Michael Hranek wrote: Salvation by the Sovereign work of Jesus Christ
The only problem with your Roman Catholic method Michael, is that you don't allow Christ first but push your theology to the front with sinner decisionism.
The Pharisees had the same Roman problem and Jesus told them::- 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
The Arminian is todays Blind Guide. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous UNTO MEN, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Michael Hranek wrote: If they have already been made alive they have no need to come, to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved from their sins and to be made alive to God by God
Michael. Still selling the old Roman catholic salvation by works and blaspheming Christ, I see.
Your idolatry of the human free will is exposed by your own words again.
FYI The correct Biblical order of salvation is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)
Try and receive this Bible teaching Michael..... Ro 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is ENMITY AGAINST GOD: for it is NOT SUBJECT to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in THE FLESH CANNOT PLEASE GOD. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man HAVE NOT THE SPIRIT of Christ, HE IS NONE OF HIS. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Actually Gal 6:15 states, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."
So circumcision or not - is not important.
What is important is being born again.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Eph 1:4 According as *HE HATH CHOSEN* us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having *PREDESTINATED US* unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"
Faith is the gift of God.... Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast" = Human effort ie "works" is totally passive in coming to Christ, because of sin.
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD.
John UK wrote: what do you understand by Abraham's "seed"?
The answer to that question is in the same post.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: 1. circumcision changed into sprinkling 2. Scriptural baptism (immersion) of believers only
1. Eh? 2. Eh?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Circumcision ... -- has nothing to do with baptism.
Oh Jim. If only you Baptists could read the Bible. I'm worried about whether you really do have the Holy Spirit's guidance???
"Not only is circumcision a sign of the covenant, but it is a sign of faith. Romans 4:11 states that Abraham â€śreceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised.â€ť Paul describes circumcision as a sign of faith. This concept is quite consistent with the Old Testament understanding of circumcision. In the Old Testament, circumcision symbolized purification from defilement. Furthermore, the Old Testament routinely makes use of circumcision imagery to describe a change in the attitude of the heart towards serving and worshipping the living God." (S.J.Simmons)
John UK wrote: Are you changing your mind about Abraham's descendents?
I am not changing my mind about his descendants nor the terms of the Covenant of Grace, which are promised of God to Abraham's 'seed'.
Which 'seed' lived throughout the centuries and are alive today.
Apparently the PROMISE holds good and is extant today. "Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, WAS NOT TO Abraham, OR TO HIS SEED, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."
John UK wrote: Physical descendancy guarantees nothing when it comes to election.
John. Do you believe these words of God in promise to Abraham. Genesis 17:
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."
John UK wrote: Were/are all of Abraham's descendents saved?
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the FATHER OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be IMPUTED UNTO THEM also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but WHO ALSO WALK IN THE STEPS OF THAT FAITH of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, WAS NOT TO Abraham, OR TO HIS SEED, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
= The Elect/saved are those identified by the 'righteousness of faith' Those are Abraham's 'saved' descendants.
Ahem!! Aren't they the Calvinist Presbyterians, John.
John UK wrote: 1. Neo-Presbyterians tend to piggy-back on their 16th century theologians 2. Very few of them today actually study their Bible, preferring their catechisms 3. incorrect assumption that genealogy counts towards the covenant of grace 4. doctrine of predestination unto damnation
1. No you're wrong again John. As the proverb goes "Not often your right but your wrong again." Now let me edify you yet again on theology. Truth never changes. Truth written in the 16th century is the same truth in Scripture and the same truth today. The secret is the Holy Spirit's guidance per John 16:13. Thus when the Presbyterian reads the WCF for example he can identify its truth in accordance with Scripture doctrines. 2. Wrong again John. Our starting point is Scripture. We then with the help of the Holy Spirit perceive the factual and Biblical teachings of the confessions. 3. "incorrect assumption"??? You mean in John UK's estimation that GOD got it wrong in Genesis 17 when HE made His Covenant of Grace with Abraham. Oooohh John you will be punished for rebuking the Lord and dismissing HIS laws. 4. You would prefer it to be a 'nicer' teaching that when not elected by God they still get a happy experience???
"Q. Is there any record in the Bible where God forbade the children of believing parents the right of the outward seal of church membership in the church of the New Testament dispensation? A. No, there is not. But on the other hand, God has affirmed that the children of believing parents in the New Testament dispensation have the same right to the outward seal of membership in the church that the children of believing parents had in the Old Testament dispensation (Gal. 3:29; 1 Cor. 7:13-14; Mk. 10:13-14; Ac. 2:39)." (C.Z.Berryhill)
In short, yes. All the Protestant Reformers including Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin held to infant baptism. Though these three great Protestants disagreed on many things, they all agreed on the Protestant doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. They also agreed that infant baptism is a biblical practice and the best expression of the Protestant gospel. In fact, infant baptism has been the practice of the historic Christian church since the Apostolic period" (R.S.Clark)
Quote; "Here our concern is with the word baptizein, the Greek word usually translated in the New Testament as "to baptize." With the rise of the Anabaptists, this word also became a subject of debate."
Jim Lincoln wrote: But hey, be happy I or the author didn't use terms like those of a mythical animal that never existed such as unicorn!
Jim. You really need to brush up on your english language and the correct definition of words.
Hence FYI Unicorn:- early 13c., from Old French unicorne, from Late Latin unicornus (Vulgate), from noun use of Latin unicornis (adj.) "having one horn," from uni- "one" (see uni-) + cornus "horn" (see horn)."
This is what comes of using the nasb which is influenced by heretics and the vatican.