Hebrews 6:6 does not teach a loss of Salvation.

[Aenon]

Yes, we are saved by God's grace (I already said that.) But the Word makes it very clear that we appropriate God's grace through faith and repentance. That does not mean that we earn it, but that faith and repentance are the means God has provided for us to take hold of it. If that were not the case, then everyone would be saved, there would be no need for either faith or repentance, and the preaching of the Gospel would be pointless.

Yes, you do that to get saved. You don't continue having faith and repentance to maintain salvation. Someone who is saved has the Holy Spirit carrying them to heaven. Continuing in the faith in itself is one of the assurances of salvation (1 John 2:19). Can a Christian rebel and be brought back? yes. Again, prodigal son.

AND GOD DID NOT STEP IN TO STOP THEM BY FORCE.

God will never physically stop you from sinning by jumping to the rescue and beating up Mr.Temptation. The whole point is to get humanity to listen to simple instruction. "Don't do this, you'll hurt yourself." God will however manipulate (whether directly or indirectly) the environment to bring His children back if they go astray.

God does not ever, at any point, force us to accept Him. Yes, He can make it very uncomfortable for us to refuse Him, but He always allows us the choice. The "Rich Young Ruler" in the Gospels walked away from Jesus because he valued his wealth more than a relationship with God. Jesus did not run after him and beg him to reconsider; He did not lassoo him and drag him back; He did not hurl a rock at him and knock him out to give him time to think about things. No, He simply let him go: his decision, his choice, his loss. (And yes, I know you're going to say "But he wasn't a Christian." No, he wasn't - but he was one of God's covenant people.)

God doesn't force anybody to accept Him. I never claimed He did. You have to be an UNBELIEVER to accept Jesus. Believers have ALREADY done that. You can't group everyone together. Just because someone is of covenant people doesn't mean anything. Salvation is to the INDIVIDUAL, not group. If it wasn't, every gentile would be saved. You're not saved because you're Jewish; You're not saved because you're a Gentile. Being one of God's covenant people is not being saved. God didn't drag him back BECAUSE he wasn't saved to begin with. Again, 1 John 2:19.

As for the prodigal son, yes, I agree the parable is talking about Christians. BUT the father did not force him to return; nor did the father cause the condition in which he found himself. That was purely the result of his own bad choices. The father did not even go out to look for him or to try to persuade him to return home. It was only AFTER he had decided that he would be better off as one of his father's servants than where he was, and had picked himself up out of the mud and begun the journey home, that the father came out to meet him. If you are looking for a Scripture passage to say that God forces people to return to Him, this is definitely not it!!

Do you honestly believe God had nothing to do with the result of the Prodigal son's life? Do you honestly believe it was just a coincidence he lost everything so he could see how good he had it and rely on God? Absolutely not. God was in control of everything. God was responsible for the Prodigal son's ruined life, whether directly or indirectly. That is how God breaks the legs of rebellious sheep. He manipulates outcomes and environments, not the individuals themselves.

Likewise, the word translated "makes me lie down" in Psalm 23 do not mean "forces me" but simply "causes me."

Don't correct God please. God is in charge of translations, and has never made an error when translating. God promised to preserve his words in Psalm 12:7 and you are saying God is wrong. One 1611 King James translator is more gifted and intelligent than the entire modern day translation committees for all versions of the Bible put together. You give 3 reasons for translating "makes me" as "causes me," they will give you 70 reasons not to. Unless you are better than Lancelot Andrewes who was fluent in 15 different languages, or some other translators on that team one of which wrote a Hebrew/Chaldee lexicon at the age of fifteen, I'm thinking I'll side with them. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I don't like hearing people correct God's word. But, that is another subject.

the Lord is quite prepared to BLOT OUT names from the Book of Life!!

And? The book of life is not a book of saved people. It is a book of ALL people who were physically born. The people who's names are blotted out are the people who will go to the second death (hell), being they no longer have "life." Hence the title "Book of life." All children/babies are written in the book of life (guaranteed heaven) until they are old enough to understand and rebel against God instead of choose salvation. Only then will their names be blotted out if God in His foresight sees them live an impenitent life.

 

[revlynn]

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I don't like hearing people correct God's word.

