Do u teach/were u taught to pray the sinners prayer?

[AllTalkNoAction]

. . . for salvation.
If so, can you tell me why Peter & the other apostles didn't?

They told believers to get baptised and receive the Holy Spirit, and waited for them to start speaking in tongues before saying they had received. (Acts 2:44, 37-39; 8:12-16, 10:44-48)
Both can't be right!

[TheLivingWater]

AllTalkNoAction
Everything has two ways of use, depending on the person using it and his intentions.
I can use a knife to cut my food, others may use it to kill people.
in my hands a knife is something good an useful in others hands a knife is something bad and deadly.

wow this must be my best offtopic post :)
But i so know it will help you :wave:

[Sunset2009]

The Sinner's prayer doesn't mean anything. It's not wrong to give someone direction on what to say in order to accept Christ, but not in a "Please repeat after me. . . .okay, you're saved!" way. That is wrong and meaningless. Before I was baptized, I repeated "I believe that Jesus is the Son of the living God and I take Him as my Lord and Savior," but the Bible says we need to exclaim to all that Jesus is Lord, or He will deny us in heaven. The Sinner's prayer is by NO MEANS a must to salvation. It can actually be very misleading. Some may think "I said the Sinner's prayer, I'm saved!" when they really just said words and it didn't mean anything to them.

Get my drift?

[AllTalkNoAction]

I can use a knife to cut my food, others may use it to kill people.
in my hands a knife is something good an useful in others hands a knife is something bad and deadly.
wow this must be my best offtopic post :)
But i so know it will help you Why not stick to the original word which is sharper than any 2 edged sword instead of "the sinners prayer" ?

[AllTalkNoAction]

The Sinner's prayer doesn't mean anything. It's not wrong to give someone direction on what to say in order to accept Christ, but not in a "Please repeat after me. . . .okay, you're saved!" way. That is wrong and meaningless. Before I was baptized, I repeated "I believe that Jesus is the Son of the living God and I take Him as my Lord and Savior," but the Bible says we need to exclaim to all that Jesus is Lord, or He will deny us in heaven. The Sinner's prayer is by NO MEANS a must to salvation. It can actually be very misleading. Some may think "I said the Sinner's prayer, I'm saved!" when they really just said words and it didn't mean anything to them.

Get my drift? Amen!

What would your salvation message be to people now?

[TheLivingWater]

Why not stick to the original word which is sharper than any 2 edged sword instead of "the sinners prayer" ?

Well i don't know man :)
The first time i heard of the sinners prayer is when i started watching USA Tv on my satellite receiver : )

[Nadiine]

. . . for salvation.
If so, can you tell me why Peter & the other apostles didn't?

They told believers to get baptised and receive the Holy Spirit, and waited for them to start speaking in tongues before saying they had received. (Acts 2:44, 37-39; 8:12-16, 10:44-48)
Both can't be right!
I don't think we know if they did or didn't -

You've added tongues into salvation where I don't see in Acts 10 as well.
So you do the same thing as far as I see this.

The "prayer of salvation" isn't what SAVES. Why do people do it? We have to go to the meaning of what prayer is.
What is prayer? CONVERSING WITH GOD DIRECTLY.

To repent and accept Christ, we do that TO God - the prayer is speaking directly TO GOD in repentance. Don't we repent during our prayer? I do.

All someone is doing is using the prayer itself to speak directly to God from our heart in seeking His salvation.
Nothing more.
The prayer isn't some magical recipee, it's speaking to God, confessing our belief, repenting of our past sinful life and accepting that gift of salvation.

I know prayer doesn't save, but the prayer is the "language" one uses to speak with God. Nothing wrong with that.

[AllTalkNoAction]

Well i don't know man :)
The first time i heard of the sinners prayer is when i started watching USA Tv on my satellite receiver : )I suggest you tune into God's original broadcast - all received His Spirit & spoke in tongues . . Peter identified this as the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh in these last days (the New Covenant era).
Seekers od salvatiuon were commanded to repent of all orther ways, be baptised in water and receive the same!
(Acts 2:4, 33, 37-39, Titus 3:5-6).

[Nadiine]

I suggest you tune into God's original broadcast - all received His Spirit & spoke in tongues . . Peter identified this as the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh in these last days (the New Covenant era).
Seekers od salvatiuon were commanded to repent of all orther ways, be baptised in water and receive the same!
(Acts 2:4, 33, 37-39, Titus 3:5-6).
This thread isn't about promoting TONGUES as mandatory for salvation is it?

If so, it's misappropriately titled and should be adjusted so people know what you're actually wanting to talk about

[Ariel]

Well, this is interesting. I was never taught the "Sinner's Prayer." You see, I was a practicing Catholic, and I had been taught that salvation was through the church I was part of.

So when the Lord got a hold of me and helped me realize that I didn't really know Him, how did I get saved?

He led me. He led me to cry out to Jesus Christ that I was a sinner, and that I needed Him to be my Lord and Savior. That night I got on my knees and asked Him to cleanse me, to come into my heart, and to be my Lord and Savior.

The Gospel was clearly preached in the early Church, but I didn't have that teaching. I had the conviction of the Holy Spirit, based on one Scripture. You can read my story on my home page.

One Scripture and the conviction of the Holy Spirit--it was enough.

[Nadiine]

:hug:

[AllTalkNoAction]

Well, this is interesting. I was never taught the "Sinner's Prayer." You see, I was a practicing Catholic, and I had been taught that salvation was through the church I was part of.

So when the Lord got a hold of me and helped me realize that I didn't really know Him, how did I get saved?

He led me. He led me to cry out to Jesus Christ that I was a sinner, and that I needed Him to be my Lord and Savior. That night I got on my knees and asked Him to cleanse me, to come into my heart, and to be my Lord and Savior.

The Gospel was clearly preached in the early Church, but I didn't have that teaching. I had the conviction of the Holy Spirit, based on one Scripture. You can read my story on my home page.

One Scripture and the conviction of the Holy Spirit--it was enough. So you spoke in tongues & got baptised just like the early church did, and taught?
(see the verses I quoted)

[JAS4Yeshua]

here's what the Sinner's Prayer is. It is a means to get a person to talk to God, to turn to them. It shows them how easy it is to pray. The prayer itself doesn't save them, no more than being part of any specific church or denomination saves someone. It is the attitude of the heart, and the prayer just helps a person to speak what is in their heart (if they are truly seeking repentence).

[Ariel]

So you spoke in tongues & got baptised just like the early church did, and taught?
(see the verses I quoted)

Isn't it interesting how people add requirements to getting saved. So you don't think I'm saved because of your interpretation of Scripture?

Did the thief on the cross get baptized and speak in tongues?

No, he didn't. Yet Jesus said that he would be with Him in paradise.

Quit adding requirements to salvation. It is fruitless and wrong.

[Ariel]

Oh yes--I did get filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues--two years later. I didn't know what it was, or why I spoke that way. You see, I was alone when I asked the Lord to fill me with His Holy Spirit. I had no teaching. Yet I spoke with other tongues--two years AFTER I got saved.

And four years after that--six years after I was saved--I was baptized by immersion.

It seems God knew I was saved, and led me step by step.

To God be all the glory!

[IisJustMe]

.They told believers to get baptised and receive the Holy Spirit, and waited for them to start speaking in tongues before saying they had received. (Acts 2:44, 37-39; 8:12-16, 10:44-48) Both can't be right!This is either a bad misunderstanding of those Scriptures, or a deliberate misinterpretation.

Here's the context of Acts 2:44 ...

Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. (Acts 2:43-45)

Please note here that only the apostles were manifesting signs and wonders. This was the original and only purpose of the "signs and wonders" ministry, to confirm the truth of the gospel and affirm the apostles were sent by God.

Verses 37-39 are the favorite of those who hold to your position, but they are misinterpreted to support baptism as necessary to salvation. It is not. The word in v. 38 translated "for" is the Greek word ek which usually means because. An example in the English is a wanted poster: "Jessie James, Wanted for Bank Robbery." Under your interpretation, "for" would mean that they wanted Jesse so they could have him rob a bank, which is a ridiculous assumption. They wanted Jesse because he already had robbed a bank, actually several. Peter did not command these people to be baptised so they could be forgiven, but because they already had been forgiven by their acknowledgment of faith.

Acts 8:12-16 actually disproves your viewpoint, because if they had believed and been baptized, as you claim is jointly necessary, the apostles remaining in Jerusalem would not have found it necessary to journey to Samaria to preach the gospel. As the great Matthew Henry wrote of this passage, "[M]any wonder at the proofs of Divine truths, who never experience their power. The gospel preached may have a common operation upon a soul, where it never produced inward holiness. All are not savingly converted who profess to believe the gospel." Therefore, Peter, John and others proceeded to Samaria to bring the gospel to the hearts, not just the minds and emotions, of those who professed faith.

Like the events of Pentecost among the Jews in Jerusalem, the instance recounted in Acts 10:44-48 was confirmation that the Gentiles had also received the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is a one-time occurrance, and no indication whatsoever that the "signs and wonders" must accompany salvation. In fact, with most people, they do not.

[christianmomof3]

I like this explanation:


The sinner's prayer is a prayer a person prays to God when they understand that they are a sinner and in need of a Savior. Saying a sinner's prayer will not accomplish anything on its own. A sinner's prayer is only effective if it genuinely represents what a person knows, understands, and believes about their sinfulness and need for salvation.

