Altar Calls are

[CopticChristian]

Sorry, don’t know how much clearer it can be: " if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." I don’t think its so much that I’m “misquoting” him as that I’m taking what he says at face value.

Twin,

Read the introduction of the letter…

1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, **6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; **
**7to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: **Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

**  8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world**. 9For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you, 10always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you. 11For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; **12that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine. **13I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.

Why in the world would Paul plant a sentence that you have plucked out to believe that it is intended to be a message of getting saved when he clearly is writing to Christians, Christians in Rome, Christians that are called saints and Christians that he shares faith with. Do you need to get saved after you are saved?

It is clear that you don’t understand the letter to the Romans.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, don’t know how much clearer it can be: " if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." I don’t think its so much that I’m “misquoting” him as that I’m taking what he says at face value.

Catholics, of course, give a hearty amen! to the above verse in Scripture.

However, we also take at “face value” ALL of what God has revealed.

And as far as salvation, we proclaim that which the Bible proclaims, that we are saved

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

 

[CopticChristian]

Catholics, of course, give a hearty amen! to the above verse in Scripture.

However, we also take at “face value” ALL of what God has revealed.

And as far as salvation, we proclaim that which the Bible proclaims, that we are saved

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

By reading sentences in context:thumbsup:

and realizing that Paul in Chapter 6 pointed out long before he got to Chapter 10 how to get in on the action…

1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3Or do you not know that **all of us **who have been **baptized **into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin.

Amen and Amen…

There is that “all” of us as he pointed out in the introduction…

 

[ltwin]

Twin,

Read the introduction of the letter…

Why in the world would Paul plant a sentence that you have plucked out to believe that it is intended to be a message of getting saved when he clearly is writing to Christians, Christians in Rome, Christians that are called saints and Christians that he shares faith with. Do you need to get saved after you are saved?

It is clear that you don’t understand the letter to the Romans.

This isn’t news to me CopticChristian. I’m aware that Paul wrote letters to Christian churches. I’m also aware that he is not exorting the Roman Christians to get “saved” again. What he is doing is writing them a letter teaching them about the justification of Jew and Greek alike by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It would make sense that he would be talking to Christians. He must have thought it was important to write to them and explain these things to them so they would be perfected in the faith. All Christians are not theological scholars, not today and not in Paul’s time either.

 

[CopticChristian]

This isn’t news to me CopticChristian. I’m aware that Paul wrote letters to Christian churches. I’m also aware that he is not exorting the Roman Christians to get “saved” again. What he is doing is writing them a letter teaching them about the justification of Jew and Greek alike by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It would make sense that he would be talking to Christians. He must have thought it was important to write to them and explain these things to them so they would be perfected in the faith. All Christians are not theological scholars, not today and not in Paul’s time either.

twin,

From Romans 3-11 is a diatribe against Judaizing Christians, not a treatise on Justification…
It starts here with this…

1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

I read and when I see first, I expect a second and a third and if you read this I ask you to tell me when and where Paul says “first of all” and then “now second” and then"now lastly"…he never does…it is not until Romans 11

everything in between is against the Judiazing Christian or the Jew that wants to impose the Old Covenant on the New. Paul quotes the OT. You can search for yourself on the internet the various sources Paul uses in the OT for Romans, mostly Genesis, Deuterotonmy, Isaiah and Psalms…Richard Hays wrote a book on this…Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul found here on Amazon…

amazon.com/Echoes-Scripture-Letters-Paul-Richard/dp/0300054297#reader_0300054297

But the point is from Romans 3 right up until he gets here he is speaking to Judaizing Christians pleading with them to abandon the Old Covenant in light of the New and discussing the plight of the Jew and Israelite until he gets here and concludes this…

1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.

When you get to Romans 10 it has nothing to do with a formula to get saved…it has to do with telling them, you didn’t listent to the OT prophets, you did not listen to Moses…and you seem not to hear me…right before he gets to confess with your lips…he is quoting deuterotomy or the song of Moses…

5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,

So it isn’t a formula for getting saved…it is an appeal to the past that the Jews failed to heed and still don’t get, trying to impose the Old Covenant on the New…

 

[stewstew03]

Catholics, of course, give a hearty amen! to the above verse in Scripture.

However, we also take at “face value” ALL of what God has revealed.

And as far as salvation, we proclaim that which the Bible proclaims, that we are saved

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

:yup:

 

[gcharles]

Recognizing your baptism is neccessary. Of course you do if you’re an adult when baptized. Baptism as a baby is confirmed at confirmation or some other time in life when you accept Jesus Christ as the Savior and the only Savior. We’re saved by faith but active faith. That Greek word is better translated as ‘kinetic’ faith not dead inactive faith. Salvation is a mental assent. Jesus said be baptized and how can you argue with Him?
Mental assent +baptism +‘kinetic’ faith + repentance=Salvation

What’s scary is 2/3 of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. Youll understand by thinking this as a God event-not a human event.

