or refused to die for most of humanity
Not at all but since you seem to think so tell me what contradiction you are speaking about?


If He failed or refused to die for most of us, then there is NO CHANCE for most of us to be saved, and makes Jesus a liar when He says that He wants everyone to be saved.

Each person has a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for this choice. And this is clearly stated in the Bible.


How can people benefit from a sacrifice that was never made for them? That is the huge, gaping hole in our Calvinism.

Those who reject Christ could benefit from the sacrifice of Christ is they placed their faith in Christ but they have refused to do so. And this is known by God before you are even born.


The problem you are having with this Jeff is you are trying to understand this from God's perspective and from his understanding but you or I can't fully understand it. But what we do know is what God has said in his word and we should believe his word. For example how do you explain how God knows every single thing you will do from the start of your life until you die and these events are fixed before you are even born YET you still claim to have free will (from your perspective)?

[Billyray]

The Bible says that ANYONE who places their trust in Christ to save them they will be saved. Even you, but thus far you are still relying on your works to save you.



Wrong. I am relying on Jesus to keep His promise that since He died for all of us, then eternal life is available to all of us, and all we have to do is obey Him.

Mormon speak for works based salvation.

Let me ask you who perfectly obeys the commandments? Certainly not you. Right?

[Billyray]

So you think it's a false doctrine that Calvinism teaches, that the only ones who come to Him did so NOT by their own free will, but were compelled to by God's irresistible grace?
Jeff you keep bringing up "free will" can you tell me how you are defining this term because everyone seems to define it differently?

[Billyray]

Simple: If all of us are free to choose either eternal life or eternal death, then one of those choices is an extremely wise choice, don't you think? So shouldn't those who make that wise choice get some credit for making the wise choice instead of the foolish choice? If they give all the credit to God because they believe He forced the decision on them, THAT'S when they would say they deserve none of the credit for choosing to obey God instead of choosing to reject Him.

So which group are you in, Billy? The "We get the credit or blame for our wise or foolish choices" group? Or the dysfunctional "We get all the blame if we end up in hell, but God gets all the credit if we end up in heaven" group, aka the Calvinists?
We all make choices and each one of us has the choice to accept Christ or reject him. God is not forcing you to reject Him or His gospel. Do you feel forced?

[MacG]

So is Tytus 3:6 "whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."

[nrajeffreturns]

Each person has a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for this choice.
So you are saying that Calvin was a false teacher and he taught a false, heretical, unChristian doctrine when he taught that every choice we make, whether good or evil, was ordained and decreed by God?


Those who reject Christ could benefit from the sacrifice of Christ is they placed their faith in Christ but they have refused to do so.
In what ways do people who Christ refused--or failed--to die for, benefit by placing their faith in Him? If He didn't care enough about them to die for them, then they have no hope for salvation, no matter who they place their trust in.


The problem you are having with this Jeff is you are trying to understand this from God's perspective and from his understanding
Actually, I am trying, and succeeding, to understand how loving, merciful, and fair God and His Son are. And I am using common sense when I read the Bible, which helps immensely in that undertaking.


But what we do know is what God has said in his word and we should believe his word.
I do believe His word, since I believe Him where He says that He wants all of us to come to Christ, and He doesn't want any of us to perish. Plus all those other Bible verses that Dberrie quoted for you, that support such an idea. Yes, I believe those verses. The question is why you don't want to believe them, and instead want to interpret the Bible so it makes God seem like a capricious tyrant, like Calvin and Edwards portrayed Him to be.


For example how do you explain how God knows every single thing you will do from the start of your life until you die and these events are fixed before you are even born YET you still claim to have free will (from your perspective)?
That's not such a hard thing to explain. Anyone who can see into the future can see what a person will do in certain situations. That doesn't mean that the person is rendered unable to make choices. This is simple logic.

[Billyray]

So you are saying that Calvin was a false teacher and he taught a false, heretical, unChristian doctrine when he taught that every choice we make, whether good or evil, was ordained and decreed by God?

Jeff the Bible teaches that we each have a choice to make in either accepting Christ or rejecting him and that we are responsible for that choice.


Actually, I am trying, and succeeding, to understand how loving, merciful, and fair God and His Son are. And I am using common sense when I read the Bible, which helps immensely in that undertaking. . .

. . .That's not such a hard thing to explain. Anyone who can see into the future can see what a person will do in certain situations. That doesn't mean that the person is rendered unable to make choices. This is simple logic.

If God knows everything you will do in the future, before you were even born, can you choose anything different then what has already set in stone?

[nrajeffreturns]

Jeff the Bible teaches that we each have a choice to make in either accepting Christ or rejecting him and that we are responsible for that choice.
So Calvin was a false teacher who the Bible warned us to beware of because he would decimate the flock like a wolf in sheep's clothing?



If God knows everything you will do in the future, before you were even born, can you choose anything different then what has already set in stone?
The answer, of course, is the simple tautology: You WON'T choose anything other than the choices that you WILL make.

That doesn't mean that you have no freedom to make choices, silly.

This is one of Calvin's big logical mistakes: He jumped to the incorrect conclusion that if God can see into the future, just like a prophet can, and if God is omnipotent, then God forces us to make the choices we will make, and we have no freedom to choose any thought or action other than what God has decreed that we will do. Which makes us all mere puppets, with God's hand inside us, directing everything we do, and we are unable to act in opposition to that script that God wrote for us.

