True Religion

[rasell]

Calvin can converted to Protestantism after a cousin said to him, true
religion is based on faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, false
religion in trusting to good works, ceremonies etc. for salvation.

When he considered his life, he could not shake away the feeling of
sin, and nothing the church could do could make it right. Finally
after seeing a heretic burned at the stake, he decided to read the
Bible and found Jesus there.

Marc

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cd856ce5-42f7-4cfd...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

Protestantism may be faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. True
Christianity however is faith in Christ. His atoning sacrifice covers all
those who have faith in *him*, not those who have faith in *it*. Simple
really.

John Cooper
http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/coffeejesus.png

[Phil Saunders]

Wrong again. Try reading the bible.

We have both faith in Christ and the faith of Christ. Likewise the faith
of God and faith in God.

To have faith in the atonement is to have faith in not only Jesus but
also in the the nature and purpose of the sacrifice that brings
salvation, and to have faith in God.

You keeping taking your uninformed pot shots but you merely show that
despite your words you have very little idea about what the gospel is.

Phil

[John Cooper]

"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vg0fs.365558$x81.2...@fx06.am4...

>> Protestantism may be faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. True
>> Christianity however is faith in Christ. His atoning sacrifice covers
>> all those who have faith in *him*, not those who have faith in *it*.
>> Simple really.
>>
>> John Cooper
>> http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/coffeejesus.png

> Wrong again. Try reading the bible.
>
> We have both faith in Christ and the faith of Christ. Likewise the faith
> of God and faith in God.

Sounds ever so deep. Or could it be theological nonsense?
________________________________________________________

> To have faith in the atonement is to have faith in not only Jesus but also
> in the the nature and purpose of the sacrifice that brings salvation, and
> to have faith in God.

Got a scripture for that? One, is all I require.
________________________________________________________

> You keeping taking your uninformed pot shots but you merely show that
> despite your words you have very little idea about what the gospel is.

John Cooper

[rasell]

On 15 Oct, 12:30, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> "rasell" <marcand...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

Christ said: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so
the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have
eternal life in him." John 3:14-15

The Apostle John put it this way: "This is love: not that we loved
God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for
our sins." 1 John 4:10

Salvation is only obtained by believing in Christ, that he died for
our sins, just as those in the wilderness had to look at the snake on
the pole to be cured, so only by looking at Christ can a person be
saved. He paid the price for our sins, there is no other way to be
saved.

Marc

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:4bfe20c4-7f9d-4654...@s18g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> Christ said: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so
> the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have
> eternal life in him." John 3:14-15

> The Apostle John put it this way: "This is love: not that we loved
> God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for
> our sins." 1 John 4:10

> Salvation is only obtained by believing in Christ, that he died for
> our sins, just as those in the wilderness had to look at the snake on
> the pole to be cured, so only by looking at Christ can a person be
> saved. He paid the price for our sins, there is no other way to be
> saved.

Why is it, that whenever people are asked to provide evidence for the
'salvation-through-faith-in-the-atonement' theory, they always provide
verses which either speak of the need to have faith in Christ, or verses
which show that Christ's sacrifice was an atonement for sins?

It is impossible, that those whom the Gospels record as having believed in
Jesus, had any idea that he was going to die on the cross for their sins.
There is no evidence from the rest of the New Testament, that 'faith in
Christ' changed its meaning after the crucifixion.

Luther and Calvin immunised millions against the gospel, as they were
predestined to do.

John Cooper

[Phil Saunders]

On 16/10/2012 10:09, John Cooper wrote:
> "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:vg0fs.365558$x81.2...@fx06.am4...
>
>>> Protestantism may be faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. True
>>> Christianity however is faith in Christ. His atoning sacrifice covers
>>> all those who have faith in *him*, not those who have faith in *it*.
>>> Simple really.
>>>
>>> John Cooper
>>> http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/coffeejesus.png
>
>> Wrong again. Try reading the bible.
>>
>> We have both faith in Christ and the faith of Christ. Likewise the faith
>> of God and faith in God.
>
> Sounds ever so deep. Or could it be theological nonsense?

Well since both are clearly stated in scripture I'll go for simple truth.

Sling all the mud you like.


The faith of Christ - not having mine own righteousness, which is *of*
the law, but that which is through the *faith* *of* *Christ*,
Faith in Christ - For ye are all the children *of* *God* by *faith* in
Christ Jesus.

Faith of God - ^3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief
make the faith of God without effect?
Faith in God - And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have *faith* *in* *God*.

So much for it being nonsense.

How about having faith in the acts of God or Jesus..... read on to the
next section :-)

> ________________________________________________________
>
>> To have faith in the atonement is to have faith in not only Jesus but
>> also
>> in the the nature and purpose of the sacrifice that brings salvation,
>> and
>> to have faith in God.
>
> Got a scripture for that? One, is all I require.

I always have scripture for my arguments.

"Whom *God* hath set forth to be a propitiation through *faith* *in* his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of *God*;"

So we have faith in the blood of Jesus and in that way it is a
propitiation which declares his righteoueness which brings a remission
of sins.

In other words faith in the act of atonement by Jesus (the shedding of
his blood) brings remission of sins.

Ta flippin daaaaaaa there is one for you.

You should try reading the bible yourself, I find it most illuminating.

Phil

[Phil Saunders]

On 16/10/2012 12:49, John Cooper wrote:
> "rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4bfe20c4-7f9d-4654...@s18g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Christ said: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so
>> the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have
>> eternal life in him." John 3:14-15
>
>> The Apostle John put it this way: "This is love: not that we loved
>> God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for
>> our sins." 1 John 4:10
>
>> Salvation is only obtained by believing in Christ, that he died for
>> our sins, just as those in the wilderness had to look at the snake on
>> the pole to be cured, so only by looking at Christ can a person be
>> saved. He paid the price for our sins, there is no other way to be
>> saved.
>
> Why is it, that whenever people are asked to provide evidence for the
> 'salvation-through-faith-in-the-atonement' theory, they always provide
> verses which either speak of the need to have faith in Christ, or verses
> which show that Christ's sacrifice was an atonement for sins?

They don't always do so, I didn't. I quoted a scripture which shows that
faith in the act of atonement (the shedding of blood) results in the
remission of sins.

But then you don't like to deal with reality but pretend like you are
distilling when instead you are instilling.

We are saved by grace through faith, but we don't have a "faith in
Jesus" alone. We have faith in God, in the power of God, in the word of
God, in Jesus, in what Jesus achieved, in the very nature of God and in
the nature of Jesus.

But that doesn't fit with your silly simple ideas so you cannot accept
it. Elsewhere I have shown those things to be true by quoting scripture.
I will be amused by your reply I am sure.

>
> It is impossible, that those whom the Gospels record as having
> believed in
> Jesus, had any idea that he was going to die on the cross for their sins.
> There is no evidence from the rest of the New Testament, that 'faith in
> Christ' changed its meaning after the crucifixion.

Those that had faith in Jesus prior to the New Covenant did not have the
same faith as you seem to imply. Some had faith to be healed, some had
faith that others would be healed, some had faith that Jesus would be
able to help them they were not all followers of Christ nor did they
have a saving faith as the NT defines it.

>
> Luther and Calvin immunised millions against the gospel, as they were
> predestined to do.
>
> John Cooper

And now here you are like a super hero to show the whole church where it
went wrong.

Phil

[rasell]

On 16 Oct, 13:00, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

> Why is it, that whenever people are asked to provide evidence for the
> 'salvation-through-faith-in-the-atonement' theory, they always provide
> verses which either speak of the need to have faith in Christ, or verses
> which show that Christ's sacrifice was an atonement for sins?
>
> It is impossible, that those whom the Gospels record as having believed in
> Jesus, had any idea that he was going to die on the cross for their sins.
> There is no evidence from the rest of the New Testament, that 'faith in
> Christ' changed its meaning after the crucifixion.
>
> Luther and Calvin immunised millions against the gospel, as they were
> predestined to do.
>
> John Cooper

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without
shedding of blood is no remission" Heb. 9:22

The only way for sin to be removed is through the shedding of blood.
That principle holds true both in the Old and New Testament.

