A LIST OF MY FAVORITE LOSE YOUR SALVATION VERSES

[bling]

Gal. 6: 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Paul explains plainly that eternal life is the harvest in the future we do not want to “give up”, but that also teaches we can give it up.

Our doing good stuff while here on earth (or better: our allowing God to work through us doing good stuff) is not to “earn”, “payback” or to allow us to “hold on to our salvation”. We want to continue to utilize Godly type Love and not get caught up in carnal type love so the huge Love Feast of Heaven (unselfish type Love only) still has value to us and not something we would sell on the cheap.

As far as being saved by faith only without “works”, that is true, but just like the Prodigal son wimped out of taking the punishment he fully deserved and humbly returned to the Father, we must wimp out, give up surrender to our enemy God and that will allow God to shower us with His charity.

Part of the meaning to the concept of being given a gift is the fact that the ownership of the gift actually transfers to the receiver of the gift and as such the receiver of the gift can do what he/she wants to do with the gift.

The Hebrew writer in Heb. 12:16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

Esau own the “gift” of the first born inheritance rights, which could not be taken from him by anyone, nor could someone stile it from his hand, not even his father could take them back, but Esau could sell it or give it away.

The Hebrew writer is telling us not to give away or sell our birth right (as born again Christians) which is our inheritance of eternal life.

We own a paid up tax free deed to a home in heaven, so that home was gifted to us, but the Hebrew writer is saying we could sell (or give it away) like Esau did.

 

[Honoluluwindow]

Gal. 6: 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Paul explains plainly that eternal life is the harvest in the future we do not want to “give up”, but that also teaches we can give it up.

Our doing good stuff while here on earth (or better: our allowing God to work through us doing good stuff) is not to “earn”, “payback” or to allow us to “hold on to our salvation”. We want to continue to utilize Godly type Love and not get caught up in carnal type love so the huge Love Feast of Heaven (unselfish type Love only) still has value to us and not something we would sell on the cheap.

As far as being saved by faith only without “works”, that is true, but just like the Prodigal son wimped out of taking the punishment he fully deserved and humbly returned to the Father, we must wimp out, give up surrender to our enemy God and that will allow God to shower us with His charity.

Part of the meaning to the concept of being given a gift is the fact that the ownership of the gift actually transfers to the receiver of the gift and as such the receiver of the gift can do what he/she wants to do with the gift.

The Hebrew writer in Heb. 12:16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

Esau own the “gift” of the first born inheritance rights, which could not be taken from him by anyone, nor could someone stile it from his hand, not even his father could take them back, but Esau could sell it or give it away.

The Hebrew writer is telling us not to give away or sell our birth right (as born again Christians) which is our inheritance of eternal life.

We own a paid up tax free deed to a home in heaven, so that home was gifted to us, but the Hebrew writer is saying we could sell (or give it away) like Esau did.

The above statement is what is defined below

“he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:18‬b ASV‬‬
John 3:18; He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[StevenBelievin]

So you're saying the Bible lied. How convenient.

I'm guessing you haven't read the OT. You will find the righteous in the OT. And I can assure you, when it mentions the righteous, it's not a false righteousness. Where do you people get all these things?

False righteousness is probably the wrong way to phrase it. The old covenant did have their righteous, and it was not a false one, but it was an imperfect righteousness when compared to the infinite perfection of God's righteousness. Why do you think Paul says in Romans 3:10 "There is none righteous, no not one"? Why does Isaiah 64:6 refer to man's righteousness as filthy rags? I would say "I'm guessing you haven't read the new testament", but that would be awfully presumptuous of me. Jesus is the only one who ever lived perfectly righteous. Period.

So God was faulty when He established the old covenant. Let me tell you, nothing God does is faulty. The faulty aspect were the people, not the covenant. Just as today, people didn't continue in the covenant.

It says "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." Hebrews 8:7 says the old covenant was faulty and needed to be replaced. Saying it was not faultless means it had faults. Meaning faulty. That's right there in black and white.

