Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Ronald Nolette]

The most unconvincing argument I've ever heard in these discussions is, I used to be a Catholic. That means absolutely nothing.

Eat my flesh and drink my blood for my flesh is real drink and blood is real drink. Compelling biblical evidence? If you have to try and explain why Jesus didn't mean what he is clearly saying there then you're not compelled by biblical evidence.

I said it not be a convincing argument.

And I admit that the passage you cite, if left by itself is indeed powerfully compelling. But taking it with all the commentary in the NT> and the setting of the Passover Seder and which bread and which wine Jesus took, also is very powerful and compelling evidence
1. Do not accept transubstantiation.
2, I do not accept the standard protestant memorial argument, though that has its evidence.
3. I do lean toward con-substantiation- with reservations.

 

[Muna]

I’ll wait right here . . .

You do that, you just haven't proved or refuted anything, and this will become what is always is on every forum, an endless rodeo of trying to make it happen (but seriouly failing to do that). I added how I regarded it, but I dont want to beat this dead horse for endless pages to come.

I am just not a card carrying member of "the infant waterboarding club"

Well, I did actually get waterboarded when I was an infant but I don't count it for anything
but unnecessary torture of a child.

Ever see that video of that creepy priest abusing a baby during her baptism?

I highly doubt if given the choice that she would have been at all interested in being baptized as a member into his club.

 

[nedsk]

I said it not be a convincing argument.

And I admit that the passage you cite, if left by itself is indeed powerfully compelling. But taking it with all the commentary in the NT> and the setting of the Passover Seder and which bread and which wine Jesus took, also is very powerful and compelling evidence
1. Do not accept transubstantiation.
2, I do not accept the standard protestant memorial argument, though that has its evidence.
3. I do lean toward con-substantiation- with reservations.

There is NOTHING that is stated elsewhere in Scripture that suggests Jesus wasn't speaking literally in that moment. It represents the passover meal. Believing jews were instructed to eat the flesh of the unblemished lamb and spread it's blood on the door posts. Would any jew who didn't do either of those things but said, I believe that's salvific, have been saved that night?

 

[nedsk]

You do that, you just haven't proved or refuted anything, and this will become what is always is on every forum, an endless rodeo of trying to make it happen (but seriouly failing to do that). I added how I regarded it, but I dont want to beat this dead horse for endless pages to come.

I am just not a card carrying member of "the infant waterboarding club"

Well, I did actually get waterboarded when I was an infant but I don't count it for anything
but unnecessary torture of a child.

Ever see that video of that creepy priest abusing a baby during her baptism?

I highly doubt if given the choice that she would have been at all interested in being baptized as a member into his club.

Even though infant baptism was taught in the earliest days of the only Christian church that existed.

 

[Muna]

Even though infant baptism was taught in the earliest days of the only Christian church that existed.

You mean as taught by tradition.

We already had a back and forth on tradition on another thread, I didn't see what you disagreed with there

 

[nedsk]

You mean as taught by tradition.

We already had a back and forth on tradition on another thread, I didn't see what you disagreed with there

Tradition being a valid form of spiritual truth.

When?

 

[Muna]

Tradition being a valid form of spiritual truth.

When?

If you start at page 120 on post # 2398 we were on that thread

Is it possible to lose salvation?

Right from God though the church he established on the rock of Peter. The Church is established on Jesus. How do you know? Its because Jesus, and not Peter died on The Cross which birthed the NT Church. If Peter died for the sin of the world.... JOHN 3:16..... then keep shoveling your MaryCult...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[BreadOfLife]

Have no clue where you got that OT translation. I checked 32 English translations and not one says that.

It’s essentially the same question in both verses..

Nice typologies, but that does not make Mary the new ark of the covenant.

Soooo, that’s your response - denial??

Good job . . .

There bodies are in the grave! And other than fiat dictates from Romanists, there is nothing in the bible calling for us to call on the souls in heaven to pray for us. It is a made up fancy like purgatory.

Ummm, YOU called it “necromancy”. It may be a practice you disagree with – but I just proved to you that it’s NOT necromancy. And there is NOTHING in the Bible that supports YOUT false doctrine of Sola Scriptura . . . .

You have no ability to educate others on spiritual matters based on your reinterpreting the Bible to fit your Romanist concepts.

And yet, you can’t refute anything I said.

Good job . . .

And I educated you that is not them receiving prayers in their name and then passing them on to God. And if it did, the number of people doing so is limited to the 24 elders and not all the legions of saints you pray to.

It explicitly shows people in Heaven who are interceding on our behalf.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You do that, you just haven't proved or refuted anything, and this will become what is always is on every forum, an endless rodeo of trying to make it happen (but seriouly failing to do that). I added how I regarded it, but I dont want to beat this dead horse for endless pages to come.

