A bogus way to try and salvage OSAS

[Darron Steele]

What interpretation did I give Mark 16:16? I quoted the verse. I said it means what it says? If that's what you mean, then that is quotation, not interpretation. You interpreted it when you read it. You came to the conclusion that it took baptism to secure salvation after reading the passage.

Actually, no -- I was stating YOUR interpretation.

Your claim that it is my position is entirely bogus. Of course, I am familiar with this tactic common among radical "Church of Christ" polemicists: claim the other person agreed with you.

I am disappointed, but sadly not surprised, that you did not regard the subsequent material which made my disagreement with you clear.

John 3:16-8 says "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the world to |condemn| the world; but that the world should be saved through him. |Whoever| believeth on him is not |condemned|: he that believeth not hath been |condemned| already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God” (ASV with |TNIV|).

From where I read, this passage makes clear that there will be no condemned believers.

Keep reading in John 3. Still on the same subject:

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Here belief is equated to obedience. We must continue to obey (believe).

If you are talking about a mental assent, then the rulers in John 12:42 are good to go even though they violate Matt 10:32.

Of course not! A genuine faith lives according to what is believed. If one really believes Jesus Christ is Lord, s/he will live accordingly.

I am going to add another passage in agreement with your point. Hebrews 3:18b-9 has “to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were |not obedient|? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief” (NASB|BishB|ESV). “Believe” = be “obedient.”

Let me ask you a question, Do you think John 3:16 somehow negates Mark 16:16 or is in contradiction to it? ....

No Scripture negates another. There is no contradiction either. The contradiction was against your teaching that no believer is saved until they arise from the water.

I am, for the sake of convenience, going to pass over the authenticity debate over the material after Mark 16:8. Even if "Mark 16:16" is authentic, thanks to John 3:16-8, we know that believers who for some reason never get baptized will not be condemned, meaning they will be saved.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I will compare various translations and see if the scholars agree that the word is "eternal" in the various places.

BTW, this is one reason that most literal translations transliterate; it avoids controversy. When the KJV was translated, "eternal" simply meant "a very long time". (The English etymology has been posted here several times, but rejected, because apparently English scholars are ignorant about English, just as Greek scholars are ignorant about Greek.) They simply assume that if you want to make it mean "forever and ever", then you may, and just ignore the contradictions.

I'll give some examples of John 3:16 in different literal translations:

YLT: for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

WNT: For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages.

REV: For God, so loved, the world, that, his Only Begotten Son, he gave,—that, whosoever believeth on him, might not perish, but have life age-abiding.

CLV: For thus God loves the world, so that He gives His only-begotten Son, that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian.

The Greek has a word that has the sense of "eternal" as we use it today, and that's aidios. The Greek has an expression that means "everlasting" (with beginning but without ending). But, aionios is an adjective formed from the noun aion, which is "age". And, one of the rules of Greek is that an adjective's semanting domain cannot exceed the semantic domain of the noun from which it's formed. If the noun is limited, then the adjective properly is limited.

So, you have to ask, "Did God mean what he said, or was he so inarticulate that he couldn't use the correct words to mean what he really meant?"

 

[Eric B]

Paul preached, they received, they were standing in it, and they would be saved by it IF they held on to it, otherwise they had believed in vain.

But to "receive" it and "stand in it" did not mean that they were really saved. Again, the Jews of Christ's time "received" and "stood in" Christ's Messiahship, until it was made clear that they were believing the wrong things about it, and really rejected it, made manifest by their no longer "holding fast" their belief in Him as Messiah. So even "holding fast" does not mean that they necessarily had saving faith. They all gave it mental assent (for one reason or another), and those who really accepted int in their hearts would be the ones to be saved.

Here we have an example of someone who believed and was baptized then described as gall of bitterness, bond of iniquity and would perish, and did not want the bad things that Peter told would happen to him. He was told to repent and pray. That is the example I follow.

But that still does not match your philosophy of Baptism. So what you're saying then, is "that point in scripture contradicts my view in this other area, but I just 'follow the example' in that area without question". Aren't you the one who recently said the scriptures must harmonize?
Again, if he was obviously not really in Christ, and repented later, yet his baptism the first time could still count for later, then water baptism is not what put him into Christ or finally "washed" his sin away.

I simply quoted the verse.

And you read "he who is not baptized shall not be saved" into it. Else, just quote it, and leave it at that, and don't accuse us of misreading it. If you do, and try to expound what you think are the reverse implications of it, you are going beyond what it actually says.

No, that's not my approach. My approach toward scripture is like that of a third grader. What is the obvious meaning of the passage. Then that is the most likely meaning.

Again, a third grader could never come up with the system of arguments you do.

Let the clear passage always shed light on the obscure ones. Everything is in harmony, and lies in parallel paths. One scripture never contradicts another.