The first aspect of a sinner's prayer is understanding that we are all sinners. Romans 3:10 proclaims, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." The Bible makes it clear that we have all sinned. We are all sinners in need of mercy and forgiveness from God (Titus 3:5-7). Because of our sin, we deserve eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46). The sinner's prayer is a plea for grace instead of judgment. It is a request for mercy instead of wrath.

The second aspect of a sinner's prayer is knowing what God has done to remedy our lost and sinful condition. God took on flesh and became a human being in the Person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14). Jesus taught us the truth about God and lived a perfectly righteous and sinless life (John 8:46; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus then died on the cross in our place, taking the punishment that we deserve (Romans 5:8). Jesus rose from the dead to prove His victory over sin, death, and hell (Colossians 2:15; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). Because of all of this, we can have our sins forgiven and be promised an eternal home in Heaven - if we will just place our faith in Jesus Christ. All we have to do is believe that He died in our place and rose from the dead (Romans 10:9-10). We can be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8 declares, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Saying the sinner's prayer is simply a way of declaring to God that you are relying on Jesus Christ as your Savior. There are no "magical" words that result in salvation. It is only faith in Jesus' death and resurrection that can save us. If you understand that you are a sinner and in need of salvation through Jesus Christ, here is a sinner's prayer you can pray to God: "God, I know that I am a sinner. I know that I deserve the consequences of my sin. However, I am trusting in Jesus Christ as my Savior. I believe that His death and resurrection provided for my forgiveness. I trust in Jesus and Jesus alone as my personal Lord and Savior. Thank you Lord, for saving me and forgiving me! Amen!"
http://www.gotquestions.org/sinners-prayer.html

[AllTalkNoAction]

Isn't it interesting how people add requirements to getting saved. So you don't think I'm saved because of your interpretation of Scripture?
How do you interpret this scripture:-
"when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."?? (Acts 2:37-38)

The receiving of the Spirit has just been detailed at great length. Anyone who says you receive but not speak in tongues simply doesn't want the truth.


Did the thief on the cross get baptized and speak in tongues?He died before the New Covenant even began, so, like all who died before Pentecost, he didn't have the salvation God now commands all to receive.

[IisJustMe]

How do you interpret this scripture:-
"when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."?? (Acts 2:37-38)

The receiving of the Spirit has just been detailed at great length. Anyone who says you receive but not speak in tongues simply doesn't want the truth.You ask this question in light of what I posted just before Ariel? This borders on arrogance, as though you are 'more special' than the rest of us who claim Jesus as Savior and Lord. And, you did not answer her question. I ask it again of you: Are we not saved because we do not speak in tongues? Moreover, am I doomed because I would not do so even at gunpoint?He died before the New Covenant even began, so, like all who died before Pentecost, he didn't have the salvation God now commands all to receive.Another misconception. If He was not to be in heaven that very day, based on faith and faith alone, Jesus would not have said what He said. Also, you make the New Covenant out to be a "different salvation" than was taught in the Old Testament, and it is not. "Abram believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6) That's the same salvation. The fact that it is before the cross is irrelevant.

[Ariel]

A good point! Salvation is salvation, and is always by faith alone.

The OT saints who died before Christ did not receive a different salvation. They will be in heaven with us. If you do not believe this, then remember the Mount of Transfiguration where Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah., Matthew 17:2

Also look at the end of Hebrews 11, which discusses the godly men and women of the OT. Then it says:

Hebrews 11:38-40

In other words, we all receive the same promise, and are perfected together in Christ.

So salvation in both the OT and NT is by faith and faith alone.

Romans 4:3

[whatfor]

My experience with saying the sinners pray was me declaring publicly my comitment to following Jesus Christ and repenting .
It wasn't that I said the prayer it was that I believed it in my heart.

I watched a tv evangelist state that it had to be done publicly to the audience on his show and then tell us at home after to say it with him at home in private.

[Nadiine]

.

[Nadiine]

There should NEVER ever be a "tell tale" for sure sign of a person's salvation that hinges on gibberish that can be faked by anyone - namely by satan's servants.

Are we busy looking for SIGNS? or is salvation by FAITH? Christ rebuked those who looked for signs and wonders (miracles).

God is not going to give a cookie cutter sign of someone's salvation in a gift that everybody can just look at & say "they're a Christian for sure". It's ludicrous.

LOVE is the sign of a true believer -love of the brethren. Not tongues.
When you see genuine love of the family of God, you can expect they're most likely saved.

I have no interest in arguing this topic again, so I'll be unsubscribing.
I'd leave a message for any visitor that no visible "signs" prove somebody is of God - becuz we're told that Satan masquerades as God's servants - tongues is too easy to fake and most importantly, 1 Cor 12-14 refutes that tonges is given to ALL believers.

It's unbiblical.

[Ariel]

Something that is interesting to me is the story of the wheat and the tares. Do you remember it? A sower sowed wheat, but the enemy came at night and sowed tares. They both grew in the field together, Matthew 13:24-30; 38-43.

A horticulturalist told me that wheat and tares look exactly the same in a field. You can't tell them apart. You can't tell them apart, that is, until it's time to bear fruit. The wheat gets a whole head of seeds. Tares get nothing.

Jesus told us to beware false prophets. He said we would know them by their fruit, Matt. 7:15-20.

Similarly, we know true Christians by their fruit. As they mature in Christ their fruit will be good. But ungodly people don't have such fruit. They are clouds without water--promising rain but never delivering; they are wells without water, promising to slake thirst, but having nothing, 2 Peter 2:17.

We aren't saved by what we profess. Even Satan has a kind of tongues. Satan can also quote Scripture and do miracles. Remember the Egyptian magicians? Remember Satan quoting Scripture when he tempted Jesus? Mattew 4:1-10; Exodus 7:11, 22.

We can't look at outward appearances. True salvation is in the heart. Only God can see it. But we can see its fruit.

[AllTalkNoAction]

. .. True salvation is in the heart. Only God can see it. But we can see its fruit.
Cornelius was a loving God-fearing man who knew about Jesus (Acts 10... v36-37) and who gave to the poor, yet he had not received the Spirit . . . but the christians knew precisely when he did (vv44-46).

The Samarians (Acts 8:5-16) believed in Jesus and had great joy, and stopped following their old ways, yet the christians knew they had not received the Spirit.

From the beginning (Acts 2) Peter was able to identify the receiving of the Spirit and say that this was to all who God would call (Acts 2:33, 39) . . . but then Jesus did say he would be given the keys to the kingdom.

It seems some have lost those keys and attack those who stick to them . . . this is not love for God or man, or good fruit.

[IisJustMe]

Something that is interesting to me is the story of the wheat and the tares. Do you remember it? A sower sowed wheat, but the enemy came at night and sowed tares. They both grew in the field together, Matthew 13:24-30; 38-43.

A horticulturalist told me that wheat and tares look exactly the same in a field. You can't tell them apart. You can't tell them apart, that is, until it's time to bear fruit. The wheat gets a whole head of seeds. Tares get nothing.

Jesus told us to beware false prophets. He said we would know them by their fruit, Matt. 7:15-20.

Similarly, we know true Christians by their fruit. As they mature in Christ their fruit will be good. But ungodly people don't have such fruit. They are clouds without water--promising rain but never delivering; they are wells without water, promising to slake thirst, but having nothing, 2 Peter 2:17.

We aren't saved by what we profess. Even Satan has a kind of tongues. Satan can also quote Scripture and do miracles. Remember the Egyptian magicians? Remember Satan quoting Scripture when he tempted Jesus? Mattew 4:1-10; Exodus 7:11, 22.

We can't look at outward appearances. True salvation is in the heart. Only God can see it. But we can see its fruit.A "tare" is darnel wheat. It turns black, instead of golden, at the harvest. Very illustrative.

[AllTalkNoAction]

Something that is interesting to me is the story of the wheat and the tares. Do you remember it? A sower sowed wheat, but the enemy came at night and sowed tares. They both grew in the field together, Matthew 13:24-30; 38-43.

A horticulturalist told me that wheat and tares look exactly the same in a field.
This parable is about not knowing who will be gathered in. Anyone whop has received the Spirit has received salvation, but only those who walk in the Spirit bear the right fruit. To do that you must first get the receiving of the Spirit right.

God has given his way of salvation (Acts 2), an enemy has come along and sowed "gospel messages" that sound alike, but don't yield the same fruit.


You can't tell them apart, that is, until it's time to bear fruit. The wheat gets a whole head of seeds. Tares get nothing.
Tares also bear fruit, their seed, but it stupefies those that eat it so they can't discern. Like the goats who assumed they were doing God's will but they were in fact doing their own works.

[IisJustMe]

God has given his way of salvation (Acts 2), an enemy has come along and sowed "gospel messages" that sound alike, but don't yield the same fruit.Tares are not "gospel messengers" but false profits, liars among the body, and they may not even know they are false. They make an intellectual or emotional decision, not a "heart" decision, and as a result remain lost.Tares also bear fruit, their seed, but it stupefies those that eat it so they can't discern.You have it wrong. Darnel wheat produces no fruit, but is a weed. The blackened head is worthless. This equates to those who sow dissent, doubt, strife and divisiveness in the church, but can also spout Scripture and "Christianese" while doing Satan's work within the body. Like the goats who assumed they were doing God's will but they were in fact doing their own works.The goats of Matthew 25:40-46 never pretend to do God's will. They are tribulation non-believers who will have the opportunity to believe, to further the gospel by helping the 144,000 evangelists and their followers by providing food, clothing, shelter and comfort in illness and imprisonment, but instead will do nothing because they will not believe.