The truth of the gospel was known to those in the Old Testament:
"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them:" Heb. 4:2

Marc

[rasell]

On 17 Oct, 10:50, rasell <marcand...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

There is also Mark 10:45:
"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister, and to give his life a ransom for many"

Christ paid the price of sin - gave his life as a ransom.

Man cannot add anything to the perfect atonement made by Christ.

Marc

[John Cooper]

"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:yxkfs.49177$jY.2...@fx25.am4...

>>> We have both faith in Christ and the faith of Christ. Likewise the faith
>>> of God and faith in God.
>>
>> Sounds ever so deep. Or could it be theological nonsense?
>
> Well since both are clearly stated in scripture I'll go for simple truth.
>

> The faith of Christ - not having mine own righteousness, which is *of* the
> law, but that which is through the *faith* *of* *Christ*,
> Faith in Christ - For ye are all the children *of* *God* by *faith* in
> Christ Jesus.
>
> Faith of God - ^3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief
> make the faith of God without effect?
> Faith in God - And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have *faith* *in*
> *God*.

This is a Greek thing. As in English, there are different ways of saying
the same thing in Greek. In this instance, we have a usage of the genitive
case, which, being translated literally over into English, has been latched
onto by Calvinists, because it appears to lend support to that system.
However, an examination of how these constructions are used, should be
sufficient to guide one to the correct understanding. If you can be
bothered, Phil, then check out these verses in the English and the Greek:

Mark 11:22 - (literally) have faith of God
Luke 6:12 - (lit) in prayer of God
Acts 3:16 - (lit) faith of his name
Acts 4:9 - (lit) good work of an infirm man
Galatians 2:16 - (lit) the faith of Jesus Christ... the faith of Christ
Galatians 3:22 - (lit) by faith of Jesus Christ
Ephesians 3:12 - (lit) through the faith of him
Philippians 1:27 - (lit) the faith of the gospel
Philippians 3:9 - (lit) through faith of Christ
Colossians 2:12 - (lit) faith of the working of God
James 2:1 - (lit) the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ
Revelation 14:12 - (lit) the faith of Jesus

a comparison of these examples - there are sure to be many others - will
show that the genitive usage here is not a mark of possession. This is why
I keep on saying that the only way to understand any word (or in this case,
grammatical structure) is to note *how* it is used.

So to summarise this section:
Mark 11:22 - have faith in God
Luke 6:12 - in prayer to God
Acts 3:16 - faith in his name
Acts 4:9 - good work towards an infirm man
Galatians 2:16 - faith in Jesus Christ... faith in Christ
Galatians 3:22 - by faith in Jesus Christ
Ephesians 3:12 - through faith in him
Philippians 1:27 - faith in the gospel
Philippians 3:9 - through faith in Christ
Colossians 2:12 - faith in the working of God
James 2:1 - faith in our Lord Jesus Christ
Revelation 14:12 - faith in Jesus

This then resolves the problem.
__________________________________________________________

> "Whom *God* hath set forth to be a propitiation through *faith* *in* his
> blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
> past, through the forbearance of *God*;"
>
> So we have faith in the blood of Jesus and in that way it is a
> propitiation which declares his righteoueness which brings a remission of
> sins.
>
> In other words faith in the act of atonement by Jesus (the shedding of his
> blood) brings remission of sins.

That is the one they use. And apart from reading it into OT types and
allegories, there really is no other argument. This is the source of the
'salvation-through-faith-in-the-atonement' theory, this one verse.

The verse is genuinely ambiguous, and all depends on the punctuation.
Similar to 'I say unto you this day, you shall be with me in Paradise', or,
'I would not have you to be ignorant brethren', or, 'Drink ye all of it'.

Notice how the Revised Version, and other more modern translations,
translate it:

'whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood, to
shew his righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done
aforetime, in the forbearance of God' (Romans 3:25)

This is not because of some wicked liberal plot to expunge the precious
blood. The preposition after the verb 'to believe' (pisteuo) is usually
'eis', sometimes 'epi', sometimes it is followed directly by a dative
without any preposition, and rarely with 'en' as in this particular case. I
have found just 4 clear examples of 'faith in' using 'en' - Mark 1:15;
Ephesians 1:15; Colossians 1:4; 2.Timothy 3:15.

'En' is often translated as 'by'. The expression 'in ('en') his blood' in
Greek, is also translated 'by his blood' in English, where the sense demands
it, e.g. Ephesians 2:13; 1.John 5:6; Revelation 1:5; 5:9. And this is the
reason why many scholars prefer the RV take on Romans 3:25.

But a doctrine is known by its fruit. Faith in Christ (as it is revealed in
the NT) always leads to good works. It cannot do otherwise. Faith in the
atonement (which many mistake for 'faith in Christ') however, frequently
leads to bitter fruit. I am sure there are many who are reading these
words, who know exactly what I am talking about.

In addition to that, it is somewhat remarkable, that a doctrine so
important, should rest on the disputed translation of one solitary verse.

John Cooper

[John Cooper]

"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:aIkfs.335397$PU2.2...@fx23.am4...

>> It is impossible, that those whom the Gospels record as having believed
>> in Jesus, had any idea that he was going to die on the cross for their
>> sins. There is no evidence from the rest of the New Testament, that
>> 'faith in Christ' changed its meaning after the crucifixion.
>
> Those that had faith in Jesus prior to the New Covenant did not have the
> same faith as you seem to imply. Some had faith to be healed, some had
> faith that others would be healed, some had faith that Jesus would be able
> to help them they were not all followers of Christ nor did they have a
> saving faith as the NT defines it.

And yet Jesus said they did. Strange.
____________________________________________________________

>> Luther and Calvin immunised millions against the gospel, as they were
>> predestined to do.

> And now here you are like a super hero to show the whole church where it
> went wrong.

You mean, that Luther and Calvin did not pose as super heroes to show the
whole Church that it had been wrong for 1500 years?

John Cooper

[rasell]

On 17 Oct, 12:50, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> But a doctrine is known by its fruit.  Faith in Christ (as it is revealed in
> the NT) always leads to good works.  It cannot do otherwise.  Faith in the
> atonement (which many mistake for 'faith in Christ') however, frequently
> leads to bitter fruit.  I am sure there are many who are reading these
> words, who know exactly what I am talking about.
>

Genuine faith in Christ, in the person, and that he has paid the total
price for our sins, does not lead a person to bad works. There are
many Scriptures which show that genuine faith leads to good works.
However, none of these good works give us any merit before God in
terms of our salvation, they merely reveal that God's Spirit has been
at work in our lives. No good works can add anything to the atonement
made by Christ because it is an infinite sacrifice with all
sufficiency to provide salvation and transformation of character.

Marc

[Phil Saunders]

Of course there is but you said "one verse" and I gave you it. Game over.

> The verse is genuinely ambiguous, and all depends on the punctuation.
> Similar to 'I say unto you this day, you shall be with me in
> Paradise', or,
> 'I would not have you to be ignorant brethren', or, 'Drink ye all of it'.
>

It needs to be ambiguous for you, it isn't but anyway....

> Notice how the Revised Version, and other more modern translations,
> translate it:
>
> 'whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood, to
> shew his righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done
> aforetime, in the forbearance of God' (Romans 3:25)

Yes the RV makes a hash of it, what is new?

>
> This is not because of some wicked liberal plot to expunge the precious
> blood. The preposition after the verb 'to believe' (pisteuo) is usually
> 'eis', sometimes 'epi', sometimes it is followed directly by a dative
> without any preposition, and rarely with 'en' as in this particular
> case. I
> have found just 4 clear examples of 'faith in' using 'en' - Mark 1:15;
> Ephesians 1:15; Colossians 1:4; 2.Timothy 3:15.

Your faulty understanding of faith is the issue, you think that faith is
and must be only in Christ and seek to separate that from who he is and
what he did. I have faith in Christ because of what he did and who he
is, Because of this I have faith in each part of what he did and said. I
have faith in his words and in his deeds.

