On the right hand of God

[Sam]

D.L. Welch addresses "the right hand of God" in his book "Contending For The Faith"

[mfblume]

The Right hand throne of God is the throne of POWER. Right hand = power. There is only one throne. And Jesus is on it. One cannot get beside omnipresence.

Rev 3:21 KJV To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

[Praxeas]

I don't think Aquila meant this thread to be about the Godhead or the trinity

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't think Aquila meant this thread to be about the Godhead or the trinity

These things always veer off into stuff like that. lol

[Lafon]

I must admit that I have not taken the time to carefully read everything Adino has written about this matter, but having said that, I will confess the one thing which I did glean from that which I did read was this: In his opinion, Cornelius was considered "spiritually clean" (sic, "saved") even before Peter was invited to his house to "tell him what he ought to do."

If Cornelius was already justified by his faith in God (and it is apparent that he did possess this, for his actions as a consequence of that faith was the thing which motivated God to visit him), then Adino is, in a sense, saying that Luke's GOD inspired record of the circumstances surrounding Cornelius' conversion are false.

Adino's statements, at least in my opinion, seem to be another classic example of one playing the old "shell game" of showing how one is saved by faith ALONE, and this because Jesus paid the price for the sins of mankind on the cross, and all that we must do is simply "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."

Yes, I "believe" Jesus' death on the cross provided the means, that is to say, the "blood" of an innocent human being, which was the ONLY thing that God accepts as an atonement for sin, however, it is through those things which He commands that one MUST do in obedience to their belief ("faith," as it were) by which we are saved. And these actions are repentance, immersion in the waters of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ FOR the remission of sins, and the receiving of the baptism of the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

Our obedience through the performance of these actions is what makes us justified, and NOT faith apart from such actions.

These are my personal views, submitted for consideration and analysis by others with respect to their scriptural authenticity.

Adino, please, I humbly implore you, show me where my interpretation of your remarks about this matter is amiss (if, indeed, it be that they are).

Regards,
Lafon

[Sam]

In my opinion, Cornelius was not "saved" until he heard Peter preach and believed what he said. He was a good man, a man who sought God and did righteous deeds but he was not "saved." Acts 11:14 says that the angel told Cornelius that Peter would tell him "...words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." In Acts chapter 10, Peter preached Jesus to Cornelius and those gathered with him. In verses 34 and 35 he told Cornelius that God was well aware of his good deeds. in verse 36 he says that Jesus is Lord of all. In verses 37 - 42 he mentioned the ministry of Jesus, His death, burial and resurrection and of personal judgment we all must face for our sins. In verse 43 he declared that whoever believes in Jesus receives remission/forgiveness of sins. We don't know what all was said by Peter but this is the synopsis of it. Evidently Cornelius and the others believed and were justified. Faith comes by hearing the Word (Romans 10:17). After they had believed and were justified/saved/regenerated they also received the Holy Ghost baptism . Verses 44-48 tell us that the Holy Spirit was poured out and the men who came with Peter knew it because they heard Cornelius and the others speaking with tongues. The salvation and HGB experience were followed up with water baptism in the name of the Lord.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Lafon

I must admit that I have not taken the time to carefully read everything Adino has written about this matter, but having said that, I will confess the one thing which I did glean from that which I did read was this: In his opinion, Cornelius was considered "spiritually clean" (sic, "saved") even before Peter was invited to his house to "tell him what he ought to do."

If Cornelius was already justified by his faith in God (and it is apparent that he did possess this, for his actions as a consequence of that faith was the thing which motivated God to visit him), then Adino is, in a sense, saying that Luke's GOD inspired record of the circumstances surrounding Cornelius' conversion are false.

Adino's statements, at least in my opinion, seem to be another classic example of one playing the old "shell game" of showing how one is saved by faith ALONE, and this because Jesus paid the price for the sins of mankind on the cross, and all that we must do is simply "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."

Yes, I "believe" Jesus' death on the cross provided the means, that is to say, the "blood" of an innocent human being, which was the ONLY thing that God accepts as an atonement for sin, however, it is through those things which He commands that one MUST do in obedience to their belief ("faith," as it were) by which we are saved. And these actions are repentance, immersion in the waters of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ FOR the remission of sins, and the receiving of the baptism of the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

Our obedience through the performance of these actions is what makes us justified, and NOT faith apart from such actions.

These are my personal views, submitted for consideration and analysis by others with respect to their scriptural authenticity.

Adino, please, I humbly implore you, show me where my interpretation of your remarks about this matter is amiss (if, indeed, it be that they are).

Regards,
Lafon

In Adino's opinion Cornelius was not considered saved until he believed. He believed only after Peter proclaimed Christ to him.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by jfrog

In Adino's opinion Cornelius was not considered saved until he believed. He believed only after Peter proclaimed Christ to him.

Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Correct, jfrog. Cornelius was not saved until he believed the Gospel. Faith, in the Gospel of Christ, cannot exist until one has been introduced to the Gospel. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Cornelius was not saved until he heard the Gospel message from Peter and believed. God, who knows the heart, bore witness to the faith Cornelius had IN CHRIST by giving him the indwelling Spirit of life (Acts 15:8-9).

Only when one believes does he receive the imputation of Christ's righteousness upon which his justification before God is based. Only when one believes does he pass from spiritual death into life (John 5:24 and so many more).

The point raised with Cornelius is that he most definitely possessed the Spirit of life prior to baptism. Thus, any sin imputed to Cornelius which would have demanded spiritual death had to have already been dealt with in the eyes of God. One must be justified in God's eyes in order to be granted the gift of eternal life.

Therefore, anyone who holds to a baptismal sin remission position must explain how one can possess spiritual life before the cause of spiritual death has been remitted.

Lafon, maybe you can help us with that question. How was it Cornelius possessed spiritual life given only to the justified while he remained condemned by sins not remitted until baptism?

[Adino]

Oops, good post Sam. It seems I reiterated your point about he necessity of Cornelius' hearing of the Gospel from Peter. The faith Cornelius had prior to hearing the Gospel of Christ was not justifying. Only that faith which has Christ as its object justifies us before God. You are certainly correct.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by jfrog

UNLESS he wants to claim that the cross is not the way in which the sin of unbelief is forgiven. But I don't think he will take that route. And if he does then I would simply ask why the cross was needed at all... because if one sin can be forgiven without it then all can be forgiven without it.

You would be correct in your conclusion here, jfrog, but I don't recall saying the sin of unbelief is ever forgiven.

Adino does not believe that everyone is saved. He believes everyone is forgiven of everything except 1 sin.

Though forgiven by the Cross, mankind remains spiritually dead until he is imputed the righteousness of Christ and quickened from the dead.

In fact, I think that is where the biggest argument against his doctrine lies. Adino believes that there is 1 sin that cannot and will not be forgiven through the cross, the sin of unbelief. To me, it seems that in order to deal with the sin of unbelief he must adopt a similiar explanation to Blume's. That is he must explain that the cross only offered the opportunity to be forgiven of the sin of unbelief. So in the end, as interesting as Adino's view is, it still has the same elements of Blume's view and thus almost any criticism that Adino has offered toward Blume's view can be used on his view in relation to the sin of unbelief.

The Cross did not offer opportunity to be forgiven of unbelief, it offered opportunity to receive the righteousness of Christ and be made regenerate. One is rescued from the darkness of unbelief not forgiven of it.

Anyone who finds himself in a state of unbelief when he meets his Maker has no further forgiveness. He will be eternally separated from God because he has not come to Christ for righteousness and eternal life.