Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Grailhunter]

While all of that might be true. What has any of that got to do with what I said?

Your beliefs seem to be focused on selected scriptures. And it is not just this thread but other threads and posts.

 

[CadyandZoe]

But God is not saving you.

He has saved you.

Now he is sanctifying you.

for by one offering he has perfected forever (eternally saved) those who are being sanctified.

and even the sanctification is Gods work in us..

I understand and agree. Nonetheless, because Christians like to debate OSAS online, I have abbreviated our point of view by using the present participle. "God is saving me."

Borrowing from Aristotle, I think, Theologians like to talk about "potential" vs. "actual" salvation. OSAS debate speaks about salvation in the present tense, "I am saved" because our salvation is both potential and guaranteed by God under certain conditions.

Some Christians don't believe our salvation is potential; they believe that our salvation is provisional. According to the doctrine of "prevenient grace," God has done all that he can to save us, but salvation remains contingent on the individual to believe and obey etc.

Both sides of the OSAS debate are wrong in the assumption that salvation is either provisional or potential. I believe in actual salvation, which takes place over the course of a lifetime. Sanctifying me is saving me. And so I say, "I am being saved." There is no such thing as gaining then losing salvation. Rather, either God is saving me or he isn't.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Your beliefs seem to be focused on selected scriptures. And it is not just this thread but other threads and posts.

You say this like I'm the only one. But what did you expect to see? If the topic is eternal security, I will undoubtedly narrow my choices to relevant passages. But unlike some, my view is not based on single verses taken out of context. In my answer to @Eternally Grateful I summarized the arguments of three different apostles, each having dealt with the issue. You can go and read them in context and make up your own mind. James 1, 1 Peter 1, Romans 5.

Finally, I don't think I said anything that can legitimately be construed as "new age."

 

[Grailhunter]

I understand and agree. Nonetheless, because Christians like to debate OSAS online, I have abbreviated our point of view by using the present participle. "God is saving me."

Borrowing from Aristotle, I think, Theologians like to talk about "potential" vs. "actual" salvation. OSAS debate speaks about salvation in the present tense, "I am saved" because our salvation is both potential and guaranteed by God under certain conditions.

Some Christians don't believe our salvation is potential; they believe that our salvation is provisional. According to the doctrine of "prevenient grace," God has done all that he can to save us, but salvation remains contingent on the individual to believe and obey etc.

Both sides of the OSAS debate are wrong in the assumption that salvation is either provisional or potential. I believe in actual salvation, which takes place over the course of a lifetime. Sanctifying me is saving me. And so I say, "I am being saved." There is no such thing as gaining then losing salvation. Rather, either God is saving me or he isn't.

Salvation is simple and secure.
It is all about honesty and intent.
But making up your own rules and doing anything you want is going to get you to Hell. A person that believes in Christ has to work their way to Hell and it seems you know the way. OSAS is a ticket to Hell.

 

[Grailhunter]

You say this like I'm the only one. But what did you expect to see? If the topic is eternal security, I will undoubtedly narrow my choices to relevant passages. But unlike some, my view is not based on single verses taken out of context. In my answer to @Eternally Grateful I summarized the arguments of three different apostles, each having dealt with the issue. You can go and read them in context and make up your own mind. James 1, 1 Peter 1, Romans 5.

Finally, I don't think I said anything that can legitimately be construed as "new age."

OSAS is part of the New Age Movement. OSAS is not a belief that Christ or the Apostles taught, it is not what the history of Christianity taught.....You do not see it in Christian history until relatively recently. As part of Calvinism it is just part of a false religion, the man was nutz.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Now you are just arguing..... of which I refuse to participate.
You cannot change God's word. Amen

lol, what do you think you are doing

I just posted Gods word..

your the one changing it not me..

 

[CadyandZoe]

OSAS is part of the New Age Movement. OSAS is not a belief that Christ or the Apostles taught, it is not what the history of Christianity taught.....You do not see it in Christian history until relatively recently. As part of Calvinism it is just part of a false religion, the man was nutz.

I don't think Calvin was alive during the New Age Movement. But the question is, did you give my posts a fair hearing or did you simple hear what you wanted to hear? Just asking. Read my latest post to @Eternally Grateful where I argue that the premise of OSAS debate is wrong on both sides of the debate.

In any case, Jesus and the apostles all agreed that God saves us, we don't save ourselves.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I understand and agree. Nonetheless, because Christians like to debate OSAS online, I have abbreviated our point of view by using the present participle. "God is saving me."

Borrowing from Aristotle, I think, Theologians like to talk about "potential" vs. "actual" salvation. OSAS debate speaks about salvation in the present tense, "I am saved" because our salvation is both potential and guaranteed by God under certain conditions.

Some Christians don't believe our salvation is potential; they believe that our salvation is provisional. According to the doctrine of "prevenient grace," God has done all that he can to save us, but salvation remains contingent on the individual to believe and obey etc.

