King is not part of his name.
It's a rank. Or honor.
This conversation must end.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Salvation through baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.
- Thread starter justbyfaith
- Start date
It's a rank. Or honor.
This conversation must end.
Paul E. Michael
Member
LOL
Paul E. Michael
Member
It's hilarious that nobody wants to answer this elementary Yes/No question. Because I am a rationally-thinking person, I can answer it correctly very easily:
Yes, the set of words, "King Charles", is a set of words by which a person (namely, King Charles) is known, addressed, and referred to. Thus, according to the dictionary, the set of words, "King Charles", IS A NAME.
So, is the set of words, "the Father", a "set of words by which a person...is known, addressed, or referred to"? Yes or No? If it is, then the dictionary I've been quoting tells us that the set of words, "the Father", is a name. Wouldn't you agree?
Remember: Pointing out that the set of words, "the Father", is a title is never going to make go away the dictionary-attested fact that the set of words, "the Father", is a name. Same is true for the set of words, "the Son", and for the word, "Christ".
Paul E. Michael
Member
To claim that the word "Christ" is not a name is to claim that it is not a title, since to be a title is to be "a name that describes someone's position or job." So, every time you claim that the word "Christ" is not a name, you are thereby claiming that the word "Christ" is not a title.
justbyfaith
DO YOU FEEL THESE POSTS ABOUT NAMES HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR OP?
IF SO, DUE TO THE WORDING OF THE OP, THIS CAN CONTINUE.
IF NOT, PLEASE GET BACK TO TOPIC OR THIS THREAD WILL BE CLOSED DOWN.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD.
PLEASE REPLY IN TALK WITH THE STAFF.
THANKS.
DO YOU FEEL THESE POSTS ABOUT NAMES HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR OP?
IF SO, DUE TO THE WORDING OF THE OP, THIS CAN CONTINUE.
IF NOT, PLEASE GET BACK TO TOPIC OR THIS THREAD WILL BE CLOSED DOWN.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD.
PLEASE REPLY IN TALK WITH THE STAFF.
THANKS.
True, but my salvation hinges on my actions.
As does yours on your actions.
Again, I think that you are, here, arguing about the meaning of words; which we are commanded not to do.
1Ti 6:3, If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4, He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
1Ti 6:5, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
2Ti 2:14, Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
As I said to you before, when I speak of a name, I am talking about the name of a person, such as "Mary" or "John". Mary may be both a mother and a daughter, and in that, her name would not be "mother" or "daughter"; it would be "Mary". "mother" or "daughter" is her title that defines her relationship with either her parents or her children.
Even in your definition, the term "title" does not apply to the name of a person such as "Mary" or "John" but is defined as a name that describes someone's position or job." This definition excludes names as they apply to the person's actual name; such as "Mary" or "John".
Salvation hinges on our faith.
For we are certainly not redeemed through our obedience, works, personal merits, or attempting to keep the law.
Rom 4:16 (nlt), So the promise is received by faith. It is given as a free gift. And we are all certain to receive it, whether or not we live according to the law of Moses, if we have faith like Abraham’s. For Abraham is the father of all who believe.
Gal 3:10 (kjv), For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
To reconcile the apparent contradiction, wherein it says in the first verse that we receive the promise by faith whether or not we live according to the law; while the second verse seems to condemn living by the law.
It is not living by the law that would bring condemnation, but trusting in the law to save you that would do the trick.
I can live according to the law of Moses, and if my faith is in Jesus Christ and what He did for me on the Cross, I am not condemned for living by the law.
But if or when I begin to trust that I am saved because of my law-keeping, behaviour, good works, or personal merit, that is when I lose it.
For in that, I am trusting in a competing element. Works, law-keeping, personal merit, and works are an alternative to faith when it comes to salvation. If I am trusting in them, then by definition, I cannot be trusting in Jesus Christ and what He did on the Cross to save me.
The question may arise, in light of the subject of this thread, Is not baptism in Jesus' Name an act of obedience? How then does it save?
The answer is, baptism in Jesus' Name serves as a point of contact for faith, as it is the condition of a conditional promise. God promises remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost to all those who repent and receive baptism in Jesus' Name for the remission of sins. So, in fulfilling the condition, we receive the promise. We are saved by it; not so much in that it is an act of obedience but in that it is a point of contact for faith.
Last edited:
There is one baptism according to scripture (Ephesians 4:5).
It is triune in nature:
1) water
2) Spirit
3) fire.
I think that there is a sense in which Paul E. Michael got the last word on the "names and titles" subject.
However, all of his contentions were answered by me previous to his last word; so all one has to do is remember what I said as concerning each of his arguments and they may come to the right conclusion.
However, all of his contentions were answered by me previous to his last word; so all one has to do is remember what I said as concerning each of his arguments and they may come to the right conclusion.
Having faith, or believing, are both actions we must do...to be saved.
Thank God we can make the choice to either obey, or disobey.
Each comes with a reward.
I see no contradiction.
The promise is received by faith.
The Jews, as a nation, were of the Law and not of faith.
Agreed, and now that you have been reborn of God's seed, you can live the Law's original ten commandments
You can't separate one from another.
By faith we can move mountains.
Faith and actions go hand-in-hand.
The antithesis of your POV above is that you can still be saved by faith without telling the truth, buying not stealing, or remaining monogamous.
Faith produced Law keeping.
The Law of Christ is to love God with all our strength, heart, and soul, and love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Yep, obedience to God saves.