Thus the idea of predestination, where if God designed/programmed you be one of the elect, then there's no way you can choose the devil because that would defy God's sovereignty. And if God designed/programmed you to end up in hell, then there is literally nothing you can do to change your fate. It is impossible for you to end up in heaven. You have no hope, because if there was a CHANCE that you could end up in heaven, it would defy God's sovereignty as the puppet master. Letting US decide where we will end up would make US the script writers. And that is not allowed in Calvinism.

[RealFakeHair]

nrajeffreturns; I can't believe someone wrote this who is a follower of Joseph Smith jr. (So Calvin was a false teacher who the Bible warned us to beware of because he would decimate the flock like a wolf in sheep's clothing? )

[nrajeffreturns]

nrajeffreturns; I can't believe someone wrote this who is a follower of Joseph Smith jr. (So Calvin was a false teacher who the Bible warned us to beware of because he would decimate the flock like a wolf in sheep's clothing? )


You can't believe it because you think Joseph Smith was a Calvinist? :)

[RealFakeHair]

You can't believe it because you think Joseph Smith was a Calvinist? :)
Is that one of his wives first or last name?

[nrajeffreturns]

Is that one of his wives first or last name?

It's your husband's first or last name.

[Billyray]

So Calvin was a false teacher who the Bible warned us to beware of because he would decimate the flock like a wolf in sheep's clothing?

What specific subject do you want to discuss? The providence of God?

[Billyray]

The answer, of course, is the simple tautology: You WON'T choose anything other than the choices that you WILL make.

Are you free to change anything that is already planned for you to do tomorrow?


This is one of Calvin's big logical mistakes: He jumped to the incorrect conclusion that if God can see into the future, just like a prophet can, and if God is omnipotent, then God forces us to make the choices we will make, and we have no freedom to choose any thought or action other than what God has decreed that we will do. Which makes us all mere puppets, with God's hand inside us, directing everything we do, and we are unable to act in opposition to that script that God wrote for us.

Are you aware that some LDS scholars believe that if God is omniscient then that means that you do not have free will?

How does God know what you will do before you even do it especially given the fact that you believe that God is not in control of world events (i.e. free will/free agency)

[nrajeffreturns]

What specific subject do you want to discuss? The providence of God?

I want to keep discussing the belief that Christ was so weak or so unloving that He only died for a fraction of the human race. If that belief turns out to be incorrect, then it could be argued that people who have that belief have "another Jesus." And that might be important.

[Billyray]

I want to keep discussing the belief that Christ was so weak or so unloving that He only died for a fraction of the human race. If that belief turns out to be incorrect, then it could be argued that people who have that belief have "another Jesus." And that might be important.
Straw man. Nobody said Christ was weak or unloving. That is something that you made up. As we have discussed already you have no good answer for your position which is that Jesus PAID for every sin for every person because there would be no basis for sending anyone to Hell.

BTW I take it you would rather avoid discussing God's providence?

[nrajeffreturns]

Straw man. Nobody said Christ was weak or unloving.
It seems to be where your belief leads, if you believe that Jesus only died for a small percentage of us. There has to be a reason why He DIDN'T die for the large percentage of us. Possible reasons include:

1. He was ABLE to die for them, but He didn't care enough about those people to give them a chance at salvation.

2. He WANTED to give them the same chance that you have at salvation, but He wasn't ABLE to.

3. He was neither willing NOR able to provide that chance.

Which answer is the correct one?

[Billyray]

It seems to be where your belief leads,


So you just make up a straw man argument? I thought that you were above that but I guess not.



1. He was ABLE to die for them, but He didn't care enough about those people to give them a chance at salvation.

God could have chosen to saved none (which is exactly what happened to the angels who sinned), some of us, or all of us.

All people have a chance at salvation. First they could obey the commandments and be saved, Second they can place their faith in Christ to save them from their sins.


2. He WANTED to give them the same chance that you have at salvation, but He wasn't ABLE to.

Everyone has a chance at salvation.


3. He was neither willing NOR able to provide that chance.

Again everyone has a chance at salvation.

[Billyray]

It seems to be where your belief leads, if you believe that Jesus only died for a small percentage of us. There has to be a reason why He DIDN'T die for the large percentage of us. Possible reasons include:

Let's use a real world example. Let's say you break the law. You are completely guilty of the crime. You go before the judge. This is the scenario for the following choices that the judge could make.

The judge could
1. Punish everyone guilty of the crime that they have committed.
2. Punish some of those who are guilty but in his mercy let some go despite their guilt.
3. Let every single person who committed a crime go free and not be punished.

[nrajeffreturns]

So you just make up a straw man argument?
Seeing the logical conclusion where your belief ends up, isn't a straw man.


God could have chosen to saved none (which is exactly what happened to the angels who sinned), some of us, or all of us.
Jesus could have chosen to die for NOBODY. Do you have a guess as to why He didn't choose that? It's because His Father so loved ALL OF US that He gave His only begotten Son to die for ALL OF US. And Jesus, being a loyal, obedient Son, obeyed His Father's will because He loves all of us, too. If you make it through the NT without understanding that a major focus of Jesus' whole life was on loving one's neighbors, both friends and enemies, then you have missed a major revelation about Jesus.


All people have a chance at salvation.
How can you believe that and also believe that Jesus only died for a fraction of us? If He only died for 10% of humanity, then where does this chance at salvation come from, for the other 90%? Huh?