Both sides of the OSAS debate are wrong in the assumption that salvation is either provisional or potential. I believe in actual salvation, which takes place over the course of a lifetime. Sanctifying me is saving me. And so I say, "I am being saved." There is no such thing as gaining then losing salvation. Rather, either God is saving me or he isn't.

That I believe is where confusion comes in..

The truth is

1. I am saved, from the penalty of sin. I have been given eternal life. and I will not perish (called Justification)

2. I am being saved, from the power of sin, here is the sanctification process. which will be ongoing until we leave this world. (Called sanctification)

3. I will be saved from the ability to sin, (called glorification).

the OSAS argument is based on point 1. and has nothing to do with point 2 or 3. point 1 is a completed act.. Point two is ongoing as we run the race. and point three is assured because of point 1.

The non OSAS or NOSAS argument mixes point one and two together as 1. and say they are both required for point three..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don't think Calvin was alive during the New Age Movement. But the question is, did you give my posts a fair hearing or did you simple hear what you wanted to hear? Just asking. Read my latest post to @Eternally Grateful where I argue that the premise of OSAS debate is wrong on both sides of the debate.

In any case, Jesus and the apostles all agreed that God saves us, we don't save ourselves.

I believe he has me on ignore,. which is why he does not respond to my posts..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

OSAS is part of the New Age Movement. OSAS is not a belief that Christ or the Apostles taught, it is not what the history of Christianity taught.....You do not see it in Christian history until relatively recently. As part of Calvinism it is just part of a false religion, the man was nutz.

OSAS is based on what God did for us.

Jesus said we will never perish but we have eternal life (OSAS)

Jesus also said he would never leave nor forsake us (Never means never ie, OSAS)

I can go on and on and on

 

[CadyandZoe]

That I believe is where confusion comes in..

The truth is

1. I am saved, from the penalty of sin. I have been given eternal life. and I will not perish (called Justification)

2. I am being saved, from the power of sin, here is the sanctification process. which will be ongoing until we leave this world. (Called sanctification)

3. I will be saved from the ability to sin, (called glorification).

the OSAS argument is based on point 1. and has nothing to do with point 2 or 3. point 1 is a completed act.. Point two is ongoing as we run the race. and point three is assured because of point 1.

The non OSAS or NOSAS argument mixes point one and two together as 1. and say they are both required for point three..

Well said.

I like how Paul said it in Romans 8 where he draws a straight, unbroken line from "foreknown" to "glorified."

foreknew --> predestined --> called --> justified --> glorified

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't think Calvin was alive during the New Age Movement. But the question is, did you give my posts a fair hearing or did you simple hear what you wanted to hear? Just asking. Read my latest post to @Eternally Grateful where I argue that the premise of OSAS debate is wrong on both sides of the debate.

In any case, Jesus and the apostles all agreed that God saves us, we don't save ourselves.

Calvinism goes back to the 16th century.

And I did read your post and you and I have talked before and unless something has changed you essentially believe in OSAS.

And from the post that you got my soup sandwich response, it still sounds like OSAS,

As far as both sides of the debate....if you believe in OSAS, you are wrong....if you believe that a person can lose their salvation easily....you are wrong.

The first question is, were you saved to begin with.....if accepting Christ did not change you then....then you were not saved to begin with. As I have said many times....Christianity is not a club you sign up for and go on as you were. If you were not changed....you were not saved.

If you believed in Christ and repent and were water baptized and were changed....you were saved. From there the rest is walking with Christ....a follower that obeys Him. Workout your salvation with fear and trembling, as the scripture says.

And like I always say, your journey with Christ is a matter of honesty and intent. Salvation is secure with honesty and intent. And it is correct that Christ saves us, we do not save ourselves. But we have to participate and we can work our way to Hell. We have to be honest with Christ, when we ask forgiveness our honest intent has to be not to do the same sin over and over agan.....lifestyles sin will not be forgiven....because you are playing Christ for a fool. And I say "you and you are" but I do not meaning you specifically.

None of us are perfect and the plan of salvation was not designed for the perfect.

 

[mailmandan]

then take it literally

In no place in John did Jesus say Baptism is required for salvation.

For something so important. God left it out

it means it is not required.

You misinterpreting a few passages does not help.

Just take Jesus literally

He who BELIEVES is not condemned

He who does NOT BELIEVE is condemned already..

no mention of water baptism because water baptism is not required

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

but we are the ones not taking God literally... lol

 

[CadyandZoe]

Calvinism goes back to the 16th century.

Okay. So what?

And I did read your post and you and I have talked before and unless something has changed you essentially believe in OSAS.

I do not agree with OSAS. I have never supported it. The debate centers around the question of whether or not a person can lose their salvation once they have been saved. It is taken as a given that a person is saved at a specific moment in the past.

Unfortunately, the debate question is based on an incorrect premise. The Bible does not teach that salvation is a one-time event or that it occurs simply by meeting certain conditions. While some people believe that salvation is an offer and that accepting it saves a person instantly, this is not the Biblical perspective.

