Rightly dividing the word of truth

Have you learned to rightly divide the word of truth?

John 3:16
For GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 17:9
I pray for them: I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD.
I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD.

Is there a conflict between God the Father and God the Son?
Have the Father and Son disagreed?

Jackson
Nope, two different worlds 🙂

Ernesto
Verse in John is referring specifically to the apostles. Context is so important in rightly dividing. Most just repeat what their traditions say ...over and over again. Like a blind parrot!

Sing
What are the two different worlds?

Jackson
World of believers (3:16), and world of unbelievers (17:9)

Also, consider where the LORD said the world hated him before it hated us. Why would everyone hate him if he died for everyone?

Sing
Which passage is referring specifically to the apostles?

Sing
The world that God so loved was NOT a world of believers!

Ernesto
V9-20 is for apostles..the 11 present. Verse 20 proves this. And in verse 21....what does 'world' mean there? Thanks.

Jackson
The prayer is for the apostles then for those who are converted by their preaching, the "world" in verse 21 is world of believers.

Sing
- The ‘world’ God so loved, is also the ‘world’ that God gave His only begotten Son to save; no more no less. There is the world that God so loved and saved by His Son (Jn 1:29, 3:16), there is a world that Jesus did not love nor pray for (Jn 17:9), there is a world that is in enmity against God (James 4:4). Know the difference!
- But the word 'world' also indicates their spiritual condition - a 'world' that lies in death and condemnation because of sins. That's the ethical sense of the word 'world'. His love was shown to such of the world.

Excerpt from here: 
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2011/12/for-god-so-loved-world.html
Things New and Old: For God so loved the world...

Johnny
No way. "I have come to do the will of the Father." "No one comes to the Father, except by me." God gave Jesus pre-eminence over all things spiritual and physical. "Why do you call ME good; only the Father in heaven is good." Jesus and the Father a… See more

Ernesto
Feel like I'm watching the gymnastics of the special Olympics. All I hear is man's tradition being repeated. Like u memorized an Arthur pink book and believed it as infallible truth. Sorry to see this. 🙁

Mark
For those of you who want the word 'world' in the Scripture to always mean all of humanity, please explain this verse to me: Jas 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

I'd sure like to know how you fellas are gonna get all of humanity inside a single human mouth.

Ernesto
No one is saying it exclusively means all humanity. This is about RIGHTLY dividing. This last comment was very childish at best, or just plain dumb!

Mark
Were you one of 'those who want the word 'world' in Scripture to always mean all of humanity', or just too dumb to see the exclusionary qualifying phrase?

Johnny
Are there scholars or knowers of lexicon to say, the distinction. Not me.

Ernesto
No.

Sing
The Scriptures are self-interpreting. You don't need to wait for the 'scholars or knowers of the lexicon' to teach you!

Mark
That was not the point, Matthew.

Ernesto
It's funny how things never change...Before I was involved with calvinists groups... all that seems to happen is arguments such as these... Thank you for reminding me how thankful I am to no longer be deceived by tradition and man's theological opinions. Peace! Jesus also warned of that. Nullifying the word of God for the sake of tradition...what a shame! Heresies must come! It's His plan.

Mark
Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Perhaps you will rightly divide the above for us Ernesto.

PJ
Ernesto, no one on this thread is Calvinist.

Scripture is quite plain that God has chosen a people for eternal glory. If you have a problem with that, you go take it up with God.

Ernesto
I never said I did...i do have a problem with the twisty turnies i see on John 17. I am leaving this thread. Don't like it when it sounds like an argument. Like I said...Peace.

PJ
Prove it is has been twisted here.

Ernesto
Read what I wrote. In John 17 when Jesus says he is NOT PRAYING FOR THE WORLD. He does not mean that he is not praying for every person...NOR is he saying he is HATING the world he is NOT praying for...Because in V21 he states his motive is THAT THE WORLD BELIEVE!!!! In John 17:9 Jesus states that this particular prayer is FOR THE ELEVEN APOSTLES THAT WERE PRESENT. ADIOS!

