Baptism? Necessary for Salvation?

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Romans 8:9 b.... Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.


when does this happen

1 cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body

what is the topic?

is baptism necessary for salvation

 

[SPALATIN]

Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Iosias]

The Dispensation of Spirit: begins in Acts 2 and is marked by the permanent indwelling of the Holy Ghost in believers whereby believers are baptize by the Holy Ghost into the Body of Christ – the church - in the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5. Within this dispensation the “gospel of the grace of God” (Ephesians 3:2) is progressively revealed, by the Holy Ghost, through Paul and this is recorded in Acts and the Pauline epistles. During this dispensation water-baptism is unnecessary.

 

[SPALATIN]

The Dispensation of Spirit: begins in Acts 2 and is marked by the permanent indwelling of the Holy Ghost in believers whereby believers are baptize by the Holy Ghost into the Body of Christ – the church - in the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5. Within this dispensation the “gospel of the grace of God” (Ephesians 3:2) is progressively revealed, by the Holy Ghost, through Paul and this is recorded in Acts and the Pauline epistles. During this dispensation water-baptism is unnecessary.

You say Potato, I say Potahto lets call the whole thing off. I can see that you are a dispensationalist. No offense but you need to read 1 peter 3:18-22. This disputes your view from Acts.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

You say Potato, I say Potahto lets call the whole thing off. I can see that you are a dispensationalist. No offense but you need to read 1 peter 3:18-22. This disputes your view from Acts.

water washes us?

who teaches us.....1 cor 2:7-12

what do we have to have to be God's ..... romans 8:9

who put us into christ ....water baptism or the Holy spirit? 1 cor 12:13

How does an ungodly man get the Spirit? romans 3:20,24, 28 romans 4:2-8

 

[JereReagan]

Mark 16:16-17
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Mark 16:16-17
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

what about baptizim?

1 cor 12:13 H.S. baptises not some man!

 

[Iosias]

My opinion coincides with the following chapter:​

​

​

VII. The Transitional Interpretation​

Definition
This "transitional interpretation"46holds that those who heard Peter's message in Acts 2 and believed it were regenerated at the moment of their faith, whether that occurred before or after their repentance. However, in order to receive the forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter's audience had to repent and be baptized. This condition is applied in Acts only to Palestinians exposed to the baptizing ministry of John and of Jesus. It is not applicable to Gentiles at all as the case of Cornelius's conversion shows. Cornelius received the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith, along with regeneration and justification.

Defenders
This view has not had a wide hearing and, therefore, its advocates are few. However, this position is held by Zane C. Hodges and Craig Glickman.47 Those who held a position which is somewhat compatible with it include Arno C. Gaebelein and Harry A. Ironside.48

Defense
The defense for this position is intricate since each of its points builds on the one before it. Broadly speaking, the support for this view is both grammatical and theological.
The grammatical support for this interpretation comes from the prima facie reading of the text. In this it agrees with the sacramentanan view. The normal force of both the words and the grammar all point to understanding Acts 2:38 as saying that one must both repent and be baptized in order to receive the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. All efforts at lexical and grammatical subtleties are rejected.

However, the burden of support for this position is theological.

First, this interpretation affirms its belief in the evangelical position that John's doctrine of regeneration and Paul's doctrine of justification are both by faith alone. In this, it disagrees with the sacramentarian interpretation. Hodges notes:

It should be kept in mind that the key word in the Johannine doctrine of eternal salvation is "life," specifically, "eternal life." For Paul the key word is "justification." Neither writer ever associates his basic idea with anything other than faith. For John, baptism plays no role in the acquisition of "life." For Paul it plays no role in "justification." But the further statement may be made that there is no New Testament writer who associates baptism with either of these issues. The importance of this cannot be overstated.49

​

This observation allows the transitional interpretation to take Acts 2:38 at prima facie understanding and yet remain evangelical. Acts 2:38 is not telling anyone how to be eternally saved, justified, regenerated, or how to avoid the lake of fire!

Secondly, this interpretation holds that some of Peter's hearers did believe and were, therefore, justified before Acts 2:38 was spoken. The question of Acts 2:37 ("Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?"') implies that faith was already present. Again, Hodges writes:

...Peter concludes his address with the assertion that "God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (2:36). His hearers then reply, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (2:37). But such a reaction presumes their acceptance of Peter's claim that they have crucified the one who is Lord and Christ. If this is what they now believe, then they were already regenerated on Johannine terms, since John wrote: "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John 5:1; cf. John 20:31).50

​

Thirdly, this interpretation holds that Acts 2:38 as well as the rest of Acts 2 is unique and is not directly applicable to us today. This uniqueness is seen in three ways.

