Evidence for God from Science

Actually I want to point out further that receiving baptism isn't a work. People keep insisting this, but it makes no logical sense. There is only one person who is doing anything in that instance and its the baptizer.

Again, its not the water that saves, its your faith. You can have faith that moves mountains, but it means nothing if you don't love God enough to be obident to his command. I stress this point over and over to people.

We should be like his children and eager to please him.
Jesus was baptized and God said he was well pleased. At the transfiguration God said to "listen to him". Its clear authority that I do not take lightly.

We should allo have the attitude of waking up and saying "Tell me what to do, Lord. I will do it"

domokunrox wrote:Again, its not the water that saves, its your faith. You can have faith that moves mountains, but it means nothing if you don't love God enough to be obident to his command. I stress this point over and over to people.

So one is saved regardless of water baptism?

Byblos wrote:I thought splitting baptism from the free will thread was a good idea but they will inevitably re-converse.

Here's a question for free will believers, if it takes an action on our part (using our free will) to believe and be saved then why is that so much different than believing water baptism saves? They are both actions initiated by our free will. Does the act of believing make it any less of a work than the act of baptizing in water?

I'm beginning to agree with this. Not that believing is a work as such, but believing is impossible without first being regenerated. This is so biblical as to be practically beyond dispute. In other words, we do not co-operate with God's grace before we are born again. Co-operation comes after. So the question of whether something is a work or non-work is redundant. Completely.

RickD wrote:

Here's a question for free will believers, if it takes an action on our part (using our free will) to believe and be saved then why is that so much different than believing water baptism saves? They are both actions initiated by our free will

Byblos, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to answer this, because, while I believe in a certain amount of "free will", I don't lean heavily towards the free will side of the spectrum.
Your statement:"They are both actions initiated by our free will", is assuming that our belief is initiated by our free will. I disagree. I believe our faith is initiated by God's prompting. But maybe those that lean heavily towards free will, without God's influence, see the actions as initiated by our free will.

Does the act of believing make it any less of a work than the act of baptizing in water?

I'm with jlay on this one. I can't see "believing" as a work. The act of baptizing in water is a work done by human hands.

As J is often fond of saying, that's just an arbitrary statement that believing is not a work. Why? Please explain why believing is not a work when it is an action (or a reaction, granted) initiated on our part even when influenced by outside stimuli (such as hearing the Gospel). And if you consider believing is not a work because it is a mental, not a physical state, then please explain why believing is any different than repenting and confessing one's sins; that also is a mental state.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:I thought splitting baptism from the free will thread was a good idea but they will inevitably re-converse.

Here's a question for free will believers, if it takes an action on our part (using our free will) to believe and be saved then why is that so much different than believing water baptism saves? They are both actions initiated by our free will. Does the act of believing make it any less of a work than the act of baptizing in water?

I'm beginning to agree with this. Not that believing is a work as such, but believing is impossible without first being regenerated. This is so biblical as to be practically beyond dispute. In other words, we do not co-operate with God's grace before we are born again. Co-operation comes after. So the question of whether something is a work or non-work is redundant. Completely.

That is why I believe even faith is a gift from God, which takes us back full circle as to why some have efficacious faith and some don't (dare I say the P word again?). It is a true mystery folks, there is no answer to this question before we get to meet God face to face. Might as well just heed His Word and live accordingly.

Byblos wrote: Please explain why believing is not a work when it is an action (or a reaction, granted) initiated on our part even when influenced by outside stimuli (such as hearing the Gospel). And if you consider believing is not a work because it is a mental, not a physical state, then please explain why believing is any different than repenting and confessing one's sins; that also is a mental state.

At the very least it says there is a co-operation in man which contributes to him being born again.

That is why I believe even faith is a gift from God, which takes us back full circle as to why some have efficacious faith and some don't (dare I say the P word again?). It is a true mystery folks, there is no answer to this question before we get to meet God face to face. Might as well just heed His Word and live accordingly.

Or, as Calvin said: "When God closes His holy mouth, I will desist from inquiry."

Well, since I shot myself in the foot (glad it wasn't my hand so that I can still type on this thread), why were no examples given. That's the worse thing (feeling) in the world... to be told you did something or accused of something and not have the examples.

However, if out of ALL the scriptures I posted you found only two to support and justify your case, well, then that should say something right? or do you not agree with me about that either? Again, no two truths can both be true... ex: we must draw a conclusion because water baptisms requirement for salvation cannot both be required and not required!!!

If your fighting against all of scripture with only one or two scriptures to support your belief then it sounds like your not even critically trying to understand truth, nor earnestly seeking that truth, or reading what we have all shared; as to reading with a predetermined bias looking only for scripture to justify what it is you don't won't to give up. If water baptism aside from what Christ and His work did on the cross, our faith in that, then indeed the "work" wasn't finished... it was not done, it was not finished, as Jesus Himself said, in which indicates that He lied... I don't believe that to be the case. I guess we need to do another "work" and sacrifice animals for the remission of our sins, before we can call His name, so that were clean... omitting His work which when we call on Him; He cleans, before we can find a body of water to get baptized, before we can be baptized with the Holy Spirit, before we become SAVED!!! WOW... lots and lots of work, on our part... just for salvation, hmmm... get real! This just doesn't seem to be the case and boy am I glad, praise GOD...