PJ
The simple interpretation is that the world he did not pray for in verse 9 cannot be the world for which He prayed in verse 21.

Mark
Hasta la vista.

Ernesto
Jesus loves you all

PJ
Do you love Jesus? (I suspect you do.)

Mark
The question is whether or not He loves the entire human race.

Ernesto
Yes. Thanks. Good day. I believe His love surpasses all understanding! Including yours

Grant
God refers to the 'world' in two main ways:

1. all who dwell on the earth (John 3:16, Mark 16:15), or
2. the evil system that rules the 'earth' (John 15:17, John 17:14. 1 John 2:15, James 4:4)

Johnny
Sing. I am not intending to be sarcastic, by are not eyeglasses a blessing from God, a tool to allow the reader to see, so that understanding can come from the words read. Why would not the ACTUAL WORDS, as Jesus was quoted in Aramaic on occasion, be a tool in clarification of the distinction of the English worlds, spelled exactly the same (for example, "world" and "world"). I dare say none of us, regardless of how much we would want to know truth, would ever on our own, know the distinction of the English word "love," considering there is not such word in either Hebrew or especially, Greek. I am not so proud of my ability to read and understand, as to ask others, skilled with others of God's tools.

Ernesto
Grant: When the bible states God loves the world...this is all humankind? His love is manifested by propitiation according to 1 John 4:10. We know also that 2 Corinthians 5:19 says God reconciled THE WORLD unto himself by the death of Christ...do you believe these words? I do! It is Good news! Man needs to be reconciled...that's why we know the gospel is for all men, EVERYONE! We let all know that God did this in His Son and it is accomplished!

Johnny
@Ernesto. What of the unfortunate (better maybe to ask, those not blessed with the Word, as we), that have never "heard" of God's love, much less the concept of reconciliation. Are all these of Satan's evil world because of their circumstance. How was it, for example, was Noah righteousness, in a world consumed ONLY by evil. I'm not asking, because I know the answer. But Noah, and the rural child in India, are comparable, are they not, in their likelihood of "hearing" so that they may believe. If anything, I agree with you, so that others might at least think outside their convenience. And, I still don't know what a Calvinist, is. I'll never Google it to find out. Name callers will have to say to my face, what they think of my comments. Keep true to the Word, as the Spirit leads you.

Grant
Jesus was not semantically dyslexic. It's the same world, Jesus was just praying for his disciples as they were not 'of the world'.

Johnny
Bill Clinton, an attorney, President, very smart, and able to speak well. He pretended to not know what the meaning of "is" is. I think all of us know. Yet, other two letter words; why have a problem with those, then. I'm meaning, "of" and "in". If I came from Jupiter, my home planet, to Earth, would I say "I am of the world, Jupiter." And would I not also say, "I am in another world, Earth." Of course, I'm rambling. Right?

Grant
If you want to significantly change the meaning of a noun (ie 'world'), you put an adjective in front of it. For example, the 'Christian' world or the 'non-Christian world. Note, Jesus didn't differentiate how he used 'world'.

Johnny
@Grant. That does not speak to the righteous, non-hearing individuals, loved by God. Does this have to do with these, the "world" of Christians, or non-Christians, as you view the scriptures.

Sing
Matthew Ong, where were you when Sungai Dua Church learned the truth from the NEW KJV those truth who hold today, and which KJV preserve??? We learned the truth WITHOUT the KJV, and having learned the truth we discovered that the KJT preserves that truth in its translation.

Where were you Matthew?

I was using the lexicon to show a stiffneck man like you that the single word "hell" is translated from 'hades,' 'sheol,' 'gehenna,' and 'tartaroo.'

Ignorance is no bliss, Matthew!

[Matthew Ong deleted all his comments.]

Sing
If you want to significantly change the meaning of a noun (ie 'world'), you put an adjective in front of it. For example, the 'Christian' world or the 'non-Christian world. Note, Jesus didn't differentiate how he used 'world'.
==========

Why must a word need the qualification by using adjective?

Haven't you heard the THREE rules of interpretation:

The first rule: Context
The second rule: Context
Third rule: Context.

