dirtfarmer here

[Conqueror]

Are you able to tell me if one is justified by faith until works follow?

Or does that "dead faith" eventually leads to works?

Think carefully !!!!!

To me, "dead faith" is a phrase that describes having no faith, e.g. nonexistent faith, because their is no kind of faith that does not manifest (justify) works of the Spirit within.

If one doesn't immediately produce specific works
according to the will of the Father
after a having received life from Jesus,
then James teaches that this genuine faith is a dead faith.




.

 

[dirtfarmer]

Which just negated your idea of we dont works.

Are you perfect ,do you have sins thar God says repent of,renewing your mind,an unction to help the poor,the sick, the widows,orphanns,etc.a calling ?

Thats all in the commands we are to do one of these,son are called into ministries excusevely for

But if you don't confess and show a changed life,neither expect to see heaven.that's what Matthew 7 says

hello jasonc, dirtfarmer here

What sin or sins are not under the blood of Christ? The only one that I know of is unbelief, which cannot be applied to believers.

The relationship with God is secure for the believer. It is fellowship that can be hindered. God doesn't tell the believer to repent of their sins, but He does tell them to say the same as he does about them.

The change or translation of the believer from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear Son tells me that when God looks upon man he either sees that man still in Adam and in need of a savior or he sees the blood of Christ that paid the sin debt and that man without sin.

 

[jasonc]

hello jasonc, dirtfarmer here

What sin or sins are not under the blood of Christ? The only one that I know of is unbelief, which cannot be applied to believers.

The relationship with God is secure for the believer. It is fellowship that can be hindered. God doesn't tell the believer to repent of their sins, but He does tell them to say the same as he does about them.

The change or translation of the believer from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear Son tells me that when God looks upon man he either sees that man still in Adam and in need of a savior or he sees the blood of Christ that paid the sin debt and that man without sin.

If many says sin not ,the truth is not in him

If we do sin ,we have a propitiation that cleaned us from all.sin.

1 john 1:9

It sounds like God does inform us of sin to have us repent after the cross.

Jesus words about unforgiveness,

The parable of the servant who asked for time to pay his debt ,which was totally forgiven and yet didn't do the same,the man waa cast into debtors prison and a warning about not showing mercy .

Then there is the Lord's prayer, forgive us of our trespass as we forgive others.

Jesus telling the disciples they ought to pray like that.

Mathew

 

[Conqueror]

What sin or sins are not under the blood of Christ? The only one that I know of is unbelief, which cannot be applied to believers.

The lack of forgiveness of sin (Rev 18:5)
of the Mother of Harlots (Rev 17:5) is in stark contrast
to that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,
not imputing their trespasses to them (2 Corinthians 5:19).


For her sins have reached to heaven,
and God has remembered her iniquities (Rev 18:5).


.

 

[dirtfarmer]

If many says sin not ,the truth is not in him

If we do sin ,we have a propitiation that cleaned us from all.sin.

1 john 1:9

It sounds like God does inform us of sin to have us repent after the cross.

Jesus words about unforgiveness,

The parable of the servant who asked for time to pay his debt ,which was totally forgiven and yet didn't do the same,the man waa cast into debtors prison and a warning about not showing mercy .

Then there is the Lord's prayer, forgive us of our trespass as we forgive others.

Jesus telling the disciples they ought to pray like that.

Mathew

hello jasonc, dirtfarmer here

The answer is in the next post by Conqueror: post #104. 2 Corinthians 5:19

 

[jasonc]

hello jasonc, dirtfarmer here

The answer is in the next post by Conqueror: post #104. 2 Corinthians 5:19

applying to an unrevealed entity and those in it,

get out of her my people, if they didnt, they were judged as the lost. that means they had to stop being part of the whore of Babylon and part of the system, how can a person be called His people if he isn't saved already in the first place?

 

[Conqueror]

The lack of forgiveness of sin (Rev 18:5)
of the Mother of Harlots (Rev 17:5) is in stark contrast
to that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,
not imputing their trespasses to them (2 Corinthians 5:19).