Also, all the Justified will be glorified. Romans 8:30. So if someone is truly saved (or justified) they will be glorified. It may look from the human perspective that people are revolving in and out of salvation like a revolving door but that's not what's happening. So the truly justified continue in the new covenant.

The law was written in the OT people's heart.

Deuteronomy 6:6
“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart.

What laws were written on your heart? What is the purpose to have His laws written on your heart?



So, God has little robots walking around. God does not cause you to do anything. It's all up to you. Many have departed from them today.

Besides, if God causes you to walk in them, why is it you are not sinless?

Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Says in the above scripture that He will cause you to walk in His statutes and you will keep His judgements.

Call it robots if you want I prefer to think of it as empowerment that will not be ultimately foiled.

The justified can get off the right track sometimes, but they will ultimately end up at their destination. That's what predestined means.

 

[EmSw]

False righteousness is probably the wrong way to phrase it. The old covenant did have their righteous, and it was not a false one, but it was an imperfect righteousness when compared to the infinite perfection of God's righteousness. Why do you think Paul says in Romans 3:10 "There is none righteous, no not one"? Why does Isaiah 64:6 refer to man's righteousness as filthy rags? I would say "I'm guessing you haven't read the new testament", but that would be awfully presumptuous of me. Jesus is the only one who ever lived perfectly righteous. Period.

Well, if God says they were righteous, I prefer to believe Him. I'm not going to add any adjective to make it pleasing to me.

Paul took Romans 3:10 out of context. Read Psalm 14 to see about whom David was writing. It was about the fool who had said in his heart, there is no God, and workers of iniquity. When you read, pay close attention to verse 5.

The Isaiah verse is about those who continue in sin.

It says "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." Hebrews 8:7 says the old covenant was faulty and needed to be replaced. Saying it was not faultless means it had faults. Meaning faulty. That's right there in black and white.

Why would an anonymous writer say God has faults? The law was the word of God; do you really believe God's word was faulty? The words of God are life, not faulty.

Also, all the Justified will be glorified. Romans 8:30. So if someone is truly saved (or justified) they will be glorified. It may look from the human perspective that people are revolving in and out of salvation like a revolving door but that's not what's happening. So the truly justified continue in the new covenant.

The new covenant is the old covenant. Jesus said all the law and prophets hang on the two great commandments. He didn't say they were faulty. The new covenant was now based upon loving God and our neighbor, which was in the old covenant.

Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Says in the above scripture that He will cause you to walk in His statutes and you will keep His judgements.

Call it robots if you want I prefer to think of it as empowerment that will not be ultimately foiled.

The justified can get off the right track sometimes, but they will ultimately end up at their destination. That's what predestined means.

God will give a new heart and new spirit when man casts away all his transgressions (Ezekiel 18:31) As long as you keep iniquities in your heart, all your righteousness is as filthy rags.

How can the justified 'get off track' if it's God who causes you to walk in His statutes? Maybe God is faulty in this too.

 

[StevenBelievin]

Well, if God says they were righteous, I prefer to believe Him. I'm not going to add any adjective to make it pleasing to me.

Paul took Romans 3:10 out of context. Read Psalm 14 to see about whom David was writing. It was about the fool who had said in his heart, there is no God, and workers of iniquity. When you read, pay close attention to verse 5.

So are you saying that Paul should not have used that OT reference? Is Romans the word of God? He used that reference to show that all are under sin. None are righteous before God.

The Isaiah verse is about those who continue in sin.

Why would an anonymous writer say God has faults? The law was the word of God; do you really believe God's word was faulty? The words of God are life, not faulty.

You need to be careful here. Hebrews is in the bible whether it is an anonymous writer or not. If you throw out Hebrews you throw out all the warning scriptures as well. The writer not only says the old covenant is faulty but is obsolete and fading away. Hebrews 8:13.

The new covenant is the old covenant. Jesus said all the law and prophets hang on the two great commandments. He didn't say they were faulty. The new covenant was now based upon loving God and our neighbor, which was in the old covenant.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. Paul in Romans says that by the law that no one will be justified. Romans 3:20.

God will give a new heart and new spirit when man casts away all his transgressions (Ezekiel 18:31) As long as you keep iniquities in your heart, all your righteousness is as filthy rags.

