OSAS being False Doctrine!

[L.A.M.B.]

What flowed from the side of Jesus when he was pierced?

John 19:33-34
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Matthew 24:35. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

We must be covered by the blood of Christ and the word of God !

 

[Godslittleservant]

A common argument used by water-salvationists in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the Old Testament mandate. (Others may argue how do we know he was not already water baptized). I've heard it all.

So let's see, after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." and before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

So in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or was it or FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? It would have to be the latter in order to agree with the Old Testament mandate argument from water-salvationists. In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. If translated "in order to obtain" the verse does not make sense. I baptize you with water FOR (in order to obtain) repentance? or I baptize you with water FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) repentance? Obviously, the latter.

Whatever baptism is "for" in Acts 2:38, it's "for" in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. Water baptism is "in regards to" remission of sins received upon repentance. So the water baptism is not necessary for salvation under the Old Testament mandate, but is necessary for salvation under the New Testament mandate argument doesn't hold water.

Before AND after Pentecost, salvation is through belief/faith "apart from water baptism" (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; 20:31; Acts 10:43-47; 11:17-18; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:2-6; 5:1; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..). *Perfect Harmony*

Well was the thief hung on the cross before the New covenant came into play or not if he was show scripture that proves it and then the argument solved. If not then yes Acts 2 did not apply to him and while Jesus was still alive on this earth he had the power to forgive but being he is not here no more he left instruction on how to have your sins forgiven.

 

[mailmandan]

Well was the thief hung on the cross before the New covenant came into play or not if he was show scripture that proves it and then the argument solved. If not then yes Acts 2 did not apply to him and while Jesus was still alive on this earth he had the power to forgive but being he is not here no more he left instruction on how to have your sins forgiven.

Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) was before the New Covenant. Do you believe those verses mean that sins are not remitted until after one is baptized?

 

[Godslittleservant]

Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) was before the New Covenant. Do you believe those verses mean that sins are not remitted until after one is baptized?

No sin was remitted in the baptism of John but the indwelling spirit was not given they only had their sin remitted and placed in a state of repentance if they repented as well but the sin was remitted in baptism not repentance. This does not matter either when it comes to the thief on the cross Jesus forgave him cause Jesus had the authority to speak his sins remitted while on earth but being Jesus is not here to speak forgiveness he left the means in which he would forgive our sins.

After the cross Johns baptism was replace with the baptism in Christ name which was also for the remission of sin but also it gives the promised indwelling spirit that is what set it apart from Johns. It is the spirit baptism that John said Jesus was to baptize with it is more powerful than Johns as John said because it is the new birth. It is no longer just into the repentance stance but the new birth.

OK I know I am not doing this justice it is late and my mind is tired but hope it is close enough that you get the message.

 

[mailmandan]

No sin was remitted in the baptism of John but the indwelling spirit was not given they only had their sin remitted and placed in a state of repentance if they repented as well but the sin was remitted in baptism not repentance. This does not matter either when it comes to the thief on the cross Jesus forgave him cause Jesus had the authority to speak his sins remitted while on earth but being Jesus is not here to speak forgiveness he left the means in which he would forgive our sins.

After the cross Johns baptism was replace with the baptism in Christ name which was also for the remission of sin but also it gives the promised indwelling spirit that is what set it apart from Johns. It is the spirit baptism that John said Jesus was to baptize with it is more powerful than Johns as John said because it is the new birth. It is no longer just into the repentance stance but the new birth.

OK I know I am not doing this justice it is late and my mind is tired but hope it is close enough that you get the message.

So, you are saying that Acts 2:38 did not apply to the thief on the cross, but the baptism of John (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) did apply to him and both baptisms are necessary for the remission of sins, yet the thief on the cross was somehow exempt. In Matthew 27:39-44, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests' scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing. Yet, moments later, we see that one of the thieves had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved. (Luke 23:40-43) Of course he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized which demonstrates that water baptism is not absolutely required for salvation. So, when are sins actually remitted?

Acts 10:43 - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 26:18 - to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

Why can't we find a single verse in the Bible that says whoever is not baptized will not be saved? In Luke 13:3, we read that but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. If we don't repent (change our mind) then we won't believe in Christ for salvation and be saved. In John 3:18, we read - 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) he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If water baptism was absolutely required for salvation, then God would not make so many statements in which He promises eternal life to those who simply believe/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; 20:31; Acts 4:4; 10:43; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:26; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

 

[mailmandan]

sinlessness would be perfect love, NEVER doing anything in the flesh (self over others) and always serving God and others.

Sinlessness certainly would not include slander which is mentioned alongside of anger, wrath, malice, and abusive speech in Colossians 3:8.

You are a perfect example of the church sectarian who mishandles the Bible with clever and long winded explanations that fool the weak minded.

You’re just confusing the situation with word play you learned from the heretics study books. You are soo immature and ignorant of what holiness is according to the word of God!

So, you promote the idea that we are not obligated to do something Jesus himself had to do?
“…Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water…” (Matthew 3:15-16)
This is why the common abhor church people. Just a bunch of hypocrites who abuse the Bible to keep their traditions.

And he expects us to believe that he is sinless, without fault or defect 24/7 just like Jesus? Give me a break!

 

[JBO]

Yes and there are passages in the New Testament that indicate that water baptism of repentance is required for the forgiveness of sins with the ONLY exception being like the situation was for their thief on the cross where there was no opportunity to go get water baptized.

Of course the OSAS peoples will sweep those passages under the rug and promptly ignore them as usual. View attachment 38094

The thief on the cross was under the Old Covenant. The entire family of OT saints were not water baptized; so using such individuals as a rebuttal to the New Covenant requirement of water baptism is invalid.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Sinlessness certainly would not include slander which is mentioned alongside of anger, wrath, malice, and abusive speech in Colossians 3:8.