There is no need for adjectives. Context - immediate, and larger context is enough. Scriptures is its own interpreter because of these THREE rules.

Kenneth Vaughan
Does John 17:9 imply that Jesus never prays for the world? It seems to me that He is referring to who he is praying for in a specific prayer. For instance earlier I prayed for the persecuted church. At that time I was not praying for a sick child. Does that mean I dont ever pray for sick children and I am in disagreement with those who do? Absolutely not, only fallacious logic would lead one to believe so.

Grant
1. The lack of a differentiating adjective is the first context. 2. The immediate surrounding verses are the next context. 3. Similar passages by the same author are the third context. 4. Similar passages by other authors is the last context.

By any context 'world' means either all the people on the earth or the world system. It never means a select group within the world: that is known in the Bible as a 'nation' or a people ie gentile.

Johnny
To risk the philosophical, world, must mean humanity. The old testament, from creation, through the tower of babel, and the covenant of God for ALL nations, indicates that ALL humanity is God's purpose for creation of life and what we humans perceive as reality. And, the humanity is divided into the righteous, and the unrighteous (not ultimate righteousness in the spiritual sense, but being a person of God, or not (whether the person knows of God, by nature, or by teaching). So, my question, one I have wrestled with since early teen, is the requirement to hear the Word, believe it, and so on, to be Christian, and as most Christian divisions of the church, including Catholic, believe, that to be saved. This NEVER made sense to me, to think God would place creatures on the earth, simply to live their lives, and be in hell for eternity, the only option available, since Judaism and Christianity were never available to them. The "world" conversation, would lead into the "world" meaning those saved, and "not of the world", the saved. The explanation of foreknowledge, election, and predestination (all terms in scripture never explored by my group of Christians), makes sense to my meagre mind, of God's nature, better than any before. Not starting a new topic here, comments welcome of course, but I believe all should continue to seek truth, even if they think they know it. It satisfies my personal understanding of God, which the work-atonement, by self, from having "heard and believed (at a minimum of work), simply cannot reconcile with God's other characteristics, particularly, "love."

Sing
All humanity is embraced in the covenant of creation.
Not the whole of humanity is embraced in the covenant of redemption,

But the elect ALONE, that is, as many as God gave to His Son to redeem; not one more and not one less.

Johnny
Sing, don't get me wrong, I do not THINK that redemption is automatically provided for every human, nor necessarily of every nation. What would be the purpose of universal salvation, and if such were to exist, how would the explanation of hell, and negative eternal outcomes, be explained away. I have been told as a 15 year old, that the church has the responsibility to preach the gospel to the entire world, because if we don't, all the world will go to hell, if they have not "heard" the gospel (given to apostles). Somewhere along the way, I asked, will what about those that couldn't possibly hear, because they were on islands in the sea, not possible to reach. Their answer, "God will take care of that." In other words, don't THINK.

Sing
Grant, There is a major, and chronic Jewish fable - that God loved the Jews only - that had to be overcome in the NT. Even the apostles were infected for quite a long time... until they were finally cured.

The word 'world' needs to be understood in that context. It is not just the Jews that are embraced in the redemptive purpose of God, but men of every ethnic group of the whole earth. Not even all the Jews were embraced in the redemptive purpose of Go. 'For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."

It has never meant every human/all people of the earth. That fable flies in the face of the plain truth of God's election of some, and leaving the rest to the just desert. It repudiates the particularity of the work of redemption, and the specificity of the application of the same by the Holy Spirit.

It does mean men of every ethnic group and not just the Jews.

Here is a classic example of the Scriptures is its own interpreter of the word 'world':

Re 7:9 "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands..."

That's a wonderful description of the 'world' - of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.