>
> 'En' is often translated as 'by'. The expression 'in ('en') his
> blood' in
> Greek, is also translated 'by his blood' in English, where the sense
> demands
> it, e.g. Ephesians 2:13; 1.John 5:6; Revelation 1:5; 5:9. And this is
> the
> reason why many scholars prefer the RV take on Romans 3:25.
>
> But a doctrine is known by its fruit. Faith in Christ (as it is
> revealed in
> the NT) always leads to good works. It cannot do otherwise. Faith in the
> atonement (which many mistake for 'faith in Christ') however, frequently
> leads to bitter fruit. I am sure there are many who are reading these
> words, who know exactly what I am talking about.
>

This delusion of yours is a real problem. Both Calvin and Luther taught
faith in Christ and that good works follow faith and that faith in
Christ is not just faith in his person but also in all that he accomplished.

> In addition to that, it is somewhat remarkable, that a doctrine so
> important, should rest on the disputed translation of one solitary verse.
>
> John Cooper

But it doesn't John, I quoted one simple verse to show that you are
wrong. You quoted a very poor translation to try and disguise what it
says. I could very well have argued from chapters of scripture that say
the same thing but you wanted a verse and I gave it to you, now you seek
to say that this is not enough. Do you get tired moving those goalposts?

Phil

[Phil Saunders]

On 17/10/2012 12:46, John Cooper wrote:
> "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:aIkfs.335397$PU2.2...@fx23.am4...
>
>>> It is impossible, that those whom the Gospels record as having believed
>>> in Jesus, had any idea that he was going to die on the cross for their
>>> sins. There is no evidence from the rest of the New Testament, that
>>> 'faith in Christ' changed its meaning after the crucifixion.
>>
>> Those that had faith in Jesus prior to the New Covenant did not have the
>> same faith as you seem to imply. Some had faith to be healed, some had
>> faith that others would be healed, some had faith that Jesus would be
>> able
>> to help them they were not all followers of Christ nor did they have a
>> saving faith as the NT defines it.
>
> And yet Jesus said they did. Strange.

No, he didn't. Being delivered from sickness and having sins forgiven
was not, under the Old Covenant, salvation. I refer you to the OT.

> ____________________________________________________________
>
>>> Luther and Calvin immunised millions against the gospel, as they were
>>> predestined to do.
>
>> And now here you are like a super hero to show the whole church where it
>> went wrong.
>
> You mean, that Luther and Calvin did not pose as super heroes to show the
> whole Church that it had been wrong for 1500 years?
>
> John Cooper

No, they didn't. Most of what Luther did was to point out what had been
added on by the church, he still believed much pretty much RC doctrine
on most points. It was the corruption of the church that he fought
against. Their reaction was to force him out, that was not what he wished.

Calvin refered back to the early fathers and the early church and also
tried to strip away the appendages that had been added to the truth. The
Institues does not contain a great deal that is in anyway unique to
Calvin. Thomism is not that far from Calvinism etc

Phil

[rasell]

On 18 Oct, 09:20, Phil Saunders <philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Yes the RV makes a hash of it, what is new?
>

John is right that the Greek can be translated either way, however I
agree with you over the meaning.

Its clear that salvation is a free gift of grace (Titus 3:5; Eph.
2:8-9), it is by grace and mercy throught faith, and not of works.

Jesus died for our sins, paying a ransom (Mark), bearing our sins on
the tree (Peter), being an atoning sacrifice (John) and being made sin
for us who knew no sin (Paul).

Therefore the faith talked about in Romans 3:25 pertains to the fact
that Jesus died for us, and we receive that free pardon by faith.

There was once a person offered a pardon for a captial offence who
refused the pardon and was executed.

Marc

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:542319db-032d-4691...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

Genuine faith in Christ - belief in the person, in his claims about himself,
and in his teachings, always leads to good works. And this statement surely
needs no defending. It should be blindingly obvious. For anyone who
believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, also recognises the
importance and truthfulness of his teachings. Anyone who does evil
thereafter, is like one who hears the word and does not do it. And why
would they not do it? Because they don't really believe his teachings.
Therefore they don't really believe in him.

Belief in the resurrection is a necessary for salvation, for if Christ was
not raised, then he was a false prophet, for he said he would be raised on
the third day. So the person who does not believe that Christ was raised,
does not believe in Jesus.

All Christians, of all eras, have believed that Christ died on the cross for
their sins. The atonement was not discovered by Protestants.

Most Christians have recognised that salvation is of grace. Most Christians
will recite the Lord's Prayer, where they *ask* for forgiveness. Many
Christians also recite in church, 'Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy,
Lord, have mercy'. Most Christians are not of that super-confident variety,
that boldly approaches th'eternal throne and claims the crown. May the Lord
have mercy upon them.

No-one can add to, or take away from, any of the power of Christ's
atonement. But it only applies to people who believe in Jesus.

There is another group, which claims a right to the atonement, and these are
the people who believe that if they believe that the atonement applies to
them, then it does. They call this, 'accepting Christ'. These people see
no *need* to obey Christ's teachings. In fact, they would regard as
legalism, any suggestion that obedience to Christ has any part in salvation.
It is this perversion of grace, which leads to paedophilia, adultery,
fornication, perjury, fraud, etc. etc.

John Cooper

[Phil Saunders]

What utter rubbish, provide one piece of evidence that such a group exists.

Phil

[John Cooper]

"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:voQfs.398097$x81.2...@fx06.am4...

>> There is another group, which claims a right to the atonement, and these
>> are the people who believe that if they believe that the atonement
>> applies to them, then it does. They call this, 'accepting Christ'.
>> These people see no *need* to obey Christ's teachings. In fact, they
>> would regard as legalism, any suggestion that obedience to Christ has any
>> part in salvation. It is this perversion of grace, which leads to
>> paedophilia, adultery, fornication, perjury, fraud, etc. etc.
>

> What utter rubbish, provide one piece of evidence that such a group
> exists.

Do you believe that Christians need to obey Christ's teachings in order to
obtain salvation?

John Cooper

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"John Cooper" wrote in message

> Do you believe that Christians need to obey Christ's teachings in order to
> obtain salvation?

I do for one!
"3 We are sure that we know Christ if we obey his commandments. 4 The person
who says, “I know him,” but doesn't obey his commandments is a liar. The
truth isn't in that person."
1 John 2:3-4 (GW)


Jeff...

[John]

Please explain *why* you obey Christ's commandments.

--
John

[John Cooper]

"John" <focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cr4088159iktjq6ab...@4ax.com...

> Please explain *why* you obey Christ's commandments.

Because Jesus said that those who don't, will find that their 'house falls
down' - Matthew 7:26,27.

Because anyone who repents at Jesus' teaching, obeys Jesus.

Because Jesus tells us what to do to get into his Kingdom, and what to do to
not end up in the Hellfire. I actually believe what he says.

Because Jesus said that unless we deny ourselves, and take up our cross
daily, and follow him, we will lose our souls.

Because the kingdom of heaven is worth it, and I really believe what Jesus
says about it.

I also believe what Jesus said about Hell as well.

I look at what happened to the Jews, for their disobedience to Moses'
commandments, and realise what will happen if I disregard the teachings of
the Christ himself.

I want to obey and follow him, because he died on the cross for me, to give
me eternal life.

Because if we love him, we keep his commandments.

Because the Lord's sheep heed his teachings, and they follow him (i.e. obey
him).

Because if we follow Jesus, we will end up where he is. But if we follow
the Devil, we will eventually get our wish.

Because those who 'abide in Christ' can't help but produce good fruit.

Because I want to know and feel his presence.

Because I want the rewards of the overcomer (Revelation chapters 2,3,21,22)
I want the right to reign with Christ in his kingdom.
I want to be raised in the first resurrection.
I want the crown of righteousness.
And the crown of life.
And to be part of the Bride of Christ.
And the right to the tree of life.
And the hidden manna, the white stone, and the new name.
The Morning Star as well.
And to be a pillar in God's temple, to bear his name, and the name of his
city, and the new name of Christ.
The right to inherit all things.
The right of entry into the holy city of God.

That is why I am in this. I believe Jesus and I believe what he said.

