Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Michiah-Imla]

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Baptism is performed by human hands.

The baptism in the Holy Ghost certainly isn't.

Of course calvinists don't know nuthin about that since they are secessionists and have not the Spirit.

 

[David Lamb]

The baptism in the Holy Ghost certainly isn't.

Of course calvinists don't know nuthin about that since they are secessionists and have not the Spirit.

I may be mistaken, but I thought that Bread of Life, to whom I was replying, had been talking about baptism in water rather than baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[nedsk]

No they did not have to eat of the lamb. they had to take lambs blood at put it on the doorposts and lentel. this signified Jesus blood saving us and them.

Well the last seder was just another seder and the Lords supper was established as an ordinance for the church to keep.

But once again as all the elements of the Seder were symbols of things to come, Jesus was explaining what a specific pice of pita and what a specific cup of wine symbolized.

At a seder, three pitas were placed in a trifold napking. the bread Jesus took was the middle piece-representing Him as the second person of the trinity. It had to be striped, pierced and unleavened. Just as Jesus had no sin and was striped and pierced for us.

The cup of wine Jesus took and proclaimed HIs blood was the 3rd of 4 cups drank at a seder. It was called the cup of redemption.
from chabad.org

What is the significance of the four cups of wine?​

By Yosef Marcus

G‑d uses four expressions of redemption in describing our Exodus from Egypt and our birth as a nation:1
1. "I will take you out…"
2. "I will save you…"
3. "I will redeem you…"
4. "I will take you as a nation…"

From torah resource:

The First Cup – The Cup of Sanctification

“I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

The Second Cup — Cup of Deliverance

“I will deliver you from their bondage.”

The Third Cup — the Cup of Redemption

“I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.”

;The Fourth Cup — The Cup of Hope

‘Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God.”

He was explaining the bread and wine and ther meaning. It was His blood that will be the cup of redemption and His body that was sinless and strpied and pierced for us.

If you think they didn't have to eat the lamb then you're ignorant or you're being purposefully obtuse

Exodus 12: 7

"Take a bit of it's blood put it on the two doorposts and upon the lintel of every house in which it is to be EATEN" (my emphasis)

Verse 8

That night EAT it's meet roasted. EAT it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

Verse 9

Do not EAT it raw or boiled

Verse 11

This is how you sha EAT it ....EAT it quickly

That's a lot of very specific instructions for something that's not needed. Stop replying to me

Well the last seder was just another seder and the Lords supper was established as an ordinance for the church to keep.

But once again as all the elements of the Seder were symbols of things to come, Jesus was explaining what a specific pice of pita and what a specific cup of wine symbolized.

At a seder, three pitas were placed in a trifold napking. the bread Jesus took was the middle piece-representing Him as the second person of the trinity. It had to be striped, pierced and unleavened. Just as Jesus had no sin and was striped and pierced for us.

What is the significance of the four cups of wine?​

By Yosef Marcus

G‑d uses four expressions of redemption in describing our Exodus from Egypt and our birth as a nation:1
1. "I will take you out…"
2. "I will save you…"
3. "I will redeem you…"
4. "I will take you as a nation…"

From torah resource:

The First Cup – The Cup of Sanctification

“I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

The Second Cup — Cup of Deliverance

“I will deliver you from their bondage.”

The Third Cup — the Cup of Redemption

“I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.”

;The Fourth Cup — The Cup of Hope

‘Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God.”

He was explaining the bread and wine and ther meaning. It was His blood

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I call "BS" on this post because I have provided you with Biblical arguments for EVERY one of these point.s
YOU responded with your usual game of denial and never provided a Biblical refutation . . .

Why don't you try to actually prove them wrong?

How can I disprove an opinion? that is all you have given.

Calling Mary the Ark and equating it because of the Manna, tablets and rod is not a biblical evidence but a conjecture based on your predisposed view.

I have given you biblical proof of Mary not staying ever virgin. You then played not so subtle word games a third grader can see through.

But here again:

Matthew 1:25

King James Version

​

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Your phony ploy with Michal doesn't hold water here. Anyone with basic reading comprehension would read this as Joseph did not have sex with Mary until the firstborn was born. Even the first born title is a strong implication there were more to come.

Matthew 13:55-56

King James Version

​

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Your saying Adelphoi and Adelphos can mean near relatives is also a lie! No greek dictionary defines it that way. they had a perfectly good and very common Greek word to use for near relatives that would have been used "syngenes". Brothers was only used for fellow country men and fellow believers, which is not the case at all here.

