What's new
By:
Filters
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!

"Christ is our Life"

Mungo said:
As you yourself said - and I agree:


But then, as you pointed out, it has to be received.
We receive the fruits of Jesus's saving work when we believe and are baptised.

You say there is nothing for us to do but believe.
Believing is something WE have to do




Baptism bring us into the New Covenant.
As I keep saying it is not baptism in itself that save us. Jesus saves us when we believe and are baptised.
Click to expand...
What you are doing is you are adding your works to the Gospel. This is what Catholics do. No doubt about it, you are going to in the "Lord, Lord, didn't we group" Matthew 7:21-23.
 
Robert Pate said:
What you are doing is you are adding your works to the Gospel. This is what Catholics do. No doubt about it, you are going to in the "Lord, Lord, didn't we group" Matthew 7:21-23.
Click to expand...
I'm not adding any works to the gospel any more than you are adding the work of believing.

Salvation is Jesus' work.
But, as you pointed out, it has to be received.
We receive it in baptism when we come to baptism with faith.
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
 
Mungo said:
I'm not adding any works to the gospel any more than you are adding the work of believing.

Salvation is Jesus' work.
But, as you pointed out, it has to be received.
We receive it in baptism when we come to baptism with faith.
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
Click to expand...
Paul says that salvation is by grace through faith and not that of ourselves, Ephesians 2:8.
 
Robert Pate said:
I agree with that, however, we are still sinners in our unredeemed, Adamic bodies, Romans 8:23. Spiritually, we are perfect and complete in Christ, Colossians 2:10. Physically, we are still sinners. Jesus is not interested in living another life through a sinner. Your doctrine is Roman Catholicism, See Hebrews 7:26.
Click to expand...
There's no doubt that Christ, by the Holy Spirit indwells the believer (1Co 6:19); the Spirit using the Life of Christ in us (Col 3:4).
 
netchaplain said:
There's no doubt that Christ, by the Holy Spirit indwells the believer (1Co 6:19); the Spirit using the Life of Christ in us (Col 3:4).
Click to expand...
I agree that we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, However, I don't think that there is any scripture that says that it is the life of Christ. The New Testament emphasis is that Christ is in heaven mediating his righteousness on our behalf.
 
Robert Pate said:
I agree that we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, However, I don't think that there is any scripture that says that it is the life of Christ. The New Testament emphasis is that Christ is in heaven mediating his righteousness on our behalf.
Click to expand...
It's ok but I already showed you that our life is now the Life of Christ's! (post 45 - Col 3:4). Christ "lives in us" (Gal 2:20) by the Spirit while He is in heaven (2Ti 1:1).

God bless!
 
Robert Pate said:
I agree with what you are saying. However, we do not possess the righteousness of Christ. It is to our account, reserved for us in heaven, 1 Peter 1:4.
Click to expand...
The point is that we have no righteousness because of the "old man" *sin nature). This is why Christ's righteousness is our righteousness. There is no other righteousness in existence for sinners. If it's not Christ's then there is none at all, for only Christ is righteous, but we are righteous in His righteousness.
 
netchaplain said:
The point is that we have no righteousness because of the "old man" *sin nature). This is why Christ's righteousness is our righteousness. There is no other righteousness in existence for sinners. If it's not Christ's then there is none at all, for only Christ is righteous, but we are righteous in His righteousness.
Click to expand...
I agree, but we don't have the righteousness of Christ yet. We are still here in our unredeemed Adamic bodies that are prone to sin, Romans 8:23. The righteousness of Christ is reserved for us in heaven, 1 Peter 1:4.
 
As I understand it, in Scripture, baptism is closely-linked with salvation in the way James indicated that works are linked with faith as a natural and inevitable expression or manifestation of faith. If one has "saving faith" - belief that anticipates corresponding positive action - it will inevitably find expression in the character of one's living. Works, then, can be said to be the final, natural by-product of faith. Baptism is the natural, inevitable extension of a saving faith into the realm of action; it is an expression of genuine, saving faith. In this sense, baptism is closely associated with conversion, though it is not necessary to salvation. This, however, is where a confusion occurs: the inevitability of the work of baptism in expression of one's saving faith is made more than it is, and becomes, in the minds of some, necessary to salvation.

But what is inevitable is not, therefore, necessary. I can own a lawnmower which I've purchased to cut my grass. If my lawn gets overgrown, and my lawnmower is working well, and I have the opportunity to cut the lawn, it is inevitable that I will run the mower over the lawn. But it is not necessary to my possession of my lawnmower to use it to cut the grass. If I never used my lawnmower to cut the lawn, I would still possess the mower. What is inevitable, then, is not always what is necessary.

This is the case with salvation and baptism: Baptism is inevitable (or ought to be) to salvation, but is not necessary to possessing salvation. These two things are so closely-related, like a lawnmower and cutting one's grass, that they often get made one-and-the-same thing. There are too many instances in Scripture, though, where faith and salvation are mentioned but not baptism. In fact, the vast majority of NT descriptions of salvation neglect to say anything about baptism. This is an odd thing, if baptism is essential, if it is necessary to one's salvation.
 