John Cooper

[Phil Saunders]

Only an idiot believes that they can obtain salvation by obedience to
any sort of teaching.

I believe what the bible teaches, that obedience to God follows from
faith in Christ which is of itself the means of salvation. If I am not
set free then my obedience can not earn salvation and if I am set free
then I do not need to earn my freedom.

Phil

[John Cooper]

"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:JaYfs.338694$KB5.2...@fx24.am4...

>>>> There is another group, which claims a right to the atonement, and
>>>> these are the people who believe that if they believe that the
>>>> atonement applies to them, then it does. They call this, 'accepting
>>>> Christ'. These people see no *need* to obey Christ's teachings. In
>>>> fact, they would regard as legalism, any suggestion that obedience to
>>>> Christ has any part in salvation. It is this perversion of grace,
>>>> which leads to paedophilia, adultery, fornication, perjury, fraud, etc.
>>>> etc.

>>> What utter rubbish, provide one piece of evidence that such a group
>>> exists.

>> Do you believe that Christians need to obey Christ's teachings in order
>> to obtain salvation?

> Only an idiot believes that they can obtain salvation by obedience to any
> sort of teaching.

:-(
________________________________________________________

> I believe what the bible teaches, that obedience to God follows from faith
> in Christ which is of itself the means of salvation.

Well, I entirely agree :-)

The rest went a bit over my head, I'm afraid.

> If I am not set free then my obedience can not earn salvation and if I am
> set free then I do not need to earn my freedom.

John Cooper
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=518583108169237&set=a.290224674338416.85936.167938346567050&type=1&theater

[rasell]

On 18 Oct, 10:50, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
>

> There is another group, which claims a right to the atonement, and these are
> the people who believe that if they believe that the atonement applies to
> them, then it does.  They call this, 'accepting Christ'.  These people see
> no *need* to obey Christ's teachings.  In fact, they would regard as
> legalism, any suggestion that obedience to Christ has any part in salvation.
> It is this perversion of grace, which leads to paedophilia, adultery,
> fornication, perjury, fraud, etc. etc.
>
> John Cooper

I agree that faith in the atoning sacrifice is not a license to sin or
break God's commandments, that is as big an error as trying to be
saved by good works.

But one error does not make the other error right.

Marc

[rasell]

On 18 Oct, 15:10, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"

But commandment keeping is the result of believing in Christ, we don't
keep the Commandments to earn merit with God, or to earn salvation,
which is impossible, we should keep the Commandments because we love
God for what He has done to save us in Christ.

Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments.

Marc

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:33ea8e72-214c-44f2...@u17g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

>> There is another group, which claims a right to the atonement, and these
>> are the people who believe that if they believe that the atonement
>> applies to them, then it does. They call this, 'accepting Christ'. These
>> people see no *need* to obey Christ's teachings. In fact, they would
>> regard as legalism, any suggestion that obedience to Christ has any part
>> in salvation. It is this perversion of grace, which leads to
>> paedophilia, adultery, fornication, perjury, fraud, etc. etc.

> I agree that faith in the atoning sacrifice is not a license to sin or
> break God's commandments, that is as big an error as trying to be
> saved by good works.

So you recognise that there is a danger that (untaught) people might
(mistakenly) see this teaching as a license to sin?

Why is it that those who promote this theory are often so adamant that it is
not a license to sin? Why should they need to do so?

Has it not occurred to you, that instead of correcting the misconceptions
of your listeners, you might need to take a second look at the teaching
itself, and try to understand why it seems to have this effect?

I can preach faith in Christ without the slightest worry of it being
'mistaken' for being a license to sin. That is because I preach faith in
Christ, using examples from the NT itself, instead of preaching 'faith in
Christ' (faith in the atonement) using arguments from the Late Middle Ages.

Even Luther was eventually aware of the moral effects of his doctrine.

John Cooper

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:f408b0e4-628c-4e0d...@s18g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> But commandment keeping is the result of believing in Christ, we don't
> keep the Commandments to earn merit with God, or to earn salvation,
> which is impossible, we should keep the Commandments because we love
> God for what He has done to save us in Christ.

> Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments.

'Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD' (Genesis 6:8)

Noah was actually a righteous man, just and perfect in his generation, and
he walked with God. But he was still a recipient of God's grace.

God told Noah that he was going to flood the world, and that he should build
an ark. Noah believed God.

'By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with
fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned
the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.' (Hebrews
11:7)

We know that Noah believed God, because he obeyed his commandments.
Consequently, Noah was saved, and his whole house.

What was it that saved Noah? His faith? His obedience? The Ark? Or God's
grace?

John Cooper

[Robert Marshall]

On Fri, Oct 19 2012, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> "rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:33ea8e72-214c-44f2...@u17g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>

>> I agree that faith in the atoning sacrifice is not a license to sin or
>> break God's commandments, that is as big an error as trying to be
>> saved by good works.
>
> So you recognise that there is a danger that (untaught) people might
> (mistakenly) see this teaching as a license to sin?
>
> Why is it that those who promote this theory are often so adamant that it is
> not a license to sin? Why should they need to do so?
>
> Has it not occurred to you, that instead of correcting the misconceptions
> of your listeners, you might need to take a second look at the teaching
> itself, and try to understand why it seems to have this effect?
>
> I can preach faith in Christ without the slightest worry of it being
> 'mistaken' for being a license to sin. That is because I preach faith in
> Christ, using examples from the NT itself, instead of preaching 'faith in
> Christ' (faith in the atonement) using arguments from the Late Middle Ages.
>
> Even Luther was eventually aware of the moral effects of his doctrine.
>

As was St Paul (of the same doctrine)!

Shall we continue in sin...

Robert
--
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.
-- Oscar Wilde

[John Cooper]

"Robert Marshall" <sp...@capuchin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:874nlqt...@capuchin.co.uk...

>> Even Luther was eventually aware of the moral effects of his doctrine.

> As was St Paul (of the same doctrine)!
>
> Shall we continue in sin...

On the surface of it, that is a good argument. However:

There is no record of the atonement being preached to non-Christians in the
Acts, despite the fact that several gospel sermons (around 10) are
summarised for us, as well as other important snippets. Surely, if faith in
the atonement is the saving bit, then the apostles would have preached it
when they took the gospel to the lost. They don't.

Although Jesus alludes to the atonement in the Gospels, his teaching was not
understood by the apostles at that time, even though they otherwise believed
in him. Likewise for all those others mentioned in the Gospels, who did not
know that Jesus was going to die for their sins.

Apart from isolated allusions to the atonement in the Gospels, which we now
understand, the atonement is only taught to people who have already believed
in Jesus, in the epistles written to them, by the apostles Paul, Peter, and
John. In other words, the teaching of the atonement is reserved for
believers in Jesus, and not for those who do not as yet believe in him.
Ephesians, Galatians, Romans, Hebrews etc., are letters to gatherings of
Christians, and are not gospel tracts.

When those who have believed in Jesus learn of his atonement in the
epistles, they understand the mechanics of how God saves those who believe
in Jesus.
____________________________________________________________________

Teaching unbelievers that if they 'accept' Christ's atonement, they get
saved, is a recipe for disaster. But this is precisely what evangelicals
do. And they have done so for so long, that it is incomprehensible to them
to preach the gospel in any other way, even though there is no example of
the evangelical gospel being preached anywhere in the New Testament. The
result is a self-satisfied group of people, who regard NT commandments they
do not like as 'law', who justify their disobedience to Jesus through
appealing to Paul's letters condemning those who seek to be justified by the
works of the law, and who actually believe that they have faith in Christ,
because they have appropriated his atonement.

They regard all exhortations to repent as legalism, and condemn those who
would reason with them, as deniers of grace, who would bring them into
bondage to the law.
__________________________________________________________________

The other reason I feel your argument is faulty, is that Christian
libertinism takes many forms, and there existed many forms before Luther and
Calvin, (e.g. in Gnosticism), and it exists today in non-Protestant circles
too. Even in NT times, it was clearly around, as Jude and 2.Peter, and the
letters to the churches in Revelation, and Romans chapter 6 all witness.