 

[CopticChristian]

This isn’t news to me CopticChristian. I’m aware that Paul wrote letters to Christian churches. I’m also aware that he is not exorting the Roman Christians to get “saved” again. What he is doing is writing them a letter teaching them about the justification of Jew and Greek alike by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It would make sense that he would be talking to Christians. He must have thought it was important to write to them and explain these things to them so they would be perfected in the faith. All Christians are not theological scholars, not today and not in Paul’s time either.

Twin,

Forgive me. I neglected to acknowledge your point as to Justification by grace, through Faith in Christ. You are correct…Paul makes that point early in the letter by setting up his Judaizing/Christian audience with

6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS** DEEDS**: 7to those who by perseverance in **doing good **seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11For there is no partiality with God

and then

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the** doers **of the Law will be justified.

Once he beats them over the head with “doing”…he transitions into his main point…

25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the** uncircumcised** man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and** circumcision** are a transgressor of the Law? 28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and **circumcision is **that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

So he compares and contrasts doing with circumcision to drive home the point that the Old Covenant is outmoded and has meaning.

Then he transitions into this…

1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?

In Romans 4 he references their faith in Abraham and then drives the message home that they are children of Adam and not Abraham…in Romans 5

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

and then in Romans 6 drives the message home that the sin is cleansed by Baptism…

1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

When you get to Roman’s 10…who is Paul talking about “their salvation”?

1Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.

when you understand this and see how he pleads with OT passages like Joel, Isaiah, Deuterotomy and then Moses…you will see that confess with your lips is not a formula for getting saved…it is the same plea to those that stumbled mentioned in Romans 9…

33just as it is written,
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

Forgive me for not recognizing your point. You are correct.

 

[Koineman]

Not Biblical…

Quite right. They are a neo-tradition–something that has arisen in recent times and cannot be found in Scripture or church history.

This is somewhat off-topic, but: What I have found so ironic is that the very groups who reject the idea of sacraments actually have one in the altar call. It’s a type of ritual/something you do that (allegedly) produces a spiritual effect. Walk down the aisle, say the prayer, and presto! you are born again.

In fact, even the Bible we carry to church on Sundays is a kind of sacrament: It’s a material object that is a conduit for something spiritual.

Most Protestants who reject sacraments are actually closer to them than they know.

 

[JonNC]

=JRRTFAN;9256577] I don’t want to put words in a Lutheran’s mouth but my understanding is that Lutherans belive in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation, that the bread and wine remain bread and wine while at the same time Christ is present in them. This is not the same as Catholics and Orthodox believe, which is that there is no more bread and wine but is the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

Then you probably shouldn’t. Just kidding.

Lutherans reject consubstantiation, generally on the same grounds that we don’t confess Transubstantiation. What we do say is that Christ’s words tell us that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. It isn’t a mix of any sort. It isn’t impanation. It isn’t a new substance, as some in the past spoke of consubstantiation. We receive his body and blood with that which is seen, bread and wine. How what we see as bread and wine are actually the body and blood is a mystery.

I would also think that a Missouri Synod Lutheran would not agree with the pastor you met relative to female ordination.

This is true.

I think, before we can talk too much about reconciliation and reunification with Protestants they all ought to get reconciled with each other so we only have one set of Protestant theology with which to reconcile.

I think Rome is perfectly capable of dialoguing with different groups. I guess one could say before Lutherans reconcile with Rome, Rome ought to reconcile with Orthodoxy, but as I said, Rome seems quite capable to handle multiple dialogues.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Jon:

I think Rome is perfectly capable of dialoguing with different groups. I guess one could say before Lutherans reconcile with Rome, Rome ought to reconcile with Orthodoxy, but as I said, Rome seems quite capable to handle multiple dialogues.

Lord be with you Jon! How are you my friend? I agree with your above statement especially with Orthodoxy. I believe that would be huge for Christianity and I believe Lutherans and Anglicans would be the next big group and focus.

God Bless Jon and always a pleasure

 

[JonNC]

Jon:

Lord be with you Jon! How are you my friend? I agree with your above statement especially with Orthodoxy. I believe that would be **huge for Christianity **and I believe Lutherans and Anglicans would be the next big group and focus.

God Bless Jon and always a pleasure

And His blessings also with you.

You know me by now, and it won’t surprise you to hear me say a reconciliation between Rome and Orthodoxy would end the issue, because the issue of ecclesiology (read papal primacy) would be solved.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

And His blessings also with you.

You know me by now, and it won’t surprise you to hear me say a reconciliation between Rome and Orthodoxy would end the issue, because the issue of ecclesiology (read papal primacy) would be solved.

Jon

I agree. If Rome and Orthodoxy closed the “gap” we would make huge steps. Not an easy task,but certainly not impossible.

 

[JonNC]

I agree. If Rome and Orthodoxy closed the “gap” we would make huge steps. Not an easy task,but certainly not impossible.

With Him nothing is impossible. 1,000 years of division does make it difficult, though.

Jon