First they could obey the commandments and be saved
False. Obeying the Law given to Moses wasn't sufficient to save anyone.


Everyone has a chance at salvation.
Your belief does not allow that to be true. If Jesus died only for the elect, then He doomed everyone else to having no hope. JESUS IS humanity's ONLY HOPE FOR SALVATION. That's one of the biggest claims of Christianity. Not sure how you failed to learn about it. Maybe you should come back to church, or have the missionaries come over to re-teach you about how without Christ we have no hope.


Again everyone has a chance at salvation.
Again, that is only true if Christ died for all mankind. You are missing one of the biggest lessons of Christianity.

[Billyray]

Seeing the logical conclusion where your belief ends up, isn't a straw man.

It isn't the logical conclusion and what you said it isn't something that I believe nor is it something that any Christian I know believes. Rather you simply make something up and p*** it off as truth. No wonder you are still stuck in your false religion.


Jesus could have chosen to die for NOBODY. Do you have a guess as to why He didn't choose that? It's because His Father so loved ALL OF US that He gave His only begotten Son to die for ALL OF US. And

He didn't die for any of the angels that sinned. Are you going to accuse God of being unloving and unfair?



How can you believe that and also believe that Jesus only died for a fraction of us?

1. People can choose to perfectly obey the commandments and be saved without Jesus.
2. People can choose to place their faith in Christ. The Bible says that anyone who trusts in Christ will be saved.

Jeff saying that some don't have a choice to place their faith in Christ is not what I believe so this is yet another straw man argument on your part.

[Billyray]

False. Obeying the Law given to Moses wasn't sufficient to save anyone.

Jeff that is not what the Bible teaches.

Romans 2:13*For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

[Billyray]

Let's use a real world example. Let's say you break the law. You are completely guilty of the crime. You go before the judge. This is the scenario for the following choices that the judge could make.

The judge could
1. Punish everyone guilty of the crime that they have committed.
2. Punish some of those who are guilty but in his mercy let some go despite their guilt.
3. Let every single person who committed a crime go free and not be punished.
Jeff if you break the law and a judge punishes you for your crime is the judge being unfair?

[dberrie2000]

The Bible teaches that Jesus gave his life for his sheep, but you seem to be forgetting the part where I have said that the Bible also teaches that ANYONE who comes to Christ and places their trust in Him will be saved. Those who reject Christ do so based on their own choice and they are responsible for that choice.

But if God did not shed His Blood for them--how could they be saved? Billyray--you believe that God only died for the few--and only those have an opportunity to be saved. The Bible teaches that God died for all men--and all men will be judged according to their works.

[Billyray]

But if God did not shed His Blood for them--how could they be saved? Billyray--you believe that God only died for the few--and only those have an opportunity to be saved. The Bible teaches that God died for all men--and all men will be judged according to their works.
Romans 10:13*for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

[nrajeffreturns]

It isn't the logical conclusion
Actually, it is, if John 3:16 is true.


and what you said it isn't something that I believe
You MUST believe that there are some people who Jesus doesn't love, if you believe that there some of us who He refused to die for. See John 3:16 for proof.


nor is it something that any Christian I know believes.
Maybe none of the Christians you know has considered the ramifications of believing that Jesus refused to die for some of us.


Rather you simply make something up and p*** it off as truth.
You are the one who is making up the idea that Jesus refused to die for most of the human race, and then you are trying to p*** that off as truth.

No wonder you are still stuck in your false religion.


1. People can choose to perfectly obey the commandments and be saved without Jesus.
So you actually believe that Jesus isn't the only way to salvation. So did Jesus lie when He claimed that He was the way?
Are you sure you're a Christian? I thought the belief that Jesus is the only way by which humans can be saved, was pretty much one of those essential doctrines of Christianity....

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Obeying the Law given to Moses wasn't sufficient to save anyone.


Jeff that is not what the Bible teaches.
Romans 2:13*For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Then tell us: how many people have been saved without Jesus' help? I think you're on shaky ground, claiming that Jesus isn't necessary for salvation. That doesn't seem like it would be accepted as a Christian doctrine by any group of Christians except maybe the Unitarians....

[Billyray]

I think you're on shaky ground, claiming that Jesus isn't necessary for salvation. That doesn't seem like it would be accepted as a Christian doctrine by any group of Christians except maybe the Unitarians....

Romans 2:13*For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

I am not on shaky ground at all Jeff because that is exactly what the Bible teaches. So why do you say that a person can't be saved without the sacrifice of Jesus IF they live a perfect life--obedient to ALL of the commandments?

[nrajeffreturns]

I am not on shaky ground at all Jeff because that is exactly what the Bible teaches.
How many Christians do you think will agree with your claim that Jesus isn't the only way by which we can be saved?

How many Christians will agree with your claim that the Bible teaches that Jesus isn't necessary for salvation?

And you thought the LDS were a cult....consider your beliefs here. I think some Evangelicals might think that you are in a weirder cult of beliefs than they think the LDS are in..... :)

[Billyray]

How many Christians do you think will agree with your claim that Jesus isn't the only way by which we can be saved?

I noticed that you didn't answer my question.

So why do you say that a person can't be saved without the sacrifice of Jesus IF they live a perfect life--obedient to ALL of the commandments?

[Billyray]

How many Christians do you think will agree with your claim that Jesus isn't the only way by which we can be saved?

