If Baptism could save then there is no need for the shed Blood of Jesus.

[Cristo Rei]

My take on OSAS is that OSAS is not the reality but that POTS is...

1 John 3:6 and 1 John 2:17 being the key verses for this doctrine.

Ye it could be... Im definitely not here to rule out anything...

For by grace we "have been" (past tense with ongoing present results) saved through faith.. (Ephesians 2:8) There are 3 tenses to salvation. 1. We have been saved from the PENALTY of sin (justification) 2. We are being saved from the POWER of sin (ongoing sanctification) 3. We will be saved from the PRESENCE of sin (glorification)

Thats basically POTS, right? Thats the Catholic view isn't it? Or close to it...

Are u guys familiar with the joint declaration on the Doctrine of Justification made in 1999 by the RCC and other reformed churches?
If so what are your thoughts on it?

 

[justbyfaith]

POTS is the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.

It requires that you persevere, as a holy one (saint), because you have a genuine faith in Jesus.

Whereas OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) teaches that you can go forward at a Crusade or church event and then live like hell afterwards; and the fact of your going forward and/or saying the sinner's prayer secures your salvation even if you continue to be an unholy person.

 

[mailmandan]

The kjv tells us that they were saved "by" water.

The Greek is saved "through" (di) water. (NKJV, NASB, NIV). The ESV reads ..eight persons, were brought safely through water. Noah and his family saved "through" water does not mean that the water is what literally saved them, rather, the ARK is what literally saved them from the destructive flood waters. *Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household).

Noah and his family were saved by the water from the wicked people who lived in the pre-flood world of Noah.

Once again, the context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

In Acts 3:19, Peter tells the people that "their sins will be blotted out" "when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" the Holy Spirit being aware of the immediate persecution that would come on the apostles from the Sadducees, so that baptism of the new converts would be impossible until those times of refreshing came and the apostles would be able to baptize the converts.

In Acts 3:19, we read - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?

In Acts 10 & 11, it was a time of transition...it was not yet known that Gentiles could be saved...so, in order to prove that Gentiles could be saved, God baptized Cornelius and his friends in the Holy Spirit in order to prove that Gentiles could be saved...otherwise, the circumcision group of Peter's time would never have allowed them to be baptized.

The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, magnified God, and were saved and a part of the body of Christ BEFORE they were water baptized. (Acts 10:43-47) Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid them from being baptized because of their unacceptance of the Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles spoke in tongues (spiritual gift which is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) which proved to the circumcision group that they were saved BEFORE water baptism and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit was proof of this.

Of course, we know that if a man calls on the name of the Lord, he shall be saved (Romans 10:13)...

Amen!

If someone merely believes, he should not perish. (John 3:16)...

Those who stress the word "should" in John 3:16 and imply that those who believe in Him "should" not perish, but still might perish typically teach salvation by works and eternal IN-security. The Roman Catholic Bible (NAB) goes even further and translates it as "might not perish but might have eternal life" (two mights) to really raise doubt about whether or not believers will receive eternal life. Roman Catholicism teaches salvation by works and eternal IN-security, so we should not be surprised about that translation.

In John 3:18, we read - He who believes in Him is not condemned.. *No uncertainty there. Actually, half or more of the English translations of John 3:16 do not use the word should, and maybe because the translators felt that might confuse people. The NASB and NIV read, “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” The NET Bible, LEB, and HCSB have the same translation except they use will not perish. So your KJV only nonsense is only leading you into error.

if someone believes and is baptized, he shall be saved. (Mark 16:16)

If he who believes shall be saved (John 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26) then he who believes and is baptized shall be saved as well.

Notice the absolute terminology verses the iffy terminology that is used in each situation.

Iffy terminology is for those who teach salvation by works and are insecure about receiving salvation. In John 3:18 (even in the KJV) we read - He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. *Noting iffy about that, which is absolute.

This leads me to believe that baptism in Jesus' Name will secure salvation for the one who believes and receives it; while merely believing in Jesus is a less secure proposition.