For someone who "doesn't mean" to sound disrespectful, you certainly do a good job of doing so. I do not correct God or His Word.

If you check with Strong's, you will find that the word "make" does not appear in the Hebrew of this verse at all. The phrase "He maketh me to lie down" is the translation of a single Hebrew word, rabats, for which Strongs gives the following definition:
H7257
רבץ
râbats
raw-bats'
A primitive root; to crouch (on all four legs folded, like a recumbent animal); by implication to recline, repose, brood, lurk, imbed: - crouch (down), fall down, make a fold, lay (cause to, make to) lie (down), make to rest, sit.
The King James translators were translating into the language of 1611, not the language of 2011 - one of the great problems with understanding the KJV. I have heard a whole sermon preached on a single word in the KJV that is not even found in the original text.

As for the rest of your arguments, as I have already said I am not going to continue in debate with you. You are obviously coming from an extreme Calvinist position, which I do not accept as Biblical. You are not going to change my mind, and I am not going to change yours.

blessings,

Lynn

 

[Aenon]

Something not being found in the "original language," means nothing. There are TONS of words not found in the original. Filler words that were needed to be added into the English because they were incomplete sentences. That's why the KJV has italics, letting the reader know what words were added for clarification. Also, translating a Bible isn't just some simple process of picking up a concordance or lexicon and playing "definition roulette," with whatever definition goes along with what you're saying. The translators know the flavor of the Hebrew grammar and context to use the most accurate definition. You can have 1 Hebrew word have 5 different definitions. There is much more to a language than reading some lexicon. You can read all the Hebrew words and definitions all you like, you still wont know the correct way to use them.

You are obviously coming from an extreme Calvinist position, which I do not accept as Biblical.

I don't accept the Calvinist view as biblical either. I'm not a Calvinist.

 

[mistmann]

Don't be confused by Acts 2:38. Carefully read and understand to whom Peter is speaking. Read Acts 2:22 and 29-38. Peter, responding to Jews who asked him what they could do now that they had "murdered" their Messiah, told them to repent (return to the Abrahamic covenant), recognize their Messiah, and to be ritually, ceremonially purified in preparation for His return to set up the Kingdom. Peter is still ministering to Jews about their failure to recognize the offer of the Kingdom of God; Paul is saying "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Not repentance, not ritual purification, not immersion in water, but believe. Confess Him as Savior and Lord now, in view of eternity. Acts 2 refers to those still under the Law and the traditions, looking (most not looking) in anticipation of the promised Kingdom of God on earth. Peter wants them to get right with God so that Jesus will come back then and there! Paul's letters look to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord in anticipation of Heaven! What a difference!

DOK,

You may want to take a close look at Acts 8 regarding Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch. This event occurred while Paul was still Saul and persecuting the church (Saul/Paul is not mentioned until Acts 9.) here Philip is not only preaching Jesus Christ to a non-Jew but is also preaching water baptism. Remember that water baptism was known as John's (the Baptist) baptism not Paul's baptism.

I am not sure where you learned the things you are saying but please be aware they are not in accordance with the Bible in any way.

 

[mistmann]

Don't be confused by Acts 2:38. Carefully read and understand to whom Peter is speaking. Read Acts 2:22 and 29-38. Peter, responding to Jews who asked him what they could do now that they had "murdered" their Messiah, told them to repent (return to the Abrahamic covenant), recognize their Messiah, and to be ritually, ceremonially purified in preparation for His return to set up the Kingdom. Peter is still ministering to Jews about their failure to recognize the offer of the Kingdom of God; Paul is saying "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Not repentance, not ritual purification, not immersion in water, but believe. Confess Him as Savior and Lord now, in view of eternity. Acts 2 refers to those still under the Law and the traditions, looking (most not looking) in anticipation of the promised Kingdom of God on earth. Peter wants them to get right with God so that Jesus will come back then and there! Paul's letters look to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord in anticipation of Heaven! What a difference!

Also why do you claim Paul does not preach baptism when he speaks of it in Romans 6 , Ephesians 4, and Colossians 2,??

 

[Dok]

DOK, You may want to take a close look at Acts 8 regarding Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch.