Sing
Johnny, 'Ya, God will take care of some, and men will take care of the rest.'
Those taken care of by God will be secured in heaven.
Those taken care of by men, let them twist their fingers and hope for the best.
Just thinking a bit! <LOL>

Johnny
@Sing. Your last is the conclusion I have come to, yet the same answer received earlier just a bit more detail. And, the Primitive Baptist explanation may be nothing more than godly speculation, but it is the best view of God's nature that I have heard, and that not until a couple of years ago on Facebook. Do you take the scheme to include "the righteous" of every nation, to include those "taken care of by God," as the elect (not work, having the heart of God, as King David), rather than God's arbitrary selection from which he has foreknowledge? I'm getting off-topic. God did say, "To whom I wish mercy, I give mercy." That's still a mystery.

Sing
What scheme?

Sing
So, Matthew, does the one word 'hell' - translated from different Greek words - has the same meaning?

You believe in verbal inspiration don't you - even when a word is singular or plural is inspired?

So why did the Holy Spirit inspire the holy writers of Scriptures to use four different words... just for variety, perhaps? And why did the KJ translators use the same word 'hell' to translate those four different words?

@ "According to your belief that a legally justified righteous saints can end up in hades or sheol, where they are tormented after their physical death."

The fact is... it is NOT my belief YET. I am studying and weighing what those passages teach where Jesus warned His disciples the real danger of being cast into hell.

What do you do all those passages that WARNED the disciples to avoid being cast into hell? Is that just some empty warning? Deal with those passages first, then we can discuss this.

Johnny
scheme - a series of actions, for a particular purpose. Above, God's salvation of man.

Sing
Do you take the scheme to include "the righteous" of every nation, to include those "taken care of by God," as the elect (not work, having the heart of God, as King David), rather than God's arbitrary selection from which he has foreknowledge?
=========

God's purpose of redemption embraces His elect of every nation... who by nature are dead in trespasses and sins. The Triune God Himself ALONE takes care of ALL His elect - in effectually calling each one of them, at His appointed and approved time, out of their native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation, perfectly fitting them for eternal glory.

This same Triune God appointed the gospel ministry for the temporal good of His children... and this is done through human instrumentality. Some of God's children are recipients of these temporal blessings, others don't. Those who do, benefit to varying degrees.

Johnny
Well, I don't know if it matters, "elect of every nation," means there is at least one individual from each nation, or that from all nations, elect exists. Maybe "goodness" (God), was and will be within each nation, for God's purpose. There are righteous (as I have used the term) in Muslim nations, as there were likely in ancient nations during OT times. If so, the calling of these at God's time, would be different than the preacher or teacher spreading the Word, even today. So, I'm left with this being a spiritual concept, not be to completely understood. Like creation. We will never know HOW He did it, while human that is, we believe by faith that He did. It's just that some do not wish to believe this. That's ok, but I'd like to think, I have been blessed with some explanation, rather than, they are all in hell, if not members of "the true" church.

Sing
There are God's children found in every ethnic nation... and in every RELIGION...and they are God's children solely and completely by the God's sovereign saving activities.

The gospel ministry is ordained to call out God's children from among them.

Very many in heaven have never been members of any church on earth. Many have never even heard of the gospel...

Johnny
Makes sense to me. King David, after all, as a youth, showed the heart of God, and God said it himself. Though from Abraham

Johnny
's seed, there were no religions, no churches, and only judges and the priest. The OT describes others from other nations, conquered by Israel, having righteousness. God is the same today, as He was when He created man, and certainly Muslim peoples, for instance, the follow the godly portions of the Koran, may well be included as the elect. That would also go for those never knowing of God, except for "nature," it's wonders, and the inborn knowledge of right and wrong. Bad to kill without a reason; Good to feed your friend. By the way, I have learned this 4 decade question, from folks of God, like you, Sing. Thanks to Him, and you'll. (That's Texan, for ALL of you).

Johnny
"You all," is also in the Bible. We just shortened it.

sing
All are conceived in sin and born in sin... and grow up in sin... find themselves born into all sorts of religions, and embrace all sort of religions. Of course some pretend themselves as atheists!

In such conditions, God effectually called them out of their native state of sin and death to that of righteousness and salvation. In the effectual call, each man is justified personally, regenerated, adopted, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and perfectly fitted for eternal glory.

In that sense, God's children are found in every religion. It is the purpose and function of the gospel to seek them and call them out and convert them to Christ's religion.

