So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[ltwin]

Except, the baptists, the revivalists, and a number of others right?!

I don’t agree.

Wayne Grudem is a Calvinist and a Baptist. In his widely read and acclaimed Systematic Theology (p. 1145) he writes:

3. Believers Will Be Judged. In writing to Christians Paul says, “We shall all stand before the judgement seat of God. . . . Each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:10, 12). He also tells the Corinthians, “For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 2:6-11; Rev. 20:12, 15). In addition, the picture of the final judgment in Matthew 25:31-46 includes Christ separating the sheep from the goats, and rewarding those who receive his blessing.

He goes on to say that for true believers there will be no condemnation (Romans 8:1), but there are degrees of reward for believers. Furthermore, Pentecostal pastors Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. van Cleave write in their Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (p. 557):

A. Of the Believers
There are three aspects to the believer’s judgment. His first judgment took place at the cross: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (Jn. 12:31-32). In reality, the Cross is the judgment of all sin and of all sinners, including Satan. At the cross, the believer pleads guilty, confesses his sin, and identifies himself with Jesus, his substitute and Savior: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:9). Having been judged at the cross, the faithful will not stand judgement relative to their salvation, but rather relative to their rewards for service (Jn. 3:18; 5:24; Rom. 8:1, 33; 1 Thes. 5:9). The second aspect of the believers’ judgment is his continuing self-judgment. Paul wrote, “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world” (1 Cor. 11:31-32). This is a part of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life (Rom. 15:16; 1 Thes. 5:14-23; 2 Thes. 2:13; 1 Jn. 1:7-2:2).

The believer’s judgment before the judgment seat of Christ is not a judgment of condemnation, but that of determining the believer’s awards. It will take place at the coming of Christ (1 Cor. 4:5). . . .

 

[ltwin]

Please, don’t try to put words in our mouths.

I wasn’t trying to.

In the case of adults, that is true.

OK. I was never arguing that infant baptism was forced baptism to begin with. My comments were referring to adult baptism.

If you’re trying to show a contradiction in the case of infants, see my last post.

Well, I don’t see a biblical justification for distinguishing between what is required for adults versus infants. But I don’t see infant baptism as “forced” because parents have a right to raise their children in their own religion.

 

[stewstew03]

…

He goes on to say that for true believers there will be no condemnation (Romans 8:1)
…

What is a “true believer”? I read Romans 8:1 and it doesn’t offer any context for what a “true believer” might be.

 

[ltwin]

What is a “true believer”? I read Romans 8:1 and it doesn’t offer any context for what a “true believer” might be.

Someone who is truly in Christ Jesus. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom. Wheat and weeds, sheep and goats, and all that . . . I have to clarify “believer” because I know someone will most likely respond that “belief” is not enough to be saved . . . .

 

[Jon_S_1]

Someone who is truly in Christ Jesus. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom. Wheat and weeds, sheep and goats, and all that . . . I have to clarify “believer” because I know someone will most likely respond that “belief” is not enough to be saved . . . .

Something unknowable?

Or is this like the Mormons burning in the bosom?

 

[Telstar]

I wasn’t trying to.

OK, I believe you. I just wanted to be clear on that.

OK. I was never arguing that infant baptism was forced baptism to begin with. My comments were referring to adult baptism.

I wasn’t sure, because the term ‘forced Baptism’ might be misconstrued and applied to the Baptizing of babies, which is a completely different circumstance.

Well, I don’t see a biblical justification for distinguishing between what is required for adults versus infants. But I don’t see infant baptism as “forced” because parents have a right to raise their children in their own religion.

Let me ask you this. Do you think the Jews who still follow Mosaic Law are wrong to circumcise their sons as babies, or should they wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves? If you think they have a right to do it, because it was ordained by God, then why would it be any different for babies of Christians to be Baptized? (I’m pretty sure Baptism is much less painful for the baby.) Jewish boys are circumcised as a sign that they’ve been blessed to become a part of God’s chosen people (family). Do you think God wouldn’t want the same blessing for babies of Christians? We become adopted sons and daughters of God, through Baptism, and it’s the only way we become Christians. So, do our babies have to remain God’s ‘orphans’ until they’re old enough to ask Him to be adopted?

