Can the seal be broken? Lack of trust? Grieve the Holy Spirit?

[Ernest T. Bass]

And now we get to the crux of the problem..

You are looking at salvation as if people by their own actions save themselves. But that is works, which saves no one.

Moreover, you are not factoring in God overall-- the fact that it is no longer we who live, but God who lives: we in Him, and Him in us, all in all.

This is the definition of salvation: It is God Himself who cannot loose His salvation, and therefore us in Him also.​

On the other hand we must loose our life--that life in which you think we must be faithful. That is the opposite of salvation-- our faith is not in us, nor of us, but in and of God. Again, it is He who cannot be lost, and therefore us who are in Him also.

The Bible is very clear man has a role in his own salvation:

Acts of the Apostles 2:40 Save yourselves
1 Timothy 4:16 save thyself
2 Corinthians cleansed ourselves
1 Peter 3:22 you purified your souls
James 4:8, draw nigh to God, cleanse your hands, purify your heart

Of course man cannot save himself by himself. But God's word instructs men how to be saved and those men who obey those instructions are in that sense saving themselves. So the work in obeying God's will does save. No verse teaches man is saved by doing nothing....doing nothing would be disobedience to God's will.

 

[ScottA]

The Bible is very clear man has a role in his own salvation:

Acts of the Apostles 2:40 Save yourselves
1 Timothy 4:16 save thyself
2 Corinthians cleansed ourselves
1 Peter 3:22 you purified your souls
James 4:8, draw nigh to God, cleanse your hands, purify your heart

Of course man cannot save himself by himself. But God's word instructs men how to be saved and those men who obey those instructions are in that sense saving themselves. So the work in obeying God's will does save. No verse teaches man is saved by doing nothing....doing nothing would be disobedience to God's will.

Those verses do not say what you say they say.

They are simply good counsel for those hearing the good news of salvation.

Some of whom might have even been saved, but in a way the world had never seen before. They were babes in the Spirit in need of guidance, not for salvation, but for what is the will of God for "those who are alive and remain" in the world (as you said in part). They were not partially saved, or subject to loosing their salvation as those who had not yet died to the flesh to live as One with God. Once a person is "in God" biblically they cannot be take from Him, not even by themselves.

Such is the salvation of God. Saved by God, is saved indeed.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Those verses do not say what you say they say.

They are simply good counsel for those hearing the good news of salvation.

Some of whom might have even been saved, but in a way the world had never seen before. They were babes in the Spirit in need of guidance, not for salvation, but for what is the will of God for "those who are alive and remain" in the world (as you said). They were not partially saved, or subject to loosing their salvation as those who had not yet died to the flesh to live as One with God. Once a person is "in God" they cannot be take from Him, not even by themselves. Such is the salvation of God. Saved by God, is saved indeed.

Those verse clearly do show man has a role in his own salvation. Those verse would make no sense at all if man has no role in his own salvation. Those in Acts 2 were lost in their unremitted/unforgiven sins. No reason to give the imperative "save yourselves" if man cannot possible obey such an imperative. And Peter just told them in verse 38 HOW they could 'save themselves' and that by obeying the command to repent and be baptized. When they asked Peter "what shall WE DO" Peter's response was doing nothing for God will do it all for you. But Peter did command them to do something, repent and be baptized, save yourselves by obeying my command. Had they disobeyed, they would have lost themselves. They had control over being saved or not. Peter gave them the keys as to how to be saved, but it was still up to them to use those keys.

 

[ScottA]

Those verse clearly do show man has a role in his own salvation. Those verse would make no sense at all if man has no role in his own salvation. Those in Acts 2 were lost in their unremitted/unforgiven sins. No reason to give the imperative "save yourselves" if man cannot possible obey such an imperative.

Let's look at it:

"40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation."​

This does not say "save yourselves" as you say, at all. The context is "this crooked generation", which Jesus also warned. But they were not saved, but could be--because like no other generation, they had a choice. For they were born among those who would die in their sins, of whom Christ was the Last. But Christ had also risen during that generation, so Peter is telling them that they do not need to go to the grave lost, only to be resurrected in the second resurrection, but could have part in the first resurrection. This is simply counsel to those who were on the cusp, and part of "this [final] generation," when salvation was just coming about.