I'm praying for all, even myself...

Rick, you're the 2nd person to ask me if I am a COC member.

I have heard of COC and people's comments have been that they are categorized as a cult.

Anyhow, Rick, I am curious, what is your opinion on COC? Can you explain further?

Domo, "Baptismal Regeneration", is not a very common belief, so I was just trying to see where you were coming from, to try to understand your argument better. I'm not sure if I would consider the CoC as a cult. They certainly have cultlike doctrines, and at very best, are borderline cult. They adhere to legalism, and I guess that in itself is cultlike.

Danny, I don't understand your question. Importantly, I do not understand what you pulled out of context, either. Try that again.

Curious about what you faith alone crowd think of this section of the bible
(NASB)James 2:24-26
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? [26] For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Zach, I don't have the ability to copy and paste your verses. Usually at these hours, I am on my phone. Be patient.

Rick, getting back to you. "Regeneration" has never made sense, so I don't know where you get that from. As I have quoted in Isaiah 1. The Lord calls us to reason. "Regeneration" isn't needed to be reasonable or to understand God's command. Adam sinned, God called out, Adam heard him and responded.

Actually I want to point out further that receiving baptism isn't a work. People keep insisting this, but it makes no logical sense. There is only one person who is doing anything in that instance and its the baptizer.

That is my point, dom. The person doing the work, is the baptizer. Baptism is done by human hands. While water baptism is a symbol of the real, saving baptism of the Holy Spirit, when one says that this symbolism, when performed by human hands, is needed for salvation, then, Christ's work, is no longer efficacious. Water baptism, when kept in its proper context of being performed after one is saved by believing on Christ, and then receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then it isn't a work needed for salvation.

The way jlay said it, makes the most sense:

The proper flow is that faith is a response to the gospel of Christ and baptism is a secondary response to receiving salvation. Physically manifesting what is spiritually done.

Again, its not the water that saves, its your faith.

Faith in what? Faith in Christ? Faith in water baptism? It can't be both. Either Christ's death was enough to pay for our sins, or it wasn't, and something else is needed.

As J is often fond of saying, that's just an arbitrary statement that believing is not a work. Why? Please explain why believing is not a work when it is an action (or a reaction, granted) initiated on our part even when influenced by outside stimuli (such as hearing the Gospel). And if you consider believing is not a work because it is a mental, not a physical state, then please explain why believing is any different than repenting and confessing one's sins; that also is a mental state.

God grants us the faith to be able to accept the gospel. If He didn't, then we wouldn't be able to accept Him, in and of ourselves. In a true believer, repenting and confessing one's sins, comes after the initial faith that God has granted us. I suppose, if one believed, one needs to continually repent and confess sins, in order to keep salvation, then that would be considered a work to keep salvation.

That is why I believe even faith is a gift from God

Couldn't agree more.

which takes us back full circle as to why some have efficacious faith

The faith isn't efficacious, Christ's work is efficacious. God grants us the faith to believe on Christ, but, we have to choose to believe. Again, it gets back to the idea that we need to have a part in choosing or rejecting God, or it isn't really love on our end.

Danny wrote:

At the very least it says there is a co-operation in man which contributes to him being born again.

That is exactly my point. It has to be a cooperation. It can't be completely on God(that would be forced love), and it can't be completely man's freewill without God's quickening(man, in his sinful nature cannot accept nor understand spiritual things).
And, there's where the thread split comes back into one thread again.

domokunrox wrote:Danny, I don't understand your question. Importantly, I do not understand what you pulled out of context, either. Try that again.

You’ve admitted water baptism does not save, which is belated, since nothing you have presented ever suggested otherwise.

domokunrox wrote:Curious about what you faith alone crowd think of this section of the bible
(NASB)James 2:24-26
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? [26] For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

James speaks of a hidden faith, a faith shut out from the world. Such a faith is dead for this world. Salvation is not in question here, and if it were we’d have a Bible that flatly contradicted itself. When James talks of faith, this faith is set, it is sealed. He’s not talking of a faith in the balance here. Faith without deeds is useless. It is dead. It is not lost. It is not something you could lose.

domokunrox wrote:"Regeneration" has never made sense, so I don't know where you get that from. As I have quoted in Isaiah 1. The Lord calls us to reason. "Regeneration" isn't needed to be reasonable or to understand God's command. Adam sinned, God called out, Adam heard him and responded.

This is a complete mess. Without regeneration, my friend, you wouldn’t even be thinking about a water baptism!

Rick, my point is that your ignoring a commandment from God himself. Look at the great commission.