The Ethiopian was doing what? Going to Jerusalem to worship. Where would he worship? The Temple. What was he reading on his way back? Isaiah. The context clearly tells us that he was an Ethiopian Jew. Phillip told him to be ceremonially bathed, purified, in anticipation of his soon-coming King.

Acts 8:1 does not refer to a Christian church; it refers to a Jewish assembly.

 

[Dok]

Also why do you claim Paul does not preach baptism when he speaks of it in Romans 6 , Ephesians 4, and Colossians 2,??

Each reference is referring to spiritual baptism, not water.

 

[Y'shua friend.]

There are so many good sound scriptural quotations here, that it is impossible for me to address all of them. So I will reply with just one thought; Mat 7:13 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." If YHVH grace makes it so easy to get into Heaven, why did Yeshua say that there would be so few to make it in?

Luk 13:23 "Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, 24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." These partook of communion, and received the gospel, so what were they missing? Righteousness, because Yeshua calls them "workers of iniquity." YHVH grace is subject to a true and meaningful repentance, without it ones faith and hope is founded upon living in deception. Shalom!

 

[Dok]

Y'shua friend ...... salvation is by grace through faith, the GIFT of God, to those who respond to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The great bulk of humanity has not and will not respond to the Spirit's call, even though that is their only hope. That understanding should send us into the fields "white for harvest."

Luke 13:23 is a Kingdom of God passage. He is telling those Jews who failed to recognize Him as Messiah that they will not enter God's millennial kingdom on earth, that Kingdom which will last for 1,000 years. They'll be torn apart with grief when they see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets, in that Kingdom ~ ~ ~ since they will experience only eternal separation from God!!!

 

[mistmann]

The Ethiopian was doing what? Going to Jerusalem to worship. Where would he worship? The Temple. What was he reading on his way back? Isaiah. The context clearly tells us that he was an Ethiopian Jew. Phillip told him to be ceremonially bathed, purified, in anticipation of his soon-coming King.

Acts 8:1 does not refer to a Christian church; it refers to a Jewish assembly.

Your assumption is not valid. it was quite common practice for Kings and Queens from foreign, non-Jewish nations to pay homage to the God of Israel and offer sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem. Indeed it was the prevention of the daily sacrifices on behalf of the Emperor of Rome that instigated the Jewish- Roman wars that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and all of Israel. That he, being a highly ranked official serving a foreign queen was coming back from worshipping in Jerusalem does not automatically make him a Jew.

There are several reasons why it is clear the Ethiopian was not a Jew. The first indicator is that while considerable effort is made to identify him, his origins and his status there is no reference to him being a fellow Jew. Secondly while he is reading Isaiah it is clear that he is neither familiar with it nor had any teaching in it, for Philip asks him if he understands what he is reading knowing only that he is reading Isaiah. Not the first question you would ask of a fellow Jew who would be expected to be familiar with the scriptures.

But the Ethiopians response is also not one would expect of a Jew for he indicates that unless he had somebody to explain it how was he going to understand what it was saying . Jews are taught to read and understand the scriptures.

But the real proof he was not a Jew lies in the fact that he was a EUNUCH. Under the Mosaic Law a eunuch could not join the Jewish congregation.

Duet 23:1 "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."

A Jew would not become a eunuch and a eunuch could not become a Jew.

Hence what you have BEFORE Saul became Paul is Philip offering salvation to a non-Jewish Ethiopian eunuch on the basis of belief in, and baptism in, Christ Jesus as the Son of God alone and not on the basis of the Mosaic Law.

 

[mistmann]

Each reference is referring to spiritual baptism, not water.

Considering that the Greek word translated a baptism ( baptizo) means to immerse or dip into water or other liquid, by what authority do you make this claim? the imagery of Romans 6 of being baptized into Christ's death and raised in resurrection is symbolic of the going down into the water and being raised up out of it.

 

[Dok]

...........while he is reading Isaiah it is clear that he is neither familiar with it nor had any teaching in it, for Philip asks him if he understands what he is reading knowing only that he is reading Isaiah. Not the first question you would ask of a fellow Jew who would be expected to be familiar with the scriptures. But the Ethiopians response is also not one would expect of a Jew for he indicates that unless he had somebody to explain it how was he going to understand what it was saying .