And Peter just told them in verse 38 HOW they could 'save themselves' and that by obeying the command to repent and be baptized. When they asked Peter "what shall WE DO" Peter's response was doing nothing for God will do it all for you. But Peter did command them to do something, repent and be baptized, save yourselves by obeying my command. Had they disobeyed, they would have lost themselves. They had control over being saved or not. Peter gave them the keys as to how to be saved, but it was still up to them to use those keys.

"22 who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
​

This verse is about Peter explaining that salvation had come...again, to "this generation" who had a choice of dying in their sins and being a part of the second resurrection, or being part of the first resurrection and receiving the salvation before their natural death.

You are not "rightly dividing" these things.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Let's look at it:

"40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation."​

This does not say "save yourselves" as you say, at all. The context is "this crooked generation", which Jesus also warned. But they were not saved, but could be--because like no other generation, they had a choice. For they were born among those who would die in their sins, of whom Christ was the Last. But Christ had also risen during that generation, so Peter is telling them that they do not need to go to the grave lost, only to be resurrected in the second resurrection, but could have part in the first resurrection. This is simply counsel to those who were on the cusp, and part of "this [final] generation," when salvation was just coming about.

"22 who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
​

This verse is about Peter explaining that salvation had come...again, to "this generation" who had a choice of dying in their sins and being a part of the second resurrection, or being part of the first resurrection and receiving the salvation before their natural death.

You are not "rightly dividing" these things.

Many versions render the verse "save yourselves" and nothing is wrong with how they translated Acts 2:40.

The context:
the Jews Peter preached to were lost, Peter convicted them of the sin of crucifying the Messiah. His message pricked their hearts prompting them to ask 'what shall we do' (about their sinful, lost state). To which Peter said repent and be baptized for remission of sins. Remission of sins = salvation hence Peter was telling them how to save themselves from their sinful state by repenting and being baptized. And those who did repent and were baptized did for a fact save themselves in that sense. The imperative "save yourselves" or "be ye saved" is put upon those Jews to obey. God was not going to obey for them. "this perverse generation" shows many/most of those Jews were still mocking and rejecting Christ. Those to whom Peter preached were to repent and be baptized thereby separate themselves from the lost Jews who continued to reject Christ....save themselves from the lost. Baptism is the line separating the saved from the lost so those who submitted to baptism did in that sense save themselves, delivered themselves, broke themselves away from their evil brethren having their sin remitted. Had they refused to repent and be baptized then they would continued to be lost with that perverse generation. "save yourselves/be ye saved", how? By complying with the imperative of v38 "repent and be baptized".

Paul gives a similar exhortation in 2 Corinthians 6:16-17 "And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"
Those Jews of Acts 2 could not be saved if they continued to fellowship with that perverse generation who rejected Christ.

 

[TEXBOW]

Many versions render the verse "save yourselves" and nothing is wrong with how they translated Acts 2:40.

The context:
the Jews Peter preached to were lost, Peter convicted them of the sin of crucifying the Messiah. His message pricked their hearts prompting them to ask 'what shall we do' (about their sinful, lost state). To which Peter said repent and be baptized for remission of sins. Remission of sins = salvation hence Peter was telling them how to save themselves from their sinful state by repenting and being baptized. And those who did repent and were baptized did for a fact save themselves in that sense. The imperative "save yourselves" or "be ye saved" is put upon those Jews to obey. God was not going to obey for them. "this perverse generation" shows many/most of those Jews were still mocking and rejecting Christ. Those to whom Peter preached were to repent and be baptized thereby separate themselves from the lost Jews who continued to reject Christ....save themselves from the lost. Baptism is the line separating the saved from the lost so those who submitted to baptism did in that sense save themselves, delivered themselves, broke themselves away from their evil brethren having their sin remitted. Had they refused to repent and be baptized then they would continued to be lost with that perverse generation. "save yourselves/be ye saved", how? By complying with the imperative of v38 "repent and be baptized".