How many Christians will agree with your claim that the Bible teaches that Jesus isn't necessary for salvation?

Why do you think that Christians believe that their salvation is based on placing their faith in Christ rather than what Mormons teach which is a works based salvation?

[nrajeffreturns]

I noticed that you didn't answer my question.
Is there any answer I can give that will make your claim (that Jesus isn't necessary for salvation, and that the Bible teaches such a thing) seem non-heretical?


So why do you say that a person can't be saved without the sacrifice of Jesus IF they live a perfect life--obedient to ALL of the commandments?
One reason is that none of us has the inherent power to resurrect ourselves. It is ONLY thanks to Jesus' resurrection that resurrection is possible, and certain, for us. Therefore, even if we could be 100% obedient to 100% of the commandments 100% of the time, Jesus is still necessary for our salvation.

PLUS, the only way any of us could hope to be 100% obedient to 100% of the commandments 100% of the time, is with Jesus' help. So AGAIN, Jesus is NECESSARY for our salvation.

There is at least one other reason, but the bottom line is that it's a heresy to say that Jesus isn't necessary for our salvation. And if someone were to post at CARM that "I know someone who claims that Jesus isn't necessary for our salvation," I bet your pals such as Russ, Catherine, BrianH, Theo, Pat, etc. would ALL say that anyone who believes that Jesus isn't necessary for our salvation, is not a Christian.

Wanna test my theory out?

[Billyray]

You MUST believe that there are some people who Jesus doesn't love, if you believe that there some of us who He refused to die for

He didn't die for any of the angels that sinned. Are you going to accuse God of being unloving and unfair?

[Billyray]

One reason is that none of us has the inherent power to resurrect ourselves. It is ONLY thanks to Jesus' resurrection that resurrection is possible, and certain, for us. Therefore, even if we could be 100% obedient to 100% of the commandments 100% of the time, Jesus is still necessary for our salvation.

What would be the basis for sending a person to Hell if that person obeyed ALL of the commandments ALL of the time and lived a life just like Jesus?



There is at least one other reason, but the bottom line is that it's a heresy to say that Jesus isn't necessary for our salvation. And if someone were to post at CARM that "I know someone who claims that Jesus isn't necessary for our salvation," I bet your pals such as Russ, Catherine, BrianH, Theo, Pat, etc. would ALL say that anyone who believes that Jesus isn't necessary for our salvation, is not a Christian.

Wanna test my theory out?

Salvation is based on faith in Christ BECAUSE we are ALL sinners and none of us are obedient to the commandments (Romans 3). IF a person lived a sin free life and was obedient to ALL of the commandments ALL of the time they would be saved by the works of the law (Romans 2). So when you say that a person can't be saved by the law you are absolutely wrong IF they actually obeyed the works of the law--but they don't obey the works of the law so they are guilty and will be condemned unless they place their faith in Christ.

[Billyray]

Let's use a real world example. Let's say you break the law. You are completely guilty of the crime. You go before the judge. This is the scenario for the following choices that the judge could make.

The judge could
1. Punish everyone guilty of the crime that they have committed.
2. Punish some of those who are guilty but in his mercy let some go despite their guilt.
3. Let every single person who committed a crime go free and not be punished.
Jeff if you break the law and a judge punishes you for your crime is the judge being unfair?

[Billyray]

There is at least one other reason, but the bottom line is that it's a heresy to say that Jesus isn't necessary for our salvation. And if someone were to post at CARM that "I know someone who claims that Jesus isn't necessary for our salvation," I bet your pals such as Russ, Catherine, BrianH, Theo, Pat, etc. would ALL say that anyone who believes that Jesus isn't necessary for our salvation, is not a Christian.

Wanna test my theory out?
Thread on CARM--"Why can't we be justified by the works of the law?"
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?125507-Why-can-t-we-be-justified-by-the-works-of-the-law&p=3670106&viewfull=1#post3670106

A thread that I started last year already exists on CARM. Perhaps you can provide your comments there. Note from post #60 on that thread from an expert on Paul (quote from page 30--Conclusion in link below)


Paul did consistently teach that justification cannot be obtained via law because no one can keep the law perfectly.

Paul’s basic argument is this:

(1) One must obey the law perfectly to be saved.
(2) No one obeys the law perfectly.
(3) Therefore, no one can be saved by the works of the law.



(source--Westminster Theological Seminary. 1985; 2002. Westminster Theological Journal
Volume 47 . Westminster Theological Seminary http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/WTJ_47.pdf)

Thomas R. Schreiner Ph.D. (His bio for those interested can be found at http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/thomas-schreiner/)

[Billyray]

Romans 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Jeff tell me what this verse means?

[nrajeffreturns]

What would be the basis for sending a person to Hell if that person obeyed ALL of the commandments ALL of the time and lived a life just like Jesus?
In order to live a life just like Jesus, you'd have to possess all of Jesus' qualities while in mortality, which is impossible for any of us. None of us currently has Jesus' knowledge, wisdom, faith and faithfulness, and level of commitment to always obeying God in every situation. Jesus was and is unique among all people born on Earth. If you can identify any human who has ever lived on this planet who lived a life just like Jesus, I'd be pretty amazed.




Salvation is based on faith in Christ BECAUSE we are ALL sinners and none of us are obedient to the commandments
None of us are obedient to ALL the commandments. Many are obedient to SOME of the commandments.