"The church is a redemptive place," said Ahlee

Redemptive or not?

Lee
The church is a redemptive place for a person like him. However, the church always pretends to be more holy than thou, so the problem begins....

sing
The church is NOT a redemptive place. There is redemption i.e. deliverance from eternal condemnation by Christ's righteousness and blood. The church is a hospital for nursing back to health of those whom God has REDEEMED by His free grace in Christ Jesus. In nursing them back to spiritual health, they are taught and reminded of the standard of holiness required of them by their Lord and Saviour. The church is OBLIGATED to insist upon the holiness Jesus Christ requires of those who bear His holy name. "Ye have been called unto holiness", and a faithful church will preach and teach all that Christ has commanded them to observe. Amen.

Lee
I think, again, we have to properly define what is a church. An ecclesia of his people.
Sorry, heavy theological discussion is very difficult to clarify in WhatsApp.

sing
Which part so far is HEAVY? Ecclesia is a big word. What is it? Give a definition. It would be helpful.

However one may define church,  it is NOT redemptive at all. Christ Jesus alone HAS REDEEMED His people. This is basic and elementary, hardly heavy or theological. There is NO redemption apart from Christ Jesus. ALONE To say otherwise is injurious to the honour and glory of Christ.

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace."

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."

In WHOM we have redemption, through His blood. 

Inability and Responsibilities; Covenant and Obligations

All of God's creatures are bound by the terms

of the covenant of creation.

All of God's redeemed are bound by the terms

of the covenant of redemption!

Two questions for you to consider:

1. Does a man's inability void his lawful duty?
2. What determines a man's duty to believe in Christ?

1. Does a man's inability void his lawful duty?
A man's inability to perform a lawful duty does not void his obligation. A man, though dead in trespasses and sins, is not exempted from his lawful duty and obligation toward God his Creator. When God made man in His image, God made him very good; he had the full ability and power of moral choice and free will to fulfil his lawful duty owed to God his Creator - to render obedience to God. A man's inability to discharge his lawful duty towards his Creator is self-inflicted by his free will rebellion against his Creator.

All men being sinners are STILL under obligation to repent towards God His Creator. NOT a single sinner has any right to remain in sin, in transgression against God. Every single sinner is under divine obligation to repent and turn from his sin and obey His laws, all of which are good; holy, just, and righteous.

A man's LAWFUL duties are defined by the terms of the covenant to which he is a party! 

All of God's creatures are bound by the terms of the covenant of creation.

All of God's redeemed are bound by the terms of the covenant of redemption!

2. What determines a man's duty to believe in Christ?
A man's duties are defined by the terms of the covenant to which he is a party! His duty is not determined by his own inability or ability.

Only those embraced in the covenant of redemption are required by the terms of that covenant to believe Christ as their Redeemer.

All the children of God are duty-bound to repent and believe in the gospel of their salvation. They are God's redeemed bound by the terms of the covenant of redemption. God's redeemed are duty bound by the terms of the covenant of redemption to repent and believe in their Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ... because Christ is their Redeemer... it is their covenant duty to believe the truth of their salvation by Christ.

I do believe all God's children - the elect whom God has effectually called to grace and salvation in Jesus Christ - ALONE are under divine obligation to repent and believe in their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He is their Lord and Saviour. Upon the basis of His life and death, they have been justified, regenerated and adopted. They are children first by God's free grace, then called to believe the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation, Eph 1:13.

Why would anyone imagine that others are under the divine obligation to believe Christ as Lord and Saviour when Christ is not even the Saviour of all men? Why are others duty-bound to believe Christ as their Saviour when Christ did not give Himself as the Saviour of all men? That would amount to God putting some men under divine obligation to believe a big fat lie!

It is contrary to God's character for God to put any man under divine obligation to believe a lie - i.e. to believe that Christ is their Saviour when He had assuredly decreed that Christ is not their Saviour.

Who are proper subject for baptism?