[jsimms615]

. . . for salvation.
If so, can you tell me why Peter & the other apostles didn't?

They told believers to get baptised and receive the Holy Spirit, and waited for them to start speaking in tongues before saying they had received. (Acts 2:44, 37-39; 8:12-16, 10:44-48)
Both can't be right!
I wasn't told anything about the prayer until I was about 18 and started going to the Baptist church. The Methodist church I was at never once mentioned it.
Before Peter said anything, I think it was Jesus that actually said the key to it all was being born again.

[AllTalkNoAction]

Tares are not "gospel messengers" but false profits,
I know, it's the people that have salvation wrong not their wrong teachings.


The goats of Matthew 25:40-46 never pretend to do God's will.
Please explain the goats' saying:-
"Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?" (v44)

[AllTalkNoAction]

Before Peter said anything, I think it was Jesus that actually said the key to it all was being born again.
Yes, then Peter correctly identified the born again (born from above, from heaven, born of the Spirit) experience:-

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear (referring to the speaking in tongues) (Acts 2:33)Compare:-"The wind blows (greek: the Spirit breathes) where it wills, and you hear the sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it comes, and whither it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8)

Sadly, many claiming to be the church don't have this understanding, instead they offer "the sinners prayer" to people seeking "salvation".

[Righteousone]

The Sinner's Prayer is not in the bible and won't save you. It is false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.
Before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was Lutheran.
Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves because they claimed to use the bible only, then went on to write creed's in addition to the bible.
1. Calvinism is a system of false doctrine that is taught in most evangelical denominations.
2. There are 5 major points of Calvinism. These 5 points are known by the acronym T.U.L.I.P
NONE are taught in the bible. All 5 points must be accepted or rejected as a unit. Refute any one element and the whole system fails.
(domino effect).

[TexasSky]

. . . for salvation.
If so, can you tell me why Peter & the other apostles didn't?

They told believers to get baptised and receive the Holy Spirit, and waited for them to start speaking in tongues before saying they had received. (Acts 2:44, 37-39; 8:12-16, 10:44-48)
Both can't be right!
The sinner's prayer is a tool used by Christians to help guide nonChristians who have indicated that they want to accept Christ as Lord and Savior but don't really know how to talk to God, or how to ask forgiveness.

It didn't even "exist" until around 1960 or 1970.

In leading people to Christ, people often used the verses commonly known as the Roman Road. These verses are a collection of the "key points" the disciples taught.

Everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Romans 3:23

Sin results in death. Romans 6:23

God offers eternal life through Christ. (also 6:23)

God loves us so much that even though we are sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

Surrender your life to Christ. (Romans 10:13 "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." )

Confess with your mouth that Christ is Lord, believe in your heart that God raised Christ from the death. (Romans 10:9-10)

The "Sinner's prayer" is based on those verses found in Romans 10:9-13.

It does not pretend to "save the person". It is meant as a tool to use when someone says, "I want to surrender my life to Christ, I want His forgiveness, what do I do?"

In my mind, the minute you said, "I want to," you did what was required, but people often felt they needed something "more".. so people started offering to pray with them, and trying to touch on all the points of confession of being a sinner, asking forgiveness, asking to serve Christ.

(And I'll stay out of the is baptism required debate).

[TexasSky]

The Sinner's Prayer is not in the bible and won't save you. It is false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.
Before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was Lutheran.
Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves because they claimed to use the bible only, then went on to write creed's in addition to the bible.
1. Calvinism is a system of false doctrine that is taught in most evangelical denominations.
2. There are 5 major points of Calvinism. These 5 points are known by the acronym T.U.L.I.P
NONE are taught in the bible. All 5 points must be accepted or rejected as a unit. Refute any one element and the whole system fails.
(domino effect).
Well,

No.

First, Calvinism is not taught in "most" protestant or "most" evangelical denominations. I have quite a few Methodist, Lutheran and Anglican friends who would be rabidly angry at you for saying they are teaching Calvinism. TONS of Armenian friends who identify as Baptists who reject Calvinism. I don't really remember what the Presbytarians teach on that.

I tend to agree that SOME of "TULIP" is wrong. I wouldn't be so harsh as to accuse Calvinist of "false doctorines" since they clearly believe that there are scriptures that support their view. I just happen to disagree with how they interpret certain scriptures.

But - how can anyone deny the T of it?

T = Total depravity = "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

U = unconditional election. (I have real issues with this, so if a Calvinist wants to defend it, they have to do so.)

L = limisted atonement or particular atonement. (Ditto for this. I have issues with it.)

I = irresistible grace (I can't very well reject U, L, and accept I.)

P = perserverance of the saints (This I do believe in based on many, many, many verses. Such as John 10:28-29"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them from my hand. My father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." ) However, I've always found it a ridiculous thing to debate.

Every Christian should strive to please God, strive to not sin, strive to repent from sin.
Those who believe in OSAS believe that once Christ is in you, you cannot continue to ignore God without repenting because the Holy spirit will always urge you to turn back to God.
Those who don't believe in OSAS believe that when you sin, you must repent back to God.
So - why are we always fighting about it? We all agree we still sin, we all agree we shouldn't, we all agree Christ is the answer.

I won't get into the ULI because I not a calvinist, and I have issues with those. :)

[IisJustMe]

The Sinner's Prayer is not in the bible and won't save you. It is false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.
Before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was Lutheran.
Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves because they claimed to use the bible only, then went on to write creed's in addition to the bible.
1. Calvinism is a system of false doctrine that is taught in most evangelical denominations.
2. There are 5 major points of Calvinism. These 5 points are known by the acronym T.U.L.I.P
NONE are taught in the bible. All 5 points must be accepted or rejected as a unit. Refute any one element and the whole system fails.
(domino effect).You're wrong. They are all taught in the Bible, but Calvinism leaves one key aspect out of the mix. That is God's acceptance of our confession. They don't consider that the calling of the Holy Spirit must force us to deal with the facts and to deal with the facts, we must make a confession or reject Christ.

Your are quite right, there is no "sinner's prayer" in the Bible, but I want you to tell me what aspect of this typical such prayer is unbiblical:

“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.”

If you can find an unbiblical principle there, I would welcome your identifying it and explaining why it is unbilbical. The "sinner's prayer" is not a rote recital, or a requirement for salvation. But it does condense the necessary confession into words that the sinner can say in a moment when he or she probably does not have words for what he/she feels.

[Righteousone]

NO ONE in the bible ever prayed for their initial salvation. They did however believe, repent, Confess Jesus and be immersed in water for the forgiveness of their sins. The "Sinner's Prayer" is an innovation to thwart God's plan of salvation.
First they replaced believers baptism by immersion with infant baptism by sprinkling.
Second they later replaced baptism altogether with "The Sinner's Prayer" so that baptism is no longer even part of the plan of salvation.
If you prayed "The Sinner's Prayer" for your salvation, you are still lost in your sins because it is not what God said to do.

"The Sinner's Prayer" wasn't formalized as a theology until around the time of Billy Graham.

[IisJustMe]

NO ONE in the bible ever prayed for their initial salvation. They did however believe, repent, Confess Jesus and be immersed in water for the forgiveness of their sins. The "Sinner's Prayer" is an innovation to thwart God's plan of salvation.
First they replaced believers baptism by immersion with infant baptism by sprinkling.
Second they later replaced baptism altogether with "The Sinner's Prayer" so that baptism is no longer even part of the plan of salvation.
If you prayed "The Sinner's Prayer" for your salvation, you are still lost in your sins because it is not what God said to do.

"The Sinner's Prayer" wasn't formalized as a theology until around the time of Billy Graham.Lots of bold words, but no answers to my post.

Again, I ask you: Point out for me where, in that prayer, is anything of unbiblical nature. If you can do that, then I will accept that the sinner's prayer is unbiblical. But you and I both know you cannot do that. One does not have to pray Bible verses to be heard by God. One needs only pray from what one feels in the heart. So, until you can show me the unbiblical nature of that prayer, I will choose to reject your condemnation of it.

[holo]

NO ONE in the bible ever prayed for their initial salvation. They did however believe, repent, Confess Jesus and be immersed in water for the forgiveness of their sins. The "Sinner's Prayer" is an innovation to thwart God's plan of salvation.
First they replaced believers baptism by immersion with infant baptism by sprinkling.And way before that, crucified people were saved simply by believing, completely apart from church, apart from how any man or woman defined anything, apart from baptism, even apart from ceasing to sin.

That being said, the whole idea of formulating one certain "sinner's prayer" captures God and our relationship with Him about as well as the Nicene creed does - in other words, hardly.

[IisJustMe]

And way before that, crucified people were saved simply by believing, completely apart from church, apart from how any man or woman defined anything, apart from baptism, even apart from ceasing to sin.

That being said, the whole idea of formulating one certain "sinner's prayer" captures God and our relationship with Him about as well as the Nicene creed does - in other words, hardly.I give you the same challenge as I gave "Righteousone" Holo, only to you, the Nicene Creed. Show me the fault of the Creed as to its biblical base or its failure to capture the nature of our relationship with the Savior, and I will believe you. Please, point it out.

[Righteousone]

Lots of bold words, but no answers to my post.