It is obvious that he was reading Isaiah. Then he comes to Isaiah 53. His question concerns WHO Isaiah 53 describes. Philip doesn't need to teach him Hebrew. His understanding of Hebrew is a non-issue. The Holy Spirit dispatches Philip to explain THAT chapter, nothing else.



Philip is the one who introduces Nathanael to Jesus. What does Philip say? "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law and the prophets..........." Does He say that Jesus is there to introduce Romans 10:8-13? No. How many of the 12+70 understood without a doubt that Jesus would be crucified? None. Philip identifies Jesus as the One who would be King of the Jews. What was Philip up to in the opening chapter of Acts?

4 So those who were scattered went on their way proclaiming the message of good news. 5Philip went down to a [a] city in Samaria and preached the Messiah to them. (D) 6 The crowds paid attention with one mind to what Philip said, as they heard and saw the signs he was performing. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed, and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed. (E) 8 So there was great joy in that city.

He was preaching the Messiah, the Messianic King of the Jews ON EARTH. He was able to do signs and produce wonders because of the gift that he had been given by Jesus, who told him to proclaim the good news that the Messianic prophecies were being fulfilled. Was he explaining that to Gentiles? No. Those who heard THAT good news were Jews who were to be purified in water! He was not preaching that Jesus would die on the Cross forgiving the sin/sins of all humankind and that anyone who confessed that they believed in the birth, life, ministry, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection (Romans 10:8-13 is a good example), would be saved for eternity in Heaven!

 

[Dok]

Considering that the Greek word translated a baptism ( baptizo) means to immerse or dip into water or other liquid, by what authority do you make this claim? the imagery of Romans 6 of being baptized into Christ's death and raised in resurrection is symbolic of the going down into the water and being raised up out of it.

Yep, that has been pure conjecture on the part of Christians for centuries, based upon the failure of most to rightly divide scripture. Baptism is ceremonial bathing for Jews. Baptism in water is not a requirement (and never has been) for those who receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord by confessing their faith in Him as that Precious One who died in their place and guarantees their Home in Heaven, not in the Kingdom of God (Matthew calls it the Kingdom of Heaven) on earth. The latter refers to a Messianic Kingdom on earth for Jews, clearly separate and apart from our heavenly home. ALL who confess Him as Savior and Lord will be found in our heavenly home, regardless or race, creed, color, national origin, or ethnic group.

 

[mistmann]

Yep, that has been pure conjecture on the part of Christians for centuries, based upon the failure of most to rightly divide scripture. Baptism is ceremonial bathing for Jews. Baptism in water is not a requirement (and never has been) for those who receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord by confessing their faith in Him as that Precious One who died in their place and guarantees their Home in Heaven, not in the Kingdom of God (Matthew calls it the Kingdom of Heaven) on earth. The latter refers to a Messianic Kingdom on earth for Jews, clearly separate and apart from our heavenly home. ALL who confess Him as Savior and Lord will be found in our heavenly home, regardless or race, creed, color, national origin, or ethnic group.

You have made more unsubstantiated claims but have not yet provided the BIBLICAL authority for your first claim which is what I asked of you. Again I ask by what AUTHORITY do you claim Paul did NOT mean water baptism when he spoke of " baptism" a number of times.

Remember Jesus Himself thought it right to submit even HIMSELF to water baptism even though John saw no need but submitted to the superior authority of Christ. As Peter rightfully noted in a number of cases people were baptized by the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized by water but even these people eagerly submitted to water baptism as a sign of THEIR commitment to Christ. Baptism by water is what WE do to acknowledge Christ. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is what the Lord does to acknowledge Christ in US!

 

[mistmann]

It is obvious that he was reading Isaiah. Then he comes to Isaiah 53. His question concerns WHO Isaiah 53 describes. Philip doesn't need to teach him Hebrew. His understanding of Hebrew is a non-issue. The Holy Spirit dispatches Philip to explain THAT chapter, nothing else.



Philip is the one who introduces Nathanael to Jesus. What does Philip say? "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law and the prophets..........." Does He say that Jesus is there to introduce Romans 10:8-13? No. How many of the 12+70 understood without a doubt that Jesus would be crucified? None. Philip identifies Jesus as the One who would be King of the Jews. What was Philip up to in the opening chapter of Acts?