First, Acts 2:38 is unique in regard to its situation. On this point Hodges writes in detail:

The requirement of baptism in Acts 2:38 has its full relevance in connection with the guilt of that generation of Jews. Note 2:40 "Save yourselves from this untoward generation." By the crucifixion of Christ this generation had become the most guilty in all the history of Israel (cf. Matt 23:33-36). When one of these Jews on the day of Pentecost was baptized, he was, in effect, breaking with his generation. He was declaring his death to his past life and relationship, and professing a new relationship to the name of Jesus Christ.

​

Note the threads of truth: an evil generation--baptism and repentance--baptism with the Holy Spirit; all these recall the ministry of John the Baptist to Israel (cf. Luke 3:3-18; Matt 3:5-12). That this requirement of baptism before the reception of the Spirit is somehow linked with the Jewish responsibility because of John's ministry to that generation is implied in Acts 19. There is no evidence that anyone not actually, or potentially, reached by the ministry of John receives the Spirit this way (except Samaritans). It is then a condition laid down for the generation to whom John ministered, and, of course, his greater Successor our Lord Himself. If we do not belong to that generation of Jews we have no real biblical ground for supposing that the Spirit is only bestowed after baptism. If we are Gentiles we clearly come under Acts 10 and Romans 8:9!

​

...In Acts 2:38, forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit are both viewed as benefits to be bestowed subsequent to the realization that Jesus is both Lord and Christ (2:27). That realization in itself would be regenerating (cf. 1 John 5:1)--it was inherent in "repentance," but baptism must precede the other two experiences. Forgiveness would restore harmonious relations between the baptized person and God and would put him in a category where God could bestow the gift of the Spirit upon him. (The gift was only being granted to the forgiven.) The sequence of events is clearly transitional in God's dealings and is not normative today (Acts 10; Rom 8:9). It is directly related to the special guilt of Peter's audience.51

​

Secondly, Acts 2:38 is unique in regard to the matter of forgiveness. The other interpretations considered in this article assume that forgiveness is roughly the same thing as justification. It is not. Again, a detailed distinction is made by Hodges:

The final destiny of the soul is based upon his possession (or not) of eternal life (cf. Rev 20:15). Forgiveness of sins is not the determinative issue. This matter is virtually passed over in the Gospel of John in favor of the subject of "life." The reader of John could get no very clear idea of how his sins could be forgiven, but he would certainly know how to obtain eternal life. Indeed a man may die with unforgiven sins and yet go to heaven (cf. 1 Cor 11:30-32).

​

Forgiveness is not a legal, but a personal matter. A judge is concerned with carrying out the law, not with personal injury. So in the day of judgment men are judged according to their works--their legal claims to anything from God are searched out--and the final determination of destiny is made from the contents of the book of life. Men go to hell unforgiven, but men do not go to hell because they are unforgiven. (Judgment has been committed to the Lord Jesus because He is the Son of Man. He will sit on the Great White Throne not as an angry, offended person, but as the unbiased Executor of God's laws.)

​

Forgiveness, then, is not directly related to eternal judgment. Forgiveness removes the barrier of sin, its estrangement and distance, between man and God. It enables fellowship and communion. Since it is a personal thing, God determines in every age and circumstance what the conditions of forgiveness, the conditions of fellowship, are to be. Under the law a sacrifice might be a means of forgiveness (cf. e.g., Lev 4:10, 26, 31, 35). On the day of Pentecost for the Jewish crowd to whom Peter spoke, it was baptism (which, of course, is a specific kind of confession).

​

Two kinds of forgiveness in the NT must be clearly distinguished. The first of these may be called positional, i.e., it is ours in Christ (Eph 1:7; 4:28 [Grk.]; Col 1:14). Because it is involved with our being "seated in heavenly places" in Christ, it necessarily involves an instantaneous and perfect relationship with God which cannot be disturbed. Thus it covers all sins, past, present, and future. But the other kind of forgiveness is practical and experiential, and in the nature of the case can only deal with sins as they occur. Thus, at conversion, on a practical level we are forgiven for all the sins of our past and, as we confess our sins, these too are forgiven (1 John 1:9). This is to say that, at conversion, we begin communion with God and we sustain it by acknowledging the failures that can, and do, disrupt it. If a man were converted, yet unforgiven, he would be a person possessing eternal life but unable to enjoy communion with God (Paul is for three days like this...). What is involved in Acts 2:38 is an experience of regeneration (at the point where faith occurs...) with real communion begun only when baptism is submitted to.52

​

Thirdly, Acts 2:38 is unique in regard to the Holy Spirit when compared with the rest of the book of Acts. Concerning the offer of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, Hodges makes four points:

(a) There was a time when no believer had--or could have as yet--the Holy Spirit (cf. John 7:38-39).