Again, I ask you: Point out for me where, in that prayer, is anything of unbiblical nature. If you can do that, then I will accept that the sinner's prayer is unbiblical. But you and I both know you cannot do that. One does not have to pray Bible verses to be heard by God. One needs only pray from what one feels in the heart. So, until you can show me the unbiblical nature of that prayer, I will choose to reject your condemnation of it.
I already told you "The Sinners Prayer" is NOT in the bible..

[IisJustMe]

I already told you "The Sinners Prayer" is NOT in the bible..And I told you I know that, but there is also nothing in the example I posted that is unbiblical. Please take this opportunity to prove that statement wrong, or drop it. Do you speak only in words that are in the Bible? Or do you carry an attitude of biblical belief with you everywhere? Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it's unbiblical. So, prove me wrong, or admit you are. By the way, I'm relatively certain you knew that's what I meant.

[holo]

I give you the same challenge as I gave "Righteousone" Holo, only to you, the Nicene Creed. Show me the fault of the Creed as to its biblical base or its failure to capture the nature of our relationship with the Savior, and I will believe you. Please, point it out.The Nicene creed fails to capture the nature of our relatsionship with the Saviour because it is a creed. Likewise, your pastor fails to do it because he's a pastor. I fail to do it because I am me. A book will fail to do it because it's a book.

Heck, I'd need a thousand pages to write a creed about my relationship with my friend, and it would still lack enormously. If I want you to know my friend and our relationship, the ONLY way is to experience it. ANY attempt to define it in a creed or otherwise will INEVITABLY be a limitation of it. I could say "his name is Garth and he's 26" and that would be 100% correct. But it wouldn't really tell you much...

[holo]

I already told you "The Sinners Prayer" is NOT in the bible..Neither is Mass.

The Catholic church, of all congregations, have certainly never been hindered by the fact that something isn't spelled out in the bible. And neither am I, by the way. For example, I'll drink beer even if the bible only mentions wine.

[holo]

Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it's unbiblical.I see your point, but it makes me wonder what exactly "biblical" even means. What makes something biblical? Is biblical simply synonymous with "good" or "right"?

[christianmomof3]

NO ONE in the bible ever prayed for their initial salvation. They did however believe, repent, Confess Jesus and be immersed in water for the forgiveness of their sins. The "Sinner's Prayer" is an innovation to thwart God's plan of salvation.
First they replaced believers baptism by immersion with infant baptism by sprinkling.
Second they later replaced baptism altogether with "The Sinner's Prayer" so that baptism is no longer even part of the plan of salvation.
If you prayed "The Sinner's Prayer" for your salvation, you are still lost in your sins because it is not what God said to do.

"The Sinner's Prayer" wasn't formalized as a theology until around the time of Billy Graham.

I already told you "The Sinners Prayer" is NOT in the bible..
:D That is a funny thing for a Catholic to say since so much of the Catholic practices are not found in the Bible and since the Catholics claim that it does not have to be found there to be valid.

Here is the prayer that I prayed:

"Lord Jesus! I am a sinner. I need You. Come into my spirit. Take away my sin. Fill me that I may have the life of God. I receive You right now as my Savior and life. I give myself to You. I ask this in Your name, Amen!"

It includes repentance, confessing Jesus and belief.
I was baptised soon afterwards.

I also think it is interesting that you admit that believer's baptism is Biblical while infant baptism is not.
I do not understand how anyone can think an infant can repent or believe or why it would be necessary anyway other than that there is a superstitious belief among many Christians that baptism magically saves a baby from going to hell.

You are correct that the "sinner's prayer" is not found in the Bible. And it is not the prayer that saves anyone.


Saying the sinner's prayer is simply a way of declaring to God that you are relying on Jesus Christ as your Savior. There are no "magical" words that result in salvation. It is only faith in Jesus' death and resurrection that can save us.

[IisJustMe]

The Nicene creed fails to capture the nature of our relatsionship with the Saviour because it is a creed. Likewise, your pastor fails to do it because he's a pastor. I fail to do it because I am me. A book will fail to do it because it's a book.That's partially true, on it's face. But if words don't capture the nature of the relationship, then the Bible fails to give us a proper picture of it too, particularly since John said that he supposed you could write a world full of books about the things Jesus said and did and still not capture them all. Nonetheless, he made the effort. The creed captures the central ideas of not only our relationship with Jesus, but the steps necessary for salvation, and to say that it does not is to fail to understand it.I see your point, but it makes me wonder what exactly "biblical" even means. What makes something biblical? Is biblical simply synonymous with "good" or "right"?Yes, exactly. "Non-contradictory" to the Bible would be another good way to put it.

[holo]

That's partially true, on it's face. But if words don't capture the nature of the relationship, then the Bible fails to give us a proper picture of it too, particularly since John said that he supposed you could write a world full of books about the things Jesus said and did and still not capture them all. Nonetheless, he made the effort.Indeed, but as the bible itself says, it's the Spirit's responsibility (and I believe only the Spirit has the ability) to reveal truth to man. As the good book says, nobody comes to Christ unless God draws them - you could read the bible and hear thousands of sermons and still be alien to God... until He chooses to draw you to Himself.

The creed captures the central ideas of not only our relationship with Jesus, but the steps necessary for salvation, and to say that it does not is to fail to understand it.I'm not so sure about that though (in general, the longer I live, the more I believe/doubt, the more I learn and unlearn and experience, the less black and white things seem to me). I mean, take the thief on the cross for example. I don't know how well his faith lined up with the Nicene creed. Or Abraham's faith, for that matter. Sure, had the thief lived longer and had Abraham lived in NT times, the creed may have hade some sort of benefit for them, but you get my point.

And it scares me that we use creeds and such to define who's in and who's out - since they will inevitably leave out some who should probably be in, and possibly vice versa. In effect, I'm afraid creeds create more schisms than unity.

[IisJustMe]

Indeed, but as the bible itself says, it's the Spirit's responsibility (and I believe only the Spirit has the ability) to reveal truth to man. As the good book says, nobody comes to Christ unless God draws them - you could read the bible and hear thousands of sermons and still be alien to God... until He chooses to draw you to Himself.No doubt the Holy Spirit calls, draws, convicts, etc. But how is it we learn? The Good News has to come from somewhere and where it comes from is the revealed truth of God, the Bible.I'm not so sure about that though (in general, the longer I live, the more I believe/doubt, the more I learn and unlearn and experience, the less black and white things seem to me). I mean, take the thief on the cross for example. I don't know how well his faith lined up with the Nicene creed. Or Abraham's faith, for that matter.Abram's faith (Genesis 15:6) was simple: "Abram believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." That's the same faith the thief showed when he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come i your kingdom." (Luke 23:42) Sure, had the thief lived longer and had Abraham lived in NT times, the creed may have hade some sort of benefit for them, but you get my point.The Creed is not any more necessary to salvation, or even to be accepted for it, than saying the sinner's prayer is necessary. Both are guideposts, saying, "This is the way." People can arrive there without them, but they are helpful to those who need an arrow pointing them in the right direction, or to give them words in moments when they have none. That's all.And it scares me that we use creeds and such to define who's in and who's out - since they will inevitably leave out some who should probably be in, and possibly vice versa. In effect, I'm afraid creeds create more schisms than unity.It's not the creed or the prayer that provides that definition. It's God's word. Again, both are simply outlines of the truth, and neither of them violates that truth, just enhances our ability to understand it.

[Righteousone]

First of all, the apostles creed is VERY biblical. It tells the story of Our Savior, Jesus Christ as it is in the bible. How do you Protestants feel about saying the "We believe in the Holy Catholic church"? and "The communion of saints"?

To say the creed is 'unbiblical' is truly ridiculous. The apostles created the creed a few years after Jesus's death.

[IisJustMe]

First of all, the apostles creed is VERY biblical. It tells the story of Our Savior, Jesus Christ as it is in the bible.But it isn't in the Bible, and so far that's the only objection I've seen you post to the "sinner's prayer." How is the Creed acceptable and a model prayer to express contrition, confession, repentance and surrender is not?

[Righteousone]

I believe in god , the Father the Almighty
Creator of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ , His only son, Our Lord
He was conceived by power of the Holy Spirit,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell, the third day he arose from the dead
He ascended into heaven, and is seatteth at the right hand of the father
From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the holy spirit, THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH,
The communion of saints, the forgiveness of sin,
The resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. Amen.

Now, you show me that none of this is in the bible.

[IamRedeemed]

Amen. Repent and Believe the Gospel! :clap:
(Mark 1:15)


Well, this is interesting. I was never taught the "Sinner's Prayer." You see, I was a practicing Catholic, and I had been taught that salvation was through the church I was part of.

So when the Lord got a hold of me and helped me realize that I didn't really know Him, how did I get saved?

He led me. He led me to cry out to Jesus Christ that I was a sinner, and that I needed Him to be my Lord and Savior. That night I got on my knees and asked Him to cleanse me, to come into my heart, and to be my Lord and Savior.

The Gospel was clearly preached in the early Church, but I didn't have that teaching. I had the conviction of the Holy Spirit, based on one Scripture. You can read my story on my home page.

One Scripture and the conviction of the Holy Spirit--it was enough.