For her sins have reached to heaven,
and God has remembered her iniquities (Rev 18:5).


.

applying to an unrevealed entity and those in it,

get out of her my people, if they didnt, they were judged as the lost. that means they had to stop being part of the whore of Babylon and part of the system, how can a person be called His people if he isn't saved already in the first place?

He causes (active verb) all, both small and great, rich and poor,
free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand
or on their foreheads (Re 13:16).

the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk (passive verb)
with the wine of the harlot's fornication (Rev 17:2).

The tradition of the Roman Canon has been forced upon all of Christendom.

The born-again are saved but not judged yet
for they didn't actively receive the poisonous darnel
in the Roman Canon (Mat 13:25).


.

 

[jasonc]

He causes (active verb) all, both small and great, rich and poor,
free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand
or on their foreheads (Re 13:16).

the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk (passive verb)
with the wine of the harlot's fornication (Rev 17:2).

The tradition of the Roman Canon has been forced upon all of Christendom.

The born-again are saved but not judged yet
for they didn't actively receive the poisonous darnel
in the Roman Canon (Mat 13:25).


.

so we should have left the protestant bible along with the rcc, as the idea of the trinity, the basic bible and also apostolic tradition goes back to at least the 4th century. im not into the idea of the later but I do know its tradition, the bible was assembled pre roman catholic and they took the early church stuff and passed it along, no church is immune to going south.

the older English bibles have the apochrypha, tyndales and the kjv did. the Lutherans taught it as something to read and not necessarily insipired, the Maccabees was history and taken accordingly to know the account of the revolt.

 

[Conqueror]

He causes (active verb) all, both small and great, rich and poor,
free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand
or on their foreheads (Re 13:16).

the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk (passive verb)
with the wine of the harlot's fornication (Rev 17:2).

The tradition of the Roman Canon has been forced upon all of Christendom.

The born-again are saved but not judged yet
for they didn't actively receive the poisonous darnel
in the Roman Canon (Mat 13:25).


.

so we should have left the protestant bible along with the rcc, as the idea of the trinity, the basic bible and also apostolic tradition goes back to at least the 4th century. im not into the idea of the later but I do know its tradition, the bible was assembled pre roman catholic and they took the early church stuff and passed it along, no church is immune to going south.

the older English bibles have the apochrypha, tyndales and the kjv did. the Lutherans taught it as something to read and not necessarily insipired, the Maccabees was history and taken accordingly to know the account of the revolt.

The poisonous darnel is all books
which weren't written by foundational prophets and apostles (Eph 2:20)
like the NT Mark, Luke (Acts), Hebrews, James and Jude.

No one forced the Apocrypha upon Protestants or the born-again.

.

 

[jasonc]

The poisonous darnel is all books
which weren't written by foundational prophets and apostles (Eph 2:20)
like the NT Mark, Luke (Acts), Hebrews, James and Jude.

No one forced the Apocrypha upon Protestants or the born-again.

.

okay, yet the early church had them, origin and so forth put that together as canon. you can look it up. the oldest bible that was the basis for the English translation for the nt is the vulgate(the greek used for the English bibles to date was given to us by Erasmus a catholic) most modern bibles still use his work. the tanach used the jewish mss. the order of the books was given by the early church in the 4th century.

im not saying they are canon just that if you are going to blast that church, be aware of how many of the priest in it that gave us good bibles. the greek used for the kjv and others came from a contemporary of luther. yet never left the church of rome, he wanted like luther to reform it but wasn't soo keen on leaving it.

 

[Conqueror]

The poisonous darnel is all books
which weren't written by foundational prophets and apostles (Eph 2:20)
like the NT Mark, Luke (Acts), Hebrews, James and Jude.

No one forced the Apocrypha upon Protestants or the born-again.

.

be aware of how many of the priest in it that gave us good bibles.

The Roman Canon is a compilation of knowledge of good and evil.

Adam was denied access to the Tree of Life
for digesting knowledge of good and evil from other sources.



