Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Michiah-Imla]

They all knew her eminent position as would anyone reading the passage.

Huh???

How so?

 

[nedsk]

Umm… so this wouldn’t be a point of controversy…

It wasn't for 1500 years until protestants made it a controversy like all the other "contraversies" that arose when protestantism did.

 

[nedsk]

Huh???

How so?

They also didn't mention if the sky was blue so it may have been a different color right?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

1500 years until protestants made it a controversy

The “Protestants” were finally able to verify the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church with the Holy Bible.

The final authority is the truth contained in the holy scriptures, Not a church where men have usurped authority over God’s word for centuries…

 

[nedsk]

The “Protestants” were finally able to verify the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church with the Holy Bible.

The final authority is the truth contained in the holy scriptures, Not a church where men have usurped authority over God’s word for centuries…

Lol is that what a protestant told you? So for 1500 years the holy Spirit abandoned the real church and let the heretical Catholic Church exist?

Where does holy Scripture teach osas or either of the solas?! You people are funnier than a barrel full of monkeys

 

[Muna]

This is NOT used in the same context.

Your circumcision by the hands of men and getting babies wet are not in the same context, one was required by law (on the eighth day) without repentance or belief, the other was not.

In Acts 3:25 - Peter is speaking to adults – about themselves.

In Acts 2:39 – Peter is speaking to adults about their children.

Their children, their offspring (not on the eighth day, not without belief or repentance (neither of which can an infant do).

Jesus did not get wet until he was about 30, but he was circumcised on the eighth day. The two are not comparable.

The entire argument that a child MUST grow up and declare his faith before being Baptized is ludicrous when compared to circumcision.

There are no examples of infant baptism, Jesus was not baptized as an infant, and John wasnt either.

Just because households were baptized does not mean those households had infants in them, thats really an assumption on your part.

As I indicated before – a “Covenant” is a binding agreement made between TWO or more parties. In this case – it’s a sacred binding agreement. An infant is 100% unable to enter into a sacred binding agreement with anybody.

Exactly, sort of like how TWO parties ON EARTH CAN AGREE together in prayer

Matt 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

And likely the reason he kept that agreement concerning prayer between two on earth, because who knows if those in heaven would agree with you. So its understandable that prayer and agreement in prayer should be between two on earth (and not to be confused between one praying on earth to another in heaven about agreeing with them in prayeron earth).

Just as in the case of the Old Covenant – God mad the allowance for the parents to speak on behalf of their children because it was THEIR responsibility to raise them in the faith.
The very SAME is true in the case of Baptism because it is also required.

Jesus did say, BELIEVE and be baptized right? If so why is belief not required first while getting another bath (without belief) is required?

Its just weird, what makes it any different from a bath?

Philip must have told the eunuch about baptism in the order Jesus had told them because it shows us here

The eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

And Philip said, IF thou believest with all thine heart, THOU MAYEST.

And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

And there it is, "he that believeth( as the eunuch did) and is baptized" (as the eunuch was)

How can an infant believe and do that? It cannot.

This is why we see Peter Baptizing the entire household of Cornelius in Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14, in Acts 16:23-33 with the entire household of the Philippian Jailer, and in 1 Cor. 1:16 with the entire household of Stephanas.

Baptizing households does not mean baptizing infants, you can suppose that but that does not make it true. You can have a household of grown children who are of age to do as they please.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

So for 1500 years the holy Spirit abandoned the real church

No, in no wise.

The real body of believers have always been around. But You’re error is in assuming that the Roman Catholic Church is the real church.

and let the heretical Catholic Church exist?

Yes.

Sadly, heretics will always be among us…

 

[mailmandan]

Peter denied him three times.. Did Jesus deny peter?

Amen! The word for "deny" is in the aorist tense and points to the fact that Jesus is not talking about a single instance of denial in the past (as was the case with Peter, who had a weak moment and denied Jesus three times - Luke 22:34), but is referring to continuous action.

In regard to 2 Timothy 2:13, I see a contrast with, "if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. If we endure, we shall also reign with Him -- AND -- If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

"By contrast, the latter "deny Him and faithless" points to the opposite of died with Him, endure and reign with Him. Jesus Himself warned of the danger of denying Him in Matthew 10:33 - "But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.." To "deny him" here does not point merely to a temporary weakness of faith, as in the case of Peter who denied Jesus three times during a moment of weakness (Luke 22:54-62) but is referring to life in its entirety. The inevitable result is that "He will also deny us."