[IamRedeemed]

I don't think that is the point. The point is lip service, as opposed to a true godly sorrow and actual repentence and truly believing. Anyone can repeat a prayer, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are saved just because they repeated a prayer. It isn't a magic trick or some other hocus pocus. Say these magic words and POOF! Into eternal life you go! See what I'm saying?
The church is full of false converts. People that think they are going to heaven because they never miss a service, pay their tithes, give to the poor, work in the nursery, are part of the choir, etc etc ad nauseum, but they never repented and never received Jesus into their hearts, they received a religious system.
They think they are saved because they were baptized into a Church when they were an infant
and other erroneous reasons such as that. That is the difference between being "religious" as opposed to those who actually understand the damned state they were in before they heard the good news of the Gospel and wanted what Jesus was truly offering and now have a relationship with the Lord.


I believe in god , the Father the Almighty
Creator of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ , His only son, Our Lord
He was conceived by power of the Holy Spirit,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell, the third day he arose from the dead
He ascended into heaven, and is seatteth at the right hand of the father
From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the holy spirit, THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH,
The communion of saints, the forgiveness of sin,
The resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. Amen.

Now, you show me that none of this is in the bible.

[IisJustMe]

I believe in god , the Father the Almighty
Creator of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ , His only son, Our Lord
He was conceived by power of the Holy Spirit,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell, the third day he arose from the dead
He ascended into heaven, and is seatteth at the right hand of the father
From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the holy spirit, THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH,
The communion of saints, the forgiveness of sin,
The resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. Amen.

Now, you show me that none of this is in the bible.I can't. Nor can you show me that none of the model prayer I posted last night is in the Bible. If you could, you would have by now. That's my point. These words in this order are not in the Bible, yet you find them acceptable. How is it that you cannot find the model sinner's prayer equally acceptable?

[Righteousone]

Because the sinners prayer IS NOT in the bible and won't save you.

[IisJustMe]

Because the sinners prayer IS NOT in the bible and won't save you.And the same can be said of the Nicene Creed.

Both the creed and the prayer put in words true, godly, biblical concepts. The creed is a roadmap of faith. The prayer is a roadmap of renewal. How can you accept one and not accept the other, when the rejection of one on the grounds you use requires you to reject the other for the same reason? You're not being consistent here.

[Righteousone]

Never said the creed would "save" you, but you are saying the sinners prayer will.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I haven't seen one person in this thread say that the sinners prayer will save anyone.

[IisJustMe]

Never said the creed would "save" you, but you are saying the sinners prayer will.No I didn't. If you'd read my posts, you'd see that I've said all along, it's a matter of heart, not "walking an aisle and saying a prayer." In fact, that's a creed of mine. The belief that salvation is achieved through "walking an aisle and saying a prayer" is one of the leading reasons that people believe a person can lose their salvation. Simply saying the words, praying the prayer, having the emotional or intellectual assent to the gospel is not salvation. There's a flip side to it. God must accept the confession as valid, and only God knows if He did that or not, because only God can judge the heart. A good measure is evidence of life change, but even that does not confirm salvation, since the sanctification process literally takes a lifetime, and conviction over some behaviors may occur immediately while others may take years.

[IamRedeemed]

I don't know how you ended up segwaying into OSAS, (I guess the same way you segway into
all sorts of controversial derailments lol) but I would just like to comment on your statement
and say that I believe the Bible gives quite an adequate bit of evidence to disagree with you.


No I didn't. If you'd read my posts, you'd see that I've said all along, it's a matter of heart, not "walking an aisle and saying a prayer." In fact, that's a creed of mine. The belief that salvation is achieved through "walking an aisle and saying a prayer" is one of the leading reasons that people believe a person can lose their salvation. Simply saying the words, praying the prayer, having the emotional or intellectual assent to the gospel is not salvation. There's a flip side to it. God must accept the confession as valid, and only God knows if He did that or not, because only God can judge the heart. A good measure is evidence of life change, but even that does not confirm salvation, since the sanctification process literally takes a lifetime, and conviction over some behaviors may occur immediately while others may take years.

[IisJustMe]

Not going there. I disagree, obviously, but that's another thread.

[IamRedeemed]

I disagreed with you first!:P ^_^^_^^_^
(yes, that's another thread) :thumbsup:

Not going there. I disagree, obviously, but that's another thread.

[JAS4Yeshua]

OSAS is a debate I'm already involved in in the SF forum. Don't need to drag it here as well. :D

[AllTalkNoAction]

The sinner's prayer is a tool used by Christians to help guide nonChristians who have indicated that they want to accept Christ as Lord and Savior but don't really know how to talk to God, or how to ask forgiveness.

It didn't even "exist" until around 1960 or 1970.

In leading people to Christ, people often used the verses commonly known as the Roman Road. . . .

That's all well and good as far as it goes, but I know from experience that people that sincerely agree with all that are told they are now Christians, whereas the apostles were careful to pray with such believers to receive the Holy Spirit and wait for God to bare their hearts witness with his sign of speaking in tongues, NOT their confession that Jesus is Lord or whatever.

[IisJustMe]

That's all well and good as far as it goes, but I know from experience that people that sincerely agree with all that are told they are now Christians, whereas the apostles were careful to pray with such believers to receive the Holy Spirit and wait for God to bare their hearts witness with his sign of speaking in tongues, NOT their confession that Jesus is Lord or whatever.That's utter nonsense. The only places the apostles prayed for others to receive the Holy Spirit were when they found they had not believed the gospel of Christ, but only the baptism of John. You've been told that before and yet you insist on clinging to a misconception that misleads others.

[AllTalkNoAction]

That's utter nonsense. The only places the apostles prayed for others to receive the Holy Spirit were when they found they had not believed the gospel of Christ, but only the baptism of John. You've been told that before and yet you insist on clinging to a misconception that misleads others.People can judge for themselves which of us speaks the truth . . .

In Acts 8 we read:-
:5: Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
:6: And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
:7: For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
:8: And there was great joy in that city.

Was Philip preaching the gospel of Christ or the baptism of John?

Clue: Philip was one of the 12 that followed Jesus and who had received the Spirit at Pentecost and who heard & taught the apostles doctrine and suffered persecution with them

We read on .. .
:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. . . .
:14: Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
:15: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

[Lightbearer3]

Well, this is interesting. I was never taught the "Sinner's Prayer." You see, I was a practicing Catholic, and I had been taught that salvation was through the church I was part of.

So when the Lord got a hold of me and helped me realize that I didn't really know Him, how did I get saved?

He led me. He led me to cry out to Jesus Christ that I was a sinner, and that I needed Him to be my Lord and Savior. That night I got on my knees and asked Him to cleanse me, to come into my heart, and to be my Lord and Savior.

The Gospel was clearly preached in the early Church, but I didn't have that teaching. I had the conviction of the Holy Spirit, based on one Scripture. You can read my story on my home page.

One Scripture and the conviction of the Holy Spirit--it was enough.


She has a awesome blog too;)

[Starcrystal]

The Sinner's prayer doesn't mean anything. It's not wrong to give someone direction on what to say in order to accept Christ, but not in a "Please repeat after me. . . .okay, you're saved!" way. That is wrong and meaningless. Before I was baptized, I repeated "I believe that Jesus is the Son of the living God and I take Him as my Lord and Savior," but the Bible says we need to exclaim to all that Jesus is Lord, or He will deny us in heaven. The Sinner's prayer is by NO MEANS a must to salvation. It can actually be very misleading. Some may think "I said the Sinner's prayer, I'm saved!" when they really just said words and it didn't mean anything to them.

Get my drift?

Clearly..... very clearly.

I don't even have to post a reply now. I'll just make sure your quote is seen again! :)

[IisJustMe]

People can judge for themselves which of us speaks the truth . . .Most people already have, but give it your best shot ...In Acts 8 we read:-
:5: Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
:6: And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
:7: For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
:8: And there was great joy in that city.

Was Philip preaching the gospel of Christ or the baptism of John?As with all first-time presentations of the gospel, this new message -- and it was a new message, not the same proselytizing the Jews had been doing for centuries -- the "signs and wonders" accompanied the preacher for the purpose of confirming that God was the source of rhe message. I've said that all along. The early church carried these signs and wonders with their message. Jesus empowered them to do so, for the reason I just stated. You ignore Paul's declaration, also from God, that the signs and wonders would cease. You ignore it when I point it out to you. And you will continue to ignore it. So I really don't know why I bother.

One last thing: Your views are definitely anti-Nicene, and this forum is Nicene in nature. You really shouldn't be posting here except to fellowship or ask questions.

[AllTalkNoAction]

Most people already have, but give it your best shot ...As with all first-time presentations of the gospel, this new message -- and it was a new message, not the same proselytizing the Jews had been doing for centuries -- the "signs and wonders" accompanied the preacher for the purpose of confirming that God was the source of rhe message. I've said that all along. The early church carried these signs and wonders with their message. Jesus empowered them to do so, for the reason I just stated. You ignore Paul's declaration, also from God, that the signs and wonders would cease. You ignore it when I point it out to you. And you will continue to ignore it. So I really don't know why I bother.

One last thing: Your views are definitely anti-Nicene, and this forum is Nicene in nature. You really shouldn't be posting here except to fellowship or ask questions.
I proved you wrong from scripture, clearly.
You offer no apology or acknowledgement or thanks.

On the other point, there is not a separate gospel for people that havn't heard it before, there is "one gospel", specific signs follow that gospel, it comes with demonstration of the Spirit and power.

It is un-biblical to say that these have ceased:-
1 Cor. 13v8-12 talks about 2 time periods, "now" and "then".