How can the justified 'get off track' if it's God who causes you to walk in His statutes? Maybe God is faulty in this too.

It's not that God causing us to walk in His statutes is a hard coded determinism. But He sets bounds that His people cannot pass..

 

[bling]

The above statement is what is defined below

“he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:18‬b ASV‬‬
John 3:18; He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.

That does not address my comments?

 

[Honoluluwindow]

That does not address my comments?

Riiiight, I'll do that first thing tomorrow.

 

[Marvin Knox]

How is one saved if he/she doesn't know Jesus? No one I have asked has answered this question. So, I ask you.

Also, if one doesn't have the truth in him/her, are they saved?

If one isn't a legalist, then they are lawless. Is lawlessness required to be saved?

1 John 2
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Matthew 7:23
And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

If you are wanting a debate, then you will have to debate Jesus and John. But I suggest you have the truth in you, or they will put you to shame.

Troll

 

[EmSw]

Troll

Why are you so filled with hate, Marvin?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Why are you so filled with hate, Marvin?

I wouldn't say "hate".

Just intolerance for internet forum trolls who pretend to be Christians even though they deny most of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

That's you Troll.

 

[Honoluluwindow]

I wouldn't say "hate".

Just intolerance for internet forum trolls who pretend to be Christians even though they deny most of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

That's you Troll.

 

[sdowney717]

Gal. 6: 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Paul explains plainly that eternal life is the harvest in the future we do not want to “give up”, but that also teaches we can give it up.

Our doing good stuff while here on earth (or better: our allowing God to work through us doing good stuff) is not to “earn”, “payback” or to allow us to “hold on to our salvation”. We want to continue to utilize Godly type Love and not get caught up in carnal type love so the huge Love Feast of Heaven (unselfish type Love only) still has value to us and not something we would sell on the cheap.

As far as being saved by faith only without “works”, that is true, but just like the Prodigal son wimped out of taking the punishment he fully deserved and humbly returned to the Father, we must wimp out, give up surrender to our enemy God and that will allow God to shower us with His charity.

Part of the meaning to the concept of being given a gift is the fact that the ownership of the gift actually transfers to the receiver of the gift and as such the receiver of the gift can do what he/she wants to do with the gift.

The Hebrew writer in Heb. 12:16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

Esau own the “gift” of the first born inheritance rights, which could not be taken from him by anyone, nor could someone stile it from his hand, not even his father could take them back, but Esau could sell it or give it away.

The Hebrew writer is telling us not to give away or sell our birth right (as born again Christians) which is our inheritance of eternal life.

We own a paid up tax free deed to a home in heaven, so that home was gifted to us, but the Hebrew writer is saying we could sell (or give it away) like Esau did.

I view such a verse in Galatians as observational about behaviors of persons in and around the church.
Not about an individual losing salvation, those who do not continue in the faith are going to fulfil fleshly lusts and are not led by the Holy Spirit. The Apostle John says were simply antichrists all along their walk and they do depart from Christ and His church, they part ways with God's ways. It really is not all that complicated.

God disciplines all those He receives as sons, else they are not belonging to Him, and receive no rebuke, being still of the old hard hearted nature.

 

[Marvin Knox]

These are a few my favorite can't lose your salvation verses among dozens of such verses.

"being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." Philippians 1:6

"for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Romans 11:29

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My Word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:27

"All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." John 6:37

""This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 6:39

 

[Grandpa2390]

If one isn't a legalist, then they are lawless. Is lawlessness required to be saved?

Wrong.

Legalism is a reference to what the Pharisees and Sadducees etc. practiced. It wasn't just obeying the given law, it was creating new laws and so forth. such as concerning the practice of the Sabbath.