Also, why should the babies of any Christian be forced to wait to receive all of the other spiritual graces received in Baptism? It seems God would be making it much harder for Christians to join the ‘family of God’, if He would deny them Baptism until they can choose it for themselves. That just doesn’t make any theological sense to me.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think it can be either one. Somethings the Bible is silent about are beneficial and helpful while others would be inimical to the gospel.

Think about this, ltwin.

When you don’t have a canon for what to do when the Bible is silent about a particular event/practice/belief…what you end up doing is applying your own belief system to that particular event/practice/belief.

So, if you happen to believe that “A” is ok, then you can say, “The Bible is silent about ‘A’, so therefore it’s permitted.”

BUT!

If you happen to believe that “A” is objectionable, then you can say, “The Bible is silent about ‘A’ therefore it’s prohibited.”

**Since there is no canon for what we are to do when the Bible is silent, **that leaves all sorts of events/practices/beliefs to be left up to the individual to apply “Biblical principles” to these issues.

And…we all know that’s just another way to say, “I create a belief system after my own beliefs, not after what Christ commanded.”

That is a very problematic paradigm indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

What is a “true believer”? I read Romans 8:1 and it doesn’t offer any context for what a “true believer” might be.

And I’d like to know, in this paradigm, ltwin, can someone* think* he’s a true believer but actually be a faux believer?

 

[PRmerger]

Because Scripture is silent about it, it cannot be made binding on all Christians.

Is the above binding on all Christians?

It would seem that you are proposing that it is.

So where does Scripture tell us this?

Well, the Old Testament talks about dancing before the Lord in several places. It appears that in Israel it was an acceptable, if not common, way to worship God. At least one Psalm (Psalm 149) makes dancing a command:

2 Let Israel rejoice in their Maker;
let the people of Zion be glad in their King.
3 Let them praise his name with dancing
and make music to him with timbrel and harp.
4 For the Lord takes delight in his people;
he crowns the humble with victory.
5 Let his faithful people rejoice in this honor
and sing for joy on their beds.

Now, that does not necessarily mean that there has to be liturgical dancing. It simply means that, as far as Scripture is concerned, dancing as praise/worship is clearly not repugnant to God and that, in fact, he takes delight when his people rejoice in that way.

 

[ltwin]

Something unknowable?

It can be known. I think it has to be known. One of the most important goals of God’s plan of salvation is to re-establish fellowship between himself and us. Fellowship is not possible when there is no understanding or confidence regarding your relationship with another.

Believers are given assurance by:

The witness of the Spirit. “And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us” (1 John 3:23-24). “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Galatians 4:6). “Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself” (1 John 5:10).

The testimony of the Word of God. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36). “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24). “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

“[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. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’” (Romans 10:9-13).

Their possession of love for one another. “For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death” (1 John 3:11-14).

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us” (1 John 4:7-12).

Their obeying God’s commandments. “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked” (1 John 2:3-6). “Jesus answered him, ‘If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him’” (John 14:23).

The transformation that takes place. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Or is this like the Mormons burning in the bosom?

We aren’t told in Scripture anything about that. Sure, if someone comes to Christ, they likely will feel something. John Wesley wrote that his heart was “strangely warmed.” But the confidence that we have in Christ is greater than any feeling.

 

[ltwin]

Think about this, ltwin.

When you don’t have a canon for what to do when the Bible is silent about a particular event/practice/belief…what you end up doing is applying your own belief system to that particular event/practice/belief.

So, if you happen to believe that “A” is ok, then you can say, “The Bible is silent about ‘A’, so therefore it’s permitted.”

BUT!

If you happen to believe that “A” is objectionable, then you can say, “The Bible is silent about ‘A’ therefore it’s prohibited.”

**Since there is no canon for what we are to do when the Bible is silent, **that leaves all sorts of events/practices/beliefs to be left up to the individual to apply “Biblical principles” to these issues.

And…we all know that’s just another way to say, “I create a belief system after my own beliefs, not after what Christ commanded.”