However, it is true, I think, that Paul saw that the doctrine of the
atonement, taken out of its proper context, could easily be perverted, to
negate the rest of the gospel. And this is why he stresses the importance
and meaning of baptism - something evangelicals still feel uncomfortable
about, especially its place in the gospel, and (the) salvation (process).
Luther's take on it was diametrically opposed to the evangelical
understanding of it, but the results are still the same. Both are wrong.
For Luther taught salvation through baptism, and Lutheran faith is actually
often faith in the efficacy of infant baptism, whilst evangelical faith is
often faith in the conversion experience.
___________________________________________________________________

Paul goes back to the teachings of Jesus, where he taught that we had to
deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow him. This for Paul is faith in
Christ, which it is. This is the preaching of the cross. And those who
live by this faith in Christ, are being justified through the atonement, and
continuing in faith in Chirst, they grow in holiness, until they reach the
end of their particular race, and finally lay hold on eternal life, which
they were promised.

John Cooper

[celia]

On Friday, 19 October 2012 21:10:16 UTC+1, John Cooper wrote:
> "Robert Marshall" <sp...@capuchin.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:874nlqt...@capuchin.co.uk...
>
>
>
> >> Even Luther was eventually aware of the moral effects of his doctrine.
>
>
>
> > As was St Paul (of the same doctrine)!
>
> >
>
> > Shall we continue in sin...
>
>
>
> On the surface of it, that is a good argument. However:
>
>
>
> There is no record of the atonement being preached to non-Christians in the
>
> Acts, despite the fact that several gospel sermons (around 10) are
>
> summarised for us, as well as other important snippets. Surely, if faith in
>
> the atonement is the saving bit, then the apostles would have preached it
>
> when they took the gospel to the lost. They don't.
>
>
>
> Although Jesus alludes to the atonement in the Gospels, his teaching was not
>
> understood by the apostles at that time, even though they otherwise believed
>
> in him. Likewise for all those others mentioned in the Gospels, who did not
>
> know that Jesus was going to die for their sins.
>
>
>
> Apart from isolated allusions to the atonement in the Gospels, which we now
>
> understand, the atonement is only taught to people who have already believed
>
> in Jesus, in the epistles written to them, by the apostles Paul, Peter, and
>
> John. In other words, the teaching of the atonement is reserved for
>
> believers in Jesus, and not for those who do not as yet believe in him.
>
> Ephesians, Galatians, Romans, Hebrews etc., are letters to gatherings of
>
> Christians, and are not gospel tracts.
>

That view would fit with the practice of 4th c. Christians who kept teaching on the atonement until after baptism and had a lengthy period of tuition before baptism.
Personally I'm not sure that there is only one correct order in how people become Christians and I rather think that God has always shown different aspects of truth to different people. When he revealed his name he added that he was the 'God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob and the formula is frequently repeated but not as 'the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' This would seem to suggest that he was God in different ways to each of them.

Celia

[John Cooper]

"celia" <celi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5a7898af-53e4-44fc...@googlegroups.com...

>> There is no record of the atonement being preached to non-Christians in
>> the Acts, despite the fact that several gospel sermons (around 10) are
>> summarised for us, as well as other important snippets. Surely, if faith
>> in the atonement is the saving bit, then the apostles would have preached
>> it when they took the gospel to the lost. They don't.
>>
>> Although Jesus alludes to the atonement in the Gospels, his teaching was
>> not understood by the apostles at that time, even though they otherwise
>> believed in him. Likewise for all those others mentioned in the Gospels,
>> who did not know that Jesus was going to die for their sins.
>>
>> Apart from isolated allusions to the atonement in the Gospels, which we
>> now understand, the atonement is only taught to people who have already
>> believed in Jesus, in the epistles written to them, by the apostles Paul,
>> Peter, and John. In other words, the teaching of the atonement is
>> reserved for believers in Jesus, and not for those who do not as yet
>> believe in him. Ephesians, Galatians, Romans, Hebrews etc., are letters
>> to gatherings of Christians, and are not gospel tracts.

> That view would fit with the practice of 4th c. Christians who kept
> teaching on the atonement until after baptism and had a lengthy period of
> tuition before baptism.

I didn't realise that. I'll look into it.

> Personally I'm not sure that there is only one correct order in how people
> become Christians and I rather think that God has always shown different
> aspects of truth to different people. When he revealed his name he added
> that he was the 'God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob and
> the formula is frequently repeated but not as 'the God of Abraham, Isaac
> and Jacob.' This would seem to suggest that he was God in different ways
> to each of them.

Thank you, Celia. That's an interesting thought.

John Cooper

[Phil Saunders]

On 19/10/2012 16:33, John Cooper wrote:
> "rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:33ea8e72-214c-44f2...@u17g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> There is another group, which claims a right to the atonement, and
>>> these
>>> are the people who believe that if they believe that the atonement
>>> applies to them, then it does. They call this, 'accepting Christ'.
>>> These
>>> people see no *need* to obey Christ's teachings. In fact, they would
>>> regard as legalism, any suggestion that obedience to Christ has any
>>> part
>>> in salvation. It is this perversion of grace, which leads to
>>> paedophilia, adultery, fornication, perjury, fraud, etc. etc.
>
>> I agree that faith in the atoning sacrifice is not a license to sin or
>> break God's commandments, that is as big an error as trying to be
>> saved by good works.
>
> So you recognise that there is a danger that (untaught) people might
> (mistakenly) see this teaching as a license to sin?

There are always those who need to be told not to use freedom as an
opportunity for sin. Paul said that and I think his doctrine was impeccable.

>
> Why is it that those who promote this theory are often so adamant that
> it is
> not a license to sin? Why should they need to do so?

They aren't adamant except when some half wit comes along and says it
is. Paul suffered that problem too and his doctine was impeccable.

>
> Has it not occurred to you, that instead of correcting the misconceptions
> of your listeners, you might need to take a second look at the teaching
> itself, and try to understand why it seems to have this effect?

Paul didn't think he needed to do that, the teaching that where sin
abouns grace abounds the more so could be mistaken as excusing sin. Paul
understood that but still taught the truth that it was so.

>
> I can preach faith in Christ without the slightest worry of it being
> 'mistaken' for being a license to sin. That is because I preach faith in
> Christ, using examples from the NT itself, instead of preaching 'faith in
> Christ' (faith in the atonement) using arguments from the Late Middle
> Ages.

If you preach the gospel of grace there will be those who abuse what you
say to excuse sin, Jesus was accused of sin because of his nature of
grace. Paul was accused of encouragiung sin because he preached the
gospel of grace.

If your preaching doesn't have the same outcome as that of Jesus and
Paul then you need to get a grip and understand why you are right when
Jesus and Paul were wrong!

>
> Even Luther was eventually aware of the moral effects of his doctrine.

As was Jesus, as was Paul.

Try not to make yourself appear too silly next time :-)

Phil

[Phil Saunders]

Noah was not saved by building a boat, he could have built 100 boats and
still drowned with all the rest. God shut the door to the ark, without
that act of grace there would have been no survivors.

So Noah was warned by God, which was an act of grace, given a way out by
God, another act of grace, was given the time to build the boat, another
act of grace and was then shut in the boat by God, another act of grace.
Noah believed because he had faith which is the gift of God, another act
of grace.

God saved Noah as an act of grace. He was saved by grace, through faith,
so that he could not boast. You appear to want to boast for Noah when
Noah didn't boast for himself but was humble before God.

We know that Noah believed because the bible tells us he did. His
obedience showed that he had faith just as his urine showed he had
something to drink. You think taking a piss is some act that earns
points with God when actually when one has had a lot to drink one cannot
help but piss. In the same way those with faith cannot help but walk in
the good works that God has prepared for them, yet another act of grace.

Phil

[John Cooper]

"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:pJjgs.11823$Ol2....@fx25.am4...

>> Has it not occurred to you, that instead of correcting the misconceptions
>> of your listeners, you might need to take a second look at the teaching
>> itself, and try to understand why it seems to have this effect?

> Paul didn't think he needed to do that, the teaching that where sin abouns
> grace abounds the more so could be mistaken as excusing sin. Paul
> understood that but still taught the truth that it was so.

