Really? What ELSE would one call it? How about communion? If not a ritual, what else should it be called?
Ritual defined:
a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order
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!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
If you believe you can lose your salvation, you are not saved!(explanation)
- Thread starter llama
- Start date
Ritual defined:
a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order
It's a logical fallacy because the Bible never teaches that.
This is kind of vague. How, specifically, does one "turn away from Satan, his power, and kingdom"?
Does this qualify as "turning away from Satan"?
While true, is this required for salvation?
Not because of lifestyle obedience, but because of our faith in Christ. Jn 1:12
What most, such as those who fail to accept the truth of OSAS, is that what is committed is not our lifestyle to God, but our very souls to God for salvation. That's what believing means; to trust, to entrust to. We are entrusting our souls to Christ for salvation. Anything less than that does not save. And there isn't anything one can commit to Christ in the sense of lifestyle or "living for Him" that will result in salvation, but salvation is "not of works, lest any man should boast". Eph 2:9
Yes. Through faith in Christ. Not through a changed lifestyle.
Amen. Well said Stan.
It is also good to distinguish between "good works" and the "work of obedience" which the scripture calls the obedience of faith.
JLB
Consider that it is necessary to continue to be justified as you continue to believe and obey.
As it is written -
The just will live by faith..,.That is to say from faith to faith.
JLB
No such thing as faith without obedience.
Your logical fallacy is you take parts of the Gospel message and cherry pick what your denomination has indoctrinated you to believe, and you explain away the rest of the whole counsel of God.
The way we are eligible to receive the forgiveness of sins is by repenting.
Your mistake is to think its impossible to "turn away" from God after you have turned to him.
JLB
The "obedience of faith" refers to placing one's full trust and reliance on Jesus Christ for salvation. Beyond that, it becomes an issue of how the child of God behaves. Not all believers behave all the time. In fact, NO believer behaves all the time, as proved by the FACT that all believers continue to sin. Sin is disobedience.
Some believers behave most of the time.
Some believers behave sometimes.
Some believers behave very little.
Eternal rewards is based on how much a believer behaves according to God's Word.
lol Why haven't my posts and views been refuted from Scripture then? Disagreement does not equal refutation.
What does Acts 10:43 say?
I never said anything close to that. Of course a child of God can rebel against Him. The Scriptures are full of examples.
One glaring example is King Saul, about which the Bibles says this:
13So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the LORD, because of the word of the LORD which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, 14and did not inquire of the LORD. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse. 1 Chron 10:13,14
Yet, in spite of this, this is what Samuel told Saul the day before Saul died:
“Moreover the LORD will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the LORD will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!”
This occurred during a seance where Samuel came back from the dead. It should be clear to anyone who claims to be a student of the Word that Samuel was not referring to "the grave" by the phrase "will be with me", because as a true prophet of the LORD, Samuel clearly was in Paradise, the place where all OT believers went after physical death.
And this is exactly what he was referring to by that phrase.
The word obey or the description of obedience is not mentioned in your "explanation", so therefore your explanation is invalid.
The obedience of faith is obeying God.
God speaks to a person which produces faith in them.
The person responds with the corresponding action of obedience which produces a divine result.
Here is an example from the scriptures.
7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Hebrews 11:7
God told Noah to build the Ark because He was going to flood the earth with water.
Noah moved with godly fear and built the Ark and saved his family.
This is an example of the obedience of faith.
JLB
dianegcook
Member
I guess, I am not saved, according to you.
Isn't that contradiction?
I'm not saved if I do not believe in OSAS.
Drew
Member
I don't think we are going to get anywhere on this analogy, so I will drop it.
What do you mean by "no context"? My argument is really really simple. And it is this, in very short form:
1. Paul denies "justification by works" in verse 9.
2. He does not say "good works", so it is at least possible that he could be referring to the works of the Law of Moses. If you deny this, you are simply not debating fairly.
3. He then writes a lengthy "therefore" explanation, in verses 11 and following, which deals with the very thing you would expect someone to write if they had just denied justification by works of the Law of Moses - that now the Gentile, who could of course not do the works of the Law of Moses which was only given to Jews, is now "part of the family of God".
In all candor, this is a slam-dunk. Your response is arguably an evasion - making a vague claim about context and not dealing with the argument.