But The fact that rebaptism was not requied contradicts what you claim other scriptures teach, and you "just follow the example" without dealing with the contradiction.

If you have one piece out of place, then tear up your puzzle and put the pieces back together, until every thing fits.

And that's what you are doing all right. (except for the rebaptism issue). Start with a premise, read it into one passage that looks like it may teach that, and then bend all the other scriptures until they fit it.

 

[BobRyan]

1Cor 15:1-2
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received,
in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.



Rom 11:22
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness,
if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able tograft them in again.

You can not argue that if they "fail to stand" fail to continue standing it is a sign that they never were standing and therefore never failed to remain standing.

Such circular arguments don't work.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ag Bob, your arguments are circular. You won't understand or bother to understand, otherwise I would have advised you to read Eric B's post above! You handle the Scriptures just like mmann does!

 

[mman]

But to "receive" it and "stand in it" did not mean that they were really saved. Again, the Jews of Christ's time "received" and "stood in" Christ's Messiahship, until it was made clear that they were believing the wrong things about it, and really rejected it, made manifest by their no longer "holding fast" their belief in Him as Messiah. So even "holding fast" does not mean that they necessarily had saving faith. They all gave it mental assent (for one reason or another), and those who really accepted int in their hearts would be the ones to be saved.
But that still does not match your philosophy of Baptism. So what you're saying then, is "that point in scripture contradicts my view in this other area, but I just 'follow the example' in that area without question". Aren't you the one who recently said the scriptures must harmonize?
Again, if he was obviously not really in Christ, and repented later, yet his baptism the first time could still count for later, then water baptism is not what put him into Christ or finally "washed" his sin away.
And you read "he who is not baptized shall not be saved" into it. Else, just quote it, and leave it at that, and don't accuse us of misreading it. If you do, and try to expound what you think are the reverse implications of it, you are going beyond what it actually says.
Again, a third grader could never come up with the system of arguments you do. But The fact that rebaptism was not requied contradicts what you claim other scriptures teach, and you "just follow the example" without dealing with the contradiction. And that's what you are doing all right. (except for the rebaptism issue). Start with a premise, read it into one passage that looks like it may teach that, and then bend all the other scriptures until they fit it.

Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:16

If Jesus had said, "Whoever eats bananas and digests them will be saved, but whoever does not eat bananas will be condemned", would you also argue that digestion was unessential.

A non-believer cannot be baptized. They can be dunked beneath the water, but they cannot be scripturally baptized.

Here is the simple fact:

When Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.", I believe it means exactly what He says. If He really meant, "Whoever believes and is saved will be baptized, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.", why didn't He just say that? Wouldn't that make Him the author of confusion?

You are the one who must come up with reasons as to why He didn't mean what He said.

When the bible says, "Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip." - Acts 8:13, you are forced to explain how he didn't really believe. The bible says he believed and I believe it.

When Paul said, "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain" (I Cor 15:1-2), you are force to explain how this doesn't really mean they were saved.

The plain scripture says they were brothers that had received the gospel, they were standing in the gospel, and they were being saved by the gospel IF they held it fast, otherwise they had believed in vain.

I am not the one with the complicated doctrine. I believe that the passages mean what they say. When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized will be saved", I believe He meant what He said. When the Holy Spirit says that Simon believed and was baptized, I think he really believed and was really baptized. When Paul said that some brothers had received the gospel, were standing in the gospel and were being saved by the gospel IF they held it fast, otherwise they had believed in vain, then that is exactly what he meant.

I am not the one forced to show that Jesus really meant "He that believeth and is saved will be baptized", Simon didn't really believe and therefore was not really saved, and just because Paul called them brothers that had received the gospel, were standing in the gospel, were being saved by the gospel if they held on to it, otherwise they had believed in vain, were really never saved in the first place.

Just to further show the logic problems in you position, I Corinthians was written to Christians, not to false brethren. Here is how Paul addressed them, "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" - I Cor 1:2

Are these people saved? That are the SAME people in I Cor 15. He's not writing to different folks. It's ONE letter to ONE group. Yes, they had things that needed correcting. That is usually the motivation for an epistle. However, it's the same people in I Cor 1 and I Cor 15. And if there were still any doubt, Paul says, "...so we preach and so you believed" - I Cor 15:11. This is the same group he is addressing in verses 1 and 2 of this same chapter, the same people that if they did not hold on to the gospel, would have believed in vain. As long as they held on to, it was not in vain, therefore, they "really" believed. To claim otherwise makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Eric B]

Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:16

If Jesus had said, "Whoever eats bananas and digests them will be saved, but whoever does not eat bananas will be condemned", would you also argue that digestion was unessential.