In Christianity, the equivalent is this:

It is a law to not murder. Christians who don't murder are not legalist.
But the Bible doesn't say that a woman can't wear pants, or that a Christian can't watch television, etc. But there are churches (I've been to some of them), who teach that you will go to hell if you do.
This is legalism

Legalism is also put human works above grace in salvation. A legalist teaches that water baptism is needed to be saved. Repentance is necessary to be saved, water baptism is an act of obedience that follows salvation.
I have been to churches that teach that unless you are not saved until you are baptized (so if you get killed before the preacher has an opportunity to baptize you...).
They also teach that you have to be baptized in a certain formula or your baptism is null and void.

This is legalism.

 

[TheSeabass]

These are a few my favorite can't lose your salvation verses among dozens of such verses.

"being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." Philippians 1:6

There are 2 sides to salvation as the bible l;gives them:
1) the Christians required/commanded faithfulness to Christ and His word Rev 2:10
2) God's faithfulness tot he groups called Christian Heb 13:5

The fact Christians have been commanded to be faithful, that command implies the Christian can become unfaithful and fall away.

Also, those that support the OSAS theory of man consistently cherry pick out verses that deal with #2 and claim those verses teach OSAS while totally ignoring verse that deal #1.

Phil 1:5 "For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now;"
Phil 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"

We find both sides of salvation in this passage. We find #1 in that those Philippians remained faithfully in the gospel. In turn we find #2 that Paul was confident God would continue a good work in them because of that faithfulness. God always remains faithful to those that remain faithful to Him. OSAS is not found here at all.

Unlike those Philippians that remained faithful in the gospel there were some in Galatia that did not remain faithfully in the gospel Galatians 1:6-8. Nowhere did Paul tell those Galatians God would continue a good work in them but instead told them they had fallen from grace Gal 5:4

"for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Romans 11:29

Has nothing to do with the man made theory of OSAS. In the context of Romans 11 we are told God had cast off the Jews from being His chosen people leaving the Jews lost. If by casting off the Jews made salvation impossible for the Jews then God would have to revoke the promise He made to Abraham back in Genesis 22:18 that in Abraham's seed would ALL nations be blessed (this includes the Jews). So instead of revoking that promise made to Abraham, God still left the door of salvation ajar for the Jews to be saved through Christ even though the Jews were rejecting Christ. God does not revoke His promises yet nowhere ever did God promise UNconditional salvation as OSAS promises. Therefore OSAS was never a promise of God.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My Word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:27

What if one quits hearing and believing, still has everlasting life? Hardly. Therefore the "hath everlasting life" is true as long as one continues to hear and believe for again God NEVER promised UNconditional salvation to those that quit hearing and believing. One must CONDITIONALLY continue to hear and believe then one "hath everlasting life".

"All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." John 6:37

What if one quits coming to Christ, still be saved? Hardly. One must continue to come to Christ to not be driven away for again God NEVER promised UNconditional salvation even to those that quit coming to Christ.

""This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 6:39

John 17:6 Judas was one given to Christ that was lost John 17:12. The words of verse 12 could never be said if Judas was never given to Christ.

John 6:40 "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
There is no UNconditional salvation found in v39 for v 40 oes on to show the required the condition of continued seeing and believing to have everlasting life and be raised up. Judas did not continue to see and believe Christ.

So who are the "given ones" of v39 that Christ will not lose? The ones that faithfully continue to see and believe.

 

[TheSeabass]

Wrong.

Legalism is a reference to what the Pharisees and Sadducees etc. practiced. It wasn't just obeying the given law, it was creating new laws and so forth. such as concerning the practice of the Sabbath.

In Christianity, the equivalent is this:

It is a law to not murder. Christians who don't murder are not legalist.
But the Bible doesn't say that a woman can't wear pants, or that a Christian can't watch television, etc. But there are churches (I've been to some of them), who teach that you will go to hell if you do.
This is legalism

Legalism is also put human works above grace in salvation. A legalist teaches that water baptism is needed to be saved. Repentance is necessary to be saved, water baptism is an act of obedience that follows salvation.
I have been to churches that teach that unless you are not saved until you are baptized (so if you get killed before the preacher has an opportunity to baptize you...).
They also teach that you have to be baptized in a certain formula or your baptism is null and void.

This is legalism.

Then Christ was a "legalist" according to your definition for He requires water baptism to be saved, Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38, Rom 6:3-5.....