Tenchi said:
As I understand it, in Scripture, baptism is closely-linked with salvation in the way James indicated that works are linked with faith as a natural and inevitable expression or manifestation of faith. If one has "saving faith" - belief that anticipates corresponding positive action - it will inevitably find expression in the character of one's living. Works, then, can be said to be the final, natural by-product of faith. Baptism is the natural, inevitable extension of a saving faith into the realm of action; it is an expression of genuine, saving faith. In this sense, baptism is closely associated with conversion, though it is not necessary to salvation. This, however, is where a confusion occurs: the inevitability of the work of baptism in expression of one's saving faith is made more than it is, and becomes, in the minds of some, necessary to salvation.

But what is inevitable is not, therefore, necessary. I can own a lawnmower which I've purchased to cut my grass. If my lawn gets overgrown, and my lawnmower is working well, and I have the opportunity to cut the lawn, it is inevitable that I will run the mower over the lawn. But it is not necessary to my possession of my lawnmower to use it to cut the grass. If I never used my lawnmower to cut the lawn, I would still possess the mower. What is inevitable, then, is not always what is necessary.

This is the case with salvation and baptism: Baptism is inevitable (or ought to be) to salvation, but is not necessary to possessing salvation. These two things are so closely-related, like a lawnmower and cutting one's grass, that they often get made one-and-the-same thing. There are too many instances in Scripture, though, where faith and salvation are mentioned but not baptism. In fact, the vast majority of NT descriptions of salvation neglect to say anything about baptism. This is an odd thing, if baptism is essential, if it is necessary to one's salvation.
Click to expand...
Peter and several other of the apostles did not understand the Gospel and justification by faith. This caused some problems, Galatians 2:11-21. They had to learn the Gospel from Paul.
 
Robert Pate said:
Peter and several other of the apostles did not understand the Gospel and justification by faith. This caused some problems, Galatians 2:11-21. They had to learn the Gospel from Paul.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I'm not sure that this was so. I think, instead, that Peter was not as studied a man as Paul, being, after all, a fisherman. And so, he was less...equipped to navigate the pressures that came upon him from converted Jews who had not only a religious but cultural character to their Jewish identity and wanted to maintain the latter by maintaining the former. To cease the common, long-held religious practices of the Jews was to abandon what the Jews themselves believed, in no small part, made them distinct as God's Chosen People. I think Paul was better able to see (and explain) that Christ was the culmination, the fulfillment, of Jewish religious practice and prophecy, not an alien to them, carelessly overturning millennia-old Jewish culture. Peter understood the Gospel very well, giving a good rendering of it in Acts 2, long before Paul entered the Christian community. But, not being as well-schooled in all that Paul, as a former agent of the Sanhedrin and Pharisee, understood of Jewish doctrine and its fulfillment in the New Covenant, Peter had a difficult time not sympathizing with Jewish believers over Gentile ones and migrating into the Jewish beliefs and practices that had characterized all of his earlier life.
 
Tenchi said:
Hmmm...I'm not sure that this was so. I think, instead, that Peter was not as studied a man as Paul, being, after all, a fisherman. And so, he was less...equipped to navigate the pressures that came upon him from converted Jews who had not only a religious but cultural character to their Jewish identity and wanted to maintain the latter by maintaining the former. To cease the common, long-held religious practices of the Jews was to abandon what the Jews themselves believed, in no small part, made them distinct as God's Chosen People. I think Paul was better able to see (and explain) that Christ was the culmination, the fulfillment, of Jewish religious practice and prophecy, not an alien to them, carelessly overturning millennia-old Jewish culture. Peter understood the Gospel very well, giving a good rendering of it in Acts 2, long before Paul entered the Christian community. But, not being as well-schooled in all that Paul, as a former agent of the Sanhedrin and Pharisee, understood of Jewish doctrine and its fulfillment in the New Covenant, Peter had a difficult time not sympathizing with Jewish believers over Gentile ones and migrating into the Jewish beliefs and practices that had characterized all of his earlier life.
Click to expand...
The Gospel that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost had nothing to do with justification by faith. This is why he emphasized repentance and baptism, Acts 2:38. Peters Gospel was more about the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Acts 2:36. This is why he had a confrontation with Paul at the dinner, Galatians 2:11-21. He didn't understand the Gospel.
 
Robert Pate said:
The Gospel that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost had nothing to do with justification by faith.
Click to expand...

???

Acts 2:37-38 (NASB)
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

At the heart of justification is the atoning work of Christ who "became sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." In that Atonement, as Peter here correctly pointed out, God's forgiveness of the sinner for Christ's sake is obtained. To speak of the forgiveness of sins through Christ is, then, to speak of justification; for the latter doesn't exist without the former.

Robert Pate said:
he had a confrontation with Paul at the dinner, Galatians 2:11-21. He didn't understand the Gospel.
Click to expand...

No, I think it was much more what I described in my last post.
 
Last edited:
Tenchi said:
???

Acts 2:37-38 (NASB)
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

At the heart of justification is the atoning work of Christ who "became sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." In that Atonement, as Peter here correctly pointed out, God's forgiveness of the sinner for Christ's sake is obtained. To speak of the forgiveness of sins through Christ is, then, to speak of justification; for the latter doesn't exist without the former.



No, I think it was much more what I described in my last post.
Click to expand...
Paul had a confrontation with Barnabas and Peter, "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel" Galatians 2:14. They were not walking according to the Gospel because they didn't know what the Gospel was. They were still acting like law keeping Jews. James sent men to spy on them to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:12. Which means that James didn't understand the Gospel either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top