No, but I would be led to believe that the "eating" is really what saves, and that "digestion" is just assumed to be apart of (or follow) the eating (which is what most here believe ideally about baptism, though again, Church structure/policy is what pushes baptism off till later for many). I would not go and propose that the digestion itself is what saves, like you do.

A non-believer cannot be baptized. They can be dunked beneath the water, but they cannot be scripturally baptized.

Which shows us that the "dunking" is NOT WHAT SAVES!!! That is what you have been arguing, but again, you are forced to contr4adict yourself. This shows that scriptural "baptism" is twofold. the water ceremony, and the spiritual "baptism INTO THE BODY" [of Christ]. The latter is what saves. Without it, the former is just getting wet. You right here unwittingly acknowledge this!

Here is the simple fact:

When Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.", I believe it means exactly what He says.

No, you try to deduce that the act of being dunked in water is what saves; "puts us in Christ", even. That's NOT what this says!

If He really meant, "Whoever believes and is saved will be baptized, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.", why didn't He just say that? Wouldn't that make Him the author of confusion?

You are the one who must come up with reasons as to why He didn't mean what He said.

We say He did mean what He said. It's you who try to add your own deduction to it.

When the bible says, "Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip." - Acts 8:13, you are forced to explain how he didn't really believe. The bible says he believed and I believe it.

And I showed that he "belioved" as well, and what it meant. Again, the Jews in John 8:31 "believe on Him" as well. Were they "saved", though ever so briefly? (v.37-59)

When Paul said, "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain" (I Cor 15:1-2), you are force to explain how this doesn't really mean they were saved.

But by your own insistence, they weren't really saved, were they? They were only still "being" saved. That means something there was incomplete. Either they were not finally saved and thus not saved at all, or it is referring to the group with individuals getting saved in time.

The plain scripture says they were brothers that had received the gospel, they were standing in the gospel, and they were being saved by the gospel IF they held it fast, otherwise they had believed in vain.

I am not the one with the complicated doctrine. I believe that the passages mean what they say. When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized will be saved", I believe He meant what He said. When the Holy Spirit says that Simon believed and was baptized, I think he really believed and was really baptized. When Paul said that some brothers had received the gospel, were standing in the gospel and were being saved by the gospel IF they held it fast, otherwise they had believed in vain, then that is exactly what he meant.

I am not the one forced to show that Jesus really meant "He that believeth and is saved will be baptized", Simon didn't really believe and therefore was not really saved, and just because Paul called them brothers that had received the gospel, were standing in the gospel, were being saved by the gospel if they held on to it, otherwise they had believed in vain, were really never saved in the first place.

Just to further show the logic problems in you position, I Corinthians was written to Christians, not to false brethren. Here is how Paul addressed them, "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" - I Cor 1:2

Are these people saved? That are the SAME people in I Cor 15. He's not writing to different folks. It's ONE letter to ONE group. Yes, they had things that needed correcting. That is usually the motivation for an epistle. However, it's the same people in I Cor 1 and I Cor 15. And if there were still any doubt, Paul says, "...so we preach and so you believed" - I Cor 15:11. This is the same group he is addressing in verses 1 and 2 of this same chapter, the same people that if they did not hold on to the gospel, would have believed in vain. As long as they held on to, it was not in vain, therefore, they "really" believed. To claim otherwise makes no sense whatsoever.

All that means is that Paul granted the whole group that their profession of Christ was real. If it was a "group", then salvation is not applied to groups, but to individuals. Groups contained what were called "tares", (Matt.13) who were not saved, but still fit in with the "wheat" in the group. That is why he warns them about "believing in vain". Not because they were really saved, but not completely, and it would always be hanging in the balance where they could lose it at any time, until they died. If they did lose it, what would it mean that they were "saved" at one point? They still ended up in Hell, so they were "Saved" from what?
The Jews in John 8 "believed"; the text says so; but it quickly becomes clear that their belief was false, and they turned out to be enemies of the true knowledge of Christ when He exposed them. I did not make that up. You're the one ignoring this scriptural example and definition which answers your argument, and trying to use your own reasoning and deduction on these other scriptures instead. If we believe the scripture actually SAYS what it means, and we see false belief described in it, then why deduce some illusory "salvation" that never really was? You did not even address this. but just reiterated your position, as you always do when you are out of answers.

 

[tamborine lady]

:type:

I'm sure someone has alreadt brought this one up, but just in case they haven't here it is.

Romahs 11-17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

*********************************

This is talking about the Gospel being given to the Gentiles, because the Jews would not accept it. If we go around boasting that we are saved no matter what we do, then He can cut us off too.

The OSAS is a smoke screen put up by the evil one to deceive people. It goes with the pre-trib rapture lie. (In my opinion)

Peace,

Tam

 

[BobRyan]

Good point from Romans 11 Tam.

 

[BobRyan]

1Cor 15:1-2
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received,
in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.