"Then", God's people shall know even as they known !
They shall see Him face to face !

"Now" we see through a glass darkly, so we are not in the second time period, so tongues have not ceased, neither have the other means of communication such as prophecy, and we still have the natural unredeemed bodies so the need for healing is still here.

I wasn't aware that Nicene teaches what you teach on this, does it?

[IisJustMe]

I proved you wrong from scripture, clearly.Clearly you didn't. Clearly you misinterpreted the Scripture you provided. Clearly, that proves nothing.

[JAS4Yeshua]

You proved him wrong? The only thing that you have "proven" is that you disagree with him on the interpretation of that passage of Scripture. Other than that, you didn't really "prove" anything.

I do have to agree with you about the Nicene Creed, though. This isn't contrary to the Nicene Creed, it is actually very Pentecostal in belief, which isn't contrary to the Nicene Creed. Although, because it is very denominationally tied, it does appear that it may be against the FSG's (rules) of the non-denominational forum.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Here's a summary of what I believe to be the correct view of the working of the Holy Spirit, and the filling of the Holy Spirit. I know there are some who might disagree with me even on this, but I do believe it is a far more balanced and Biblically correct view.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17), who rose Jesus from the dead (Romans 8:11). I believe that the Holy Spirit is in the world, convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8), testifying of Jesus (John 15:26) and glorifying Him (John 16:14). I believe the Holy Spirit lives inside of those who believe in Jesus (Romans 8:9), to be our Helper (John 14:16), helping us in our weakness (Romans 8:26), teaching us all things (John 14:26) and guiding us in truth (John 16:13). I believe that the Holy Spirit gives us power to proclaim the Gospel (Acts 1:8). I believe that there are different spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4), ministries (1 Corinthians 12:5), and activities (1 Corinthians 12:6) dispersed to each believer by the Holy Spirit as He sees appropriate (1 Corinthians 12:11), for the benefit of all believers (1 Corinthians 12:7). I believe we should desire the Spiritual Gifts (1 Corinthians 12:31), and that God will give them to us when we ask (Luke 11:13). I believe that if we are allowing the Holy Spirit to control our lives, it will be evidenced by our actions and attitudes (Galatians 5:22-23). Of all the gifts, ministries, and activities, we believe that the only ones that will endure will be faith, hope and love, of which, the most important is love (1 Corinthians 13:13).

Too much emphasis is often placed on individual gifts of the Spirit as being "evidence" of Salvation. Instead, we are not looking at the full truth, and that is not everyone will demonstrate all the Spiritual Gifts, and not one gift is any greater than another. The most important thing we should see and seek after is love. This is a love for others, a love for Christ, and a love for the things of God. It is unconditional, which is impossible without the filling of the Holy Spirit.

[AllTalkNoAction]

You proved him wrong? The only thing that you have "proven" is that you disagree with him on the interpretation of that passage of Scripture. Other than that, you didn't really "prove" anything.
How does the passage I quoted not prove IisJustMe's contention that "The only places the apostles prayed for others to receive the Holy Spirit were when they found they had not believed the gospel of Christ, but only the baptism of John." ?

To me it's very clear and obvious proof!
I await your reply with interest.

[JAS4Yeshua]

All it proves is that you both disagree on the interpretation and application of the Holy Spirit's power and presence in our lives.

[AllTalkNoAction]

All it proves is that you both disagree on the interpretation and application of the Holy Spirit's power and presence in our lives.Nonsense - words prove things, this is God's word - Philip was there at Pentecost to receive the Spirit, he continued in the apostles doctrine and went down to Samaria to preach the signs-following Gospel, whereas "John (the Baptist) did no miracle" (John 10:41). The proof is there for all to see, anyone why says it isn't proves simply doesn't want to hear the word.

[IisJustMe]

Nonsense - words prove things.Not if you misunderstand, misinterpret or misrepresent them. That is what you continue to do. I'm not going to debate you. I'm not going to argue with you. You will not convince me if you debate or argue with me. I believe you are wrong. Let's leave it at that.this is God's word - Philip was there at Pentecost to receive the Spirit, he continued in the apostles doctrine and went down to Samaria to preach the signs-following Gospel, whereas "John (the Baptist) did no miracle" (John 10:41).I don't, and haven't, disagreed with any of that. But you refuse to accept my view (supported in Paul's writings) that the "signs and wonders" were only a temporary confirmation of the source of the message that are no longer necessary. Jesus spoke only three times of "signs and wonders" and He was not flattering of their ministry beyond His own and the apostles' use of them:

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:14)

I will not post Mark 13:22 as it says virtually the same thing on the same subject. The third example is in the gospel of John, and Jesus pointedly states that faith not only is possible, but preferable, to seeing miracles in conjunction with it.

When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and was imploring Him to come down and heal his son; for he was at the point of death. So Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe." The royal official said to Him, "Sir, come down before my child dies." Jesus said to him, "Go; your son lives." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and started off. (John 4:48)

Signs and wonders are not Jesus' preference. His Word is sufficient. The "greater works" that Jesus said we would do, in John 14:12, are not "signs and wonders" because how could we possibly do signs and wonders of greater magnitude that Jesus? Of course we could, by His power, but that is not what He wants. Otherwise He would not have chastised the royal official above for wanting Jesus to heal his son by His miraculous presence. What Jesus wants is our faith that His Word is true, and for our testimony, our changed life, to be a witness to those who know us as to what Jesus truly is capable of doing. The "greater things" are our testimony that is believed and fosters faith in others without "signs and wonders" that convince them of His glory.

Now, if you insist on carrying on this "debate" you will be ignored. There is no point, as I do not accept your doctrine, and saying I have no desire for truth will simply convince me we have nothing in common over which to fellowship.

[AllTalkNoAction]

I don't, and haven't, disagreed with any of that.
Now you mis-represent yourself!
you said:-
"The only places the apostles prayed for others to receive the Holy Spirit were when they found they had not believed the gospel of Christ, but only the baptism of John."

That disagrees with what Acts 8 clearly shows.


But you refuse to accept my view (supported in Paul's writings) that the "signs and wonders" were only a temporary confirmation of the source of the message that are no longer necessary.Paul's writings don't support it!
Why don't you answer the points I made from 1 Corinthians 13?

The third example is in the gospel of John, and Jesus pointedly states that faith not only is possible, but preferable, to seeing miracles in conjunction with it.By denying the miracle-producing faith you are not in fact believing in the Jesus of the bible, who is the same today as he was yesterday.

Signs and wonders are not Jesus' preference. His Word is sufficient. The "greater works" that Jesus said we would do, in John 14:12, are not "signs and wonders" because how could we possibly do signs and wonders of greater magnitude that Jesus? Of course we could, by His power, but that is not what He wants.
So if your or your child were sick, you wouldn't want a healing?

[ARBITER01]

alltalknoaction is a oneness pentecostal. He has espoused his views before on the Spirit-filled forum and been castagated there also. I approached him about it before when The Holy Spirit pointed it out and asked him outright, and he refused to answer me.

That is why he is adament about tongues being the evidence of salvation. Standard sort of beliefs one would find in a oneness church.

He will be forever arguing about such things with other Christians.

[AllTalkNoAction]

alltalknoaction is a oneness pentecostal. He has espoused his views before on the Spirit-filled forum and been castagated there also. I approached him about it before when The Holy Spirit pointed it out and asked him outright, and he refused to answer me.
I have said before when asked that I am not oneness, I do not say that you must verbally say "in the name of jesus Christ" when you baptise. If you know a post where I didn't deny it, please tell me.

[BustedFlat]

Under Staff Review

[Kristen.NewCreation]

This thread has been reopened.

Please remember to keep the debate respectful and focused on the OP.

[IisJustMe]

Time stamp error ... never mind.

[Nadiine]

.

[Nadiine]

.

[MarkEvan]

The receiving of the Spirit has just been detailed at great length. Anyone who says you receive but not speak in tongues simply doesn't want the truth.



1 corinthinas 12

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.
And now I will show you the most excellent way.



Paul quite clearly says that not all believers will speak in tongues, there is no way round it.




As for the continued existence of signs and wonders........I personally see no reason why God would dispense with them, they serve a perpose to back up the validity of the gospel message. If we were to say that tongues or healings had ceased then so must Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.....as these are also gifts of God and come in the context of the other gifts that would provide signs and wonders.



Mark

[AllTalkNoAction]

1 corinthinas 12
Paul quite clearly says that not all believers will speak in tongues, there is no way round it.

When you take a text out of context, you are left with a con.

Since chapter 11 Paul has been talking about what God wants in meetings.

Chapter 12 is not detailing what different people get when they become christians. Acts details that, as does the start of the letter (1:4-7) which affirms that they are all enriched in all utterance. How can you have Jesus but not his mind, heart, faith, understanding and other attributes?

It is precisely because of this that there needs to be limitation and order when all meet. So Paul says one should speak at a time, with different people being used in different ways.

That's why he says "to one is given the word of wisdom, to another .. .knowledge . . .faith . .tongues . . interpretation" (vv8-12)

He is definately not saying that only one, or even only some Christians get knowledge, faith or tongues. This would make a nonsense of this and many other scriptures and indeed undermine the whole gospel of message of sinners becoming fully equipped sons of God.

1 Cor. 14 further shows the point, please read it as few churches these days actually do what this passage says, they just mis-use it to argue that all speaking in tongues when they receive the Spirit was just "special" to Acts, whereas in fact if only some could speak in tongues paul wouyld never have to reason with them not to all do it when they meet - the problem could never have arisen!