Dong what Christ said is what the bible calls doing righteousness, therefore being baptized is doing righteousness and Peter said those that "worketh righteousness" are accepted with God, Acts 10:35.

God's plan of salvation for man requires that man believe (Jn 3:16) repent (Lk 13:3) confess (Mt 10:32,33) and submit to being baptized (Mk 16:16). Therefore those that do these are doing GOD's righteousness.

For a man to try and change that plan, to set aside God's plan with man's own devised plan would be one trying to save himself by his OWN righteousness and not GOD'S righteousness. Therefore 'faith only' is man's OWN righteous attempt to save himself.


Romans 10:3 "For they (Jews) being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

The Jews were lost for they were going about doing their OWN righteousness and not doing GOD'S righteousness.

Therefore there are two different WORKS found in this one verse. One work that does not save in doing one's OWN righteousness and one WORK that DOES save in submitting(obeying) GOD'S righteousness.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Then Christ was a "legalist" according to your definition for He requires water baptism to be saved, Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38, Rom 6:3-5.....

No he never. Mark 16:16 actually says the opposite.

the Contrast in Mark 16:16 tells us that what saves us is the believing, not the baptizing. Whoever does not believe will be condemned. NOT whoever does not believe and is not baptized. Baptism is just the outward public symbol that reflects inward belief.

Once again. Baptism is a public profession of faith, it is an act of obedience that follows salvation. Those who are truly saved will be baptized, but:

The key here is that if something were to happen between their salvation and death, and they were unable to be baptized, that doesn't mean they weren't saved.

Acts 2:38, Peter also tells us that It is not the baptism of water that saves us, but the baptism of repentance. I quoted the scripture many times already. In Acts 2:38, you look at the grammar in the Greek and you find that 3 possible interpretations that allow Acts 2:38 and the passage in 1 Peter 3:21 to not contradict. That forgiveness of sin is linked to repentance, not baptism.

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

1. the word "for" could be mistranslated, and could be translated to "because of" instead.
so that the passage would read
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We are baptized because our sins were remitted. (because we were saved)

2. "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" could be parenthetical. and there are reasons for this in the grammar. Then Peter said unto them, Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

3.

Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:

It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas--the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit..." (10:47).

The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.

Romans 6:3-5
This is not saying that we are saved by Water Baptism. It would contradict everything Paul said in chapters 3-5. Paul is just using the water baptism as the symbolic, the analogy of the spiritual reality of the union believer's have with Christ.

If you want to believe that these passages are teaching that we are saved by water baptism. You are free to do what you want, but you are creating a contradiction in scripture. As for me, I am going to base my theology on what scriptures said prior to translation, and based on the interpretation by scripture. If my interpretation contradicts other scripture, then my interpretation is wrong. I don't know how Peter could have said it any plainer than what he did in 1 Peter 3:21

Jesus was not a legalist. He combatted those who took the law and the spirit of the law, and made it into a legal mess. There are laws in the Bible that we keep. and there are laws invented by man. a legalist is one who believes we are saved by the law.
The reality is that we obey the law because we are saved, not the other way around.

 

[Honoluluwindow]

I guess God owes Seabass a lot.

 

[TheSeabass]

No he never. Mark 16:16 actually says the opposite.

the Contrast in Mark 16:16 tells us that what saves us is the believing, not the baptizing. Whoever does not believe will be condemned. NOT whoever does not believe and is not baptized. Baptism is just the outward public symbol that reflects inward belief.

Once again. Baptism is a public profession of faith, it is an act of obedience that follows salvation. Those who are truly saved will be baptized,

Romans 10:3 requires submitting to the righteousness of God in order to be saved and this obedience to the Lord's will is not legalism. Hence submitting to the will of the Lord is obeying the command to be water baptized is righteousness. John says as long as on continues to NOT do righteousness he continues to not be of God 1 John 3:10. Therefore one is not of God until one submits to God's righteousness in believing, repenting confession and baptism John 8:24; Luke 13:3; Matthew 10:32-33' submit to baptism Mark 16:16.