Rom 11:22
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness,
if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able tograft them in again.

You can not argue that if they "fail to stand" fail to continue standing it is a sign that they never were standing and therefore never failed to remain standing.

Such circular arguments don't work.

in Christ,

Bob

Though this shows that OSAS is not true - and shows the Bible challenges OSAS faces - the point of the thread is that some have found a way to SAVE the OSAS doctrine by imagining that "separated from Christ" and even "cast into Hell" is a "kind of salvation" if hell can be turned into a "kind of purgatory" such that those who are sent to hell- are sent for a 1000 years of burning fire then they go to heaven after being burned alive for 1000 years. (Sound like pretty well-balanced stable individuals. Frankly i am not sure someone burned for 1 hour would be "welll balanced" afterwards - let alone 1000 years)

The point of this thread is that such a solution fails to pass the test of scripture.

The bottom line is - hell does not 'make you into a BETTER person" for having gone there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mman]

No, but I would be led to believe that the "eating" is really what saves, and that "digestion" is just assumed to be apart of (or follow) the eating (which is what most here believe ideally about baptism, though again, Church structure/policy is what pushes baptism off till later for many). I would not go and propose that the digestion itself is what saves, like you do.

So if eating saves, then I could eat and purge and be in compliance with the passage.

Furthermore, you don't understand my beliefs obviously. We are not saved by anything alone. Not grace alone, not faith alone, not belief alone, not baptism alone, not repentance alone, and not confession alone, not anything alone.

Baptism is what puts one INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27). Baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). Baptism is for the confessing believers (Acts 8:36-37). Baptism follows repentance (Acts 2:38).

"Baptism" alone does not save, we call that swimming.

As for I Cor 15:1-2, what would that mean to you if you were not motiviated to make it mean something else?

Again, those being addressed were the "church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ" - I Cor 1:2

 

[Darron Steele]

So if eating saves, then I could eat and purge and be in compliance with the passage.

Furthermore, you don't understand my beliefs obviously. We are not saved by anything alone. Not grace alone, not faith alone, not belief alone, not baptism alone, not repentance alone, and not confession alone, not anything alone.

Baptism is what puts one INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27). Baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). ...

Not so fast! Acts 2:38a says "Arrependei-vos, e seja batizado cada um de vós em nome de Jesus Cristo, para | remissão dos vossos pecados” (DA ERC|DA ERA).

This translation of the Greek shows that repentance is for remission of sins, and baptism is obligated from it. Portuguese is far more equipped to handle the nuances and grammatical rules of Greek. In reading this passage, it would be very difficult to conclude what you do about baptism.

As for Acts 22:16, Scripture attributes water baptism solely to mortals. If water baptism washes away sins, then the mortal baptizer would be washing away sins! Scripture places removing sin in God's domain.

Since humans are not in a position to remove sins, Acts 22:16 cannot teach that baptism washes away sin. What does: "calling on the name of the Lord" (KJV). Appealing to the Lord for salvation is what washes away sin.
Post #224 addressed your error with Galatians 3:24-7.

• ...
  The extract is 3:26-7 "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (KJV). What if the King James Version at this verse is imperfect? What if one of the Greek words translated was not translated as well as it could have been?
  
  I have to admit: I am "motivated" to not read into the extract what you did. What is my motivation: interpret Galatians 3:24-7 correctly.
  
  You see, at Amos 4:6, God told people He was angry with that He had given them "cleanness of teeth" (KJV). Does that mean that having clean teeth is a bad thing, and we need to stop practicing dental hygiene? No.
  
  At that time, "cleanness of teeth" meant a lack of food to soil the teeth with, meaning hunger. My point follows.
  
  In Galatians, Paul confronts a situation where Gentile Christians were paying too much attention to Jews telling them they needed to become Jews and follow the Judaic Law in order to secure salvation. 1 Corinthians 10:2 describes the Exodus Israelites as “batizados em Moisés” (DA ERC) =“baptized in Moses.” They took the Judaic Law delivered by Moses for authority about God. Greek "eis" here and at Galatians 3:27 has for one meaning “in.” To correct the Galatians’ common misunderstandings, at Galatians 3:24 Paul calls the Judaic Law “child-conductor| vnto Christ” (NASB margin|BishB), then in 3:25 “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a |child-conductor” (NASB| margin), 3:26b “ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus” (ASV), then 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized |em=in| Christ have put on Christ” (KJV|DA ERA/ERC and translated|KJV).
  
  In Roman society, a youth who had become an adult put aside childhood clothes for new clothes to recognize the change (Life Application Bible, page 2121). Galatians 3:24-7 teaches `growing up.’ In this passage, `growing up’ meant replacing the Judaic Law with biblical faith in Christ for salvation, and that by identifying oneself with Christ via baptism in His name, one “puts on Christ” in the sense of “putting on” the clothes of an adult.
  