And from the post that you got my soup sandwich response, it still sounds like OSAS,

As far as both sides of the debate....if you believe in OSAS, you are wrong....if you believe that a person can lose their salvation easily....you are wrong.

I don't know what I said that would lead you to conclude that I supported OSAS. I don't for the reason I just articulated. Salvation is not something that takes place at some time in the past. It is mistaken to say, "I once was a sinner but now I am saved." No one can lose what they don't already have. One is not "saved" (past tense) until the 7th trumpet.

The first question is, were you saved to begin with.....if accepting Christ did not change you then....then you were not saved to begin with. As I have said many times....Christianity is not a club you sign up for and go on as you were. If you were not changed....you were not saved.

No one is saved past tense.

If you believed in Christ and repent and were water baptized and were changed....you were saved. From there the rest is walking with Christ....a follower that obeys Him. Workout your salvation with fear and trembling, as the scripture says.

If salvation is something I workout, then I am in the process of being saved.

And like I always say, your journey with Christ is a matter of honesty and intent. Salvation is secure with honesty and intent. And it is correct that Christ saves us, we do not save ourselves. But we have to participate and we can work our way to Hell. We have to be honest with Christ, when we ask forgiveness our honest intent has to be not to do the same sin over and over agan.....lifestyles sin will not be forgiven....because you are playing Christ for a fool. And I say "you and you are" but I do not meaning you specifically.

None of us are perfect and the plan of salvation was not designed for the perfect.

I agree with what you say here. From my perspective, the items you mentioned, i.e. honesty and intent, are markers of those whom God is saving. If I am being saved by God, I will be honest, forgiving, loving, righteous, a lover of truth, seeking first the kingdom, accepting Jesus as my Lord, believing his promises etc. Such things are markers of those whom God is saving.

 

[Grailhunter]

Okay. So what?

I do not agree with OSAS. I have never supported it. The debate centers around the question of whether or not a person can lose their salvation once they have been saved. It is taken as a given that a person is saved at a specific moment in the past.

Unfortunately, the debate question is based on an incorrect premise. The Bible does not teach that salvation is a one-time event or that it occurs simply by meeting certain conditions. While some people believe that salvation is an offer and that accepting it saves a person instantly, this is not the Biblical perspective.

I don't know what I said that would lead you to conclude that I supported OSAS. I don't for the reason I just articulated. Salvation is not something that takes place at some time in the past. It is mistaken to say, "I once was a sinner but now I am saved." No one can lose what they don't already have. One is not "saved" (past tense) until the 7th trumpet.


No one is saved past tense.

If salvation is something I workout, then I am in the process of being saved.

I agree with what you say here. From my perspective, the items you mentioned, i.e. honesty and intent, are markers of those whom God is saving. If I am being saved by God, I will be honest, forgiving, loving, righteous, a lover of truth, seeking first the kingdom, accepting Jesus as my Lord, believing his promises etc. Such things are markers of those whom God is saving.

Lets sort this out. The average Christian that is trying to dig a little deeper into the facts about Christianity and the Bible are at a disadvantage. When unknowingly they are looking at the Christian Greek instead of the Koiné Greek of the time period

There is almost like a wall between Christians and Koiné Greek. Nearly all source material is going to reference the Christian Greek definitions when you ask for the meaning of Koiné Greek words.

Here is an example…..below is what is listed in common source material for Greek definitions of saved and salvation. Suppose to be Greek….right?!

Read these definitions and notice the Christian perspective in these definitions. Keeping in mind that these definitions were alien to the Greek mind or understanding of these words….because the Greeks-Romans were not Christians….they were Pagans. Their language did not reflect morality or have words strictly associated with Christianity. Even the Greek word for sin had no moral implications, for them it just meant your arrow missed the target.

The Apostles had to take a Pagan language and adjust it to reflect Christian meanings….this is called Christian Greek. The Christian Greek definitions give Christian theological opinions of what the words meant....or rather how the biblical writers were using them.

The reason that I point this out is……what is the difference in meaning of the words saved and salvation?

What did it mean to Christians to be saved?
What did it mean to Christians to have obtained salvation?

Greek Lexicon

Saved --- sozo

NAS Word Usage - Total: 108
to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction

one (from injury or peril)
to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health
to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue
to save in the technical biblical sense
negatively 1b
to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment 1b
to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance

Salvation---Soteria

so-tay-ree'-ah

Noun Feminine

deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation
deliverance from the molestation of enemies
in an ethical sense, that which concludes to the souls safety or salvation
of Messianic salvation
salvation as the present possession of all true Christians
future salvation, the sum of benefits and blessings which the Christians, redeemed from all earthly ills, will enjoy after the visible return of Christ from heaven in the consummated and eternal kingdom of God.
Fourfold salvation: saved from the penalty, power, presence and most importantly the pleasure of sin. A.W. Pink