As far as Mark 16:16 when left alone and untampered with by those with a theological bias against water baptism, the verse makes water baptism necessary to salvation. After reading what you posted about Mark 16:16 I see that you did not deal with the logical or grammatical facts given us in the verse but simply rewrote the verse to force it to fit your theology. If we could all do this then the bible becomes as worthless as the paper it is written upon.

Mark 16:16 " (a) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
(b) but he that believeth not shall be damned."

1) in 16a there is a logically sequence, order of events with believe coming BEFORE baptism and baptism coming BEFORE saved. Above you posted (my emp) "...it (baptism) is an act of obedience that follows salvation" So you rewrote the verse to say....he that believeth is saved, then can be baptized....with no logically, biblically based reason for doing so, just a personal theological bias. You also admit that water baptism is an act of OBEDIENCE. Therefore one is in and remains in disobedience/unrighteousness/sin/lost until one does obey the command to be baptized.

2) the conjunction "and" is used to connect things together. In 16a it connects "believeth" to "baptized" that makes them inseparable, making them both of equal importance and necessity to be saved. Nothing can separate the two, not even a theological bis against the Lord's command to be water baptized. The 'and' means if baptism is not necessary to being saved, then neither is belief. Getting rid of either belief or baptism one longer has 'saved'. If I say 1 AND 2 gives me 3 then the 'and' makes BOTH the 1 and 2 of equal importance and necessity to have the 3. Getting rid of the 2 you no longer have the 3.

3) Mark 16 is a compound sentience with 2 subjects 1) salvation 2) condemnation. The verse gives 2 requirements to be saved: belief and baptism. It gives just one requirement needed to be lost; unbelief. Condemnation does not require 2 conditions, just one- unbelief. Since in 16a Jesus made belief a prerequisite to being baptized then an unbeliever IS an unbaptized person. Therefore in 16b when Christ said "he that believeth not", this IS an unbaptized person for lack of believe means he has not been baptized. Therefore it would be redundant and unnecessary for Christ to say in 16b "he that believeth not and is baptized not due to his unbelief shall be condemned"

Therefore from Mark 16:16 we can see that a NT belief INCLUDES baptism or it is not a NT belief that saves:

Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:....."
Acts 2:44 "And all that believed were together,...."

Who were the ones that "believed" in verse 44? The ones that were baptized or the ones' not baptized? Obviously the ones that "believed in v44 were the ones baptized v41 so we have "believed" in v44 being used as a synecdoche where "believed" INCLUDES being baptized. Also note the implication of the words in v41. Those that gladly received Peter's words were baptized. This implies that not being baptized is rejecting the gospel words. Therefore one is rejecting the gospel until he has been baptized...being baptized is receiving the gospel.

but:

The key here is that if something were to happen between their salvation and death, and they were unable to be baptized, that doesn't mean they weren't saved.

No loopholes or 'hard circumstances' gets one around the bible's teachings.

Acts 2:38, Peter also tells us that It is not the baptism of water that saves us, but the baptism of repentance. I quoted the scripture many times already. In Acts 2:38, you look at the grammar in the Greek and you find that 3 possible interpretations that allow Acts 2:38 and the passage in 1 Peter 3:21 to not contradict. That forgiveness of sin is linked to repentance, not baptism.

I see nothing in Acts 2 about a "baptism of repentance". Peter commanded you all to repent and each of you all to be baptized. Hence repentance and baptism are not the same things.

Acts 2:38


1. the word "for" could be mistranslated, and could be translated to "because of" instead.
so that the passage would read
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We are baptized because our sins were remitted. (because we were saved)

The Greek word 'eis' is found some 1700 times in the Greek NT and is NEVER translated "because of". It does not mean because of. Men simply try and change the meaning of a word to get around the necessity of water baptism

Mt 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins."

Christ shed His blood BECAUSE sins were already remitted? Hardly (Hebrews 9:22). AT Robertson has no problem understanding that 'eis' in Mt 26:28 means "for" yet when the same phrase "for remission of sins" is found in Acts 2:38 then Robertson is no longer sure what the word means. Robertson says of "eis" in Acts 2:38 " One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not." One of the most awful comments that can be found in any commentary. The very idea one's theological bias determines meaning of words. Horrible way to handle the word of God.