IF a person lived a sin free life and was obedient to ALL of the commandments ALL of the time they would be saved by the works of the law (Romans 2).
Then why did Jesus teach higher laws that superseded the Torah? Such as "Instead of it being okay to hit back when you're hit, you must turn the other cheek" ? Why'd He tell the rich man that to get eternal life, he needed to obey all the 10 commandments PLUS give all his possessions to the poor and follow Jesus?

[Billyray]

In order to live a life just like Jesus, you'd have to possess all of Jesus' qualities while in mortality, which is impossible for any of us. None of us currently has Jesus' knowledge, wisdom, faith and faithfulness, and level of commitment to always obeying God in every situation. Jesus was and is unique among all people born on Earth. If you can identify any human who has ever lived on this planet who lived a life just like Jesus, I'd be pretty amazed.

I agree that nobody is like Jesus because Jesus is God and He came to earth and lived a perfect life.

But if someone did obey all of the commandments all of the time would that person be justified by obeying the law and thus saved based on obedience to the law?

[Billyray]

Then why did Jesus teach higher laws that superseded the Torah?
Matthew 22
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

The law was not only external rules and regulations but internal at***udes and desires of the heart. For example it was against the law to steal but this would also include also the thoughts and desires to steal. The problem is that nobody could obey the law--except Jesus of course. In addition the law pointed to Christ in many ways and once Christ was crucified there was no longer any need for the rituals that pointed to him to remain once the real thing came i.e. the scarifies of bulls and goats and the temple rituals.


Why'd He tell the rich man that to get eternal life, he needed to obey all the 10 commandments PLUS give all his possessions to the poor and follow Jesus?

In the example that you noted the man didn't perfectly obey the law like he claimed he did and second his god of money superseded his love of God.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----But if God did not shed His Blood for them--how could they be saved? Billyray--you believe that God only died for the few--and only those have an opportunity to be saved. The Bible teaches that God died for all men--and all men will be judged according to their works.


Romans 5:18----King James Version (KJV)


18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.



John 5:28-29---King James Version (KJV)


28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of ****ation.


Romans 10:13*for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

So--you don't believe one has to repent in order to be saved? Faith in Christ?

[Billyray]

So--you don't believe one has to repent in order to be saved? Faith in Christ?
Romans 10:13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----But if God did not shed His Blood for them--how could they be saved? Billyray--you believe that God only died for the few--and only those have an opportunity to be saved. The Bible teaches that God died for all men--and all men will be judged according to their works.


Romans 5:18----King James Version (KJV)


18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.



John 5:28-29---King James Version (KJV)


28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of ****ation.


Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post----Romans 10:13*for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”


Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---So--you don't believe one has to repent in order to be saved? Faith in Christ?


Romans 10:13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”


Sorry--but repeating the verse does not answer the question. Do you believe one has to repent in order to be saved? Have faith in Christ?

[nrajeffreturns]

I agree that nobody is like Jesus because Jesus is God and He came to earth and lived a perfect life.

But if someone did obey all of the commandments all of the time would that person be justified by obeying the law and thus saved based on obedience to the law?

Here is the flaw in your logic: If a person did obey all of the commandments all of the time, then what would that person NEED to be saved from? Did Jesus need to be saved from something? Then if a person lived just like Him, why would that person have something that he or she needed to be saved from?

[Billyray]

Here is the flaw in your logic: If a person did obey all of the commandments all of the time, then what would that person NEED to be saved from?
He would be justified by obeying the law and would not need to have his sin forgiven because he wouldn't have any sins. Where is the flaw that you are speaking about?

[nrajeffreturns]

He would be justified by obeying the law and would not need to have his sin forgiven because he wouldn't have any sins. Where is the flaw that you are speaking about?
The flaw is: he would be justified of WHAT? Justification for sin? He wouldn't have had any sin.

In the OT, the Jews were not sinless, but the LAW spelled out what to do about their sins--sacrifice a special animal, for example. This was symbolic of Jesus' sacrifice that would actually make justification possible.

[Billyray]

The flaw is: he would be justified of WHAT? Justification for sin? He wouldn't have had any sin.

If he obeyed the law then he wouldn't have any sins and would be just--righteous--in the eyes of God. Again where is this flaw you are speaking about?


In the OT, the Jews were not sinless, but the LAW spelled out what to do about their sins--sacrifice a special animal, for example. This was symbolic of Jesus' sacrifice that would actually make justification possible.
The law included the LAWS that they were commanded to obey and if they obeyed those laws then they would be justified.

[nrajeffreturns]

The law included the LAWS that they were commanded to obey and if they obeyed those laws then they would be justified.
But one of the laws was to offer sacrifices for people's sins or violations of the Law. Do sinless people need sacrifices made for their sins?

[James Banta]

But one of the laws was to offer sacrifices for people's sins or violations of the Law. Do sinless people need sacrifices made for their sins?

Nope just like in the minds of the LDS a sinless person wouldn't need baptism. but in not submitting to it a sinless person would become a sinner.. So obedience to the Law is required in order to remain sinless. So the sacrifices as proscribed are still required.. Then there is the fact that no one, save Jesus, is without sin.. so this question in without merit.. IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

dberrie-----***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.



Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anything salvational. But yet, if the testimonies of Christ, the Early Church Fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.


Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post---T i t u s 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,


That's not going to help your cause--if the "washing of regeneration" in ***us3:5 is defined as water baptism--then water baptism is connected to salvation:---"he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,"

Bump for anyone

[Billyray]

That's not going to help your cause--if the "washing of regeneration" in ***us3:5 is defined as water baptism--then water baptism is connected to salvation:---"he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,"

T i t u s 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Where in this verse does it mention water baptism? It does nothing to help your case to bring up water baptism when you use a verse that says nothing about water baptism.

[dberrie2000]

T i t u s 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Where in this verse does it mention water baptism? It does nothing to help your case to bring up water baptism when you use a verse that says nothing about water baptism.

Both rebirth and regeneration was viewed as water baptism by the Early Church Fathers:

The Early Church Fathers were unanimous about what being born again and regeneration involved:


ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (inter A.D. 148-155)

Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)

================================================== ========
ST. IRENAEUS (c. A.D. 190)

"And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven times in the Jordan" [2 Kings 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Fragment 34)

================================================== ======================
TERTULLIAN (inter A.D. 200-206)

A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous.....taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed.....Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. (On Baptism 1:1; 5:6; 7:2)

...no one can attain salvation without Baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says: "Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life." (On Baptism 12:1)

================================================== ======================
RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT (c. A.D. 221)

But you will perhaps say, "What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?" In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so ...you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true Prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: "Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water....he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Recognitions 6:9)

================================================== ========
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)

[When] they receive also the Baptism of the Church...then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God...since it is written, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Letters 71[72]:1)[It] behooves those to be baptized...so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only Baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God...because it is written, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Letters 72[73]:21)

================================================== ======================
SEVENTH COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (c. A.D. 256)

And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, "Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." ...Unless therefore they receive saving Baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.
================================================== ========
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. A.D. 350)
If any man does not receive Baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive the kingdom....for the Savior calls martyrdom a Baptism (cf. Mark 10:38) ...Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and come up made alive in righteousness. (Catechetical Lectures 3:10,12)

Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul....When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter.

And He says, "Unless a man be born again" -- and He adds the words "of water and of the Spirit" -- "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven.

A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.

(Catechetical Lectures 3:4)

================================================== ======================
ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. A.D. 330 - 379)

For prisoners, Baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a protector royal, a gift of adoption. (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects: On Baptism 13:5)

This then is what it means to be "born again of water and Spirit" : just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:11-13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and in an equal number of invocations the great mystery of Baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water but from the Spirit's presence there. (On the Holy Spirit 15:35)

================================================== ======================
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. A.D. 333 - 397)

The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ's blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in Baptism -- Col 2:11-13] so that he can be saved...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of Baptism...."Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (On Abraham 2:11:79,84)

You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood and the Spirit [1 John 5:8]: and if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for "unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (On the Mysteries 4:20)

================================================== ========
APOSTOLIC CONS***UTIONS (c. A.D. 400)

Be ye likewise contented with one Baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:11-13]...he that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven." And again, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be ****ed." (6:3:15)




Were the early church fathers wrong? Billyray--if this is true--your postulations are false--and so is your theology.

[Billyray]

Both rebirth and regeneration was viewed as water baptism by the Early Church Fathers:

T i t u s 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Where in this verse does it mention water baptism? It does nothing to help your case to bring up water baptism when you use a verse that says nothing about water baptism.

[dberrie2000]

T i t u s 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Where in this verse does it mention water baptism? It does nothing to help your case to bring up water baptism when you use a verse that says nothing about water baptism.

***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.

[Billyray]

***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"


Where in this verse does it mention water baptism?

[Billyray]

Were the early church fathers wrong?
Do you believe the early church fathers OR just selectively?

[dberrie2000]

Where in this verse does it mention water baptism?

***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post-----Both rebirth and regeneration was viewed as water baptism by the Early Church Fathers:

The Early Church Fathers were unanimous about what being born again and regeneration involved:


ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (inter A.D. 148-155)

Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)

================================================== ========
ST. IRENAEUS (c. A.D. 190)

"And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven times in the Jordan" [2 Kings 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Fragment 34)

================================================== ======================
TERTULLIAN (inter A.D. 200-206)

A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous.....taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed.....Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. (On Baptism 1:1; 5:6; 7:2)

...no one can attain salvation without Baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says: "Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life." (On Baptism 12:1)

================================================== ======================
RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT (c. A.D. 221)

But you will perhaps say, "What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?" In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so ...you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true Prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: "Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water....he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Recognitions 6:9)

================================================== ========
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)

[When] they receive also the Baptism of the Church...then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God...since it is written, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Letters 71[72]:1)[It] behooves those to be baptized...so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only Baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God...because it is written, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Letters 72[73]:21)

================================================== ======================
SEVENTH COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (c. A.D. 256)

And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, "Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." ...Unless therefore they receive saving Baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.
================================================== ========
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. A.D. 350)
If any man does not receive Baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive the kingdom....for the Savior calls martyrdom a Baptism (cf. Mark 10:38) ...Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and come up made alive in righteousness. (Catechetical Lectures 3:10,12)

Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul....When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter.

And He says, "Unless a man be born again" -- and He adds the words "of water and of the Spirit" -- "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven.

A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.