I am just not a card carrying member of "the infant waterboarding club"

Well, I did actually get waterboarded when I was an infant but I don't count it for anything
but unnecessary torture of a child.

Ummm, YOU are the one who said that “entire households” didn’t necessarily indicate children of ALL ages. I simply asked you to provide a SINGE Biblical example of a household that didn’t include children of all ages..

If you can’t do that, just admit it - but don’t give me this nonsense about “beating a dead horse” . . .

Ever see that video of that creepy priest abusing a baby during her baptism?

I highly doubt if given the choice that she would have been at all interested in being baptized as a member into his club.

Re-directing the conversation won’t get you off the hook.

Like I said, if you don’t have a Biblical example – just admit it . . .

 

[Muna]

Ummm, YOU are the one who said that “entire households” didn’t necessarily indicate children of ALL ages. I simply asked you to provide a SINGE Biblical example of a household that didn’t include children of all ages..

If you can’t do that, just admit it - but don’t give me this nonsense about “beating a dead horse” . . .

Re-directing the conversation won’t get you off the hook.

Like I said, if you don’t have a Biblical example – just admit it . . .

You havent a hook, baptizing some household does not automatically mean there are infants there, if Paul would baptize my household now, we have no infants, neither do my neighbors to the right of me, or the left of me, nor all 4 neighbors across the street from me, in fact the road that connects to mine (both sides of the street have no infants).

But even if they did, they are not of age to either believe AND be baptized OR repent AND be baptized.

You can only get them wet, there is zero heart involvement in the infant, means nothing.

 

[Muna]

AI agrees

The New Testament does not explicitly mention infants being baptized in any of the household baptism accounts. The passages describing household baptisms—Cornelius’ household (Acts 10), Lydia’s household (Acts 16), the Philippian jailer’s household (Acts 16), Crispus’ household (Acts 18), and Stephanas’ household (1 Corinthians 1)—do not name or identify infants as participants. While it is historically plausible that children were present in these ancient households, as family units often included multiple generations and children were common , the biblical texts themselves do not confirm the presence or baptism of infants.

Arguments for infant baptism based on these passages rely on inference and context rather than direct evidence. For example, the text specifies that those baptized had heard and understood the gospel message, believed, and were capable of receiving the Holy Spirit. In the case of the Philippian jailer’s household, the Greek text indicates that the jailer personally believed, and the joy expressed was likely due to his conversion and its impact on the family, though the text does not confirm the faith or baptism of others. Similarly, Lydia’s household is described in a way that suggests her servants, rather than children, were likely involved, given her status as a traveling businesswoman. The absence of any mention of infants, combined with the emphasis on faith and understanding as prerequisites for baptism, leads some scholars to conclude that the baptisms were of those old enough to comprehend the gospel.

This AI thing can come in really handy for combing through the more stranger details you might not want to bothered with going through.

 

[nedsk]

You havent a hook, baptizing some household does not automatically mean there are infants there, if Paul would baptize my household now, we have no infants, neither do my neighbors to the right of me, or the left of me, nor all 4 neighbors across the street from me, in fact the road that connects to mine (both sides of the street have no infants).

But even if they did, they are not of age to either believe AND be baptized OR repent AND be baptized.

You can only get them wet, there is zero heart involvement in the infant, means nothing.

None of which means infants can't be baptized.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You havent a hook, baptizing some household does not automatically mean there are infants there, if Paul would baptize my household now, we have no infants, neither do my neighbors to the right of me, or the left of me, nor all 4 neighbors across the street from me, in fact the road that connects to mine (both sides of the street have no infants).

But even if they did, they are not of age to either believe AND be baptized OR repent AND be baptized.

You can only get them wet, there is zero heart involvement in the infant, means nothing.

Not ONLY did I give you the Biblical references to THREE households being baptized – I also gave the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers who carried this Apostolic Tradition into the early centuries of the Church’s existence – SOME of whom were just a few generations away.

Now, since YOU demand explicit Scriptural evidence - the onus is on YOU all to show me where the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. If you can’t do that – then you MUST consider Sacred Tradition and as an option . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

AI agrees

The New Testament does not explicitly mention infants being baptized in any of the household baptism accounts. The passages describing household baptisms—Cornelius’ household (Acts 10), Lydia’s household (Acts 16), the Philippian jailer’s household (Acts 16), Crispus’ household (Acts 18), and Stephanas’ household (1 Corinthians 1)—do not name or identify infants as participants. While it is historically plausible that children were present in these ancient households, as family units often included multiple generations and children were common , the biblical texts themselves do not confirm the presence or baptism of infants.