You believe this because you don't truly believe/trust/rely completely in Jesus for salvation so you turn to baptism as a supplement to be saved in part by a work. You need to trust in Jesus as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation and not in Jesus + works/supplements.

See Acts of the Apostles 22:16. In that verse, Paul is to arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - WHAT IS TRUTH: Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?

It is to be compared with Acts 2:39; where we find that the conditional promise of the Holy Ghost through water baptism in Jesus' Name is given to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

No, it's through repentance. In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis. Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism? In Luke 24:47, we read - and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

Such receive baptism in Jesus' Name because they were predestined to do so...and because they received it, they were justified and shall be glorified.

Romans 5:1 - Therefore, having been justified by faith, (faith and baptism? NO simply faith) we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace (faith and baptism? NO simply faith) in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Believers are justified and shall be glorified. (Romans 8:30) Salvation is signified, but not procured in the waters of baptism.

 

[mailmandan]

While baptism does not remove the filth of the flesh, it does wash away sins (Acts of the Apostles 22:16).

No it doesn't. Be sure to read the article I sent you on Acts 22:16 from post #244. As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - "Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ." The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body" (Matthew 26:26). The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same SENSE Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the blood of Christ by which sins are actually washed away.

 

[mailmandan]

Nope, doesn't fit at all.

What I said about you does fit you, however (for you have not properly harmonized scripture and neither have you rightly divided the word of truth).

Regardless of your biased opinion, I have properly harmonized scripture with scripture and rightly divided the word of truth before reaching my conclusion on doctrine. You just don't have eyes to see or ears to hear.

 

[mailmandan]

POTS is the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.

It requires that you persevere, as a holy one (saint), because you have a genuine faith in Jesus.

I think of it as Preservation of the Saints. Psalm 37:28 - For the Lord loves justice, And does not forsake His saints; They are preserved forever, But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off. Perseverance is proof of genuine conversion.

Whereas OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) teaches that you can go forward at a Crusade or church event and then live like hell afterwards; and the fact of your going forward and/or saying the sinner's prayer secures your salvation even if you continue to be an unholy person.

This is a gross misrepresentation of OSAS and a typical straw man argument made by those who strongly oppose OSAS.

 

[mailmandan]

Thats basically POTS, right? Thats the Catholic view isn't it? Or close to it...

Are u guys familiar with the joint declaration on the Doctrine of Justification made in 1999 by the RCC and other reformed churches?
If so what are your thoughts on it?

I've heard of the joint declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. I'm not a fan of ecumenism. Coming together over irreconcilable differences makes any joint mission impossible, unless there is compromise.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I find it interesting that the same people who will tell you that you can be saved apart from water baptism, are the people who will tell you that committing sin is inevitable even as a believer in Christ.

I wonder if they do not believe in deliverance from sin because they only think that they are saved?

Because if they were saved, they would be saved from their sins (Matthew 1:21, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 3:6).

But these, who have not been baptized in Jesus' Name, have also not received the remission of sins and have not received the Holy Ghost, who gives us the power to have victory over sin.

If they had been baptized in Jesus' Name then they would have had remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost and would not be purporting that sinning is inevitable in the Christian's life. Because they, personally, would have victory over sin and therefore they would know that sinning is not inevitable but that a man can walk in freedom from (John 8:31-36) and victory over (1 Corinthians 15:57) sin.

I have heard people claim they have victory over sin but they either don't know what sin is or they redefine sin so that it's possible to claim victory.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Greek is saved "through" (di) water. (NKJV, NASB, NIV). The ESV reads ..eight persons, were brought safely through water. Noah and his family saved "through" water does not mean that the water is what literally saved them, rather, the ARK is what literally saved them from the destructive flood waters. *Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household).

I do not believe that your watered-down translations have it right. I follow the kjv and I believe that, while I may be considered to be narrow-minded for doing so, that this actually substantiates my position since the way to life is narrow and few there be that find it (Matthew 7:13-14).

Once again, the context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

So, being baptized in water means you will perish rather than be saved?