(Catechetical Lectures 3:4)

================================================== ======================
ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. A.D. 330 - 379)

For prisoners, Baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a protector royal, a gift of adoption. (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects: On Baptism 13:5)

This then is what it means to be "born again of water and Spirit" : just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:11-13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and in an equal number of invocations the great mystery of Baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water but from the Spirit's presence there. (On the Holy Spirit 15:35)

================================================== ======================
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. A.D. 333 - 397)

The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ's blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in Baptism -- Col 2:11-13] so that he can be saved...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of Baptism...."Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (On Abraham 2:11:79,84)

You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood and the Spirit [1 John 5:8]: and if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for "unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (On the Mysteries 4:20)

================================================== ========
APOSTOLIC CONS***UTIONS (c. A.D. 400)

Be ye likewise contented with one Baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:11-13]...he that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven." And again, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be ****ed." (6:3:15)


Do you believe the early church fathers OR just selectively?

It's certainly strong evidence when they are in unison about water baptism being the born again experience referenced in John3:5--and the point of regeneration. Do you have any early church fathers that disagreed with that?

[Billyray]

It's certainly strong evidence when they are in unison about water baptism being the born again experience referenced in John3:5--and the point of regeneration.
And so your answer to my question "Do you believe the early church fathers OR just selectively?" is. . .?

I am still waiting.

[Billyray]

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html

Could you provide me with a link that works?

Now to address your post. The above quotes that you gave me were from modern day writers. Since I can give you a list of writers who say that T-itus 3:5 is NOT speaking about water baptism how do you determine which list is correct?

[nrajeffreturns]

And so your answer to my question "Do you believe the early church fathers OR just selectively?" is. . .?
I am still waiting.
A bad question. You need to make it logical, and say "Do you believe everything that[ B] every [/B] church father taught?"

I personally answer that question with a simple "no."

[Billyray]

A bad question. You need to make it logical, and say "Do you believe everything that[ B] every [/B] church father taught?"

I personally answer that question with a simple "no."
So which parts do you believe and which parts do you reject and what is the basis for that decision?

[nrajeffreturns]

So which parts do you believe and which parts do you reject and what is the basis for that decision?

The way I decide is: I alternate between even and odd page numbers--even number = believe, odd number = reject. I considered playing "rock, paper, scissors" to decide, but I ruled it out as a reliable choosing method.

[Billyray]

The way I decide is: I alternate between even and odd page numbers--even number = believe, odd number = reject. I considered playing "rock, paper, scissors" to decide, but I ruled it out as a reliable choosing method.
Or you could just do what DB does and try to find anyone who agrees with his preconceived ideas and reject everyone else who does not. But I would hope that you would not stoop to that level.

[nrajeffreturns]

Or you could just do what DB does and try to find anyone who agrees with his preconceived ideas and reject everyone else who does not. But I would hope that you would not stoop to that level.

Isn't that what the more vocal of the antis typically do? They already have their preconceived Trinitarian and Calvinistic beliefs--in other words, they have already decided that no matter what anyone says, Trini-Calvinism is the gospel truth. Then they look for authors who wrote books supporting those beliefs, and then cite them as "proof" that their beliefs are true and vindicated.

If you believe that the Earth is round, and someone challenges your belief, isn't it normal to respond by looking for data that supports YOUR belief ?

[James Banta]

Isn't that what the more vocal of the antis typically do? They already have their preconceived Trinitarian and Calvinistic beliefs--in other words, they have already decided that no matter what anyone says, Trini-Calvinism is the gospel truth. Then they look for authors who wrote books supporting those beliefs, and then cite them as "proof" that their beliefs are true and vindicated.

If you believe that the Earth is round, and someone challenges your belief, isn't it normal to respond by looking for data that supports YOUR belief ?

Are a Christian beliefs really preconceived? Each one of us have had to reconcile what we believe to the Bible.. I have to come to grips with the Biblical doctrine explained in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Jesus was made to become sin, so we can become the righteousness of God in Him.. And John 6:37 where we see that all that the Father has will come to Him and those that come He will in no wise cast out.. This clearly teaches us that there are many that are not the Father's but those that are are given to Jesus and He make it known that those will never lose their place with Him..

These are two major points of Calvinism that agree with the Bible.. What does mormonism teach on this subject.. We must show our obedience to God in order to gain His forgiveness. That makes forgiveness something we must earn. Mormonism teaches that we are all God's children by right of spiritual birth yet right there in John 6:37 we see that all that the Father has come to Jesus.. By the fact that all don't come to Jesus we see that the Father never had many of the children of men.. How can that be if we are ALL His children?

No, the Christian beliefs are not preconceived. These beliefs must be personally acquired.. In mormonism most are hand feed their unique doctrines from the time they can talk, singing "I am a child of God".. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Isn't that what the more vocal of the antis typically do? They already have their preconceived Trinitarian and Calvinistic beliefs--in other words, they have already decided that no matter what anyone says, Trini-Calvinism is the gospel truth. Then they look for authors who wrote books supporting those beliefs, and then cite them as "proof" that their beliefs are true and vindicated.

Jeff I use the Bible to support my position. Contrast this with DB who cherry picks extra Biblical sources to try and support his position.

[Billyray]

Jeff I use the Bible to support my position. Contrast this with DB who cherry picks extra Biblical sources to try and support his position.
And I guess I should not let you get off the hook for doing the exact same thing DB does, as noted in your post below.

The books canonized in the NT were chosen partly as a way to share the basic good news of the gospel with the general public. Esoteric doctrines and rituals that were meant only for those who were more grown up in the gospel, and ready for advanced stuff, were left out of the NT.

So the answer is "no." But OTHER early Christian documents DO refer to such "secret" Christian practices as vicarious ordinances for dead people, and marriage ceremonies meant to last after death.