There are lots of truths which the 'old man' latches onto as dodges and
excuses not to obey Christ, and to excuse his own will. The fact that 'God
is love' is a very popular truth, which many extrapolate way beyond
scriptural warrant. Likewise the truth that God forgives sins. We need to
remind such short-sighted people of the broader context of these truths, and
Paul had to do the same in his day.
______________________________________________________________

>> I can preach faith in Christ without the slightest worry of it being
>> 'mistaken' for being a license to sin. That is because I preach faith in
>> Christ, using examples from the NT itself, instead of preaching 'faith in
>> Christ' (faith in the atonement) using arguments from the Late Middle
>> Ages.
>
> If you preach the gospel of grace there will be those who abuse what you
> say to excuse sin, Jesus was accused of sin because of his nature of
> grace. Paul was accused of encouragiung sin because he preached the gospel
> of grace.

Jesus was accused for his friendly invitation of publicans and sinners into
his kingdom, and for not condemning the woman taken in adultery, and for
healing on the sabbath day. Those who accused him of encouraging sin were
utterly wrong to do so.

Paul was accused of encouraging sin because he taught that we are not under
the Mosaic Law, but that we were justified through believing in Jesus.
Again, this was a totally unjustified accusation, since Christ's teachings
are no less moral than Moses'.
____________________________________________________________________

> If your preaching doesn't have the same outcome as that of Jesus and Paul
> then you need to get a grip and understand why you are right when Jesus
> and Paul were wrong!

Sadly, there will always be people who scrutinise everything for loopholes
and excuses, so they can avoid the cross, who will seize on the most obscure
arguments to do so. Luther's and Calvin's system is merely one of the more
sophisticated ones.
___________________________________________________________

>> Even Luther was eventually aware of the moral effects of his doctrine.
>
> As was Jesus, as was Paul.

However, neither of these two gentlemen was wracked with doubt over what
they had done. Luther noted what his teaching had led to, and also noted
the superior morality amongst Catholics and Anabaptists.

John Cooper
http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/coffeejesus.png

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Phil Saunders" wrote in message news:BQjgs.10138$Bz2....@fx11.am4...

On 19/10/2012 16:54, John Cooper wrote:
> "rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f408b0e4-628c-4e0d...@s18g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> But commandment keeping is the result of believing in Christ, we don't
>> keep the Commandments to earn merit with God, or to earn salvation,
>> which is impossible, we should keep the Commandments because we love
>> God for what He has done to save us in Christ.
>
>> Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments.
>
> 'Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD' (Genesis 6:8)
>
> Noah was actually a righteous man, just and perfect in his generation, and
> he walked with God. But he was still a recipient of God's grace.
>
> God told Noah that he was going to flood the world, and that he should
> build
> an ark. Noah believed God.
>
> 'By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with
> fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he
> condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by
> faith.' (Hebrews
> 11:7)
>
> We know that Noah believed God, because he obeyed his commandments.
> Consequently, Noah was saved, and his whole house.
>
>> What was it that saved Noah? His faith? His obedience? The Ark? Or
>> God's grace?
> John Cooper

A combination of ALL three.....plus "Being moved with Fear"..

> Noah was not saved by building a boat,

He was indirectly, as if he had refused, he would have drowned with the
rest, thus his obedience also helped to save him along with building the
boat.
So it is with Christens, we are only "Accounted worthy" if we continue to
obey Christ commandments and those of his ordained Apostles which
necessitates according to Christ, that we must "Endure to the end". to
be saved. If we don't we will not be saved. for we will have as St. Paul
reminds us, have "Received the Grace of God in VAIN" 2 Cor 6:1

Jeff...

[Robert Marshall]

On Sat, Oct 20 2012, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Phil Saunders" wrote in message news:BQjgs.10138$Bz2....@fx11.am4...
>
> On 19/10/2012 16:54, John Cooper wrote:
>> "rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:f408b0e4-628c-4e0d...@s18g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>

>> 'By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with
>> fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he
>> condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is
>> by faith.' (Hebrews
>> 11:7)
>>
>> We know that Noah believed God, because he obeyed his commandments.
>> Consequently, Noah was saved, and his whole house.
>>
>>> What was it that saved Noah? His faith? His obedience? The Ark?
>>> Or God's grace?
>

> A combination of ALL three.....plus "Being moved with Fear"..
>

I'd hope you mean all FOUR but I fear you don't

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"John Cooper" wrote in message news:aeaos6...@mid.individual.net...

"John" <focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

> Please explain *why* you obey Christ's commandments.

>Because Jesus said that those who don't, will find that their 'house falls
>down' - Matthew 7:26,27.

>Because anyone who repents at Jesus' teaching, obeys Jesus.

>Because Jesus tells us what to do to get into his Kingdom, and what to do
>to
>not end up in the Hellfire. I actually believe what he says.

>Because Jesus said that unless we deny ourselves, and take up our cross
>daily, and follow him, we will lose our souls.

>Because the kingdom of heaven is worth it, and I really believe what Jesus
>says about it.

>I also believe what Jesus said about Hell as well.

>I look at what happened to the Jews, for their disobedience to Moses'
>commandments, and realise what will happen if I disregard the teachings of
>the Christ himself.

EXCELLENT!!!!!
If only others realised the same.

>I want to obey and follow him, because he died on the cross for me, to give
>me eternal life.

>Because if we love him, we keep his commandments.

>Because the Lord's sheep heed his teachings, and they follow him (i.e. obey
>him).

>Because if we follow Jesus, we will end up where he is. But if we follow
>the Devil, we will eventually get our wish.

>Because those who 'abide in Christ' can't help but produce good fruit.

>Because I want to know and feel his presence.

>Because I want the rewards of the overcomer (Revelation chapters 2,3,21,22)
>I want the right to reign with Christ in his kingdom.
>I want to be raised in the first resurrection.
>I want the crown of righteousness.
>And the crown of life.
>And to be part of the Bride of Christ.
>And the right to the tree of life.
>And the hidden manna, the white stone, and the new name.
>The Morning Star as well.
>And to be a pillar in God's temple, to bear his name, and the name of his
>city, and the new name of Christ.
>The right to inherit all things.
>The right of entry into the holy city of God.

>That is why I am in this. I believe Jesus and I believe what he said.

LOL!
I nearly stated ......you could have taken the words right out of my
mouth.....{;o;}

Jeff...

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Robert Marshall" wrote in message news:87zk3hr...@capuchin.co.uk...

LOL!
Yes! three plus one......{;o;}
I guessed it would be you jumping in, as soon as saw your name.

Jeff...

[John]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:20:06 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic

Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Ok then you two, out of that little lot, pick out the three most
important to you.
--
John

[Robert Marshall]

On Sat, Oct 20 2012, "Jeff" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Robert Marshall" wrote in message news:87zk3hr...@capuchin.co.uk...

> I guessed it would be you jumping in, as soon as saw your name.
>

You guessed it was me when you saw my name? Give that man a prize!

[celia]

On Saturday, 20 October 2012 21:30:10 UTC+1, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>
> I guessed it would be you jumping in, as soon as saw your name.
>

Sometimes your powers of reasoning astound me.

Celia

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"celia" wrote in message
news:dbe456be-2a4d-4cfa...@googlegroups.com...

Well, I knew I had overlooked another digit immediately I reread the post,
lol, way before Robert's name appeared, but as soon as I saw his name,
I was well aware it would be more then likely be him, and I was soooo
right.....{;o;}

Jeff....

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Robert Marshall" wrote in message news:87mwzgs...@capuchin.co.uk...

On Sat, Oct 20 2012, "Jeff" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I guessed it would be you jumping in, as soon as saw your name.
>
> You guessed it was me when you saw my name?

S'right, I mean who else was it likely to be.....{;o;]

> Give that man a prize!

Thanks, I'll take the the 'Amplified Bible' today.

Jeff...