In Acts 3:19, we read - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?

I already told you. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become a disciple of Jesus?

The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, magnified God, and were saved and a part of the body of Christ BEFORE they were water baptized. (Acts 10:43-47)

And I already told you the reason why. Why should I tell you again? I would only be wasting precious energy. Go back and read what I said about this.

Those who stress the word "should" in John 3:16 and imply that those who believe in Him "should" not perish, but still might perish typically teach salvation by works and eternal IN-security.

It would seem that Matthew 7:21-23 does tell us that not everyone who says to Jesus, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven but those who do the will of His Father in heaven.

The NASB and NIV read, “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” The NET Bible, LEB, and HCSB have the same translation except they use will not perish.

Those are watered-down translations.

So your KJV only nonsense is only leading you into error.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the kjv. I know that I cannot convince you of this truth, so I suppose that we are at an impasse. I can only encourage you that the way to life is indeed narrow and there are few who actually find it.

If he who believes shall be saved (John 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26) then he who believes and is baptized shall be saved as well.

he who merely believes "should not perish" (John 3:16)

Iffy terminology is for those who teach salvation by works and are insecure about receiving salvation.

Again, what does Matthew 7:21-23 say about whether all who believe enter in?

You believe this because you don't truly believe/trust/rely completely in Jesus for salvation so you turn to baptism as a supplement to be saved in part by a work. You need to trust in Jesus as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation and not in Jesus + works/supplements.

I wholly trust in what Jesus did for me on the Cross. I entered into that when I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. That is when His blood was applied (see Hebrews 9:22).

omans 5:1 - Therefore, having been justified by faith, (faith and baptism? NO simply faith) we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace (faith and baptism? NO simply faith) in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Believers are justified and shall be glorified. (Romans 8:30) Salvation is signified, but not procured in the waters of baptism.

You have to realize that singular verses cannot contain all the doctrine that God would like for them to contain; they are too short. You must look at the entire Bible to get your doctrine.

I believe that merely believing in Jesus is iffy; but that if you will just "get this one done" and receive baptism in Jesus' Name, you can have absolute assurance.

I find it interesting that the same people who argue that they are save apart from baptism also argue that Christians will inevitably sin...that there is no power and victory over sin...no remission.

Could it be that they say these things because they have never received remission of sins themselves?

I find it true across the board that those who have received baptism in Jesus' Name believe that entire sanctification is even a reality of scripture. Could it be that they have entire sanctification because they were baptized for the remission of sins; and therefore they have remission of sins?

 

[justbyfaith]

I have heard people claim they have victory over sin but they either don't know what sin is or they redefine sin so that it's possible to claim victory.

Sin is, first of all, the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). And yes, we need to redefine it because in Romans 7:6 it tells us that we are no longer bound to the letter but are obedient to the spirit of what is written.

So, I would define sin, very simply, as walking after the flesh rather than after the Spirit.

If I can walk after the Spirit rather than the flesh for five minutes, then I can do it for five hours. And if I can do it for five hours, I can do it for five days. if I can do it for five days, I can do if for five months, years, decades, and so on.

The point being that sin is not inevitable like some teach. We can even walk consistently according to the Spirit for the rest of our lives.

If we walk according to the Spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4). And therefore 1 John 3:4 would not identify us as sinners...although we may not wear tzitzit and tallit and tefilin or blow the trumpet at the new moon.

 

[justbyfaith]

Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?

In Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). This statement allegedly proves that one must be baptized to receive forgiveness. However, both careful consideration of the assertion of the verse itself and study of its context demonstrate the falsity of this claim.
Since the verse associates baptism and the washing away of sins (although the verb “wash away” is actually connected to “calling on the name of the Lord,” not to “be baptized”), one must ask if baptism literally or figuratively washes sin away. If baptism literally washes sins away, then this verse would advance the cause of baptismal regeneration. However, the Bible indicates that the blood of Jesus Christ really takes sin away: “Jesus Christ . . . loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Revelation 1:5). Surely one cannot assert that the blood figuratively takes away sin, while baptism literally takes it away! But if baptism does not literally take away sin, it must take it away representatively or figuratively (cf. Matthew 26:26). To teach that baptism figuratively takes away sin by representing what really does remove it is consistent with justification by faith alone. Baptism is a figure of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5) and a public testimony of the believer’s faith in that death and resurrection. One who at the moment of faith has had his sins literally removed by the blood of the Christ who died and rose again later represents, testifies, and symbolizes his salvation by baptism.[ii] Indeed, the tense of the verb “wash” in Acts 22:16 supports a figurative washing. In the Greek middle voice, it points to the idea that Paul washed his sins away himself in baptism.[iii] In contrast, Revelation 1:5, which states that “Jesus Christ . . . loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,” contains the word “washed” in the active voice.[iv] Christ really washes us from our sins in His own blood, and we consequently and representatively wash ourselves from sin in baptism. The Christian-killer Saul’s sins (cf. Acts 22:4) were literally washed away when he believed in the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus—those same sins were figuratively washed away, so that believers would no longer need to fear him (Acts 9:26), in baptism. Acts 22:16 teaches that baptism washes away sin figuratively; Christ’s blood really washes it away.
The book of Acts definitively indicates that Paul’s sins were forgiven before he was baptized as mentioned in Acts 22:16. His testimony of salvation appears three times in Acts (chapters 9, 22, 26). A comparison of these three narratives indicates that Paul was born again and justified as he traveled on the road to Damascus several days prior to his baptism. In Acts 9, the Savior told Ananias that Paul “is a chosen vessel unto me” (v. 15), although the apostle had not yet been baptized. The Lord never reveals that any unjustified or unregenerate person is “chosen” or “elect,”[v] one of the “vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory” (Romans 9:23). Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to “bear [His] name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15); such a commission is not God’s portion for one still lost and under Divine wrath.[vi] Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would “suffer for [His] name’s sake” (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? God accepted Paul’s prayers before his baptism (Acts 9:11).[vii] Since the prayers of the unsaved are an abomination to Him (Proverbs 15:29, 21:27, 28:9), and Paul already had access to God through the Lord Jesus, he was already justified (1 Timothy 2:5, Romans 10:12-14).[viii] Paul also received a prophetic vision before his baptism (Acts 9:12). After the Lord originally appeared to Ananias, He sent him to Paul, who had been blinded since he saw the Son of God’s glory on the Damascus road, to lay his hands on him, “that he might receive his sight” (v. 12). Christ did not tell Ananias to visit Paul in order that the apostle might have his sins forgiven—the Lord knew he was saved already—but that he might regain his vision. Ananias feared to go, for he did not know Paul was already converted; he called him “this man,” a contrast with Christ’s “saints” (v. 13). However, the Lord Jesus’ testimony about Paul’s participation in election and his commission to preach (v. 15-16) manifested to Ananias that Paul was no longer an enemy of the gospel but had been born again, so that when they met, Ananias’ address was not along the lines of “this man,” (v. 13), as before, but “Brother Saul”[ix] (v. 17). Ananias called Paul a brother in Christ[x] and in so doing indicated that the former persecutor was born again before his baptism. Paul was also filled with the Holy Ghost while with Ananias before his baptism (v. 17)—indeed, since “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3), his Damascus road declaration, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”[xi] (Acts 9:6, cf. 22:10) is indicative of one already “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5, 6, 8), not an unsaved man. He also received his sight (v. 18) before his baptism. Furthermore, just as Christ did not state that Ananias was sent to baptize Paul (v. 12), Ananias did not state that his purpose of coming was baptism (v. 17), a circumstance inconsistent with baptismal regeneration. Paul’s salvation testimony in Acts 9 proves that he was already one of God’s people before his baptism.
The records of Paul’s conversion in Acts 22 and 26, along with his preaching elsewhere in Acts, evidence that he was justified before his baptism. It is mentioned, as in Acts 9, that Paul is already a Christian brother before his baptism (22:13). He is already “chosen” (v. 14), and already ordained as a witness (v. 15). The apostle calls Christians “them that believed on [Christ]” (v. 19),[xii] not “them that were baptized.” Moreover, as discussed earlier,[xiii] Paul was saved (Galatians 1:15-16) and received the gospel directly from Christ apart from the interposition of any man (Galatians 1: 11-12, 15-16) on the road to Damascus, but the Lord never said a word to Paul about baptism—He said salvation was “by faith that is in me” (Acts 26:18). Paul almost persuaded Agrippa to become a Christian (26:28), although he said not a syllable about baptism in his salvation testimony (26:1-23), so one can become one without receiving the ordinance. Furthermore, while Christ sent the apostle to “open [men’s] eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in [Jesus]” (26:18), Paul tells us that “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17), so men can be turned from darkness and Satan to light and God, and have their sins forgiven, by faith in Christ, without being baptized. The gospel Paul preached in Acts was “by [Christ] all that believe are justified from all things . . . believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 13:39, 16:31). The accounts of Paul’s testimony in Acts 22 and 26, along with his preaching as recorded elsewhere in Acts, show he was forgiven before his baptism.
Acts 22:16 does not establish baptismal regeneration. The verse itself demonstrates that the “washing away” of sins in baptism mentioned is representative and figurative, not literal. The record of Paul’s salvation in Acts 9, 22, and 26, his preaching elsewhere in Acts, and supplementary information supplied in 1 Corinthians and Galatians, clearly demonstrate that Paul’s sins were forgiven on the road to Damascus before his baptism, when he placed his faith in the risen Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[CadyandZoe]