That is a very problematic paradigm indeed.

I agree, for the most part (obviously, I believe that evangelical Christians are attempting to obey Christ’s commandments in just the same ways as Catholics believe they are attempting to obey Christ by being obedient to the Catholic Church).

The difference is that I see the Catholic Church doing the same thing that Protestant churches do (applying principles derived from the Bible, reason, experience and tradition to make sense out of the gospel), whereas you think the Catholic Church is doing something else and is always guaranteed to get the fundamental/important issues right.

Is the above binding on all Christians?

It would seem that you are proposing that it is.

So where does Scripture tell us this?

It’s true for me (and I would suspect most evangelicals in some form or another). This is because as Protestants we believe in Sola Scripture. The whole Protestant experiment is based on the proposition that the Bible can provide authority and guidance in all things normative for Christian life for the universal church. Obviously, that hasn’t happened yet for the basic reason that people tend not to agree on basic interpretations of the Bible.

But it also hasn’t happened yet because people attempt to make extra-biblical stuff normative expressions or requirements of Christianity. The Bible is the measuring stick for me. If someone comes up to me and says, “You must do A” then my question would be where is A in the Bible? If I can’t find A in the Bible, then it is not universal and normative for all Christians. That doesn’t mean that A is wrong or sinful (maybe it is if it actually contradicts what the Bible says), but it does mean that there is no biblical authority for imposing A on me or other Christians.

But I want to clarify that I am not proposing a hard and fast rule either way concerning “where Scripture is silent.” Something that Scripture is silent on is not necessarily forbidden nor permitted. But if Scripture is silent about it, it certainly can’t become a universal or normative mandate for all Christians. That’s the way I see it.

 

[ltwin]

And I’d like to know, in this paradigm, ltwin, can someone* think* he’s a true believer but actually be a faux believer?

Yes, I think it is. I’m impressed by how John Piper explains this (even though I have my differences with Piper’s Calvinism).

This boils down to whether I have saving faith.What makes this agonizing - for many in the history of the church and today - is that there are people who think they have saving faith but don’t. For example, in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

So the agonizing question for some is: do I really have saving faith? Is my faith real? Am I self-deceived? Some well-intentioned people try to lessen the problem by making faith a mere decision to affirm certain truths, like the truth: Jesus is God, and he died for my sins. Some also try to assist assurance by denying that any kind of life-change is really necessary to demonstrate the reality of faith. So they find a way to make James 2:17 mean something other than what is seems to mean: “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead.” But these strategies to help assurance backfire. They deny some Scripture; and even the minimal faith they preserve can be agonized over and doubted by the tormented soul. They don’t solve the problem, and they lose truth. And, perhaps worst of all, they sometimes give assurance to people who should not have it.

This is only a snippet of a short article, “The Agonizing Problem of the Assurance of Salvation.” He goes on to discuss what true assurance of salvation is.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, I think it is. I’m impressed by how John Piper explains this (even though I have my differences with Piper’s Calvinism).

This is only a snippet of a short article, “The Agonizing Problem of the Assurance of Salvation.” He goes on to discuss what true assurance of salvation is.

And yet in the Catholic Church we are given assurance. And it all makes clear sense, but people reject our belief on the altar of sacramental rejection. They are then left lost wandering the wilderness , blown here and there by the wind.

 

[ltwin]

And yet in the Catholic Church we are given assurance. And it all makes clear sense, but people reject our belief on the altar of sacramental rejection. They are then left lost wandering the wilderness , blown here and there by the wind.

That isn’t exactly true. I was just told that baptism does not automatically remove original sin in adults. There has to be an openness and sincerity on the part of the believer. There are conditions that a person must meet and if they don’t they are not in a state of grace. And even then I’ve heard Catholics on CAF comment that we can’t know for certain that we are saved until we die. So, I don’t see how Catholics have much more assurance than an evangelical would.