[Robert Marshall]

On Sat, Oct 20 2012, "Jeff" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Robert Marshall" wrote in message
> news:87mwzgs...@capuchin.co.uk... On Sat, Oct 20 2012, "Jeff"
> <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> I guessed it would be you jumping in, as soon as saw your name.
>>
>> You guessed it was me when you saw my name?
>
> S'right, I mean who else was it likely to be.....{;o;]
>
>> Give that man a prize!
>
> Thanks, I'll take the the 'Amplified Bible' today.
>

THEY WERE BANISHED FROM HUMAN SOCIETY, SHOUTED AT AS IF THEY WERE THIEVES.

(JOB 30)

Robert (tomorrow)

[rasell]

On 19 Oct, 16:40, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> Has it not occurred to you, that instead of correcting the misconceptions
> of your listeners, you might need to take a second look at the teaching
> itself, and try to understand why it seems to have this effect?
>
> I can preach faith in Christ without the slightest worry of it being
> 'mistaken' for being a license to sin.  That is because I preach faith in
> Christ, using examples from the NT itself, instead of preaching 'faith in
> Christ' (faith in the atonement) using arguments from the Late Middle Ages.
>
> Even Luther was eventually aware of the moral effects of his doctrine.
>
> John Cooper

Then he would have to join the Apostle Paul, because Peter said some
had twisted Paul's writings to their own destruction.

Some interpreted Paul's writings as meaning that we can sin, but Paul
responded shall we sin so grace may increase, God forbid!
He also said faith does not nullify the law. So Paul had to respond to
those who twisted the doctrine of justification by faith as a license
to sin.

Marc

[rasell]

On 19 Oct, 17:00, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> What was it that saved Noah?  His faith?  His obedience?  The Ark?  Or God's
> grace?
>
> John Cooper

Is it said of Abraham that he kept God's commandments (Gen. 26:5), yet
it also says he believed God and it was creditied to him as
righteousness (Gen. 15). Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith
(Galatians). So even though Abraham kept God's commandments, that did
not justify him, rather it was his faith in the atoning sacrifice that
availed.

Noah by offering sacrifices, showed he had faith in the One to come,
his faith in God produced fear of a coming judgement and obedience to
God. But it is clear that no matter how obedient a person is, it does
not justify a person (Romans and Galatians).

This was why Cain's offering was rejected because he did not offer a
blood sacrifice and depend upon the merits of the Saviour.

Marc

[rasell]

On 19 Oct, 21:10, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> There is no record of the atonement being preached to non-Christians in the
> Acts, despite the fact that several gospel sermons (around 10) are
> summarised for us, as well as other important snippets.  Surely, if faith in
> the atonement is the saving bit, then the apostles would have preached it
> when they took the gospel to the lost.  They don't.
>

In the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, he was reading from Isaiah 53,
and Phillip explained how it related to Jesus, so clearly this passage
speaks of substitutionary atonement, that the Messiah was a guilt
offering, who died for our sins.

After the resurrection, Jesus explained many things to the disciples,
how his mission fulfilled what was written in Moses, the Psalms and
prophets, and at Pentecost the Holy Spirit gave further understanding.
Clearly Phillip understood the meaning of Isaiah 53 in relation to
Christ and taught it to the eunuch. The waters of baptism symbolise
that Christ died for us.

While it is true that Jesus calls us to obedience, and to carry our
cross, none of these things can add merit to the full and complete
atonement of Christ. And to teach that they do is to turn people's
eyes away from Christ who alone can save them.

Christ now ministers as our High Priest, he alone can mediate his
blood and save the sinner (Heb. 7:25).

Marc

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:841f6b6a-359d-48d4...@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...

>> I can preach faith in Christ without the slightest worry of it being
>> 'mistaken' for being a license to sin. That is because I preach faith in
>> Christ, using examples from the NT itself, instead of preaching 'faith in
>> Christ' (faith in the atonement) using arguments from the Late Middle
>> Ages.
>>
>> Even Luther was eventually aware of the moral effects of his doctrine.

> Then he would have to join the Apostle Paul, because Peter said some
> had twisted Paul's writings to their own destruction.

You will always get these people.
_______________________________________________________

> Some interpreted Paul's writings as meaning that we can sin, but Paul
> responded shall we sin so grace may increase, God forbid!
> He also said faith does not nullify the law. So Paul had to respond to
> those who twisted the doctrine of justification by faith as a license
> to sin.

I actually believe in justification by faith in Christ alone. I do not
believe in justification through faith alone in his death. The former leads
to good works, the latter to libertinism.

Just because Paul's good doctrine was capable of being wrested to excuse
evil, does not mean that any doctrine which has this tendency is good
doctrine. Some doctrines need very little wresting. You just follow them
to their natural conclusion. People who believe these doctrines seem to
have a natural bias towards falling far short of the standards set for the
NT Christian, and for sliding into things which the Christian should avoid.
And they call it 'living under grace'.

Faith in Christ fulfils the law, because nothing Christ ever taught offends
its spirit. Believing that one obtains salvation through believing that
Christ died for one's sins upon the cross, however, leads to lawlessness.

John Cooper

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:85dfc7f1-1765-4b10...@w2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

> Is it said of Abraham that he kept God's commandments (Gen. 26:5), yet
> it also says he believed God and it was creditied to him as
> righteousness (Gen. 15). Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith
> (Galatians). So even though Abraham kept God's commandments, that did
> not justify him, rather it was his faith in the atoning sacrifice that
> availed.

Abraham was indeed justified by faith. He was constantly being justified by
his faith. He lived by faith. But he didn't believe that Jesus was going
to die for his sins. He believed that one day God would make his
descendants as the stars of heaven in number - Genesis 15:5,6.

He was justified by faith some 13 years later too - Genesis 17:4-8; Romans
4:17-22.

And again, some years after that - James 2:21-24. And here we see the link
between justification by faith and justification by works.
____________________________________________________________

> Abraham kept God's commandments, that did not justify him, rather it was
> his faith in the atoning sacrifice that availed.

You got any evidence for that?
_____________________________________________________________

> Noah by offering sacrifices, showed he had faith in the One to come,

Really? Which One to come? How do you know?
_____________________________________________________________

> his faith in God produced fear of a coming judgement and obedience to
> God. But it is clear that no matter how obedient a person is, it does
> not justify a person (Romans and Galatians).

And (James)?
__________________________________________________________

> This was why Cain's offering was rejected because he did not offer a
> blood sacrifice and depend upon the merits of the Saviour.

You got any evidence for that? My Bible says Cain's offering was not
accepted because he did bad stuff - 1.John 3:12.

John Cooper

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:2a4e99a1-24a9-4345...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

>> There is no record of the atonement being preached to non-Christians in
>> the Acts, despite the fact that several gospel sermons (around 10) are
>> summarised for us, as well as other important snippets. Surely, if faith
>> in the atonement is the saving bit, then the apostles would have preached
>> it when they took the gospel to the lost. They don't.

> In the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, he was reading from Isaiah 53,
> and Phillip explained how it related to Jesus, so clearly this passage
> speaks of substitutionary atonement, that the Messiah was a guilt
> offering, who died for our sins.

I agree that Isaiah 53 is the most important chapter in the whole of the
Bible for explaining the atonement, and that Philip would have been
hard-pressed not to have mentioned it. What interests me is that when the
Ethiopian eunuch asks for baptism (which is not mentioned in the chapter),
and Philip tells him that if he believes with all his heart, then he may,
the Ethiopian eunuch does not give the standard evangelical profession of
faith. Instead of giving his testimony of how he came to trust in 'the
completed work', he merely says 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God'. Many evangelicals would not have baptised him on his confession of
faith, as this is not considered adequate for salvation.

Here we have a man who believes in Jesus, in the same way as people in the
Gospels believed on him. I am not suggesting however, that Philip managed
to skirt the subject of the atonement.
_____________________________________________________

> After the resurrection, Jesus explained many things to the disciples,
> how his mission fulfilled what was written in Moses, the Psalms and
> prophets, and at Pentecost the Holy Spirit gave further understanding.
> Clearly Phillip understood the meaning of Isaiah 53 in relation to
> Christ and taught it to the eunuch. The waters of baptism symbolise
> that Christ died for us.