As you obey Acts 2:38.

No baptism...no remission.

Acts 2:38
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.

What is the meaning of the word "for" in the sentence above? Is Peter suggesting that baptism is a prerequisite to salvation? It might sound that way but I don't think so. Peter talked about how Israel put Jesus to death on a cross but God raised him from the dead. Peter and the other apostles understand the cross as the means to reconciliation. In other words, God has already forgiven us. The means to salvation, however, is repentance and confession. Peter is calling Israel to become disciples of Jesus Christ, and Baptism is the ritual signal of that commitment.

Peter quotes the prophet Joel, who teaches us that "whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Now that God has forgiven Israel (and the whole world) he is offering salvation to those who acknowledge what happened, and become a disciple of Christ. Baptism is the ritual acknowledgement of one's agreement to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Now that God has forgiven you, take the additional step of accepting his salvation. "Call on his name."

 

[justbyfaith]

A person can most assuredly be saved apart from baptism...however, it has been said that the blood is in the water...so when we read in 1 Peter 3:20-21 that "water baptism now saves you" we can be certain that our sins can be washed away in baptism as the blood is applied when we are plunged beneath that cleansing flood (the waters of baptism).

Remission of sins is promised when we receive baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...

I believe that people can most certainly receive the Spirit of the Lord before their sins are remitted through baptism in Jesus' Name...it happened with Cornelius and his friends.

But I would say that if anyone has any doubt as to whether they have the Spirit of God dwelling in them..."get this one done"...baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...the Holy Ghost is absolutely promised to those who receive it...

re #252 (If Baptism could save then there is no need for the shed Blood of Jesus.).

 

[mailmandan]

I do not believe that your watered-down translations have it right.

You are entitled to your biased opinion to suit your biased agenda.

I follow the kjv and I believe that, while I may be considered to be narrow-minded for doing so, that this actually substantiates my position since the way to life is narrow and few there be that find it (Matthew 7:13-14).

It's one thing to be narrow minded and another thing to be biased. It will be few who find eternal life because there are few who genuinely believe in/have faith in/trust in Jesus Christ as the All-sufficient means of their salvation.

So, being baptized in water means you will perish rather than be saved?

It's the lack of belief that causes one to perish and not the lack of baptism. Mark 16:16 (b) - ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. 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.

I already told you. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become a disciple of Jesus?