Arguments for infant baptism based on these passages rely on inference and context rather than direct evidence. For example, the text specifies that those baptized had heard and understood the gospel message, believed, and were capable of receiving the Holy Spirit. In the case of the Philippian jailer’s household, the Greek text indicates that the jailer personally believed, and the joy expressed was likely due to his conversion and its impact on the family, though the text does not confirm the faith or baptism of others. Similarly, Lydia’s household is described in a way that suggests her servants, rather than children, were likely involved, given her status as a traveling businesswoman. The absence of any mention of infants, combined with the emphasis on faith and understanding as prerequisites for baptism, leads some scholars to conclude that the baptisms were of those old enough to comprehend the gospel.

This AI thing can come in really handy for combing through the more stranger details you might not want to bothered with going through.

Forgetting the fact that AI searches is very left-leaning and anti-Christian overall – you STILL need to show me where the Bible claims that the Bible is our ONLY Authority (Sola Scriptura).

NONE of you has been able to do this . . .

 

[Ronald Nolette]

There is NOTHING that is stated elsewhere in Scripture that suggests Jesus wasn't speaking literally in that moment. It represents the passover meal. Believing jews were instructed to eat the flesh of the unblemished lamb and spread it's blood on the door posts. Would any jew who didn't do either of those things but said, I believe that's salvific, have been saved that night?

Now you are equating the lamb with a specific piece of bread and a specific cup of wine.

The lambs blood was literal but also typological of the blood that Jesus spreads on the door of our heart to remove sin. Which follows the pattern of numerous OT literal realities also being a type and shadow of NT^ realities.

Jesus is typed as the Passover Lamb and not as Romanism teaches that Jesus HImself is present in the Eucharist.

I remember the parades in my church which th epriest held the Monstance with the priests host in the middle and people praying to Jesus present in the Eucharist. also we were told, that if in the side tabernacle, the candle was lit, Jesus was present in the tabernacle.

 

[nedsk]

Now you are equating the lamb with a specific piece of bread and a specific cup of wine.

The lambs blood was literal but also typological of the blood that Jesus spreads on the door of our heart to remove sin. Which follows the pattern of numerous OT literal realities also being a type and shadow of NT^ realities.

Jesus is typed as the Passover Lamb and not as Romanism teaches that Jesus HImself is present in the Eucharist.

I remember the parades in my church which th epriest held the Monstance with the priests host in the middle and people praying to Jesus present in the Eucharist. also we were told, that if in the side tabernacle, the candle was lit, Jesus was present in the tabernacle.

You didn't answer the question. Would belief have been enough to save the jews in that first passover? Did they have to eat the flesh of the unblemished lamb? Believing in the symbolism would have been meaninglessness. Jesus was quite clear and NOTHING elsen were in Scripture says Jesus wasn't speaking literally there.

At the last supper Jesus didn't say believe or have faith, he said this is my body this is my blood. If the bread was just bread and the wine was just wine then the last shooter was just another sedar meal. Jesus death was just another execution.

 

[Muna]

None of which means infants can't be baptized.

Its just not mentioned in the scriptures and certainly cannot be justified by the traditions Paul set forth there

 

[Muna]

Forgetting the fact that AI searches is very left-leaning and anti-Christian overall – you STILL need to show me where the Bible claims that the Bible is our ONLY Authority (Sola Scriptura).

NONE of you has been able to do this . . .

Prove what it said wrong, it uses the scriptures to show its a tradition of men not a tradition of Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Prove what it said wrong, it uses the scriptures to show its a tradition of men not a tradition of Christ.

Like I said over a DOZEN times now. Infant/Child Baptism is an implicit teaching of Scripture. It’s not explicitly mentioned.

In the SAME way – the doctrine of the Trinity, which is the most basic and fundamental belief of Christianity is also only implicitly taught. NOWHERE does the Bible explicitly teach this doctrine – yet ALL true Christians believe it as the truth.

Sola Scriptura posits that the Scriptures – and the Scriptures ALONE are the SOLE Authority for everything we believe as Christians.

Please stop running from this question and show me where the BIIBLE teaches this . . .

 

[nedsk]

Like I said over a DOZEN times now. Infant/Child Baptism is an implicit teaching of Scripture. It’s not explicitly mentioned.

In the SAME way – the doctrine of the Trinity, which is the most basic and fundamental belief of Christianity is also only implicitly taught. NOWHERE does the Bible explicitly teach this doctrine – yet ALL true Christians believe it as the truth.

Sola Scriptura posits that the Scriptures – and the Scriptures ALONE are the SOLE Authority for everything we believe as Christians.

Please stop running from this question and show me where the BIIBLE teaches this . . .

You know you won't get it right? I imagine it has to be tough for them to face the reality that what they believe is just not true. That's a hard pill to swallow.