​

(b) On the day of Pentecost the Spirit did not become the immediate possession of every believer. Baptism had to precede the giving of the Spirit...

​

(c) In Samaria, Samaritans receive the promised Spirit through the laying on of the Apostles' hands, that the Jewish-Samaritan schism might be prevented from injuring the unity of the Church.

​

(d) In the house of Cornelius the Spirit is received upon the exercise of faith and before baptism. No pure Gentile, according to Scripture, has ever been required to receive baptism before receiving the Spirit.

​

From Rom 8:9 it may be inferred that the transitional requirement of baptism had vanished and the Apostle equates possession of the Spirit with the mere fact of being a Christian. To this agree also Eph 1:13 and, by inference, Acts 19:2.53

​

Therefore, in regard to the gift of the Holy Spirit three observations follow: (1) although the OT saint was regenerated, he did not permanently possess the Spirit (John 7:37-39); (2) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is a sign that one has entered the Church Age, was given to the Jews in Acts 2 upon their baptism; and (3) as one goes through the Book of Acts it becomes apparent that regeneration, forgiveness, and the reception of the Holy Spirit occur, normatively, at the moment of faith (Acts 10:44-48). "No Gentile exceptions are noted by Luke in the remainder of Acts, so that in Cornelius Luke no doubt sees normative Gentile experience."54

The unique manner in which the gift of the Holy Spirit is given in Acts 2 could be compared to the empowerment of the Spirit which came to our Lord at His baptism. On this analogy, S. Craig Glickman offers this insight:

Furthermore, the church was born on the day of Pentecost, a unique event and perhaps the gift of the Spirit to this body following baptism served also to make correspondence with the head of the body, Jesus Christ, who did not receive the special empowerment of the Spirit until after baptism, but thereafter his body always possessed it, as is the case with his body the church. It received the Spirit after baptism on its inauguration but (shortly) thereafter to be in the body was to possess the Spirit! (Rom 8:9).55

​

Deficiencies
Because this view has not been widely circulated it has not been widely criticized. One work was found by a Churches of Christ debater which criticized this interpretation.56 However, its objections are of marginal worth because the polemical tone did not allow the transitional interpretation to be understood accurately. However, the chief objection (besides the objection that the view may be too complex) is found in the assumption that in Acts 2:37 some actually believed in Christ. This boils down, naturally, to the nature of faith and repentance (a subject beyond the scope of this paper).57 As a result of this article perhaps someone who accurately understands this interpretation will write a paper that surfaces more numerous and difficult objections. However, unless and until insurmountable problems arise, this interpretation is the one that I hold.

Taken from THE GOSPEL AND WATER BAPTISM:A STUDY OF ACTS 2:38 By LANNY THOMAS TANTON

 

[Iosias]

You say Potato, I say Potahto lets call the whole thing off. I can see that you are a dispensationalist. No offense but you need to read 1 peter 3:18-22. This disputes your view from Acts.

Hang on a sec!! Lets look at 1 Peter 3:21 which states "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but by the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the ressurection of Jesus Christ:" Notice the bit which states "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" i.e. not water-baptism! Or did you just conveniently look over this?

 

[Benedicta00]

Hang on a sec!! Lets look at 1 Peter 3:21 which states "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but by the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the ressurection of Jesus Christ:" Notice the bit which states "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" i.e. not water-baptism! Or did you just conveniently look over this?

You are reading that into this.

 

[Mrpc]

What about the thief on the cross? Luke 23.

He certainly wasn't baptized....with water.

PC

 

[Mrpc]

Jesus told him AUDIBLY that he was saved. Now, if Jesus comes to you personally and tells you AUDIBLY "today you will be with me in Paradise" then you don't need to be baptized

Can you prove this from scripture? Just because it happened doesn't make your point correctly. You'll have to prove that baptism counts...unless Jesus audibly tells you it's cool.