I'm already a disciple of Jesus and have been for over 20 years now.

And I already told you the reason why. Why should I tell you again? I would only be wasting precious energy. Go back and read what I said about this.

I already told you the reason why. Go back and read what I said again.

It would seem that Matthew 7:21-23 does tell us that not everyone who says to Jesus, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven but those who do the will of His Father in heaven.

John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Those are watered-down translations.

Biased argument by those who have a watered-down gospel.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the kjv. I know that I cannot convince you of this truth, so I suppose that we are at an impasse. I can only encourage you that the way to life is indeed narrow and there are few who actually find it.

I never said there was anything wrong with the KJV. I used it for years, but it's not the only good translation. Don't buy into the KJV only nonsense. Been there, done that.

he who merely believes "should not perish" (John 3:16)

Shall not/will not perish. (John 3:16 - NASB, NIV, NET, LEB, and HCSB). Anyway "should" subjunctive mood expresses a possibility or a consequence which results if a condition is met. In the case of John 3:16 the condition is “whoever believes in Him.” When that condition is met, two things happen. The person shall not perish, but receive eternal life.

Again, what does Matthew 7:21-23 say about whether all who believe enter in?

Compare Matthew 7:21 with John 6:40. Notice also that Jesus NEVER knew these many people (because they were never saved) who called Him Lord, but were trusting in works for salvation. (Matthew 7:22-23)

I wholly trust in what Jesus did for me on the Cross. I entered into that when I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. That is when His blood was applied (see Hebrews 9:22).

No, you trust in Jesus + baptism. To trust wholly in Jesus means you are trusting in Him as the All-sufficient means of your salvation.

You have to realize that singular verses cannot contain all the doctrine that God would like for them to contain; they are too short. You must look at the entire Bible to get your doctrine.

So you are saying that Romans 5:1-2 is a lie?

I believe that merely believing in Jesus is iffy; but that if you will just "get this one done" and receive baptism in Jesus' Name, you can have absolute assurance.

Why is believing in Jesus iffy? Was His finished work of redemption iffy? Are you trusting in an iffy Savior? Absolute assurance of salvation rests in believing in His name (1 John 5:13) and not in water baptism. You can get water baptized 100 times, but if you don't believe in Jesus for salvation, you will perish.

I find it interesting that the same people who argue that they are save apart from baptism also argue that Christians will inevitably sin...that there is no power and victory over sin...no remission.

So you teach salvation by water baptism and sinless perfection?

Could it be that they say these things because they have never received remission of sins themselves?

Could it be that people who teach sinless perfection are suffering from a terminal case of self righteousness? (1 John 1:8-10)

I find it true across the board that those who have received baptism in Jesus' Name believe that entire sanctification is even a reality of scripture. Could it be that they have entire sanctification because they were baptized for the remission of sins; and therefore they have remission of sins?

Have you reached entire sanctification? Do you believe that you are sinless, without fault of defect, flawless 100% of the time, exactly like Jesus?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Sin is, first of all, the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). And yes, we need to redefine it because in Romans 7:6 it tells us that we are no longer bound to the letter but are obedient to the spirit of what is written.

So, I would define sin, very simply, as walking after the flesh rather than after the Spirit.

If I can walk after the Spirit rather than the flesh for five minutes, then I can do it for five hours. And if I can do it for five hours, I can do it for five days. if I can do it for five days, I can do if for five months, years, decades, and so on.

The point being that sin is not inevitable like some teach. We can even walk consistently according to the Spirit for the rest of our lives.

If we walk according to the Spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4). And therefore 1 John 3:4 would not identify us as sinners...although we may not wear tzitzit and tallit and tefilin or blow the trumpet at the new moon.

1 Timothy 1:15
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost.

Why did Paul confess that he was foremost among sinners?

 

[justbyfaith]

Acts 2:38
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.