  I am "motivated." I want to understand the passage right. The initial audience of this letter were the ancient New Testament-era, Greek-speaking, Roman subjects Galatians. What was communicated to them is the intended meaning of the text, and I am "motivated" by a desire to understand it right

  Your error regarding Romans 6:3-5 extracted from Romans 6:2-11 would demonstrate a similar error. Unless you no longer ever sin, and have been crucified, I would recognize this passage as full of pictures that demonstrate how we should relate to sinful living. A lot of mistakes are made when people interpret verse numbers as `start read/stop read' points.
  
  Colossians 1:18, the church is the body of Christ. Acts 5:14 examples how “believers were added to the Lord” (ESV) as now. God adds to the church per Acts 2:47b “the Lord added to them day by day those |who were being saved” (ASV|NASB). God adds all people who believe on Christ to Christ.
  
  Scripture attributes administering and receiving water baptism solely to mortals. If baptism puts us into Christ, then we are in a position to add persons to Christ. Scripture says He does that upon belief.

  As for I Cor 15:1-2, what would that mean to you if you were not motiviated to make it mean something else?
  
  Again, those being addressed were the "church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ" - I Cor 1:2

  Does it say that they were not? As for 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, it has "by which also ye are saved" (ASV); "by which also you are saved" (NASB). The translation is debatable, as the ESV parallels the KJV on this.
  
  It has been my experience that those in radical Churches of Christ are very motivated to make themselves appear right. They will
  1) deliberately and persistently misrepresent people,
  2) extract snippets of Scripture and make them appear to be addressing subjects they do not,
  3) if passage is shown wholly, plainly, in context, and no other possible understanding, some excuse is made to ignore it based upon the shower.
  In most Christian circles, when shown wrong by Scripture, the believer will accept it. In radical Churches of Christ, they are immune to biblical correction except from each other -- `Scripture text be darned.'

  "Baptism" alone does not save, we call that swimming.

  It is good that you you know that. Not all of you do. I have actually had a Church of Christ preacher tell me that a radical polemicist who plainly and persistently acted contrary to Scripture was a Christian. Why? Here is the one reason he told me: he was baptized with the `right' beliefs about baptism.

 

[mman]

Not so fast! Acts 2:38a says "Arrependei-vos, e seja batizado cada um de vós em nome de Jesus Cristo, para | remissão dos vossos pecados” (DA ERC|DA ERA).

This translation of the Greek shows that repentance is for remission of sins, and baptism is obligated from it. Portuguese is far more equipped to handle the nuances and grammatical rules of Greek. In reading this passage, it would be very difficult to conclude what you do about baptism.

As for Acts 22:16, Scripture attributes water baptism solely to mortals. If water baptism washes away sins, then the mortal baptizer would be washing away sins! Scripture places removing sin in God's domain.

Since humans are not in a position to remove sins, Acts 22:16 cannot teach that baptism washes away sin. What does: "calling on the name of the Lord" (KJV). Appealing to the Lord for salvation is what washes away sin.

The only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

Jesus' blood was shed so that people's sins could be forgiven (Matt 26:28). The same phrase, "for the remission of sins" is used in Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38. If you can understand it's meaning in Matt, then surely you can understand its meaning in Acts.

The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well.

As for Portuguese, I do not understand that language. Surely one of the English translations, NIV, ASV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB got it right???? Which one???

As for Acts 22:16

anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”
baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”
apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”
epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”

A literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.”

What you are confusing is the "What" and the "When". This verse does not address the "What", only the "when". Only the blood can wash away our sins. This verse addresses the "when". This is done at baptism.

Sadly, many have read Acts 22:16 and rejected the necessity of baptism because they approach their study of this verse with the wrong question in mind. This verse does not tell us what saves, but rather when a person is saved, i.e., has his sins washed away.

When Jesus died, his side was pierced, and water and blood came forth. Here we have the "when" and the "what". The water and the blood are linked. If you compare Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38, again we have the water and blood being linked and said to both be "for the remission of sins". Rom 6 links the death where the blood flowed to our baptism in water. Again, you have blood and water.

If you have time, look at the old testament instructions for the tabernacle. You have a blood sacrifice being offered on the alter. Placed directly between the alter and the tabernacle door (the only place of entrance) was the laver of water. The penalty for entering the tabernacle without first washing was death.

The only way to enter into the Most Holy Place was through the Holy Place. God was in the MHP. Jesus flesh was the veil that separated the two. Jesus opened the way to where God is. You enter through the HP. To enter the HP, you needed blood and water.

We are baptized INTO his death (Rom 6:3-4), where the blood flowed. We are baptized INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27) where we have redemption through His blood (Eph 1:7).

