Secure Eternal Salvation

[Taken]

Actually this post is proof of WHY we need Scripture Alone.

when we add the catholic interpretation and all the rest. There has to be a guide in which we KNOW is truly inspired of God. in order to test which of the many interpretations is correct.

Now if one person uses scripture and sees the catholic way. and another looks at it and sees it a Lutheran way. Is this the fault of scripture? NO!. its the fault of the one who is interpreting scripture.

And who will be held accountable for which way that person interprets?

The church? NO!!!!! the person who used scripture and did not interpret correctly!

Otherwise. We just blindly follow whatever church we think is correct, and have no basis or which to verify which is correct.

Yes!
Gal 6: [5] For every man shall bear his own burden.

 

[Marymog]

i don't think you understand what the reformation is.

the arbiter of truth isn't someone in a protestant church or a catholic church.
it's a person, Who is The Truth.
He wrote all the scripture, and all the scripture is about Him.

View attachment 20322

I completly understand the revolution of the Reformation. The revolution splintered The Church (christianity) causing it to go from ONE belief and ONE teaching thru the elders who belonged to ONE church who werre teaching ONE truth. It then splintered (multiple times) into multiple beliefs, teachings, elders and churches (denominations). And you are a product of it. You have fallen away from the original Church.

With that said; Can you just answer the questions of which you dodged: How do YOU know that The Catholic Church got "a lot wrong"? Are there any Protestant Churches that "get a lot wrong"?

I already know you won't answer. You are more comfortable at dodging and obfuscating!!!! AND you are good at it....

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Good Morning EG,

Acts 2:38 (Repent and be baptized) doesn't mention water. So what did they do after they repented to fulfill the "baptized" portion of that command?

Unlike John 3. We are told in the passage what it was.

In Acts 10:48 some were ordered to be baptized but it doesn't' mention water. How was that order fulfilled?

Mark 16:16 (whoever believes and is baptized) doesn't mention water. So what am I to do after I believe? How do I fulfil the "baptized" portion of that command?

Acts 8:36 equates water with baptism but then Acts 8:12-13 and Acts 9:18 talks about baptism but doesn't mention water. Since Scripture does not mention water in 12-13 and 9:18, does that mean water wasn't used?

John 3:22 says that Jesus and his Apostles went into the countryside and baptized but it never says they used water. How did they baptize? You can't say with water since water wasn't mentioned.

Curious Mary

Once again, Jesus did not mention Baptism when he told Nicodemus HOW one is born again.

John 3 is easy to interpret. if we would just take it for what it says

1. Jesus tells him what must happen for one to enter the kingdom

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus goes deeper into what must happen, speaking of flesh birth and spirit birth or being born again

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

Jesus then explains HOW one is Born again

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

Notice. Not once is the word baptize used in the description of HOW one is born again.

So if you want to believe it means baptism. You are free to believe it.

But if Jesus really thought it was required. He would have told Nicodemus this very important fact. The fact he did not. can only leave met believe one thing.. Water is not baptism

Your post of those other passages will not prove otherwise

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Hi EG,

Thanks for the definition of "believers baptism". Do you accept or teach the "believers Baptism" practice? If so, I can't find in Scripture where it says that a person is to give their testimony and get immersed in water in front of many people AFTER they have been "truly born again".


Mary

You stall have not answered to me how you were baptized. were you immersed or were you sprinkled?

Please answer.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I apologize. I missed that question. I don't know since I was a infant when I was baptized.

never seen an infant fully immersed in water, in the catholic or protestant church, every catholic or protestant infant ceremony, the priest sprinkles (rhantizo) the child with water.

For evidence of this. look at Heb 9, where the priest sprinkled the book and the people.

if this is true, and I am sure it is (Every catholic I have ever spoken to says they were sprinked, I just asked you to see if you would be honest) you have never even been baptized (immersed)

And you want to try to teach me about baptism??

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Hold on EG...... HOLD ON....


Soooooo Scripture says that the Pharisees were coming to John to be water baptized. But you have been taught by your men that Nicodemus, who was a ruler in the Pharisees council, didn't know if Jesus was baptized? You have been taught by your men that Nicodemus didn't know what Jesus was talking about when He used the word "water" in water and Spirit? Even though Nicodemus called Jesus a "teacher who has come from God" and pointed out his "signs" that were from God. But your men have taught you that Nicodemus probably didn't know that Jesus was baptized and when Jesus was baptized in water, the Spirit came down upon him....But Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews who was clearly secretly following Jesus (he met with Jesus at night), didn't know anything about all that???? Hmmmm.......

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Jesus tells nicodemus HOW to be born again, and leaves the word baptized out. and we are just supposed to ASSUME that baptism was required. Because Nicodemus MAY HAVE witnessed Jesus being baptized and would automatically assume that water means baptized?

So what happens when you assume things??

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If you eliminate the passages that equate water and baptism and only read the passages that don't equate water with baptism then you are right! Baptism and water do not equate in Scripture.

Well in John 3. Water and baptism are not equated. If it was. Jesus would have plainly told nicodemus that belief and baptism was required. and whoever did it would have eternal LIFE (born again) and that he who believes and is baptized is not condemned. but he who believes and is not baptized is condemned already.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Hey EG,

Using Scripture alone tell me what books belong in your Bible.

The Bereans didn't practice "Scripture alone". Why do you?

Actually yest they did

They did not blindly follow the apostle of Christ who was their leader

they used scripture alone to prove what Paul said was true

Paul said it is able to make us complete. and scripture was not even completed yet when he wrote that. Which means the scripture already in circulation at the time was enough to make a man thoroughly complete

Paul also told Thomas that as a child he could gain enough knowledge from scripture (at that time) to be saved.

how much of the NT was completed when Thomas was a child?