The warning is repeated in the final sentence, "if we are faithless, he abides faithful." To be "faithless" denotes this as the ongoing attitude, not a temporary lapse of faith. But in contrast to human faithlessness, "He remains faithful," faithful to His word and righteous character and His warning that unbelievers will be rejected.

 

[BreadOfLife]

@BreadOfLife

How did all the New Testament writers miss all this crucial stuff?

They didn’t.
As I have shown, this is an implicit teaching – not an explicit one.

Like other implicit teachings like the Trinity – Mary’s importance was NOT overlooked in the NT:

1
OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and the Holy Spirit came down as fire from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).

NT - On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

2
In John’s Gospel, Jesus refers to His mother as “Woman” (John 2:4; 19:26). This is a direct reference to the Woman in Gen. 3:16, whose seed would crush the head of the Serpent.

3
In Luke 1:28, The Greek word that Luke used is Kecharitomene. This is the perfect passive participle that indicates a completed action with a permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” Kecharitomene is not a mere description here. It is used as a title – a name. The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” He said, “Hail, Kecharitomene.”
Mary is the ONLY person in ALL of Scripture who is called, “Kecharitomene”.

There’s THREE examples of the NT writers exalting Mary . . .

Perhaps because Mary the mother of Jesus has no special importance above every other believer.

This is an almost comical statement.

Mary, who was singled-out and made pregnant by the Holy Spirt who carried the Son of God – nay, God Himself into this world - was NOT of any special importance?

Did the Ark of the Covenant, which carried symbols of God and His power have any special importance? Yet, you believe the New Ark who actually carried GOD Himself didn’t?

Otherwise, would not Peter, or one of the Apostles, had plainly declared Mary’s eminent position during the Pentecost event?

WHY?

They weren’t handing out awards at Pentecost. It was about the Holy Spirit – not Mary.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

would not Peter, or one of the Apostles, had plainly declared Mary’s eminent position during the Pentecost event?

They weren’t handing out awards at Pentecost. It was about the Holy Spirit – not Mary.

There is no explanation of Mary’s eminence, nor of the Trinity, in the New Testament.

Man invented these theological concepts using ambiguous scriptures.

 

[nedsk]

No, in no wise.

The real body of believers have always been around. But You’re error is in assuming that the Roman Catholic Church is the real church.



Yes.

Sadly, heretics will always be among us…

Only one church can even remotely begin to trace it's history back to the disciples and it sure as heck isn't your strip mall cashier turned pastor church.

Show me anything from before the 1500s that teaches osas or the solas. I'll wait here

 

[nedsk]

There is no explanation of Mary’s eminence, nor of the Trinity, in the New Testament.

Man invented these theological concepts using ambiguous scriptures.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptism g in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy Spirit. Who is Jesus talk I about? The three amigos? Stop your nonsense

No, in no wise.

The real body of believers have always been around. But You’re error is in assuming that the Roman Catholic Church is the real church.



Yes.

Sadly, heretics will always be among us…

Cite a reference to osas before thrn1500s

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Only one church can even remotely begin to trace it's history back to the disciples

It doesn’t matter how far any church can trace its history… if it has departed from biblical principles, it has ceased being a pillar of the truth.

Ancient Israel could trace its history back to Moses on Mount Sinai, and look what God did to them for departing from scriptural principles…

Show me anything from before the 1500s that teaches osas or the solas

Once Saved Always Saved is a false doctrine (I don’t support OSAS).

“The solas” are a good principle. It keeps us grounded in scripture alone. Scriptures are so important that God:

“… gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” (Exo 31:18, KJV)

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Man invented these theological concepts using ambiguous scriptures.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptism g in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy Spirit.

I don’t see your convoluted Trinity teaching there…

 

[nedsk]

It doesn’t matter how far any church can trace its history… if it has departed from biblical principles, it has ceased being a pillar of the truth.

Ancient Israel could trace its history back to Moses on Mount Sinai, and look what God did to them for departing from scriptural principles…



Once Saved Always Saved is a false doctrine (I don’t support OSAS).