Paul gives a similar exhortation in 2 Corinthians 6:16-17 "And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"
Those Jews of Acts 2 could not be saved if they continued to fellowship with that perverse generation who rejected Christ.

I agree with your view that we must choose. But, I believe that Acts 2:38 is unique. You are correct that Peter is talking to the Jews. If Paul was standing next to Peter and addressing Gentiles he would not have said anything about being baptized. We know this by the answer he gave in his epistles on salvation. Romans 10:9 is crystal clear. Acts is transition history, from law to grace. The Jews put a lot of stock in rituals as it had been a part of their religions culture since Moses. Ceremonial baths, washing, circumcision, sacrifices etc. Paul himself on his trip to Jerusalem still participated in certain traditions to not cause strife in the Jewish community. These rituals have nothing to do with salvation.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I agree with your view that we must choose. But, I believe that Acts 2:38 is unique. You are correct that Peter is talking to the Jews. If Paul was standing next to Peter and addressing Gentiles he would not have said anything about being baptized. We know this by the answer he gave in his epistles on salvation. Romans 10:9 is crystal clear. Acts is transition history, from law to grace. The Jews put a lot of stock in rituals as it had been a part of their religions culture since Moses. Ceremonial baths, washing, circumcision, sacrifices etc. Paul himself on his trip to Jerusalem still participated in certain traditions to not cause strife in the Jewish community. These rituals have nothing to do with salvation.

one thing to remember is the fact he did not tell everyone to be baptized in acts 2: 38. Unlike the command to repent, when he spoke to everyone there.

also, eis can not only be translated for "in order to receive" it can also be translated for "on account of"

 

[TEXBOW]

one thing to remember is the fact he did not tell everyone to be baptized in acts 2: 38. Unlike the command to repent, when he spoke to everyone there.

also, eis can not only be translated for "in order to receive" it can also be translated for "on account of"

I've seen that mentioned somewhere before. Good point. I hate that I and others sometimes argue (debate passionately) about baptism. To me it's a important and meaningful ordnance like Communion and something we as Christ followers should do. I just do not agree that it's an (act, behavior, works) that is required for salvation. A person that believes they must get wet to be saved IMHO is saying that the cross was not sufficient, the blood was not sufficient, that we must do something in addition to Faith to help God save us. Too many souls have been saved going into battle, in hospital beds, at an accident on the side of the highway, at nursing homes that were not baptized. Those souls were not rejected because they were not dipped in water.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I've seen that mentioned somewhere before. Good point. I hate that I and others sometimes argue (debate passionately) about baptism. To me it's a important and meaningful ordnance like Communion and something we as Christ followers should do. I just do not agree that it's an (act, behavior, works) that is required for salvation. A person that believes they must get wet to be saved IMHO is saying that the cross was not sufficient, the blood was not sufficient, that we must do something in addition to Faith to help God save us. Too many souls have been saved going into battle, in hospital beds, at an accident on the side of the highway, at nursing homes that were not baptized. Those souls were not rejected because they were not dipped in water.

Titus 3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

I am not quite sure how someone can call it mercy, when we are required to go to a place, get in front of a bunch of people. give a testimony and allow some man to dunk you in water.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I agree with your view that we must choose. But, I believe that Acts 2:38 is unique. You are correct that Peter is talking to the Jews. If Paul was standing next to Peter and addressing Gentiles he would not have said anything about being baptized. We know this by the answer he gave in his epistles on salvation. Romans 10:9 is crystal clear. Acts is transition history, from law to grace. The Jews put a lot of stock in rituals as it had been a part of their religions culture since Moses. Ceremonial baths, washing, circumcision, sacrifices etc. Paul himself on his trip to Jerusalem still participated in certain traditions to not cause strife in the Jewish community. These rituals have nothing to do with salvation.

Peter and Paul preached the same one gospel, the same one system of faith (Ephesians 4:5) so Paul would preach the same thing as Peter.....seeing also both men were inspired by the one and only Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.