Articles of Faith - Subject of Baptism

“We believe that baptism is only properly administered 

to a person who is of sufficient age and sensibilities

to express belief and confidence in Jesus Christ 

for the saving of his soul.”
--------

I saw this statement on baptism.
What do you think of this Article of Faith?
What questions would you ask about this statement?
Thank you.

-----------

Danny
sing: What do you think of this Article of Faith?
“We believe that baptism is only properly administered to a person who is of sufficient age and sensibilities to express belief and confidence in Jesus Christ for the saving of his soul.” (Articles of Faith – The Subject of Baptism)

Danny: This seems an attempt to avoid the crass error of infant baptism. While that is a laudable motive, I believe that what constitutes “sufficient age and sensibilities” or a proper “expression of belief and confidence” is highly debatable and as such would prove difficult to administer without controversy. I’m not offended by this statement’s effort to avoid baptizing a child who has no concept of what is going on, but I am not fond of this expression of the matter.

sing: What questions would you ask about this statement?
Danny: I would want to know:

1. How do you define a proper expression of belief and confidence in Jesus Christ?
Danny: I’ve heard a lot expressed on this matter that makes me uncomfortable. What constitutes the proper expression? Does it include an understanding of the church? What about the Trinity? Does it include an understanding of discipleship? If one says “Yes” to any of these questions (and others like them) then what measure of understanding is required? Perhaps more to the point, where does one substantiate their position on the matter from scripture? These questions are more perplexing than some are willing to admit. As we pull on those threads we may find ourselves unraveling the whole garment.

Danny: I think it’s best to recognize that these are difficult questions to answer and that gospel ministers are required to make judgment calls on such matters. For example: a child who wants to get baptized because they saw their mother do it and it looked fun splashing around in that water might receive different consideration from one who has a simple profession of faith in God and a desire to obey. Baptism should not be trivialized by administering it inappropriately, neither should it be denied simply because a candidate lacks the understanding that they will receive in discipleship. I’m comfortable stating that gospel ministers make judgment calls in this regard and that we are held responsible for our decisions. It seems helpful to note that there is no examples of a believing child being denied baptism in the NT but men are rebuked for disregarding the sincere desire of children to approach the Lord (Matthew 19:14). Neither observation is definitive on the administration of baptism, but they do provide some directional guidance.

2. Why is there an “age” reference?
Danny: Perhaps this is straining at gnats, but in the spirit of expressing my honest concern about the statement, I would avoid any reference to “age.” I say this largely because of what men often do with such references, not based on the intent of the statement itself. Children grow at different rates and so likewise does their spiritual maturity.

Danny: The Xyz Articles of Faith make the following statement on baptism:
“We believe that Baptism and the Lord's supper are ordinances of Jesus Christ, and that true believers are the only subjects of Baptism, and that immersion is the Apostolic mode.” (Matthew 28:19, John 3:22-23, John 22:17-20, Acts 8:3)

Danny: I am comfortable with this statement of the matter, though I recognize that it too is open to interpretation. Indeed, how one defines “true believers” is apt to generate a variety of opinions. May God give us wisdom in the administration of His ordinances such that we neither trivialize them nor withhold them from the little children who sincerely approach the Lord, for of such is the kingdom of God.

sing
Danny Thank you most kindly, Sir, for your helpful comment.

Robert
Danny, "True believers" is simple 1 John 5:1“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: " we need not question their eternal destiny beyond a profession.

Sing
Robert, what would be a believer that is not true, I.e. false?

Robert
sing, no such thing it's an oxymoron.

sing
Robert: Why do you need to qualify the noun 'believer' with the adjective 'true'?

It's like saying a true man; then what is a man that is not true?

Robert
sing, I was responding to the Article of faith from Xyz Article of Faith that uses that phrase, I wanted to clarify that point for future readers that this term used by Calvinist's is used to continually judge others' eternal status in the church is unscriptural.

Jackson
What is the sufficient age and sensibility?
Is this statement inferring that the belief and confidence in Jesus Christ is what saves a sinner's soul?

Danny
Jackson - In my experience, when that language is invoked it is in reference to eternal salvation. As a result, that observation is another possible bone to pick with the statement.