As for Mary being sinless? Let us see the bible what it says about all humanity in General.

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

No exceptions.

You cannot provide a scintilla of empirical evidence from Scripture that Mary was born without a sin nature and kept free from sin all her life. All you have is philosophical reasonings from some early church Fathers!

You haven't even dared touch on purgatory yet. But let me remind you , if one can loste their salvation because of any sin or sins, or if one has to be punished for a temmporal period of time for their sins, then the only conclusion one can draw is thet you do not believe jesus paid the price and was punished for all your sins.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Lol...OK

YOU can detect false teachings? Have you let your elders and senior pastor know of this gift God has given you?

Curious Mary

Anyone who has studied to show themselves approved unto god can do it! I am but one of untold legions of followers of Jesus who can detect false teachings. Can I spot them all? I would say no. but after 51 years of walking with the Lord, I can spot quite a few.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If you think they didn't have to eat the lamb then you're ignorant or you're being purposefully obtuse

Exodus 12: 7

"Take a bit of it's blood put it on the two doorposts and upon the lintel of every house in which it is to be EATEN" (my emphasis)

Verse 8

That night EAT it's meet roasted. EAT it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

Verse 9

Do not EAT it raw or boiled

Verse 11

This is how you sha EAT it ....EAT it quickly

That's a lot of very specific instructions for something that's not needed. Stop replying to me

I didn't say they could not eat the lamb. all I said was eating the Lamb was not part of what made the angel of death Passover them. It was the blood on the lintil and doorposts. they ate whatever they were instructed to eat.

If you cannot read my words as they are written, maybe it is you who should stop replying.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I may be mistaken, but I thought that Bread of Life, to whom I was replying, had been talking about baptism in water rather than baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Yes - you must be Baptized with water (Ezek. 36:25-28, John 3:5, 1 Pet. 3:21) - and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Ezek. 36:25-28, Acts 10:47-48).
This is Christianity 101 . . .

 

[nedsk]

No

I didn't say they could not eat the lamb. all I said was eating the Lamb was not part of what made the angel of death Passover them. It was the blood on the lintil and doorposts. they ate whatever they were instructed to eat.

If you cannot read my words as they are written, maybe it is you who should stop replying.

No eating the flesh of the lamb was necessary. If it wasn't why the specificity about how to eat it? If it wasn't necessary to eat the lamb why even mentioning eating it at all?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No

No eating the flesh of the lamb was necessary. If it wasn't why the specificity about how to eat it? If it wasn't necessary to eat the lamb why even mentioning eating it at all?

For the Passover meal, yes, for the angel of death to passover them, NO! If you think otherwise please show a verse from Scripture that shows your theory.

 

[nedsk]

For the Passover meal, yes, for the angel of death to passover them, NO! If you think otherwise please show a verse from Scripture that shows your theory.

The whole thing is one package. If all that was necessary was blood on the door posts then only there directions for where to apply the blood would have been needed. The stuff about eating the lamb is completely meaningless. Its all attached bring passover event.

 

[Marymog]

Anyone who has studied to show themselves approved unto god can do it! I am but one of untold legions of followers of Jesus who can detect false teachings. Can I spot them all? I would say no. but after 51 years of walking with the Lord, I can spot quite a few.

 

[Marymog]

Did you miss my memo in post # 3352 too?

Sure, looks like it,

No, maybe not, wait till I announce I am done then creep in and ask all your insncere questions and pretend I am the coward for not answering while patting one another on the back for a good job

Talk about hypocrital cowards

I don't think you are a coward. I see that you backed out of this topic before I interjected because you were "bored" with the conversation. You also said you haven't heard anything new about infant baptism that would change your mind. In an effort to interject something new about infant baptism I quoted 4 passages from Scripture to show what they actually say and then I showed how you and your ilk change (interpret) those passages to fit what you believe. I thought I gave you something new to think about and you would no longer be bored with the topic AND possibly educate me on how my analogy was wrong. I think you are sincere in your beliefs like most Protestants are. Unfortunately for you some of your beliefs don't match up with Scripture OR historical Christian writings.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Anyone who has studied to show themselves approved unto god can do it! I am but one of untold legions of followers of Jesus who can detect false teachings. Can I spot them all? I would say no. but after 51 years of walking with the Lord, I can spot quite a few.