Jesus tells us we MUST be born of WATER AND SPIRIT, also. No way around it if you know about baptism.

Baptism is performed in water, we read multiple times. The Ethiopian. Implied for the Jailer. Believing in the gospel didn't save the jailer, he took them home and they baptized him. Jesus baptized by John in water.

Over and over again water is seen as essential AT EVERY POINT. Its not the water that is magical, its the faith. Faith will require SIMPLE obidience. Naaman is a good example who almost didn't follow directions because he was stubborn.

Its not JUST faith. Repentance and being baptized followed. Followed by the holy spirit coming to your aid for the rest of your life.

RickD wrote:

As J is often fond of saying, that's just an arbitrary statement that believing is not a work. Why? Please explain why believing is not a work when it is an action (or a reaction, granted) initiated on our part even when influenced by outside stimuli (such as hearing the Gospel). And if you consider believing is not a work because it is a mental, not a physical state, then please explain why believing is any different than repenting and confessing one's sins; that also is a mental state.

God grants us the faith to be able to accept the gospel. If He didn't, then we wouldn't be able to accept Him, in and of ourselves. In a true believer, repenting and confessing one's sins, comes after the initial faith that God has granted us. I suppose, if one believed, one needs to continually repent and confess sins, in order to keep salvation, then that would be considered a work to keep salvation.

So if God grants the faith to believe, I ask again, why do some believe and others don't? What is so special about those people who do end up believing as opposed to those who don't? They both received the same faith, they both received the same message. Why did some believe and others didn't?

RickD wrote:

That is why I believe even faith is a gift from God

Couldn't agree more.

which takes us back full circle as to why some have efficacious faith

The faith isn't efficacious, Christ's work is efficacious. God grants us the faith to believe on Christ, but, we have to choose to believe. Again, it gets back to the idea that we need to have a part in choosing or rejecting God, or it isn't really love on our end.

Efficacious faith in the sense that if all have been granted the same faith by God, then why do some faiths end up accomplishing their purpose (salvation) and other faiths don't?

RickD wrote:Danny wrote:

At the very least it says there is a co-operation in man which contributes to him being born again.

That is exactly my point. It has to be a cooperation. It can't be completely on God(that would be forced love), and it can't be completely man's freewill without God's quickening(man, in his sinful nature cannot accept nor understand spiritual things).
And, there's where the thread split comes back into one thread again.

Told ya!

RickD wrote:Danny wrote:

At the very least it says there is a co-operation in man which contributes to him being born again.

That is exactly my point. It has to be a cooperation. It can't be completely on God(that would be forced love), and it can't be completely man's freewill without God's quickening(man, in his sinful nature cannot accept nor understand spiritual things).
And, there's where the thread split comes back into one thread again.

Yes we co-operate, but never prior to being born again; co-operation comes after we are born again. IMVVVHO, of course

Danny, to me, your Calvinist beliefs hold nothing to truth. Its only led me to conclude that it is NOT from God. Sorry to disappoint. At this point, I rank it as borderline abberent Christianity until it proves itself otherwise. Sorry.

I have so far responded to the T in TULIP. I see no response from your side.

Rick, my point is that your ignoring a commandment from God himself. Look at the great commission.

Dom, you're assuming that Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,, means water baptism.

Jesus tells us we MUST be born of WATER AND SPIRIT, also. No way around it if you know about baptism

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.' John 3:5-6

From this article, by Rich Deem, on the Home site:http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/baptism.html

In stating that one must be born again, Jesus referred to 2 births - the first the physical birth on Earth. Nicodemus recognized this as the first requirement, since he stated that a man cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb (John 3:4). In the very next statement he explains the two kinds of birth. "Born of water" refers to the physical birth, whereas "born of the Spirit" refers to being "born again" or the second birth. In the next verse, Jesus clarifies the statement explaining that "born of water" refers to being "born of flesh." Jesus was clear and direct. There is no mention of baptism anywhere. "Born of water" never refers to baptism in any other verse in the entire Bible. The Greek word used is "hudwr" (Strong's number G5204).1 The Greek word for baptism is "baptisma" (Strong's number G908).2 If Jesus had wanted to refer to baptism, He would have used this word. In fact, the word (or a variation of it) occurs 112 times in the New Testament.

Born of water DOES NOT mean water baptism.

Over and over again water is seen as essential AT EVERY POINT.

Water baptism is a SYMBOL of the essential baptism of the Holy Spirit, that believers receive, upon the acceptance of the gospel.

Its not JUST faith. Repentance and being baptized followed. Followed by the holy spirit coming to your aid for the rest of your life.

You have the order wrong, dom. 1) Saving faith 2)receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit 3)repentance and being (water) baptized. That is the correct order.

Dom you are alone on an island, here on this. "Baptismal regeneration" is NOT biblical. We, all have tried to show you that the bible says, water baptism is a symbol of the real baptism of the Holy Spirit. And water baptism is only performed after the real baptism has occurred in a believer. And water baptism is not necessary for salvation.