Not only does it remit past sins, making your "temple" suitable for the residence of the Holy Spirit, but it also destroys the old man of the flesh so we can now walk in the Spirit. (Rom 6:6)
Faith without action is dead faith.
3Jo 1:11, Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
Here, we find that those who do good are saved and those who do evil are damned.
Salvation comes when we place our faith in Jesus and what He did for us on the Cross (1 Corinthians 15:1-4); and continue to believe thus.
Then, as the result, we are regenerated and renewed on the inside (Titus 3:5) so that we become inclined towards doing what is right and good.
But we are not saved by the doing of good deeds.
Rather, the salvation has to do with the fact that through faith, your heart has been changed from being deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9) to being honest and good (Luke 8:15) because God has sprinkled clean water on you (Ezekiel 36:25-27).
But even here, the catalyst for salvation is not doing good (see below).
So obedience does not = works, in your opinion?
Eph 2:8, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9, Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Last edited:
Nevertheless, it is not the action, but a living faith, that saves.
Rom 4:4, Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
If Abraham was saved because he offered his son Isaac on the altar, then salvation is owed to him by God.
Abraham's salvation was by faith apart from works (Romans 4:1-8).
Rom 4:5, But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Abraham's faith, apart from works, was counted to him for righteousness; and likewise, when we have faith, it is counted to us for righteousness, apart from works.
Now if we have a genuine faith, our hearts are changed from the inside out; and we will be inclined towards doing good works.
But what if we have received such a heart change; but then get run over by a bus on the way home from the church where we got saved?
Are we then consigned to hell?
I don't think so.
Even though there are no works attached to the faith that we received, we will go to heaven because it was a genuine faith, apart from works, that saved us.
If we had been allowed to live on, the living faith produced within us would no doubt have produced good works; and our faith would have then been shown to have been living.
But man looks on the outward appearance and God looks on the heart.
In the instance where a man receives genuine faith but then has no opportunity to do any good works, God sees the heart of that man, that his faith was genuine.
Likewise if someone is a parapalegic and cannot do good works as the result.
In the case of Joni Earickson Tada, was she saved because she painted paintings with the paintbrush in her teeth?
Were her paintings even anything that might be considered to have been of eternal value?
Perhaps, if somebody looked at one of them and gave their heart to Christ, it could be said yes.
But if not, why would the fact that she painted something with a paintbrush in her teeth be of any salvational value to her?
What matters for her is the fact that she believes in Jesus. If her paintings reveal to us that she has faith, then her faith is not dead because it has attached to it works that show that her faith is genuine.
But the works show her faith before man; not before God.
Even without those works, God knows whether or not her faith is genuine.
Rom 4:2, For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Abraham, because of his works, was justified and had whereof to glory, before men and not before God.
Because it is written,
Heb 4:13, Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
So, God looks into the inner recesses of Abraham's heart and determines that he has a genuine faith, apart from Abraham's work of offering Isaac on the altar.
Of course, even before God, Abraham's work proved that he had a genuine faith.
But God knew that his faith was genuine even before he offered his son on the altar.
As it is written,
Gen 15:5, And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Gen 15:6, And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Abraham believed at the juncture of Genesis 15:6, many years before he offered up Isaac.
When he offered up Isaac, Abraham affirmed his belief that his descendants (through Isaac) would be as the stars in heaven; because Isaac as yet had no progenitors; and Abraham's faith was such that he believed that He would even raise Isaac from the dead. He concluded that this was the only possibility because of God's promise in Genesis 15:5. So, he went through with the sacrifice; only God stopped him in the nick of time and Abraham did in fact receive Isaac back from the dead in a figure.
Hopeful,
Let us continue the discussion here:
christianforums.net
Let us continue the discussion here:
Salvation by grace through faith; not through works / law-keeping.
Hopeful. I am starting this thread so as not to continue to derail the baptism thread where we began this discussion.
Do you believe that John's baptism is/was the same as the baptism that Jesus offered, or I should say referred to in Matthew 28?
essentially. I believe that both baptisms were the same; in that they accomplished the same purpose.
In Luke 7:29-30, we find a principle that being baptized is conducive to having faith. In context, it was speaking of John's baptism. How much more when a person is baptized according to Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38?
IF both baptisms were the same, why would one be called the baptism of John and one the Baptism of Jesus?
Acts 19:1-6
1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
The above seems to indicate that there are two types of baptisms...
One by John for the forgiveness of sins
And one in the name (not form) of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and receiving of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, the name of Jesus does seem to confer the Holy Spirit...
I'm afraid that I don't know the answer to your question.
I do know that scripture teaches that there is one baptism (Ephesians 4:5).
As to why they had to be baptized again in the name of Jesus, I don't know.
Maybe John's baptism was according to Matthew 28:19; even according to titles.
And salvation comes only through a Name (Acts 4:10-12).
Without faith, there will be no "action".
Without action there is no faith.
They are inexorably entwined.
Nope.
Your hypothetical may just as well have been...While riding home after conversion, the man ignores some kids begging for food.
Is he really faithful?
You are correct.
God knows whose faith is true.
It is faith that is not hidden under a bushel.
Works don't save (Ephesians 2:8-9); that is the bottom line.
A living faith will produce works; and a dead faith will not save.
But it is not the works that are produced by a living faith, that save. It is the faith itself.
Also, I would suggest that you memorize the following verses.
Rom 4:5, But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6, Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,