PC

 

[Benedicta00]

What about the thief on the cross? Luke 23.

He certainly wasn't baptized....with water.

PC

Straw postion. No one- not one time said that water baptism is exclusive, we recognize that there is a baptism of desire and a baptism of blood, which is martyrdom.

Water baptism is the normal, ordinary way God has given to us to be born again, if we reject that willingly but claim to be saved anyway, then you will have to explain to God why you did that- why you ignored His command but for those who really had no opportunity to be baptized into Christ but would have if they knew or could, God baptizes then with a baptism of desire. The problem is, is NOT for any of us to decided if we should or should not receive water baptism for the remission of sins, we are called to do this and only God will judge who was exempt from it and who wasn’t.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Straw postion. No one- not one time said that water baptism is exclusive, we recognize that there is a baptism of desire and a baptism of blood, which is martyrdom.

Water baptism is the normal, ordinary way God has given to us to be born again, if we reject that willingly but claim to be saved anyway, then you will have to explain to God why you did that- why you ignored His command but for those who really had no opportunity to be baptized into Christ but would have if they knew or could, God baptizes then with a baptism of desire. The problem is, is NOT for any of us to decided if we should or should not receive water baptism for the remission of sins, we are called to do this and only God will judge who was exempt from it and who wasn’t.

romans 3:25 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.

acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall recieve remission of sins

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

hebrews 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering of sin.


God says you have a problem

 

[All4Christ]

So do you think that you can learn the truth without listening to the Holy Spirit? (Answer that question, please.)

Sure, people can fake it and say that they have heard from God when they have not. That is not my concern. My only responsibility in my search for truth is to make sure that I myself listen to the Holy Spirit.

In any case, let me make this simple. You trust the Catholic Church. Why? Because you think way back when, they were right, and they haven't changed from that? But how do you know they were right then? Because historical accounts say that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit? But how do you know that those historical accounts are not biased?

How can you be sure that the Catholic Church is right unless you hear from the Holy Spirit yourself? You might not have to have the Holy Spirit confirm in you the truth of every doctrine that the CC teaches, but you would at least need the HS to speak to you that this was the right Church, "preserved from error," and all that.

Paul said that he did not preach in word but in power. It is the power of the Holy Spirit that touches your life that makes you sure of the gospel. If you can be merely "persuaded" (in an intellectual sense) that the gospel is true, then you can later be persuaded that it is false.

Now if the Holy Spirit is the only way that you can know something is true, what if you fool yourself (or are fooled by someone else) into thinking that the Holy Spirit said something to you that He did not? "Yes, what then?" you ask. "Anyone can say that, and lots of people who do say that are wrong," someone says. Well, so what? So people can be wrong. What else is new?

"But they wouldn't be wrong if they'd just listen to the Church that God established on earth," the Catholic says. Again, how do they know that you're church is not wrong or lying to them? They don't know; unless, that is, the Holy Spirit confirms it to them. There really is no way to really know God except by. . . knowing God.

I know this was posted awhile back, but I had to ask you something. There are people who believe that they absolutely are listening to the Holy Spirit. You believe that you are absolutely listening to the Holy Spirit. But you come up with different answers than some of those others? Don't deny that this happens, because there are sincere believers in every denomination who truly believe they are listening to the Holy Spirit. So, tell me, how can we test if it is truly from the Holy Spirit? By the Bible? Yes the Bible is authoritative. But
what if it doesn't clearly state one way or the other? What if it could be used as evidence for one thing if explained one way, or for the opposing view if looked at another way? What if one verse could support your view, but another verse is a qualifier that puts a different spin to it? There are a myriad of different things that could happen by just using the Bible--no matter how much you trust in it...exegete it...study it...etc. You anticipated this response...however, though you mentioned that the RC Church wouldn't know unless the Holy Spirit confirmed it to them...Yes, they believe the historical accounts, but I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong, my RC and Orthodox friends) they believe he is still inspiring the Church today that they believe the Holy Spirit gave the Church the guidance...pretty close to what you believe the Holy Spirit does for you, eh? How do they know they're right and that the Holy Spirit is truly affirming their beliefs? Well, if you don't think that
they are hearing correctly, let me ask you a question. How do you know that you are hearing the correct message from the Holy Spirit? No one is there to hold you accountable to the Holy Spirit (and yes I realize you may not think that you need that...that the Holy Spirit and the Bible hold you accountable...however, you're viewing that from your own point of view.) You don't believe in tradition? Unless you are not part of a church denomination, then there are traditions. Are all these traditions based on the Bible? Most likely not. There are traditions of worship styles, traditions of the way how things are done, traditions of how baptism is done, traditions of how communion/Eucharist is taken. There are a myriad of "traditions". They may not have originated from the earliest church, but they did come about with the origin of your church, whether it be a single church or a denomination. I also know that you probably don't put as much emphasis on the way things are done, and that they may not have the meaning that they do in the Orthodox and Catholic church, but...my only point is that you can't say you don't use tradition.