Let me try to smoke you out. Consider a scenario where it is well known that the rich members of a certain golf club (and their children) engage in a set of distinctive practices that effectively say to the world "I am member of this golf club and you are not". Things like wearing a jacket with the name of the golf club on it, wearing white shoes, eating special food, etc. etc. Now, of course, these people also do "good deeds" Then suppose I wrote this:
People do not get into Harvard by "works", therefore people who do not belong to the golf club can get into Harvard.
Clearly I am not talking about the "good works" that these golfers do, I am talking about the "works" that set these people apart as members of this club.
Agree?
Drew
Member
Romans 7 is about "Paul before conversion", not after. We have been through this many time before but, for the sake of others, please note this from the end of Romans 7:
24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
[Romans 7:24-25a, NASB]
The Paul in Romans 7 is clearly a "pre-conversion" Paul precisely because this text shows this to be the case: Paul looks back to what he was like and then declares that Jesus will indeed set him free.
You have Paul the Christian in the position of not being "set free from this body of death".
How you explain that?
Doesn't need to be.
Specifically in believing His promise of eternal life through faith in His Son.
What verse says this?
What verse says this?
Uh, it begins with "by faith". Faith that Noah ALREADY had, even before God warned of things not yet seen.
Try agan.
This 'example' doesn't even mention faith.
Try again.
Try again.
Here is what I mean by "no context": the word "works" in v.9 isn't preceded by ANY mention of "the works of the Law of Moses" in either ch 1 or 2. So, by no context, there is NO REASON to think that Paul wa referring to "the works of the Law of Moses" by his use of "works" in v.9. I've already explained this.
Actually, what follows says NOTHING about being justified by the works of the Law of Moses. From v.11-22 Paul teaches that Jews and Gentiles are united at the cross.
In fact, when he gets to v.15, he notes that Christ "abolished in His flesh the law with its commandments and regulations". So v.15 DIRECTLY REFUTES your idea about being justified by the works of the law of Moses.
It certainly is, but not for your argument.
In fact, v.15 REFUTES your notion.
No. I see no relation between Eph 2:8-22 and your smoking scenario.
Apparently you've either misread or haven't yet read Eph 2:15, so here it is: 5by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
Now, what does "abolishing" mean?
What does "enmity" mean?
v.15 refutes your notion.
Easy. First of all, ch 7 is all in the present tense. None of it is in the past tense, as is being supposed.
Second, "body of this death" is a reference to his physical body, which wa corrupted by Adam's sin and will face death. He states the fact and then gives thanks to God through Jesus Christ that his "body of death" will be resurrected, just as Jesus was.
Drew
Member
That's like arguing that, in the following, the author is not talking racist attitudes in particular because there is no "context" before he used the term "attitude":
You all need to have the right king of attitude. Therefore, do not refuse to let blacks on the bus, and allow them to go the good schools. Do not treat whites better than blacks. Remember, we are all one human family and treating people differently based on race has no place in such a society.
I cannot imagine your response to the above: In this example, I have clearly shown that even in the absence of an established context, the term "attitude" must be a reference to racial attitudes in particular. And it would not matter in the slightest that, in any material leading up to this block of statement, there was no particular mention of the issue of race at all.
Based on what Paul writes in verses 11 and following, it is clear that his argument is that the Jew is not saved by doing the works of the Law of Moses.
Drew
Member
There are many reasons to conclude that Romans 7 cannot be about Paul the believer. I will get to the "tense" issue later, but for now I will post more material from Romans 7:
but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! [Romans 7:23-24a]
As a Christian, how you be a prisoner to sin. I could wear out the keypad on my computer posting texts that show that the believer has been set free from such bondage. In fact, right here in that Ephesians text, we see that believers are not imprisoned in this way:
10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. [Ephesians 2:10, NASB]
Now: please explain how a person who is a "prisoner" to a law of sin can possibly do good works.
And also consider this from Romans 8:
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, [Romans 8:29a, NASB]
If Romans 7 is indeed about Paul the believer, then you need to explain to us how a man who is in the process of being conformed to the image of Jesus, is "a prisoner of the law of sin".
Drew
Member
Much of Romans 7 is indeed in the past tense:
8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; [Romans 7:8-9, NASB]
But, as you say, some of it is in the present tense and I can understand why you would think that Paul is talking about himself as a believer. But if you do that, you are in the position of having to deal with the difficult questions from my last post. I have an explanation for the "present tense" stuff, but that will have to wait.