I am "studied" and "approved unto God"! I have been "walking with the Lord" for 55 years which is longer than you have. Is it possible that I am "one of untold legions of followers of Jesus who can detect false teachings"?

Curious Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Ahh – so you don’t even believe in the Triune Godhead?? That explains a LOT . . .
Ther is ONE God manifested in TREE distinct Persons.

I have DOZENS of verses that PROVE the Triune Godhead (Trinity).
I’ll take it easy on you and provide you with just THREE . . .

The Father is God
Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Jesus is God
Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

The Holy Spirit is God
Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."

Ummmm, explain how the Bible says that they are ALL God . . .

Just as soon as YOU produce a verse of Scripture showing that an entire household does NOT include children of all ages. CAN you do that??

Finally – WHY do you keep dodging the Sola Scriptura question?? You adhere to a FALSE doctrine that is NOT taught in the Scriptures. What are you going to tell God when He asks you why you practiced such a falsehood??

You can run – but you can‘t hide . . .

Ummm, I already did . . .
Gen. 17:10-13
This is my COVENANT with you and your descendants after you, the COVENANT you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

A “Covenant” by definition is a binding agreement made between TWO or more parties.
WHO do you think made the choice – the baby or the parent??

The SAME is true in the case of the COVENANT of Baptism. The parent will choose for the child:
Acts 2:38-29
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for ALL whom the Lord our God will call.”

Hi Bread
Just saw the above - it's really old but I have a question regarding what you've stated.

It's re Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

You said THE PARENT WILL CHOOSE FOR THE CHILD.
I agree wholeheartedly that this was the original intent in the early church because the parents INTENDED to raise the child in a Christian home with Christian ideals and beliefs.

Acts can mean that the promise will be also for the children of the baptized - but the children were also baptized as I remember from church history.

But the way you worded it, it sounds as if even the children will be saved.
If this were true, then every single Catholic would be saved.
Is this what you believe?

A young priest here explained it like this at Mass:
An infant/child is baptized.
The Holy Spirit is received.
However, it's as if the Holy Spirit is sleeping and must be activated by the child
when he reaches an age of understanding. (age of accountability).

I thought this was an excellent way of explanation and have used it myself.

Just clarify, please, that not every Catholic will end up saved because of the fact that they were baptized.

 

[GodsGrace]

You said, " Circumcision was the cutting off of foreskin."

Shows two in the above post, you posted also

"Baptism is immersion into water."

Jesus who was cicumcised the eighth day according to the law was later baptized when he was older by John

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him

Likewise it says here

1 Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Mary had him circumcised his foreskin the eighth day (as a child) according to the law, and John (who had the Holy ghost from the womb) baptized Jesus with water when Jesus was around 30 years old, where the Spirit of God descended upon him there. After which times he was driven into the wilderness to be tried by the devil to return in power.


I agree with the scriptures, I dont see how I agreed with infant baptisn

Hi Truly,
Sorry this is so late.
I read that you're bored with this topic.
I studied up on it when reading the early theologians of the church...
this goes way back to the beginning of the church.... end 1st century and onward,
There are many notations of this from the 2nd century and 3rd.

Infants were indeed baptized back then...this is confirmed by different writings.
The history is very interesting, but I won't belabor the point since you're not interested.
It would be something interesting for you to study if you ever had the inclination.

 

[GodsGrace]

Maybe I am not asking the right question, I was infant baptized (as I have stated) and so what is this to mean to me now?

The Pharisees rejected John's baptism (which was by water). Whereas I might reject a baptism imposed upon me because I could not chose it for myself. Now I did chose to be when presented with the choice, when I actually had the ability to both repent and/or believe the gospel. A choice I did not have as an infant, which only made me lazy enough to refer to "it" (as a legitimate thing for me) if/when someone asked me about "my" faith. "Oh, (I might respond) I was baptized Catholic, our whole family is "that" and so I have also been "that" all my life (sort of thing). Like some sort of token badge of honor (which I had nothing to do with) nor could I prove it to be some sort of genuine thing (for me) from the scripture even if I wanted to because I knew less about the scriptures, and very little about faith in Jesus Christ (which I really did not have) and so obviously I would care even less to comunicate concerning that too. I just defaulted to my infant waterboarding experience which I have zero recollection of (or choice of participating in).