“The solas” are a good principle. It keeps us grounded in scripture alone. Scriptures are so important that God:

“… gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” (Exo 31:18, KJV)

Oh it sure does matter as Jesus established his church for 1500 years the drivel you preach wasn't taught anywhere. I can quote disciples of the apostle John from as far back as the 1st and 2nd centuries. You have Luther lmbo

 

[nedsk]

I don’t see your convoluted Trinity teaching there…

I didn't expect you to. What you see isnt relevant to me. I couldn't care less what you seenor don't see. Truth does require your approval

 

[Michiah-Imla]

the drivel you preach wasn't taught anywhere

You have Luther lmbo

How enlightening…

 

[nedsk]

How enlightening…

Can you prove the drivel you believe was taught anywhere before Luther? Yes or no?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your circumcision by the hands of men and getting babies wet are not in the same context, one was required by law (on the eighth day) without repentance or belief, the other was not.

They are BOTH required of ALL seeking rebirth in Christ.

In BOTH cases, the parents speak for the child.

Their children, their offspring (not on the eighth day, not without belief or repentance (neither of which can an infant do).

So, YOU are saying that they cannot enter into a Covenant with God.
WHY, then were Jewish babies allowed to enter a Covenant with God?

Jesus did not get wet until he was about 30, but he was circumcised on the eighth day. The two are not comparable.

First of all - John’s Baptism was NOT the same a Baptism in Christ.

John’s was a Baptism of repentance.
Baptism is Christ is for new life and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

There are no examples of infant baptism, Jesus was not baptized as an infant, and John wasnt either.

First of all – Jesus didn’t need Baptism for new life and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
He IS new life and is already joined eternally with the Holy Spirit.

Secondly – The Baptism of Christ had not yet been instituted.

Just because households were baptized does not mean those households had infants in them, thats really an assumption on your part.

Exactly, sort of like how TWO parties ON EARTH CAN AGREE together in prayer

Matt 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

And likely the reason he kept that agreement concerning prayer between two on earth, because who knows if those in heaven would agree with you. So its understandable that prayer and agreement in prayer should be between two on earth (and not to be confused between one praying on earth to another in heaven about agreeing with them in prayeron earth).

Jesus did say, BELIEVE and be baptized right? If so why is belief not required first while getting another bath (without belief) is required?

Its just weird, what makes it any different from a bath?

Philip must have told the eunuch about baptism in the order Jesus had told them because it shows us here

The eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

And Philip said, IF thou believest with all thine heart, THOU MAYEST.

And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

And there it is, "he that believeth( as the eunuch did) and is baptized" (as the eunuch was)

How can an infant believe and do that? It cannot.

WHY is it that you can't understand how an infant can be Baptized on the faith of the parents - yet you FULLY accept that an infant can enter into a Covenant with God based on the faith of his parents??

Baptizing households does not mean baptizing infants, you can suppose that but that does not make it true. You can have a household of grown children who are of age to do as they please.

Ahhh – so in ALL 3 cases (Cornelius, Philippian Jailer, Stephanas) – NONE of them had small children or infants?

You will have to reconcile this with the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers, who were MUCH closer too the actual events than YOU are. Some of them were only a few generations away . . .

Origen (c. 185–254) said, “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.”

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age “(Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus (c. 215) I”Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Cyprian (c. 250) “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

The onus is on YOU to show me a SINGLE Biblical example of an “entire household” that doesn’t include children of ALL ages.

I’ll wait right here . . .

 

[Ronald Nolette]

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

NT fulfillments don’t require direct comparisons.
Where is the “direct” comparison between Joseph and Jesus?

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

The Ark carried symbols of God and His power:
1. Aaron’s rod
2. The Tablets of the Law (God’s Word)
3. A Jar of Manna (Bread from Heaven

The NEW Ark (Mary) carried the fulfillment of those things:
1. God’s power was displayed through Aaron’s rod
2. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
3. I am the living bread that came down from Heaven (John 6:51)

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

YOU don't even understand what "necromancy” is.
Allow me to educate you . . .

According to the Biblical prohibitions on necromance (Lev. 20:6, Deut. 18:10-12) – it is against seeking information (oracles) from the dead or from fortune tellers and mediums.

Asking a member of the Body of Christ to pray for you is NOT necromancy because it doesn’t seek to glean information FROM those in Heaven.

Don’t use words unless you KNOW what they mean . . .

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

And once again – I already educated you on this point above . .

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

As I educated you above - Rev. 5 shows the elders in Heaven taking our prayers to God:

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