.

 

[Walpole]

i fully understand baptism and it does not save us baptism is following Jesus .we go to the watery Grace (symbolic only) we are buried under the water . we arise resurrected (symbolic ) i this among some of the baptist they want numbers in baptism... one should not rush into baptism there should be a teaching on it first. so the candidate understands... i want to see numbers on conversion . good grief some even think you have to be baptized into the church name. that is not a work this is why i say baptism could be considered a work... depending on how one looks at it... i know folks if asked of they are saved. well i was baptized at such and such time////

"...Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21)

 

[ezra]

"...Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21)

yes as i stated i understand the blood is the Atonement

 

[Conqueror]

"...Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 3:21

It is also possible to interpret ἐπερώτημα in 1 Pe 3:21 as meaning ‘pledge’ or ‘promise,’ in which case it may be classified under 33.288. Accordingly, the phrase συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν may be rendered as ‘a promise made to God from a good conscience.’ [Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996)].

Baptism - the fulfilment of a prior type -
is the answer of a previously regenerated
good conscience toward God (1 Pe 3:21),
through justification by faith.

.

 

[Walpole]

yes as i stated i understand the blood is the Atonement

Peter is not referencing blood in the passage I quoted. Rather, he is referencing water. He shows how the type / figure of baptism in the Old Testament (the deluge) saving Noah and the other seven points to and is fulfilled in the waters of Christian baptism.

 

[Walpole]

It is also possible to interpret ἐπερώτημα in 1 Pe 3:21 as meaning ‘pledge’ or ‘promise,’ in which case it may be classified under 33.288. Accordingly, the phrase συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν may be rendered as ‘a promise made to God from a good conscience.’ [Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996)].

Baptism - the fulfilment of a prior type -
is the answer of a previously regenerated
good conscience toward God (1 Pe 3:21),
through justification by faith.

.

Peter never says justification by faith in 1 Peter 3:21 nor anywhere else in his epistles.

And Christian baptism is most certainly the fulfillment of many Old Testament shadows / types / figures of it. (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21)

 

[Conqueror]

It is also possible to interpret ἐπερώτημα in 1 Pe 3:21 as meaning ‘pledge’ or ‘promise,’ in which case it may be classified under 33.288. Accordingly, the phrase συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν may be rendered as ‘a promise made to God from a good conscience.’ [Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996)].

Baptism - the fulfilment of a prior type -
is the answer of a previously regenerated
good conscience toward God (1 Pe 3:21),
through justification by faith.

.

Peter is not referencing blood in the passage I quoted. Rather, he is referencing water. He shows how the type / figure of baptism in the Old Testament (the deluge) saving Noah and the other seven points to and is fulfilled in the waters of Christian baptism.

Noah was already righteous before the deluge (Gen 6:9).
like the born-again were already justified by faith before their baptism.

Roman Catholics oppose that.


.

 

[ezra]

Peter is not referencing blood in the passage I quoted. Rather, he is referencing water. He shows how the type / figure of baptism in the Old Testament (the deluge) saving Noah and the other seven points to and is fulfilled in the waters of Christian baptism.

yup he is but as i stated the Blood is the Atonement not the water

 

[Conqueror]

Peter never says justification by faith in 1 Peter 3:21 nor anywhere else in his epistles.

And Christian baptism is most certainly the fulfillment of many Old Testament shadows / types / figures of it. (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21)

Noah was already righteous before the deluge (Gen 6:9).
like the born-again were already justified by faith before their baptism.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust,
that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh
but made alive by the Spirit (1 Pet 3:18 NKJV).

The narrative dictates that being made alive by the Spirit precedes baptism.

.

 

[Walpole]

yup he is but as i stated the Blood is the Atonement not the water

But the blood of the atonement is not what Peter is discussing. He is discussing water and baptism.

Perhaps you are unaware that it wasn't just blood Christ shed on Calvary...

"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." (John 19:34)

"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (1 John 5:6-8)

Baptism is efficacious only by virtue of the Cross.