Jackson
Danny exactly. See my DM, I go into a bit more detail.

Marty
Here is what I think is the scriptural requirement:
"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." (Acts 8:36-38)

Karl
As one who was baptized at a very young age, being put under a microscope as to whether my sensibilities and age were sufficient would have been crushing to my spirit, and quite a stumbling block to my walk with the Lord. Age and sensibility had nothing to do with it- nor did I- that faith that prompted me forward to join the church was a gift solely of the Holy Ghost exclusive of intellect or maturity, and it was simple and sincere and without the doubts that such examining questions would have fostered in me. Thirty-one years later I am extremely thankful that the church and pastor I had put no hierarchical requirements on the faith God had given but just counted it a blessing and all of Him, and welcomed me with open arms, glorifying the Lord for His work rather than being impressed by age or sensibility. Just thought I’d share from experience. Let the little children come unto Him!

Danny
Karl: As one who was baptized at a very young age, being put under a microscope as to whether my sensibilities and age were sufficient would have been crushing to my spirit, and quite a stumbling block to my walk with the Lord.
Danny: I can only imagine.

Karl: Age and sensibility had nothing to do with it- nor did I- that faith that prompted me forward to join the church was a gift solely of the Holy Ghost exclusive of intellect or maturity, and it was simple and sincere and without the doubts that such examining questions would have fostered in me.
Danny: Well said. I don't doubt it. Interesting that the Lord addressed adults as needing to receive the kingdom of God with the humility of a little child (Mark 10:15), while many today tell children they need to receive the kingdom of God with the understanding of an adult. When you're preaching precisely the opposite of what the Lord taught, it's time to reconsider.

Karl: Thirty-one years later I am extremely thankful that the church and pastor I had put no hierarchical requirements on the faith God had given but just counted it a blessing and all of Him, and welcomed me with open arms, glorifying the Lord for His work rather than being impressed by age or sensibility.
Danny: Amen.

Karl: Just thought I’d share from experience. Let the little children come unto Him!
Danny: Thank you for sharing that experience.

When did God save you?

It was asked, "When did God save you?"

Someone answered, "Is this question important? If I am saved, it doesn't matter to me when I am saved. If I am not saved, it is not relevant to me..."

(Imagine saying, "If I am born, it doesn't matter to me when I am born." ~~ sing)

------

A response:
Is this question important?

Read this short illustration; an accomplished accountant like you will easily understand.

Supposing a benefactor FREELY credited a $1b to your personal account and also paid off ALL your debts while you were condemned and declared bankrupt.

He then sends his servant to bring the good news to you and calls you to believe it. (Good news is news of what has happened; good news is not what will happen if a condition is met, i.e. good news is not a conditional offer!).

And suppose you believe the good news of the benefactor's FREE and gracious act, and by faith, you go to the bank to draw on the money.

Wouldn't it be SCANDALOUS, TREACHEROUS and CRIMINAL of you to claim and insist that it was your believing the good news and going to the bank THAT CAUSED the gift to be freely credited to your account, and all your debt cleared by the benefactor?

You believe and THEN the gift was deposited, or the gift had been deposited and THEN you believed. Put it another way: Is it you believe first and THEN God saved you, OR God saved you first and then you believe (you believe because God has first saved you, making believing possible.)

The truth is, your believing and going to the bank EVIDENCES the great deed that HAD BEEN DONE for your sake! If he had not done it for you, there would have been no such good news for you to believe!

Your believing or not believing does not in the slightest manner affect the reality of the things that are already done for you! But your believing enables you to experience the blessings of those things already done for you by free grace.

Yet so many insist that... they are justified before God by or through their faith in Jesus Christ! Upon their believing in Jesus Christ, God justifies them, i.e. God gives them the righteousness of Christ upon their believing in Christ! What a lie!

Sola fide is a great lie of the devil - it is treacherous, scandalous, injurious and criminal.

Do you begin to understand the great issue involved? It is not just semantics; the devil will whisper that into your ears! It is Christ's honour and truth at stake!

Original post here:https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4745290465677&id=1097484914&set=a.4745284705533