[Nadiine]

agrees with mark evan -

tongues is clearly identified with Paul's rhetorical questions in 1 Cor 12 that not ALL speak in tongues, or have healing, or have prophecy or any other gift listed in those questions. The answer is NO. Not all have each gift - so why pick 1 out of all of them as "PROOF" somebody is saved.

It's obvious and it's clear. Too bad it continues to be obsessed over.
And that's why I stopped with this whole subject - it's just too obsessive for my taste, so I'd rather not spend any time on it.

[IisJustMe]

AllTalk ...

Many, if not most, of us do not believe in tongues, particularly as the confirming sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit. One would think you would begin to understand that from the opposition your controversial and (in my opinion) completely unbiblical interpretation of Scriptures has drawn.

If you wish to believe this, fine. Please do. Do not try to chastise the rest of us with you insulting claims about our lack of desire for truth, or that we've been conned, or any of your other un-Christ-like statements. I vehemently oppose tongues, yes, and sometimes to extremes. But I do not question the love of Christ those who practice tongues have, nor do I accuse them of not desiring the truth. Such accusations tend to show the accuser, not the accused, to be the one who needs more of Christ.

Do not break fellowship with us through insults. Be at peace with your doctrine, and allow us to be at peace with ours, or risk alienating those with whom you want influence, to the extent you are on several "ignore" lists.

God bless you, and welcome, but without the judgment and accusations, please.

[Nadiine]

AllTalk ...

Many, if not most, of us do not believe in tongues, particularly as the confirming sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit. One would think you would begin to understand that from the opposition your controversial and (in my opinion) completely unbiblical interpretation of Scriptures has drawn.

If you wish to believe this, fine. Please do. Do not try to chastise the rest of us with you insulting claims about our lack of desire for truth, or that we've been conned, or any of your other un-Christ-like statements. I vehemently oppose tongues, yes, and sometimes to extremes. But I do not question the love of Christ those who practice tongues have, nor do I accuse them of not desiring the truth. Such accusations tend to show the accuser, not the accused, to be the one who needs more of Christ.

Do not break fellowship with us through insults. Be at peace with your doctrine, and allow us to be at peace with ours, or risk alienating those with whom you want influence, to the extent you are on several "ignore" lists.

God bless you, and welcome, but without the judgment and accusations, please.
the problem brother, is that according to his doctrine, WE AREN'T HIS BROTHER/SISTERS if we don't speak in the tongues he says we must have which prove our salvation....

What fellowship does light have with darkness?

[IisJustMe]

the problem brother, is that according to his doctrine, WE AREN'T HIS BROTHER/SISTERS if we don't speak in the tongues he says we must have which prove iur salvation.... What fellowship does light have with darkness?None, of course. My hope was that a willingness to fellowship with us might help him understand the misguided doctrine to which has adhered better, in light of the truth. I suppose that was too much to ask. And by that statement I probably defeated my purpose, though it likely was already a failure.

[Nadiine]

None, of course. My hope was that a willingness to fellowship with us might help him understand the misguided doctrine to which has adhered better, in light of the truth. I suppose that was too much to ask. And by that statement I probably defeated my purpose, though it likely was already a failure.
well I agreed with you of course, just that until something like a revelation happens, that's just how it will likely remain.

Can't fault you for trying tho! :thumbsup:

[MarkEvan]

He is definately not saying that only one, or even only some Christians get knowledge, faith or tongues. This would make a nonsense of this and many other scriptures and indeed undermine the whole gospel of message of sinners becoming fully equipped sons of God.





This has been talked over a lot in just this thread alone never mind the countless other threads on the subject, so I will leave it at this.




1Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.
And now I will show you the most excellent way.



The first thing to notice about this passage is that Paul goes off the subject of what God desires in church services and addresses an issue that the corinthians had concerning gifts, hence 'and now about spiritual gifts.' That is, the opperation of gifts not in a limited sense of just within church meeting (for the gifts would surely opperate outside of this) but rather in the fuller sense that is the whole body of Christ, for instance Jesus own ministry, that of Peter and Paul showed that healings and speaking in tongues were not just limited to church services, but rather (especially healings) were used to supplement the gospel. Evangelists also have there work out in the world, yet they are part of (a very important part) of the body of Christ.

As for Paul saying that 'some' believers get the gifts of knowledge, tongues etc, not all. that it seems to me is exactly what is being said. We are a body with different parts, not everyone is an eye or a hand or a foot. While some are called to be apostles, it is not all. While some are called to be teachers, it is not all. While some speak in tongues, it is not all. What would be the point of the analogy of the body if we all operated in the same gifts? All men are equiped to something that God has deemed right for them, not all men though are equiped to the same thing.



I really can`t see any more to say as the words are clear cut. Paul is talking about the whole body of believers saying that each has a role to play. These roles will not all be the same. In the body, the whole body there will be some who are apostles, some who are prophets, some who are teachers, and some who speak in tongues (amongst other things). Not all however will opperate in each area.


If you disagree there is nothing left to say other than that you are wrong, the scriptures are clear, and perhaps God will reveal this to you later.




Mark

[JAS4Yeshua]

Agree with Mark. Of course, even Chapter 12 wouldn't be complete without Chapter 13, where Paul describes that the more excellent way is love.

[Nadiine]

Agree with Mark. Of course, even Chapter 12 wouldn't be complete without Chapter 13, where Paul describes that the more excellent way is love.
and the most excellent gift being prophecy as well.
yep. :thumbsup:

[MarkEvan]

Agree with Mark. Of course, even Chapter 12 wouldn't be complete without Chapter 13, where Paul describes that the more excellent way is love.



Yup, 'and this is how men shall know you are my disciples...that you show love one for another.'


Mark :thumbsup:

[Starcrystal]

and the most excellent gift being prophecy as well.
yep. :thumbsup:

Yep, and not very many practice this.
They think tongues is theeee #1 gift or at least we see that in practice.

"And the Lord spoke unto Moses and gave him power to work signs, oh hallelujia, rabba shundai caro shako rata rata suro, Oh Jesus!"

Ok, now where's the interpretation of that? (I'm just mimicing - that WASN'T tongues BTW...)

I just loved the one in 1985 where the preachers told people to listen to their tongues and repeat them and that would be the gift.

"Ew Ratasaura... Ew, Ratasaura"

Is that a new kind of dinosaur or something? Or a rotten dinosaur. All I know is it WASN'T tongues and tongues are NOT the gift God desires us to have most of all.

Thanks Nadine.... hey we agree here :clap:

[Nadiine]

Yep, and not very many practice this.
They think tongues is theeee #1 gift or at least we see that in practice.

"And the Lord spoke unto Moses and gave him power to work signs, oh hallelujia, rabba shundai caro shako rata rata suro, Oh Jesus!"

Ok, now where's the interpretation of that? (I'm just mimicing - that WASN'T tongues BTW...)

I just loved the one in 1985 where the preachers told people to listen to their tongues and repeat them and that would be the gift.

"Ew Ratasaura... Ew, Ratasaura"

Is that a new kind of dinosaur or something? Or a rotten dinosaur. All I know is it WASN'T tongues and tongues are NOT the gift God desires us to have most of all.

Thanks Nadine.... hey we agree here :clap:
hey it's nice to have agreement together :thumbsup:

I recently was told about a church who was holdng workshops on learning to speak in tongues.
:eek: :doh:

How many of us know that if something is a GIFT FROM GOD, that you just attain the gift and have it...
not have to take classes to learn how to speak in tongues.
:doh: :scratch:

SAD. (and sadder that people are so gullible to fall for this stuff. Do they not read their bibles?)

[RefrusRevlis]

The sinner's prayer is totally bogus. It in effect says you can say a little prayer as a sinner and are saved. This ignores what the bible says about immersion in water (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Gal 3;27, 1 Peter 3:21 etc).
Also God does not hear "sinners": John 9:31

Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

One needs to be in a relationship with God to be heard by him, since Jesus is the mediator (1 Tim 2:5) and high priest (Book of Hebrews). Unless we are in him we will not be heard.

Refrus

[IisJustMe]

The sinner's prayer is totally bogus. It in effect says you can say a little prayer as a sinner and are saved. This ignores what the bible says about immersion in water (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Gal 3;27, 1 Peter 3:21 etc).Getting wet doesn't save, and the Bible does not teach that it does, so what is bogus in this post is all contentions to the contrary. To claim baptism is part of salvation is a complete misunderstanding of Scripture. You are right in one way, though to call any prayer "bogus" borders on heresy. Walking an aisle and saying a prayer is not salvation, that is certainly true. However, if God finds that confession of a need of a Savior, as expressed through that prayer, acceptable and true, then the Holy Spirit comes in and salvation is given. No bath, no works, no gestures, rote or ritual saves. Only Christ saves, and nothing we do accomplishes it.

[RefrusRevlis]

Getting wet doesn't save, and the Bible does not teach that it does, so what is bogus in this post is all contentions to the contrary. To claim baptism is part of salvation is a complete misunderstanding of Scripture.

It always amazes me when people say baptism is no part of salvation:o. Scripture is quite clear that baptism saves:

1 Peter 3:21
There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There is only one baptism (which unifies the church):

Eph 4:4-5

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;


So which baptism is the one for all Christians? The one we can choose to submit to (obey) just like Paul. This is the baptism which washes away sins:

Acts 22:16

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

Sins are washed away at baptism.