Galatians 1:23 "But they had heard only, That he (Paul) which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
The implication of this verse is that Saul once destroyed the faith as taught by Peter in Acts 2 but Paul "now preacheth" (present tense) that faith he once destroyed. "The faith" the article "the" refers to one particular faith which BOTH Peter and Paul preached alike. Therefore Paul preached baptism as Peter (Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12; etc), Paul was baptized himself (Acts of the Apostles 22:16) and Paul baptized others (1 Corinthians 1:14,16).


In Romans 10 Paul is not giving a discourse on how to be saved. In the broader context the Jews had rejected Christ so God has rejected the Jews, broken them off due to their unbelief (Romans 11:20). Paul shows further in Romans 11 that God's people have always been those who obey Him. So in Romans 10 Paul is demonstrating that those Jews who were broken off were so because they would not obey God...they would not believe, would not confess, would not obey the gospel....hence they were justly broken off by God. Paul in Romans 10 was proving to the Jews that their physical desendancy from Abraham is not what saves but rather salvation comes by being obedient to God's will yet those Jews would not obey the gospel of Christ (Romans 10:16). That "whosoever" calls upon the name of the Lord can be saved, not Jews only who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. So Paul's point in Romans 10 is not pointing out every aspect of salvation but prove the Jews will not be saved due to their physical birth but that obedience to God saves yet the Jews would not obey.

So even though baptism is not specifically mentioned in Romans 10, Paul teaches the necessity of it elsewhere. Acts of the Apostles 20:27 one must examine ALL the counsel of God to determine what is necessary to being saved and Romans 10:9 does not even come close to exhausting all there is to know about how to be saved. Repentance is not specifically mentioned in Romans 10:9 but that does not mean repentance is unnecessary.....Paul said the impenitent will be lost (Romans 2:4-5). Since repentance is required (Romans 2:4-5) no reason to assume baptism is not required, it is instructed in Romans 6:3-5.

Note that Romans 10:9-10 does NOT say salvation is obtained by belief alone or by confession alone:

KJV - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
NIV - For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

The KJV correctly renders this verse the NIV does not. The KJV show that belief leads one towards/unto salvation that belief alone in and of itself does not save. Confession also leads one towards/unto salvation but confession alone in and of itself does not saved. The NIV's Calvinistic 'faith only' bias attempts to have man saved/justified at the moment of belief only ("are justified"). But then it has one saved/justified a second time when one confesses ("are saved").
Matthew 7:21 Jesus once and for all time prohibited a mere verbal confession from saving.

So even though baptism is not specifically mentioned in Romans 10 I see that it is still there. If you like for me to, I can take the time and show you where baptism is actually found in Romans 10.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Peter and Paul preached the same one gospel

Impossible, Since God Has TWO Different Programs!:

God's Approval/TWO Gospels In Prophecy vs Mystery

More Confirming Scriptural Evidence, is here:
"Distinctions" of Prophecy vs MYSTERY

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Impossible, Since God Has TWO Different Programs!:

God's Approval/TWO Gospels In Prophecy vs Mystery

More Confirming Scriptural Evidence, is here:
"Distinctions" of Prophecy vs MYSTERY

There has never been but one gospel, one faith. Anything other than that one gospel is a false gospel, Galatians 1:6-8. Galatians 1:23 is sufficient proof that Peter and Paul preached the same one gospel.

The Apostles met in Jerusalem (Acts 15) to discuss the issue of circumcision and if the Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved. During this meeting Peter says "But we believe that we (Jews) shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they (Gentiles)". So Jews and Gentiles are saved in the like manner way, that being, commanded to be water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins for the Jews (Acts 2:38) and Gentiles (Acts 20:47-48). Paul was there in attendance and heard these words and made no objection. Why? For he and Peter preached the exact same thing.

Galatians 2:7 the one and only gospel went to two different spheres, Jew and Gentile and not two different gospels going to different spheres. Peter first took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and Paul never changed or contradicted what Peter taught in Paul's own teaching to the Gentiles elsewhere. Obviously Peter and Paul were both under the same great commission to take the one gospel to the whole world.

The Bible condemns division (1 Corinthians 1:10) for all of Christ's servants are to have the 'same mind', walk by the 'same rule' (Galatians 6:16), with there being ONE church no Jew or Gentile, no male or female, no bond or free for all are one under one gospel, one mind, no division.