Baptism is not a badge of honor...
no matter when it's done.

It's either a true event....receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
or it is not. It cannot be both.

Baptism is valid no matter at what age it's done.

My brother joined a Protestant denomination and they asked that he be baptized again.
This should NEVER be agreed to.
ONE baptism is sufficient.

We are baptized into the Body of Christ..
NOT into a denomination.

So you really should stop calling it waterboarding...
it's rather insulting to the Holy Spirit who is present when properly baptized
in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[nedsk]

Baptism is not a badge of honor...
no matter when it's done.

It's either a true event....receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
or it is not. It cannot be both.

Baptism is valid no matter at what age it's done.

My brother joined a Protestant denomination and they asked that he be baptized again.
This should NEVER be agreed to.
ONE baptism is sufficient.

We are baptized into the Body of Christ..
NOT into a denomination.

So you really should stop calling it waterboarding...
it's rather insulting to the Holy Spirit who is present when properly baptized
in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Great post and you correctly point out the arrogance that pervades every interactions with Protestants

 

[Dan Clarkston]

I may be mistaken, but I thought that Bread of Life, to whom I was replying, had been talking about baptism in water rather than baptism of the Holy Spirit.

If calvinists actually had the True Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ.... they would forsake the false doctrines of calvinism.

They have a counterfeit "holy spirit" which teaches them to twist scripture and ignore other scriptures

 

[BreadOfLife]

How can I disprove an opinion? that is all you have given.

WRONG.

I gave you DOZENS of verses. All YOU’VE given in return are denials . . .

Calling Mary the Ark and equating it because of the Manna, tablets and rod is not a biblical evidence but a conjecture based on your predisposed view.

The Manna tablets and rod that the Ark carried were ALL types of Jesus.
Mary carried the fulfillment.

I have given you biblical proof of Mary not staying ever virgin. You then played not so subtle word games a third grader can see through.

WRONG.
You did NO such thing.

You gave me some verses that indicated “Adelphoi of Jesus” – NOT children of Mary. The Apostles were ALL his Adelphoi – but NOT his uterine siblings . . .

But here again:
Matthew 1:25

King James Version​

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Your phony ploy with Michal doesn't hold water here. Anyone with basic reading comprehension would read this as Joseph did not have sex with Mary until the firstborn was born. Even the first born title is a strong implication there were more to come.

Either you’re REALLY dense – or you just enjoy LYING because I already educated you on this point . . .

ONE more time, son:
The term “Firstborn does NOT mean that other children followed. It means, the one who “opens the mother’s womb” and does NOT indicate more children. Samuel was Hannah’s “firstborn” – and she only had ONE child.

Matthew 13:55-56

King James Version​

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Your saying Adelphoi and Adelphos can mean near relatives is also a lie! No greek dictionary defines it that way. they had a perfectly good and very common Greek word to use for near relatives that would have been used "syngenes". Brothers was only used for fellow country men and fellow believers, which is not the case at all here.

Really??
Tell mee then, Einstein – why do we read the following in the Greek Septuagint:

- In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was Abrahams NEPHEW, the son of his brother Haran. (Gen. 11:26–28).

- In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" of his UNCLE Laban.

- Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brethren”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their COUSINS (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

As for your claim that “Adelphos” can ONLY mean uterine sibling and that “no Greek Dictionary” defines it any other way – you are DEAD WRONG again . . .

Here is the definition from Strong’s Greek Dictionary:
αδελπηοσ
Pronunciation: ad-el-fos'
Definition:
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) Any fellow or man
4) A fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) An associate in employment or office
6) Arethren in Christ 6a) his brothers by blood
6b) ALL men
6c) Apostles
6d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Look at that - EIGHT out of nine possible definitions that mean something OTHER than uterine sibling.
So, you either LIED agin – or you’re simply ignorant . . .

As for Mary being sinless? Let us see the bible what it says about all humanity in General.

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

No exceptions.

WRONG again, son . . .

First of all – the Bible isn’t saying this about ALL humanity in general as YOU claim.

In Rom. 9:11, Paul states that “Jacob and Esau and speaks of the time when “… they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” . Are you saying that Paul was LYING in Rom. 9??

Paul was showing that unborn children haven’t had a chance to commit personal sin, making them an exception to the rule that “all have sinned”. Jesus was another exception – and so was Mary.

So much for YOUR declaration that there are “NO exceptions” . . .