Acts 2:38

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

"Baptised... for the remission of sins" is pretty clear. When one's sins are forgiven one is saved from them, or at least the penalty for them.

This does not mean one earns salvation. Having to "do something" for salvation does not equal "earning" salvation.


Instead of reciting tired :sleep: Calvinist dogma, you need to quote scripture.


You are right in one way, though to call any prayer "bogus" borders on heresy.

Absolutely NOT. You are wrong. The idea that one can pray to God for salvation without obeying His revealed will in the scriptures is bogus. It is false (bogus) teaching.


Walking an aisle and saying a prayer is not salvation, that is certainly true. However, if God finds that confession of a need of a Savior, as expressed through that prayer, acceptable and true, then the Holy Spirit comes in and salvation is given.

And how do you know this, exactly?


No bath, no works, no gestures, rote or ritual saves. Only Christ saves, and nothing we do accomplishes it

So we have to do nothing? No works? What about faith?

John 6:28 - 29

Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

Belief is a work. Belief in this sense includes the actions that accompany it (it is a synecdoche).

Refrus Revlis

[Nadiine]

baptism doesn't SAVE - it is a step of obedience we follow AFTER we're converted. It's obedience. Without FAITH, it is impossible to please God.

Faith drives us to obey. Romans 6 explains what baptism is in detail. Jesus also got baptised - did He need salvation? He was GOD.

Our baptism is a symbol of following our Lord to the death in this life to raising in the newness of life in Him.
Death, burial, raising -
Jesus' baptism was a prophecy of His death, burial, raising to come (it was His mission). It symbolized what would come, we symbolize what came.

Just as the Israelites were given rituals to symbolized acts of God - His rescue and care for them.

Baptism isn't salvation - FAITH is the salvation, baptism comes in obedience symbolizing our newness in Christ as a follower; dying to self
and being raised in newness in His Spirit....

I agree with all the verses you use, just not how you're using them in light of the whole of scripture which gives us the full picture.
Water doesn't save, CHRIST is our living water, we believe by faith UNTO salvation.
:) =)

[IisJustMe]

It always amazes me when people say baptism is no part of salvation:o. Scripture is quite clear that baptism saves:It is only "clear" to those who completely misinterpret the Scriptures you've cited, and that means you. You've sold out to a false doctrine taught by men, not by Christ, so there's no point in my continuing to discuss it with you. You will not listen. May God reveal the truth to you, and bless you with it.

[picassoui]

It is my understanding that no prayer saves anyone but that any sinners prayer that is genuine is preceeded by faith so that a sinners prayer comes after one believes and isn't the means for believing.

[Nadiine]

It is my understanding that no prayer saves anyone but that any sinners prayer that is genuine is preceeded by faith so that a sinners prayer comes after one believes and isn't the means for believing.
:)

[RefrusRevlis]

It is only "clear" to those who completely misinterpret the Scriptures you've cited, and that means you. You've sold out to a false doctrine taught by men, not by Christ, so there's no point in my continuing to discuss it with you. You will not listen. May God reveal the truth to you, and bless you with it.

Is that the best response you can muster (in effect you are saying to me "You're wrong, so there"). You haven't deal with any of the scriptures I posted. If I have used them out of context, either show how I misused them or admit that I am right. I must say your claim to omniscience ( "so there's no point in my continuing to discuss it with you. You will not listen") I find most amusing.

refrus

[IisJustMe]

ou haven't deal with any of the scriptures I posted.I'm sure you're aware of the contextual and linguistic errors you've made, because I wouldn't be the first one to point them out to you. So why waste my time when you prefer to believe a false doctrine that you have already been given warnings regarding it's falacy?

[RefrusRevlis]

I'm sure you're aware of the contextual and linguistic errors you've made, because I wouldn't be the first one to point them out to you. So why waste my time when you prefer to believe a false doctrine that you have already been given warnings regarding it's falacy?

Hmm, let me get this right....


From this I can draw the conclusion, you are saying:

1) You know (somehow) that I know the supposed arguments against my position.
2) That these arguments point out the contextual and linguistic errors I have made.
3) That I have chosen to ignore these.

(Essentially you are inferring I am dishonestly using the scriptures - which is ok for you to claim if you would just show me how I am supposedly doing this)

Once again you claim to know too much. I suspect however, you know very little. The fact that you claim I have made (so far unexplained) linguistic and contextual errors, yet you haven't actually pointed any out to me indicates your position has no substance to it.


Pontification such as:

So why waste my time when you prefer to believe a false doctrine that you have already been given warnings regarding it's falacy?[/

is not an argument.

It seems to me that you are not prepared to "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). Show me which of the scriptures I misapplied. I would do the same for you, if you actually had any scripture-based arguments.

Tell me what you think these portions of scripture mean:

"There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism"

"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins"

"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"

Refrus

[IisJustMe]

Hmm, let me get this right....The only way you can do that is abandon your false teaching of salvation by baptism. So you can't claim I haven't stated the case ...

Yes, you have listed some verses that, on the surface and out of context, would seem to indicate baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5 just list a few), there must be a different interpretation of those verses. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. In the first century, a person who converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify conversion. Baptism was the means of making public a decision to follow Christ. Those who refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the minds of the apostles and early disciples, the idea of an un-baptized believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it was taken as an indication that he did not have true faith.

If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, "I thank God I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius" (1 Corinthians 1:14)? He further said, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel -- not in cleverness of speech, so the cross of Christ would not be made void." (1 Corinthians 1:17) Granted, in this passage Paul is arguing against the divisions that plagued the Corinthian church. However, how could Paul possibly say, “I thank God I baptized none of you …” or “For Christ did not send me to baptize…” if baptism were necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, “I am thankful that you were not saved because I didn't give you the full message …” and “For Christ did not send me to save because I did not tell you to be baptized …” Either would be an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make. Further, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the Gospel lack a mentioning of baptism?

Now, I'm moving on. As I said, it's a waste of my time. But you at least have the truth to mull over, even if you won't accept it.

[RefrusRevlis]

The only way you can do that is abandon your false teaching of salvation by baptism. So you can't claim I haven't stated the case ...


Yes....you need to state your case...as is usually the procedure in a debate/discussion. But let's see exactly of what your case consists:

Yes, you have listed some verses that, on the surface and out of context, would seem to indicate baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation.


You have NOT shown how I have supposedly taken the verses I have used out of context.

However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5 just list a few), there must be a different interpretation of those verses. Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

Finally, some scripture to "support" your position ( I have underlines the verses you alluded to).

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

This verse does not support your position. It proves faith saves. It does not prove baptism does not save. You are making one exclude the other and in that you are in error. Also, "should not perish" (Greek me apoletai) is an aorist subjunctive. A.T. Robertson in his Grammar of New Testament Greek in the light of Historical Research says on the subjunctive: "The subjunctive differs from the future indicative in stating what is thought likely to occur, not positively what will occur." (p 925)

What about...James 2:

 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

You are preaching faith alone (without works) saves. Faith without works is the kind of faith demons have, it is a dead faith.

So, proving faith saves is not the same as proving faith alone saves.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Just because we need to do something, does not mean we earn salvation. Salvation is not of ourselves - we didn't think of how to achieve it, we didn't pay the price for it. It cannot be earned through our deeds. But this does not mean we do not need to do something to lay hold on the free gift.

What about...1 Peter 1:22

Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,

1 Peter 1 shows quite clearly that Christians have to do something to receive salvation. They need to obey. This does not mean, therefore, that they earn salvation.



Titus 3:5
"not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,"

The "washing of regeneration" very strongly hints at baptism.

In the first century, a person who converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify conversion. Baptism was the means of making public a decision to follow Christ. Those who refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the minds of the apostles and early disciples, the idea of an un-baptized believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it was taken as an indication that he did not have true faith.


The scriptures do not indicate that Baptism was to be a "public declaration at all". I wonder how public the baptism of the Philippian Jailer was (in the middle of the night) or the Ethiopian eunuch (in the middle of a desert). The idea of baptism's purpose being a public declaration is a human creation designed to subvert the truth.


If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, "I thank God I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius" (1 Corinthians 1:14)? He further said, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel -- not in cleverness of speech, so the cross of Christ would not be made void." (1 Corinthians 1:17) Granted, in this passage Paul is arguing against the divisions that plagued the Corinthian church. However, how could Paul possibly say, “I thank God I baptized none of you …” or “For Christ did not send me to baptize…” if baptism were necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, “I am thankful that you were not saved because I didn't give you the full message …” and “For Christ did not send me to save because I did not tell you to be baptized …” Either would be an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make.

Quite easily answered. Paul was not sent to perform baptisms. Other people could do the job. This does not mean he didn't preach the necessity of baptism. The problem in Corinth was that people were creating factions based around teachers ("Iam of Paul, I am of Apollos" etc). There are two verbs involved "preach" and "baptize" Paul was sent to do the former (because he was specially chosen by God to do so) the latter could be done by anyone at all.


Further, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the Gospel lack a mentioning of baptism?


Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.



This has to be the poorest of a particularly weak group of arguments. You consider this to be a "detailed outline ". Do you admit that it does not include every aspect of the gospel? It actually goes into very little detail and focusses on the evidences for Christ. There is no mention of the love of God, his mercy, the sin of humankin