4 So those who were scattered went on their way proclaiming the message of good news. 5Philip went down to a [a] city in Samaria and preached the Messiah to them. (D) 6 The crowds paid attention with one mind to what Philip said, as they heard and saw the signs he was performing. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed, and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed. (E) 8 So there was great joy in that city.

He was preaching the Messiah, the Messianic King of the Jews ON EARTH. He was able to do signs and produce wonders because of the gift that he had been given by Jesus, who told him to proclaim the good news that the Messianic prophecies were being fulfilled. Was he explaining that to Gentiles? No. Those who heard THAT good news were Jews who were to be purified in water! He was not preaching that Jesus would die on the Cross forgiving the sin/sins of all humankind and that anyone who confessed that they believed in the birth, life, ministry, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection (Romans 10:8-13 is a good example), would be saved for eternity in Heaven!

I did not say he did not understand Hebrew but did not understand the scriptures he was reading. A Jew would have been taught that Isaiah was speaking of the Messiah. But as I pointed out the man was a EUNUCH, something prohibited in Judaism.

Why do you think what Philip said to Nathanael has anything to do with it? Until Christ taught them otherwise and until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost all they had was the words of the Prophets. And is not Jesus indeed the one the prophets spoke of?

And is not Jesus indeed the King of Israel, King of the Jews and eternal heir of the throne of David? Remember it is the Gentile believers who are grafted into the vine of Israel to replace the non- believing Jews, not vice versa.

Your arguments are becoming more erratic and even less in accordance with the Bible than before. Where are your teachings coming from? For certain they are not coming from the word of God.

 

[Dok]

Remember Jesus Himself thought it right to submit even HIMSELF to water baptism even though John saw no need but submitted to the superior authority of Christ.

Jesus, coming on the scene as the promised Messiah, submitted to the Jewish cleansing ritual, ceremonial bathing, "John's baptism," not because He had to, but, as the Son of Man (man's representative before God), presenting Himself as purified in the manner of the "water of separation" described in Numbers 19, the "Laws of Purification." Did Jesus say, "Hi, I'm Jesus, I'm here to establish Christianity for the Jewish folk. EVERYONE! Go forth proclaiming Romans 10:8-13 to everyone on earth, including all those Gentile folks." If you think that He did, you need to read those scriptures again. God determined to call out a special people for Himself through whom He would bring blessing to all the nations. Jesus came as the promised Messiah to those special people, the Jews. They would, through obedience/acceptance of Him as Messiah, usher in the 1,000 year reign, which was proclaimed to be "at hand." The Abrahamic Covenant is paramount to a proper understanding of the Kingdom of God/Heaven and is foundational to Hebrew theology.

 

[Ginger]

I hesitat to get in the middle of this discussion, but Jesus getting water Baptized is not a measure of whether or not it ios necessary today. Jesus was Baptized according to tradition before the crucifixion, so it was necessary for him to do so because that is how things were done under the law.

Hebrews states that all the things beforehand were a shadow of the things to come. Once Jesus' mission was complete those things beforehand that were cheap substitutes were no longer needed because we had the real thing - Christ Jesus!!!!

Water Baptism does not save!!!!

 

[Ginger]

Reconsidering..... this is probably not a conversation I want to take part in....

Can we add a "delete post" option to the editing options? If we had one, this wasted post wouldn't be here.

 

[gemma]

Indeed, water baptism does not save. I don't think that it does, too.

 

[Ginger]

I did not mean to suggest Misty thought water Baptism saves. Please pardon me if that is how it came across.

I was responding to these posts

Each reference is referring to spiritual baptism, not water.

Considering that the Greek word translated a baptism ( baptizo) means to immerse or dip into water or other liquid, by what authority do you make this claim? the imagery of Romans 6 of being baptized into Christ's death and raised in resurrection is symbolic of the going down into the water and being raised up out of it.

The point is John said he baptized with water, but one was coming (Jesus) who would baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit.

Dok was pointing out the referenced verses are talking about spiritual Baptism, not water baptism.
The difference is water Baptism does not save