1 Tim 1:16 "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to (eis) life everlasting."

So we have one believing BECAUSE HE ALREADY has everlasting life? Not possible. THerefore "eis" does not mean 'because of" never will mean "because of".

Since acts 2:38 connects 'repent' to 'be baptized' with the conjunction "and" that would mean one repents BECAUSE his sins were already remitted. Not biblical either.

2. "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" could be parenthetical. and there are reasons for this in the grammar. Then Peter said unto them, Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is just an attempt to rewrite the verse with no sound logical basis behind it, just bias.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

The pronoun 'you' underlined is plural. Peter is saying...you all repent and each of YOU ALL be baptized...so Peter used a plural 'you all' for both repent and be baptized. Furthermore Peter is addressing the same people. He did not tell one group of people to repent and a different group to be baptized.

Peter used precise language when he said:

"You all repent and each one of you all be baptized..."

This eliminates the idea of proxy baptism. Each person has to be baptized him/herself. Suppose an English teacher has 30 students and the teacher says to the students "You all go to the library and write a report on the novel". All 30 students could go to the library and get together and write one report they turn in. They technically did what the teacher asked. Yet if the teacher says "You all go to the library and each one of you all write a report" then the teacher can expect 30 reports with each report written by each student.

3.

Romans 6:3-5
This is not saying that we are saved by Water Baptism. It would contradict everything Paul said in chapters 3-5. Paul is just using the water baptism as the symbolic, the analogy of the spiritual reality of the union believer's have with Christ.

Facts gleaned from Rom 6:3:
--Baptism is how one gets into Christ verse 3. No salvation outside of Christ.
--Baptism is how one becomes "dead" being baptized into the death of Christ. THe 'dead" are freed from sin/justified verse 4,7
--Baptism is how one gets to walk in newness of life.

Obviously Paul makes baptism necessary to salvation.

Note the order of events in Romans 6:17-18:
1) servants of sin
2) obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine
3) then freed from sin/justified, servants of righteousness.

See how "obeyed" comes BEFORE being freed from sin/justification? What was the 'form of doctrine' those Romans obeyed where then they were freed from sin?

Rom 6:7 says "For he that is dead is freed from sin."
From Romans 6:3-5 it is in baptism that one becomes "dead" then rises to walk in newness of life.
From Rom 6:17,18 obeyed (water baptized > dead) then freed from sin.

No obedience to water baptism one is not dead therefore not freed from sin/justified.

If you want to believe that these passages are teaching that we are saved by water baptism. You are free to do what you want, but you are creating a contradiction in scripture. As for me, I am going to base my theology on what scriptures said prior to translation, and based on the interpretation by scripture. If my interpretation contradicts other scripture, then my interpretation is wrong. I don't know how Peter could have said it any plainer than what he did in 1 Peter 3:21

Peter says baptism saves in 1 Pet 3:21. So how can anyone rightly claim baptism does not save?

Acts 2:38--------be baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>remission of sins
1 Pet 3:21---------baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

Peter is talking about the same one baptism (Ephesians 4:5) in both passages and that one baptism saves. So all the logical, grammatical gymnastics one goes through in Acts 2:38 to make baptism not essential for remission of sins creates contradiction among verses when they are none.

So it is NOT repentance that saves/remits sins in Acts 2:38 but it is baptism that saves/remits sins in Acts 2:38 which is in perfect harmony with 1 Pet 3:21 that "baptism saves".

Jesus was not a legalist. He combatted those who took the law and the spirit of the law, and made it into a legal mess. There are laws in the Bible that we keep. and there are laws invented by man. a legalist is one who believes we are saved by the law.
The reality is that we obey the law because we are saved, not the other way around.

Requiring water baptism to be saved is not legalism, it is God's righteous choice. And submitting to God's will in being baptized is dong God's righteousness while not being baptized fails God's righteousness.

 

[TheSeabass]

I guess God owes Seabass a lot.

Why would you say that?