[nrajeffreturns]

Jeff I use the Bible to support my position.
You use YOUR favorite interpretation of certain Bible verses to support your position. That's not really the same as using the Bible to support it.


Contrast this with DB who cherry picks extra Biblical sources to try and support his position.
Using extrabiblical sources to teach you what early Christians believed is a great thing to do, because otherwise, you might go on believing that early Christians believed the same as you do.

[Billyray]

You use YOUR favorite interpretation of certain Bible verses to support your position. That's not really the same as using the Bible to support it.

Bible verses if from the Bible Jeff. Contrast this to what we were talking about which was that you and DB cherry pick from extra Biblical sources to support your position.



Using extrabiblical sources to teach you what early Christians believed is a great thing to do, because otherwise, you might go on believing that early Christians believed the same as you do.
Using (extra LDS scripture) sources to teach you what early (Mormons) believed is a great thing to do, because otherwise, you might go on believing that early (Mormons) believed the same as you do.

[dberrie2000]

Could you provide me with a link that works?

http://www.truthmagazine.com/what-is-the-washing-of-regeneration

[Billyray]

Could you provide me with a link that works?

http://www.truthmagazine.com/what-is-the-washing-of-regeneration
Thanks. Now can you address the rest of my post which is reproduced below?

Could you provide me with a link that works?
. . .The above quotes that you gave me were from modern day writers. Since I can give you a list of writers who say that T-itus 3:5 is NOT speaking about water baptism how do you determine which list is correct?

[nrajeffreturns]

Bible verses if from the Bible Jeff. Contrast this to what we were talking about which was that you and DB cherry pick from extra Biblical sources to support your position.
What's wrong with using statements by Early Church Fathers where they support our beliefs?


Using (extra LDS scripture) sources to teach you what early (Mormons) believed is a great thing to do, because otherwise, you might go on believing that early (Mormons) believed the same as you do.
I haven't really stated that I believe exactly the same as they did, so your retort has little impact.

[Billyray]

What's wrong with using statements by Early Church Fathers where they support our beliefs?

Because you don't believe their words are scripture. Tell me how do you decide what parts that they say are true and what parts that they say are false?


I haven't really stated that I believe exactly the same as they did, so your retort has little impact.

Isn't it fair to use early LDS leader's writings to so that what you believe is false?

[Billyray]

Using (extra LDS scripture) sources to teach you what early (Mormons) believed is a great thing to do, because otherwise, you might go on believing that early (Mormons) believed the same as you do.


I haven't really stated that I believe exactly the same as they did, so your retort has little impact.
Then would it to be fair to say that the early LDS church leaders were false teachers?

[James Banta]

Then would it to be fair to say that the early LDS church leaders were false teachers?

If what they have taught is questioned, and the answers given to any other LDS differs with what the leadership has spoken. There is only two other sources for the errant teachings..

1. It came out of their own hearts.. (How many times have we shown them Jer 17:9, the heart is deceitful above all things?) And this is the good choice..
2. It is the lie of Satan as he tries to destroy the work of God..

But what is taught by the "brothern" about following the prophet?

There are some of our members who practice selective obedience. A prophet is not one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose. However, some members become critical and suggest the prophet should change the menu. A prophet doesn’t take a poll to see which way the wind of public opinion is ****ing. He reveals the will of the Lord to us. (Follow the Prophet, Glenn L. Pace, Second Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, Follow the Prophet, April Conference 1989)..

Either mormonism has changed since 1989 or Jeff is one of the members of the LDS church of whom Bishop Pace was speaking. He must practice "selective obedience". Isn't "selective obedience" just another name for DISOBEDIENCE? No matter such "selective obedience" has been practiced in the LDS church from the day Smith as he was caught in his womanizing (Oops, I should say plural marriages) that started with the affair he had with the Smith familie's 16 year old house maid in 1833 (IN SACRED LONELINESS: THE PLURAL WIVES OF JOSEPH SMITH, Compton, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1997).. Oliver Cowdery, felt the relationship was something other than a marriage. He referred to it as “A dirty, nasty, filthy affair" (Letter written by Oliver Cowdery and recorded by his brother Warren Cowdery; in The Mormon Kingdom, vol. 1, p. 27)... To calm rumors regarding Fanny’s relationship with Joseph, the church quickly adopted a “Chapter of Rules for Marriage among the Saints”, which declared, “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with...polygamy; we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife...” This “Article on Marriage” was canonized and published in the Doctrine & Covenants, Section 101 of the 1833 edition. In 1852, the doctrine of polygamy was publicly announced, thus ending eighteen years of secret practice. “The Article on Marriage” became obsolete but wasn't removed from the D&C until 1876.

God allowed contradiction to be taught as the belief and standard of His church? Not our God and not our Church.. Maybe Jeff is the only LDS actually telling the truth about "following the prophet" It should come in a distant second to what the Holy Spirit teaches through His word.. IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

Thanks. Now can you address the rest of my post which is reproduced below?

Could you provide me with a link that works?
. . .The above quotes that you gave me were from modern day writers. Since I can give you a list of writers who say that T-itus 3:5 is NOT speaking about water baptism how do you determine which list is correct

But not the first Early Church Father--they all believed regeneration took place in water baptism, as the born again experience. Nor in the link I provided:

http://www.truthmagazine.com/what-is...f-regeneration