I don't want to be pedantic, but the waters of baptism signify death, our
death to the world, the flesh and the Devil, and our union with Christ in
his dying and rising again. We rise from the waters to live a new life with
Christ. It was the NT equivalent to the evangelical conversion experience,
but much more powerful.
_________________________________________________

> While it is true that Jesus calls us to obedience, and to carry our
> cross, none of these things can add merit to the full and complete
> atonement of Christ.

Christ's atonement will have absolutely no effect on us if we do not believe
in him, and demonstrate that faith through following him.
_______________________________________________________

> And to teach that they do is to turn people's eyes away from Christ who
> alone can save them.

And to teach that the atonement can somehow atone for lack of faith in
Christ, will only turn people's faith away from Christ who alone can save
them.

John Cooper

[rasell]

On 22 Oct, 15:30, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> And to teach that the atonement can somehow atone for lack of faith in
> Christ, will only turn people's faith away from Christ who alone can save
> them.
>
> John Cooper

It seems to me that if faith in Christ could merit salvation, then it
would not be mercy, for by nature mercy is undeserved. As soon as one
deserves it, it is not mercy (Titus 3:5).

A genuine faith in Christ leads to transformation of character and
obedience because as one beholds the glory of Christ, bearing the sins
of the world, it changes the soul. A mere intellectual understanding
of the concept which does not lead to rebirth is not genuine faith,
which is what James speaks about.

Those who try to be saved by their own merit are never truly
transformed and so remain in sin. But those who accept the atonement
of Christ are transformed and become a new person in Christ.

One of the best books I read about the death of Christ was written by
a Catholic Bishop, although there were some bits I did not agree with,
on the whole it portrayed the sufferings of Christ in a special way.

Marc

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:ce65ac6d-8394-4ecc...@h16g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

> It seems to me that if faith in Christ could merit salvation, then it
> would not be mercy, for by nature mercy is undeserved. As soon as one
> deserves it, it is not mercy (Titus 3:5).

But we are specifically told that our faith in Christ is what leads to our
salvation - John 3:16; Acts 16:31. Without it, we cannot be saved. But it
is still mercy on God's part. Soldiers must still put up their hands and
surrender, if they don't want to be shot. It doesn't diminish the mercy on
their captors' part if they do so.

'So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are
commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which
was our duty to do.' (Luke 17:10)

Here we have an example of how our attitude should be. We are to do all
those things we are commanded to do. At the same time, we are to recognise
God's grace towards us. We are never taught to use God's grace as an excuse
to disobey his commandments. Our obedience does not invalidate his grace.
There is absolutely no risk of that ever happening.

But the Jew, who thinks that he can be reconciled to God by keeping the OT
observances, ceremonies, festivals, washings, prayers, trips to Jerusalem,
tithing etc., needs to be reminded that God requires faith in Jesus, as the
Messiah, the Son of God.
________________________________________________________

> A genuine faith in Christ leads to transformation of character and
> obedience because as one beholds the glory of Christ, bearing the sins
> of the world, it changes the soul. A mere intellectual understanding
> of the concept which does not lead to rebirth is not genuine faith,
> which is what James speaks about.

Faith in Christ most definately leads to transformation of character and
obedience. How could it be otherwise?
________________________________________________________

> A mere intellectual understanding of the concept

What concept? You're talking about the atonement again. It is faith in
Christ which leads to transformation of life, not an understanding of, nor
even a passionate fixation with, the atonement. There are plenty of people
whose total faith for salvation hangs on their belief that the atonement
applies to them, who accept it, and confess that they need grace, and that
they can never earn their salvation, who will never be saved, because they
will not believe in Jesus.

If they had believed in Jesus, the new birth would have taken place. But
often it is obvious that it hasn't. They may call themselves 'born-again'
Christians, because they believe that Jesus died upon the cross for their
sins, and have invited him into their hearts. But if they believed in
Jesus, they would live new lives, which is what being 'born again' means.
They have substituted a 'born-again' experience for practically living the
new life.
______________________________________________________

> Those who try to be saved by their own merit are never truly
> transformed and so remain in sin.

This applies to Jews, who seek to be righteous before God, through their
observances, which were designed to lead them to Christ, the object of our
faith. For if they do not recognise their Messiah, and instead insist on
trying to please God through their 'dead works' they will die in their sins.
______________________________________________________

> But those who accept the atonement of Christ are transformed and become a
> new person in Christ.

Except that it doesn't work. I've seen very little evidence to support this
theory in all my years observing evangelical Christians. Some evidence,
perhaps. But mostly the other way.

They may talk about being new creations, but this is understood to be a
'spiritual' thing, an 'in-the-sight-of-God' thing, not readily observable to
others. The Gnostics had a similar view, where the spirit was what counted.
____________________________________________________________

> One of the best books I read about the death of Christ was written by
> a Catholic Bishop, although there were some bits I did not agree with,
> on the whole it portrayed the sufferings of Christ in a special way.

Evangelicals are experts on Christ's sufferings, and can tell you precisely
why Christ died. And what is more, they are correct. It is a shame that so
many of them will never be recipients of its benefits, unless they humble
themselves and believe in Jesus.

John Cooper

[rasell]

On 23 Oct, 16:00, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

It seems to me if I said I have a free gift for you, but to receive it
you must first do 100 press-ups would it still be free?

Marc

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:648ef2a3-31b9-469d...@r10g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

> It seems to me if I said I have a free gift for you, but to receive it
> you must first do 100 press-ups would it still be free?

If you are going to push the meaning of the word 'free' to ridiculous
limits - making repentance and faith in Christ unnecessary for salvation,
then nothing can help you. You have to let what the Bible says about the
way of salvation define the meaning of the word 'free'.

John Cooper

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"rasell" wrote in message news:

> It seems to me if I said I have a free gift for you, but to receive it
> you must first do 100 press-ups would it still be free?

Just as Eternal life is "Free" and "without price" but we still have to
accept and follow the criteria that Almighty God has laid down to receive
it.
First Belief......and then water baptism.....to "Put on Christ" then
obedience till death.

Jeff...
Bible Readings for Today!
2 Chron...............20
Daniel...................2
John....................20-21
Intro at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92X0rlMqDGQ

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"John Cooper" wrote in message news:aeqskl...@mid.individual.net...

"17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say,
“Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take
the water of life without price."
Rev 22:17 (ESV)

Jeff...

[rasell]

On 24 Oct, 19:10, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> "rasell" <marcand...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

Its true that faith and repentance are essential parts of salvation,
and also that part of the Christian walk involves obedience to the
Commandments, self denial, good works, prayer, reading the Bible. Yet
none of these things actually gives one any merit in terms of
salvation, because the sacrifice of Christ is fully effacious, a
complete atonement. Salvation depends not on our good works but on the
merits of Christ.

Only by trusting in the merits of Christ can one receive the
transforming grace that eminates from the Cross. Only then can a
person truly be reborn.

Marc

[John Cooper]

"rasell" <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:3b95a4ba-1325-44f1...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

>>> It seems to me if I said I have a free gift for you, but to receive it
>>> you must first do 100 press-ups would it still be free?
>>
>> If you are going to push the meaning of the word 'free' to ridiculous
>> limits - making repentance and faith in Christ unnecessary for salvation,
>> then nothing can help you. You have to let what the Bible says about the
>> way of salvation define the meaning of the word 'free'.

> Its true that faith and repentance are essential parts of salvation,
> and also that part of the Christian walk involves obedience to the
> Commandments, self denial, good works, prayer, reading the Bible. Yet
> none of these things actually gives one any merit in terms of
> salvation, because the sacrifice of Christ is fully effacious, a
> complete atonement. Salvation depends not on our good works but on the
> merits of Christ.

> Only by trusting in the merits of Christ can one receive the
> transforming grace that eminates from the Cross. Only then can a
> person truly be reborn.

I would not disagree with your position here.

John Cooper

[rasell]

On 6 Nov, 15:10, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
>

> I would not disagree with your position here.
>

> John Cooper- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Out of interest, I wanted to mention a couple of extra points:

1. faith is called a gift of the Spirit, therefore even faith comes
from God, so we cannot claim any merit for having it

2. Paul does not say we are saved by faith, rather by grace through
faith

Marc