When Naaman was cured of physical leprosy, we don't get the when and what confused. He was cured when he obeyed and dipped 7 times in the Jordan River. What cured him was the power of God, not the water.

 

[Darron Steele]

[ Deleted as triplicate post. ]

 

[Darron Steele]

The only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

Jesus' blood was shed so that people's sins could be forgiven (Matt 26:28). The same phrase, "for the remission of sins" is used in Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38. If you can understand it's meaning in Matt, then surely you can understand its meaning in Acts.

I understand both English and the language whose translation I cited.

The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well.

As for Portuguese, I do not understand that language. Surely one of the English translations, NIV, ASV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB got it right???? Which one???

None. The best English is capable of is to hyphenate the baptism clause between the repentance clause and remission clause. Our verb tenses do not permit the match of the Greek nuances that Portuguese is capable of.

“Arrependei-vos, e seja batizado cada um de vós em nome de Jesus Cristo, para | remissão dos vossos pecados” (DA ERC|DA ERA).

I told you what it means. Repentance is for remission of sins, and baptism is obligated by such repentance.

As for Acts 22:16

anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”
baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”
apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”
epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”

A literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.”

There is nothing wrong with how the last phrase is translated in the KJV and other English translations.

The Aorist Partciple Middle is translated in the KJV at 2 Corinthians 2:13 "but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia".*
Zodhiates, The Complete WordStudy New Testament with..., page 863.

Would you translated that passage "but I will have been taking leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia"? I see no evidence for the addition of your addition of "will have been" in translation of this verse.

The KJV's predecessors handled this verse very well.

The old 1560 English Geneva Bible in its 1602 revision: "Now therefore why tariest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord" (GenB).

The 1568 English Bishops’ Bible: “And nowe why taryest thou? aryse, & be baptized, & wasshe away thy sinnes, in calling on the name of the Lorde” (BishB).​

Now, it is time for you to think about some things. Per Colossians 1:18, the church is the body of Christ. Acts 5:14 examples how “believers were added to the Lord” (ESV) as now. God adds to the church per Acts 2:47b “the Lord added to them day by day those |who were being saved” (ASV|NASB). God adds all people who believe on Christ to Christ.

We are not in a position to move people into Christ. You have been shown about your misunderstandings of passages where you claim mortals are -- yet you insist. It is somewhat of a marvel to me that you are not more careful claiming a role Scripture attributes to God.

However, let us get this back on topic. Eric B was good in that he showed you an inconsistency in your belief system. If water baptism is how persons get moved into Christ, then once they are out, they would need to be baptized every time you `restore' them -- yet you do not.

If people could have their salvations temporarily revoked and get it back, it would result in a host of events not found in Scripture. Christians do not go from believer to unbeliever and back and forth engaging in multiple conversions.

 

[Darron Steele]

[ Deleted as accidental triplicate. ]

 

[Eric B]

So if eating saves, then I could eat and purge and be in compliance with the passage.

Sure. It was still eaten. It would be purged one way or another.

Furthermore, you don't understand my beliefs obviously. We are not saved by anything alone. Not grace alone, not faith alone, not belief alone, not baptism alone, not repentance alone, and not confession alone, not anything alone.

So it's a whole checklist of deeds. Just like in the OT.

Baptism is what puts one INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27). Baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). Baptism is for the confessing believers (Acts 8:36-37). Baptism follows repentance (Acts 2:38).

It can't be. You just said salvation was by nothing ALONE. So it's baptism PLUS faith, PLUS grace, PLUS all the other things.

"Baptism" alone does not save, we call that swimming.

Then you can't say it puts you into Christ. It's a whole bunch of other things together that put you into Christ.

As for I Cor 15:1-2, what would that mean to you if you were not motiviated to make it mean something else?

It means what it says. Paul was warning them not to have a false, "vain" belief like the Jews in John, Simon in Acts, the demons, etc. He is not teaching they would be in and out of a salvation that was not even a complete "process" anyway.

Again, those being addressed were the "church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ" - I Cor 1:2

And again Paul and the others warned that there would be tares in the Church; false wolves, along with those who are truly sanctified. They can even call on the name of Christ, and it be a phony Christ he warns them about elsewhere. He did not say that every single person listening was definitely sanctified. You may say that they are not really apart of the Church, and spiritually, that is true, but Paul is addressing the visible body, and could not tell who was real and who was not. So he tells them they were called to be saints (not necessarily all of them really are), and warned them all about false faith, just like in 2 Cor.13:5.

The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well.

A literal translation would be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away, and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.”

Now, the "ands" in that light (of the past tense) make it appear the diferent "steps" can be separated, unlike your piling them all up into "calling on the name of the Lord=baptism=washing sins away".
Those are three distinct things that a person who wants to be saved should do. Washing the sins away is the actual act of salvation, for "salvation" is from the penalty of sin! There are two other separate acts that should accompany it: water baptism (which symbolizes the spiritual washing taking place) and calling on the name of the Lord, which would be occuring during the whole ceremony.