 

[Renniks]

I'm Not playing your game Renniks. Don't tell me to "FIRST answer this" without answering my 3 valid questions FIRST: Why did the Apostles baptize, with water, and tell the Jews that they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after they were baptized?

I answered, you didn't.

 

[Marymog]

I answered, you didn't.

More games....you literally said "Ok, first answer this:" without even answering my question. NOW you say you answered. How dishonest....

 

[Marymog]

Actually yest they did

They did not blindly follow the apostle of Christ who was their leader

they used scripture alone to prove what Paul said was true

Paul said it is able to make us complete. and scripture was not even completed yet when he wrote that. Which means the scripture already in circulation at the time was enough to make a man thoroughly complete

Paul also told Thomas that as a child he could gain enough knowledge from scripture (at that time) to be saved.

how much of the NT was completed when Thomas was a child?

Actually, No they didn't.... they used Scripture (the written word) to verify the oral word about Jesus. They did NOT rely on Scripture alone. They relied on the WRITTEN word and the ORAL tradition about Jesus.

 

[Marymog]

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Jesus tells nicodemus HOW to be born again, and leaves the word baptized out. and we are just supposed to ASSUME that baptism was required. Because Nicodemus MAY HAVE witnessed Jesus being baptized and would automatically assume that water means baptized?

So what happens when you assume things??

No! Christian theologians since the beginning of Christianity and even your Protectant friends have used reasonable deductions not assumptions: Born Again: Baptism in the Fathers (biblicalcatholic.com)

YOUR men have twisted it to mean something different....

 

[Marymog]

never seen an infant fully immersed in water, in the catholic or protestant church, every catholic or protestant infant ceremony, the priest sprinkles (rhantizo) the child with water.

For evidence of this. look at Heb 9, where the priest sprinkled the book and the people.

if this is true, and I am sure it is (Every catholic I have ever spoken to says they were sprinked, I just asked you to see if you would be honest) you have never even been baptized (immersed)

And you want to try to teach me about baptism??

Show me in Scripture where it says one MUST be fully immersed and I will join you and your men who teach you. You are the one stuck on what Scripture literally says so show me where it literally say "IMMERSE".

 

[Taken]

I completly understand the revolution of the Reformation. The revolution splintered The Church (christianity) causing it to go from ONE belief and ONE teaching thru the elders who belonged to ONE church who werre teaching ONE truth.

Fascinating when people have Scripture in hand and are able to read for themselves, to run from False Teaching.

 

[Marymog]

Fascinating when people have Scripture in hand and are able to read for themselves, to run from False Teaching.

Huh? The men of the Reformation ran from a false teaching even though they all came up with a different teaching from the same passage???? How does that work? Luther, Calvin, Zwingili etc (the men of the Reformation and the men that disagree with the Reformers) all had different teachings on the same subject but they ran from a false teaching???? That makes no sense. Can you see how your theory and what your men have taught you is BANKRUPT???

 

[Marymog]

Once again, Jesus did not mention Baptism when he told Nicodemus HOW one is born again.

John 3 is easy to interpret. if we would just take it for what it says

1. Jesus tells him what must happen for one to enter the kingdom

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus goes deeper into what must happen, speaking of flesh birth and spirit birth or being born again

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

Jesus then explains HOW one is Born again

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

Notice. Not once is the word baptize used in the description of HOW one is born again.

So if you want to believe it means baptism. You are free to believe it.

But if Jesus really thought it was required. He would have told Nicodemus this very important fact. The fact he did not. can only leave met believe one thing.. Water is not baptism

Your post of those other passages will not prove otherwise

That was a very long answer to dodge my point. None the less, I expected it....

 

[Taken]

Huh? The men of the Reformation ran from a false teaching even though they all came up with a different teaching from the same passage???? How does that work? Luther, Calvin, Zwingili etc (the men of the Reformation and the men that disagree with the Reformers) all had different teachings on the same subject but they ran from a false teaching???? That makes no sense. Can you see how your theory and what your men have taught you is BANKRUPT???

That is Effected by men Having access to Bibles, Having the ability to Read....LEARNING the Truth in Scripture...instead of DEPENDING on corrupt clerics filling their heads with made up nonsense.

I don’t study men who challenged what Catholics were preaching.
I do admire their fortitude against threatening odds; TO challenge Catholic preaching.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Actually, No they didn't.... they used Scripture (the written word) to verify the oral word about Jesus. They did NOT rely on Scripture alone. They relied on the WRITTEN word and the ORAL tradition about Jesus.

Lol. Ok whatever

If they relied on the oral word. They never would have went to scripture to test it

Unlike some, they do not blindly follow men.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No! Christian theologians since the beginning of Christianity and even your Protectant friends have used reasonable deductions not assumptions: Born Again: Baptism in the Fathers (biblicalcatholic.com)

YOUR men have twisted it to mean something different....

I do not care what MEN say.

I care what the word of God says.

You want to blindly follow men and ignore the word of God and jesus own words. Thats on you

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Show me in Scripture where it says one MUST be fully immersed and I will join you and your men who teach you. You are the one stuck on what Scripture literally says so show me where it literally say "IMMERSE".

The word baptizo means to be immersed. It is the derivative of the word Bapto which means to dip.

You will find no where in Ancient Greek literature where the word baptizo means sprinkled

So You are the one ignoring the defenition of the word and listening to men.