What is the meaning of the word "for" in the sentence above? Is Peter suggesting that baptism is a prerequisite to salvation? It might sound that way but I don't think so. Peter talked about how Israel put Jesus to death on a cross but God raised him from the dead. Peter and the other apostles understand the cross as the means to reconciliation. In other words, God has already forgiven us. The means to salvation, however, is repentance and confession. Peter is calling Israel to become disciples of Jesus Christ, and Baptism is the ritual signal of that commitment.

Peter quotes the prophet Joel, who teaches us that "whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Now that God has forgiven Israel (and the whole world) he is offering salvation to those who acknowledge what happened, and become a disciple of Christ. Baptism is the ritual acknowledgement of one's agreement to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Now that God has forgiven you, take the additional step of accepting his salvation. "Call on his name."

In Acts of the Apostles 22:16, the precedent is made that men are to call on the name of the Lord at baptism.

Being baptized in Jesus' Name is in fact one of many ways to confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

As such, it does have the power to save as a confession of His Lordship in your life (see Matthew 10:32).

You are identifying yourself more completely with Christ than when you just go forward at a church or Crusade meeting. You are identifying with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection.

Now that is real confession of Him (again, see Matthew 10:32)!

 

[justbyfaith]

1 Timothy 1:15
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost.

Why did Paul confess that he was foremost among sinners?

He was not the foremost of among sinners because he stated plainly that before he was a persecutor and injurious and a blasphemer...not any more.

He was referring to the fact that is it a trustworthy saying to affirm Jeremiah 17:9 as a doctrine for the sake of unbelievers in the room...who need to understand that no matter how bad off they are morally, Christ can redeem them.

While Ezekiel 36:25-27 tells us that we can receive a new heart and Luke 8:15 tells us that it is honest and good (as opposed to the former heart that was deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?).

 

[justbyfaith]

You are entitled to your biased opinion to suit your biased agenda.

I could say the same to you.

It's the lack of belief that causes one to perish and not the lack of baptism. Mark 16:16 (b) - ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. 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.

You are preaching to the choir. I already believe that a man can be saved apart from water baptism; but that it has the power to seal the deal for absolute assurance (since the Holy ghost is absolutely promised to those who receive water baptism in Jesus' Name for the remission of sins).

You need to address this as the opposing theology rather than your current straw man.

John 6:40 - For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

That is not the only thing that is the will of the Father...read 1 Thessalonians 4:3 and/or 1 Thessalonians 5:18 and I think there are a few other scriptures that teach us about the will of God.

Biased argument by those who have a watered-down gospel.

The kjv is not watered-down...other translations are.

I never said there was anything wrong with the KJV. I used it for years, but it's not the only good translation. Don't buy into the KJV only nonsense. Been there, done that.

I am kjv-superior in my understanding. When in doubt, the kjv has it right where others have it wrong.

Notice also that Jesus NEVER knew these many people (because they were never saved) who called Him Lord, but were trusting in works for salvation. (Matthew 7:22-23)

He said to them, "I never knew you" because they were workers of iniquity (same passage).

No, you trust in Jesus + baptism. To trust wholly in Jesus means you are trusting in Him as the All-sufficient means of your salvation.

He gave me the Holy Ghost when I received baptism in Jesus' Name; and through the Holy Ghost I trust wholly in what He has done for me. My baptism was an identification with HIM in His death, burial, and resurrection.

So you are saying that Romans 5:1-2 is a lie?

No, I am saying that it is not to be isolated so that the argument from silence is made concerning it. There are other scriptures that teach on the subject of baptism and they are also scripture.

Why is believing in Jesus iffy?

Not everyone who says unto Him, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom (Matthew 7:21). You will not enter in if you are a worker of iniquity (Matthew 7:23).

So you teach salvation by water baptism and sinless perfection?

I teach that water baptism can bring about "entire sanctification" as salvation from sins (Matthew 1:21)..."sinless perfection" is a misnomer, used as a straw man against the truth of the matter...that while sin is not eradicated from us (1 John 1:8) and therefore we are not sinless; it can be rendered dead (Romans 6:6, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8) so that it no longer has any say or authority over our behaviour (Romans 6:14)

Could it be that people who teach sinless perfection are suffering from a terminal case of self righteousness? (1 John 1:8-10)

No. See below.