What you are confusing is the "What" and the "When". This verse does not address the "What", only the "when". Only the blood can wash away our sins. This verse addresses the "when". This is done at baptism.

Sadly, many have read Acts 22:16 and rejected the necessity of baptism because they approach their study of this verse with the wrong question in mind. This verse does not tell us what saves, but rather when a person is saved, i.e., has his sins washed away.

When Jesus died, his side was pierced, and water and blood came forth. Here we have the "when" and the "what". The water and the blood are linked. If you compare Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38, again we have the water and blood being linked and said to both be "for the remission of sins". Rom 6 links the death where the blood flowed to our baptism in water. Again, you have blood and water.

If you have time, look at the old testament instructions for the tabernacle. You have a blood sacrifice being offered on the alter. Placed directly between the alter and the tabernacle door (the only place of entrance) was the laver of water. The penalty for entering the tabernacle without first washing was death.

The only way to enter into the Most Holy Place was through the Holy Place. God was in the MHP. Jesus flesh was the veil that separated the two. Jesus opened the way to where God is. You enter through the HP. To enter the HP, you needed blood and water.

We are baptized INTO his death (Rom 6:3-4), where the blood flowed. We are baptized INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27) where we have redemption through His blood (Eph 1:7).

When Naaman was cured of physical leprosy, we don't get the when and what confused. He was cured when he obeyed and dipped 7 times in the Jordan River. What cured him was the power of God, not the water.

Oh, so now it's "what" and "when"; more philosophizing! After all these months or years; how long did it take you to come up with this new one? And can you show where the scripture breaks all of this down like that?

So what you're basically suggesting now, is that the person begins the "steps" of salvation, and as soon as he is lowered into the water, God throws a switch that activates his power, and declares him "saved". (Not when he first believes). It's still a mechanical process, so it makes no difference whether or not it's the water that saves, anyway. And of course, God is doing everything just like He did on the OT. Campbellites are always criticizing copying practices from the OT, but when they say it is to be copied, then it is OK.

In both the case of baptism, Naaman's dipping plus the blood and water analogies in the temple, you are confusing physical shadows of the OT with the spiritual reality of the NT. The priest in the OT entered a physical Holy Place, and thus had to physically wash. This was a shadow, (not the reality) of the spiritual Most Holy place, where one has to be spiritually washed to enter. Again, the water ceremony that was retained is a symbol of this. Naaman was being physically cured of something, so he was given a physical contact with water. We are being spiritually cured; and we don't literally get covered with blood. So then, it is not literal covering with water either that actuates salvation. Again; I wonder since you agree with the Catholic/Orthodox on baptism, why you don't agree with them on Eucharist, where they similarly claim that they do actually get literal blood, to keep them saved, just like the water initiated salvation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darron Steele: Christians do not go from believer to unbeliever and back and forth engaging in multiple conversions.

HP: Scripture does in fact speak of ‘doing ones first works over.’

Let me ask you the following question. Which would be worse or better in the end? 1. To find that one has been deceived from the start and that they never were really born again (you do believe that is possible do you not?) 2. To have gotten saved twice or even a dozen times and find yourself at the judgment with Christ as your Advocate?

As for me, I would rather be saved over and over again and make it in than to find I have been deceived as to my standing before God.



Rather than to say a believer goes from a believer to an unbeliever and back and forth and so on, I would say ‘when a believer ceases to behave and live as a believer and acts and behaves as a nonbeliever, he is placing his eternal destiny at risk, and if persisted in without repentance unto the end, such a one will not have Christ the righteous as their advocate at the judgment.’


Rather than to approach the question of getting saved again, or waking up to the reality that one has really never been saved, might it not be a better approach to simply ask ourselves the following question? If I persist in the lifestyle I am now persisting in, will God find me worthy of the one and only Advocate that can stand before a Holy and Just God to plead my case?

I for one desire to have Christ as my Advocate as I stand before a Holy and Righteous God!! May I be found to have lived worthy of that grace and show of mercy, even if that entails the accusation or actuality of multiple conversions.

 

[BobRyan]

Rather than to say a believer goes from a believer to an unbeliever and back and forth and so on, I would say ‘when a believer ceases to behave and live as a believer and acts and behaves as a nonbeliever, he is placing his eternal destiny at risk, and if persisted in without repentance unto the end, such a one will not have Christ the righteous as their advocate at the judgment.’
.

Good point. In Matt 7 Christ argues that bad fruit comes from bad trees and good fruit from good trees.

One who is a good tree produces good fruit. But if ten years from today that good fruit is seen to then be "bad" then at that future time the tree is once again "a bad tree" producing bad fruit.