I don't agree with everything in the Catholic Church...but I don't agree with your logic either. I also respect you for your views, as long as you soundly back it up. However, if you step into the shoes of the Catholic or Orthodox, you'll also see that they can soundly back up their views, and believe it as wholeheartedly as you or I do with our own beliefs.

 

[GenemZ]

Yes, but is the baptism spoken about in your references of the holy Spirit or of water? Both are talked about separately in Scripture and this is what I am struggling with.

Problem was this. The Church age was a new age. All the disciples were Jews. Jesus discipled them as Jews.

Water baptism was the baptism of John during the Jewish age. Now, here is the key passage given by the resurrected Christ:

"On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:4-5 niv

There is only one faith... one baptism!

Problem was, Peter quickly forgot those words and continued on as if it were no different from before. In the past the disciples had baptized others in water, so Peter and others only continued on doing as before. But, there came a point whan Peter stopped demanding water baptism. It happened about ten chapters after Jesus told him that Johns baptsim was to be replaced with the Spirit.

"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' " Acts 11:15-16 niv

Likewise, Peter had to be shown by the Lord to stop eating kosher and to freely associate with Gentiles. That took a while also.

Most do not realize that the Bible records the mistakes of the saints. They drew lots to see who would replace Judas, but we never hear of who they picked any more after that. Paul was God's choice later on. What was done in the Book of Acts are all not directives for the Church to follow. Certain things which were errors were also recorded to show how Christianity eventually changed over from Jewish ways to the New Age of Christ. Water baptism was stuck to at first, but once Peter finally remembered the words spoken by the Lord, we find no more water baptisms recorded in Acts.

"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' " Acts 11:15-16 niv

Some can not see the importance of this and would rather ignore it in the name of sentimental traditionalism. Yet, in certain countries where Christianity is banned, lives could have been saved if certain believers did not try and sneak off into the woods to be water baptized. They were exposed by this ritual and murdered. That is why we need to deny tradition when the Word is made clear. You never know who's life it may save, even though it seems insignificant to us in our circumstances of life.

Grace in peace, GeneZ

 

[Ave Maria]

No, baptism is NOT required for salvation! It is merely an outward symbol of an inward commitment (towards Christ).

 

[SPALATIN]

No, baptism is NOT required for salvation! It is merely an outward symbol of an inward commitment (towards Christ).

Prove it! 1 Peter 3:18-22

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

How do you interpret these verses and in particular the one with the Bold letters?

 

[SPALATIN]

What about the thief on the cross? Luke 23.

He certainly wasn't baptized....with water.

PC

This was also before Christ gave the commission to Baptize. And in that vain Did Christ ever Baptize anyone during his ministry?

 

[Benedicta00]

1 Peter 3:18-22

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

What the verse is saying is that it is not like John’s baptism, that it is indeed NOT a empty work or ordnance or something we do to show we are already saved. It is actually saying that this is a sacrament and it does something, it redeems us from original sin and our personal sins if we have them at the time we are baptized.

There is no instance in the bible where you are going to find reference to baptism to mean anything else other than a water baptism. There is nothing that supports being born-again, born from above to be a non sacramental regeneration, it’s always “believe AND BE baptized” not believe and then be baptized.

This verse is clear- “baptism now saves you” and it does NOT go on to say that it is a baptism that is a metaphor and not a water baptism that is used to save you. And if someone comes back and says that water doesn’t save, I will scream. We know it does not- the mystery of Baptismal grace saves because this is how God chooses to give us His grace.

Also, look at Titus, “ Not because of any righteous deeds we have done (like accept Christ or having faith) but through the bath of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.” Water and the Spirit like Christ said is the means God uses to give us the grace of redemption. We can not earn it by “having faith.” We will have to have faith to be saved in the end, but not to be redeemed because redemption is free, not earned by having faith. In baptism, we are given faith to be saved if we accept it and not reject it. It's all a free gift, not of our own works, no man should boast.