Have you reached entire sanctification? Do you believe that you are sinless, without fault of defect, flawless 100% of the time, exactly like Jesus?

As many as have reached that goal consider that they have room to grow (Philippians 3:13-15).

 

[mailmandan]

I could say the same to you.

I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and also spent some time in the church of Christ several years ago prior to my conversion (and both of those churches heavily emphasis salvation by water baptism) so my beliefs stem from my conversion experience and diligent study, so I would not call that bias.

You are preaching to the choir. I already believe that a man can be saved apart from water baptism;

Amen! That's a start.

You need to address this as the opposing theology rather than your current straw man.

I already addressed it.

That is not the only thing that is the will of the Father...read 1 Thessalonians 4:3 and/or 1 Thessalonians 5:18 and I think there are a few other scriptures that teach us about the will of God.

Yes, but there is a difference between doing God's will IN ORDER TO BECOME SAVED (as we read in John 6:40) and doing God's will AFTER WE HAVE BEEN SAVED (as in 1 Thessalonians 5:14-18).

The kjv is not watered-down...other translations are.

Says you. I’ve heard all this before.

I am kjv-superior in my understanding. When in doubt, the kjv has it right where others have it wrong.

You seem to have a superior demeanor, which fit’s your bias.

He said to them, "I never knew you" because they were workers of iniquity (same passage).

They were workers of iniquity because they were unbelievers/lost. Children of God are not described as workers of iniquity in scripture. Their sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ and they have been accounted as righteous by faith. (Romans 4:5-6; Philippians 3:9)

He gave me the Holy Ghost when I received baptism in Jesus' Name; and through the Holy Ghost I trust wholly in what He has done for me. My baptism was an identification with HIM in His death, burial, and resurrection

I received the Holy Spirit when I believed the gospel on a Saturday night several years ago, prior to receiving water baptism on Sunday morning.

No, I am saying that it is not to be isolated so that the argument from silence is made concerning it. There are other scriptures that teach on the subject of baptism and they are also scripture.

There are a handful of alleged prooftexts which are often cited in an effort to prove that the Bible makes baptism mandatory for salvation. A careful examination of each of these texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, though they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, these texts only prove that baptism is associated with conversion, rather than absolutely required for salvation.

Not everyone who says unto Him, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom (Matthew 7:21). You will not enter in if you are a worker of iniquity (Matthew 7:23).

Workers of iniquity have not done the will of the Father by believing in Christ and receiving salvation. All of their sins remain, hence workers of iniquity.

I teach that water baptism can bring about "entire sanctification" as salvation from sins (Matthew 1:21)..."sinless perfection" is a misnomer, used as a straw man against the truth of the matter...that while sin is not eradicated from us (1 John 1:8) and therefore we are not sinless; it can be rendered dead (Romans 6:6, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8) so that it no longer has any say or authority over our behaviour (Romans 6:14)

No. See below.

As many as have reached that goal consider that they have room to grow (Philippians 3:13-15).

At least you admit we are not sinless.

 

[Truther]

Acts 2:38
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.

What is the meaning of the word "for" in the sentence above? Is Peter suggesting that baptism is a prerequisite to salvation? It might sound that way but I don't think so. Peter talked about how Israel put Jesus to death on a cross but God raised him from the dead. Peter and the other apostles understand the cross as the means to reconciliation. In other words, God has already forgiven us. The means to salvation, however, is repentance and confession. Peter is calling Israel to become disciples of Jesus Christ, and Baptism is the ritual signal of that commitment.

Peter quotes the prophet Joel, who teaches us that "whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Now that God has forgiven Israel (and the whole world) he is offering salvation to those who acknowledge what happened, and become a disciple of Christ. Baptism is the ritual acknowledgement of one's agreement to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Now that God has forgiven you, take the additional step of accepting his salvation. "Call on his name."

For=to obtain the remission of sins.