And he expects us to believe that he is sinless, without fault or defect 24/7 just like Jesus? Give me a break!

Everyone sees it but them.. Sad

 

[JBO]

The battle of baptism to salvation has been ongoing for 2000 yrs. It is the preaching of the cross and the Lamb's sacrifice upon it, that turns hearts from sin unto God !

That battle really hasn't been ongoing for 2000 yrs. It really began with Huldrych Zwingli in the early 1500's who tried desperately to remove baptism from any connection with salvation. Until that point, nearly the whole of Christendom acknowledged the connection. There was even before Zwingli some disagreement on the form of baptism whether immersion was the only form to be administered. And that was, I believe, largely confined to the RCC.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That battle really hasn't been ongoing for 2000 yrs. It really began with Huldrych Zwingli in the early 1500's who tried desperately to remove baptism from any connection with salvation. Until that point, nearly the whole of Christendom acknowledged the connection. There was even before Zwingli some disagreement on the form of baptism whether immersion was the only form to be administered. And that was, I believe, largely confined to the RCC.

You do realise that whole time the pagan church ruled the world do you not?

 

[JBO]

So, you are saying that Acts 2:38 did not apply to the thief on the cross, but the baptism of John (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) did apply to him and both baptisms are necessary for the remission of sins, yet the thief on the cross was somehow exempt.

Jesus was free to perceive the thief's acknowledgement of Jesus' divinity and grant salvation to him accordingly. There was the entire family of Old Testament saints who were saved without the benefit of baptism. But that was under the Old Covenant. We are under a New Covenant inaugurated at Pentecost on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

 

[JBO]

You do realise that whole time the pagan church ruled the world do you not?

So?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Jesus was free to perceive the thief's acknowledgement of Jesus' divinity and grant salvation to him accordingly. There was the entire family of Old Testament saints who were saved without the benefit of baptism. But that was under the Old Covenant. We are under a New Covenant inaugurated at Pentecost on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

So under the law they could not even be saved by doing works of the law.

But God holds us to a higher account, and says we must do a work to be saved.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So?

So?

Can you believe anything they said? And would you not expect them to do what they did and destroy anything that apposed them?

 

[mailmandan]

Jesus was free to perceive the thief's acknowledgement of Jesus' divinity and grant salvation to him accordingly. There was the entire family of Old Testament saints who were saved without the benefit of baptism. But that was under the Old Covenant. We are under a New Covenant inaugurated at Pentecost on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

So, you are saying under the Old Covenant (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) baptism was not absolutely necessary for salvation but under the New Covenant (Acts 2:38) baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation? See post #665.

 

[JBO]

If water baptism was absolutely required for salvation, then God would not make so many statements in which He promises eternal life to those who simply believe/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; 20:31; Acts 4:4; 10:43; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:26; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

None of those passages negate the other passages that clearly identify baptism as the point in time in the life of the believer when his sins are forgiven and he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So it comes down to what it means to "simply believe/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation". Can one believe/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and ignore what Jesus Christ has said concerning the place of baptism in salvation? I think not.

Moreover, I really do not understand the animosity toward baptism displayed by so many.

By the way, for what it is worth, you listed Galatians 3:26 in support of your point. Have you not read the very next verse?

Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

I am curious. Do you think that you have put on Christ? If so, how did you accomplish that?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

None of those passages negate the other passages that clearly identify baptism as the point in time in the life of the believer when his sins are forgiven and he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So it comes down to what it means to "simply believe/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation". Can one believe/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and ignore what Jesus Christ has said concerning the place of baptism in salvation? I think not.

Moreover, I really do not understand the animosity toward baptism displayed by so many.

By the way, for what it is worth, you listed Galatians 3:26 in support of your point. Have you not read the very next verse?

Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

I am curious. Do you think that you have put on Christ? If so, how did you accomplish that?

first,

no one has animosity to baptism. God commanded it and everyone should do it. Failure to do so would be sin

2nd. Gal 3: 27 was done By God. not by your pastor..

Baptism is an action word. Christ is the object with which we were baptized into (not water)

no water was involved.

 

[JBO]

So, you are saying under the Old Covenant (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) baptism was not absolutely necessary for salvation but under the New Covenant (Acts 2:38) baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation? See post #665.

I am not certain that under the New Covenant that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation; however, I am certain that God, through His written word, the Bible, has promised that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Nowhere has He stated that those who believe but are not baptized will be saved. I think the clear implication is that if one truly believes, he will not reject baptism. Would that preclude being saved? I really can't say. I would hope not, but my hoping doesn't change anything about that.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I am not certain that under the New Covenant that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation; however, I am certain that God, through His written word, the Bible, has promised that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Nowhere has He stated that those who believe but are not baptized will be saved. I think the clear implication is that if one truly believes, he will not reject baptism. Would that preclude being saved? I really can't say. I would hope not, but my hoping doesn't change anything about that.

John 3, John 4, John 5, John 6

I can noame many other places where Jesus said whoever believes will be saved. No mention of baptism.

just saying, Since you said you find no place where Jesus said believe but are not baptized will be saved,

that is a false statement

 

[JBO]

first,

no one has animosity to baptism. God commanded it and everyone should do it. Failure to do so would be sin

2nd. Gal 3: 27 was done By God. not by your pastor..

Baptism is an action word. Christ is the object with which we were baptized into (not water)

no water was involved.

You can't find anywhere in the NT where it is stated that water was not involved. There are, of course, many places where water is not specifically mentioned, but that does not preclude water being involved. That can come only from your own personal interpretation.