Those who argue that the BAD tree produced GOOD fruit for ten years are turning a blind eye to the instruction given in Matt 7.

 

[mman]

Now, it is time for you to think about some things. Per Colossians 1:18, the church is the body of Christ. Acts 5:14 examples how “believers were added to the Lord” (ESV) as now. God adds to the church per Acts 2:47b “the Lord added to them day by day those |who were being saved” (ASV|NASB). God adds all people who believe on Christ to Christ.

If you want to consider scripture, then consider the only 2 passages that tell us specifically how one gets into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27).

Let's look at the Acts passage again.

The believers in Acts 2:37 asked what they needed to do. Your reply would be what? Believe? They already believed! That was evident in their statement of "What must we do?"

Would you reply, you don't have to do anything, only believe. Is that how Peter answered?

By the way, I would give up the agrument that if you don't understand Portuguese, that you can't understand the bible. That is just plain nonsense. Show me one reputable translation in English that says, Repent for the remission of sins and be baptized. That would contradict other plain passages.

Back to Acts. They were told to Repent AND be baptized...for the remission of sins. (2:38)

Those who were baptized were added to them (Acts 2:41).

Added to what? Added to the church (Acts 2:47). Who added them? Jesus. When? When they were baptized according to verse 41.

If you compare I Cor 12:13, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."

Notice the harmony between the passages. The body is the church as you have pointed out. We are baptized into one Church(I Cor 12:13). The Lord adds the saved to the Church(Acts 2:47).

These events all come together only at baptism. We are saved and added to the one Church.

That's why Paul can say that we are baptized INTO Christ. That is why he was told to "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord". That is why Peter can state that Baptism now saves us (I Pet 3:21- an obvious reference to water baptism), that shows the conntection between the water and the blood.

We are not in a position to move people into Christ. You have been shown about your misunderstandings of passages where you claim mortals are -- yet you insist. It is somewhat of a marvel to me that you are not more careful claiming a role Scripture attributes to God.

Who said we did anything? I cannot put someone into Christ. Only God can do that. Col 2:12, "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Notice the phrase "through faith". That occurs in another place that is often quoted (Eph 2:8-9). What happens here "through faith". We are raised with Jesus. Raised from what? The burial that occurs in baptism. How is this done? Through faith. Where does faith come? Hearing what God said (Rom 10:17). What does God's word have to say? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), "be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16).

If you believe these passages, then you can be raised through faith. God said it, you believe it, you obey it.

Find one example or instruction that says the new life begins prior to baptism. Find one example where anyone rejoiced after hearing and believing the gospel prior to their baptism in water. I have examples and instructions, do you????

However, let us get this back on topic. Eric B was good in that he showed you an inconsistency in your belief system. If water baptism is how persons get moved into Christ, then once they are out, they would need to be baptized every time you `restore' them -- yet you do not.

An inconsistency? Are you kidding me??? Peter must have not known what he was talking about in Acts 8. He didn't tell Simon to "really believe" this time. He didn't tell Simon to "really believe and be baptized again". He said to repent and pray. That is my example.

James 5 also deals with the matter. A brother strays from the faith and has a multitude of sins. Those sins are uncovered until he returns. How a straying child returns is a different process than how one becomes a child in the first place.

You, however, must ignore or twist plain passages such as I Cor 15:1-2 or II Pet 2:20-22.

Explain to me how a sanctified Christian in the church who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord could ever believe in vain?

Paul tells them in Ch 15:1-2, they if they don't hold fast to the gospel, then they have believed in vain.

Explain to me how is it is better to have NEVER known the way of righteousness for the person who has escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and are untangled???

If people could have their salvations temporarily revoked and get it back, it would result in a host of events not found in Scripture. Christians do not go from believer to unbeliever and back and forth engaging in multiple conversions.

Have you not read James 5??? That is EXACTLY what is described. Here it is for you: Jas 5:19-20: Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

Brethern - He is writing to those who have not wandered yet!!!

"if any among you" - Therefore, if any among the brethren

"wanders from the truth" - A brother can wander from the truth

What is the result? His soul will die because of his uncovered sins. This is not physical death. All will die. James has already described the process of wandering from the truth that results in death in Chapter 1.

Here's what he says, "Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. - Jas 1:12-15

What about the man that does not endure temptation??? He won't receive the crown. This does not mean that a christian does not sin (I Jn 1:7). This is one who quits walking in the light.

One is tempted, which leads to sin and sin when it is full grown brings forth death. This is sin, left unchecked, that will result in spiritual death.

Back to Ch 5. A brother, who is caught up in sin because he wandered from the truth, can return and have his sins covered once again and his soul is no longer subject to spiritual death, or separation from God. The process is the same for this erring brother or Simon in Acts 8, repent and pray.