 

[Jon_S_1]

That isn’t exactly true. I was just told that baptism does not automatically remove original sin in adults. There has to be an openness and sincerity on the part of the believer. There are conditions that a person must meet and if they don’t they are not in a state of grace. And even then I’ve heard Catholics on CAF comment that we can’t know for certain that we are saved until we die. So, I don’t see how Catholics have much more assurance than an evangelical would.

If you sincerely approach baptism and after that repent of mortal sins after they are committed. You WILL go to heaven.

That’s it man…that’s the plan.

We don’t presume. That’s the difference. We don’t know our own future. We rest on the assurance of Christ’s promise.

 

[ltwin]

If you sincerely approach baptism and after that repent of mortal sins after they are committed. You WILL go to heaven.

So, you don’t think it possible that someone who is baptized and goes to confession could still somehow find themselves with false assurance?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So, you don’t think it possible that someone who is baptized and goes to confession could still somehow find themselves with false assurance?

Not if they are true to themselves, humble and sincere.

 

[stewstew03]

…
The Bible is the measuring stick for me… If I can’t find A in the Bible, then it is not universal and normative for all Christians. …[and it means] that there is no biblical authority for imposing A on me or other Christians.
…

Don’t you see, friend? The “bible as the measuring stick” (or norma normans non normata) is not in the Bible. And further, by declaring that the Bible alone is the final standard for the adjudication of all doctrine means you have made yourself your own authority (or your own Magisterium).

…but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth… 1 Tim 3:15 :bible1:

 

[ltwin]

Do you think the Jews who still follow Mosaic Law are wrong to circumcise their sons as babies, or should they wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

They are not wrong. They are following their covenant with God.

If you think they have a right to do it, because it was ordained by God, then why would it be any different for babies of Christians to be Baptized?

Because we have a better covenant. Our place in the covenant is not dependent on who our parents are or whether our physical flesh has been cut away or whether our bodies have been washed with water. This covenant is for all people, our hearts are circumcised, and we are washed clean by the Holy Spirit.

(I’m pretty sure Baptism is much less painful for the baby.)

Without a doubt.

Jewish boys are circumcised as a sign that they’ve been blessed to become a part of God’s chosen people (family).

Only we know that that outward sign does not make one part of God’s family. Circumcision is only of value to those who keep the law. For those who break it, their circumcision becomes uncircumcision. And those who are uncircumcised but keep the law are as if circumcized because circumcision is not outward but a matter of the heart.

Do you think God wouldn’t want the same blessing for babies of Christians?

I see no where in Scripture where we are commanded to baptize babies nor do I see in descriptions of baptism the purpose of making babies part of God’s family.

We become adopted sons and daughters of God, through Baptism, and it’s the only way we become Christians.

If by that you mean outward baptism I don’t agree. Like outward circumcision, outward baptism is not enough to make someone a Christian.

So, do our babies have to remain God’s ‘orphans’ until they’re old enough to ask Him to be adopted?

No, of course not. No evangelical I know of believes that infants are reduced to orphan status. Even if we wanted to “make” our children Christians, water baptism is not the means to do that. It is God’s grace that saves them a part from anything we can do ourselves.

Also, why should the babies of any Christian be forced to wait to receive all of the other spiritual graces received in Baptism?

Because the power of baptism is that the believer rises with Christ through faith. Baptizing them before they can have faith is really depriving them of what baptism is meant to be.

It seems God would be making it much harder for Christians to join the ‘family of God’, if He would deny them Baptism until they can choose it for themselves. That just doesn’t make any theological sense to me.

I guess it wouldn’t make sense if you think water baptism is what joins you to God’s family.

 

[benhur]

Jesus is a Jew in the line of David, therefore salvation is if the Jews.

Answer me this,

If Jesus intended for us to have no consensus on who he is, what he taught, etc…

Why did he teach anything at all?

Why did he have 12 disciples?

Shouldn’t he have just said- "believe I am God and be nice to each other " and call it day.

If he wanted his church to not declare truth in disputes, why teach Matt 18?

You are avoiding my point which is OK. It is interesting that those who do have consensus as to whom Jesus is are divided on lesser issues. Also with everything you are claiming for truth bearing you still would have division.and again you are missing my point…questioning the justification for the CC being infallible consensus making.