Requirements of Salvation

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

EternalFire

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2019
659
352
63
#81
You have shown lots of scriptural support

You just refuse to see it. Because you think baptism is a "Special" work that is different from "other works"

When paul said in titus that it is NOT by WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS which we HAVE DONE

Baptism is included in that statement.

Why?

Because baptism is a work of righteousness. It is something we do. in obedience to Gods word. no different that other Commands God has given us, Like assembling together, Taking the Lords Supper (communion) Giving to the poor. Studying to shew ourselves approved.

You see its one things to know what words are. it is another things to rightly divide what the words say.

so again I ask you

What is a wage or a reward? How do we earn those things?

can you answer?
Perhaps another look at Titus 3 in the TLV may help:

Remind the people to be submitted to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to slander no one, without fighting, gentle, showing every courtesy to all people. For we also once were foolish, disobedient, deluded, enslaved to various desires and pleasures, spending our lives in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared—not by deeds of righteousness which we had done ourselves, but because of His mercy—He saved us through the mikveh of rebirth and renewing of the Ruach ha-Kodesh, whom He abundantly poured out on us through Messiah Yeshua our Savior, so that being set right by His grace, we might become heirs with the confident hope of eternal life! Trustworthy is the saying, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have put their trust in God may be careful to devote themselves to good deeds. These things are good and beneficial for people. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about Torah, for they are unprofitable and useless. Dismiss a quarrelsome person after a first and second warning, knowing that such a person is twisted and is sinning—he is self-condemned.
 

EternalFire

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2019
659
352
63
#82
Jesus clarifies the first clause with, "but he who does not believe shall be condemned." Jesus did not say whoever is not baptized will be condemned and Jesus did not mention baptism along with believes in (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). So like I said before. He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.

If he who believes will be saved (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well. It's true what Jesus said in Mark 16:16, yet it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism, which in in perfect harmony with John 3:18. Do you believe that the first part of Mark 16:16 negates the second part of Mark 16:16 and also negates John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26?
If someone is not saved, are they not condemned?
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,769
3,677
113
#83
I made this because there are people preaching in these final years of the world, teaching that
just by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ you can be saved. If it was that easy we wouldn't have scriptures
warning us that few will be saved and that the path to eternal life is narrow, of which few be there that find it.
Oh, ok, whatever...

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
(Act 16:30-31)

I guess Paul and Silas need to get educated by some internet posters.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
#84
Oh, ok, whatever...

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
(Act 16:30-31)

I guess Paul and Silas need to get educated by some internet posters.
There are verses that imply that believing in Jesus is sufficient to be saved.

There are also verses that imply that believing in Jesus is not sufficient to be saved.

That is how denominations exist.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,769
3,677
113
#85
There are verses that imply that believing in Jesus is sufficient to be saved.

There are also verses that imply that believing in Jesus is not sufficient to be saved.

That is how denominations exist.
OK, very well, would you like to inform us what else is needed to be saved?
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
#86
OK, very well, would you like to inform us what else is needed to be saved?
I was trying to point out that, if someone wants to adopt a doctrine that you need faith + works to be saved, just pointing them to verses that states otherwise will not be good enough to convince them.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,769
3,677
113
#87
I was trying to point out that, if someone wants to adopt a doctrine that you need faith + works to be saved, just pointing them to verses that states otherwise will not be good enough to convince them.
That may be how denominations exist. But if they are going to ignore four full chapters of Paul's explanation for one or two pet verses, then I am not interested to convince them...I will only challenge them to show what else is needed to be saved.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
#88
That may be how denominations exist. But if they are going to ignore four full chapters of Paul's explanation for one or two pet verses, then I am not interested to convince them...I will only challenge them to show what else is needed to be saved.
They will just point to you what Jesus was saying in the 4 Gospels that imply more than belief is required, or 1 John where John also preached that obeying the commandments are necessary too.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,769
3,677
113
#90
They will just point to you what Jesus was saying in the 4 Gospels that imply more than belief is required, or 1 John where John also preached that obeying the commandments are necessary too.
Jesus does not contradict Paul or vice-versa. It becomes a matter where they don't know how to reconcile Jesus/Paul/James. They are prone to works and will side and cling on to any hint of works just to bolster their pride...a work of the flesh.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
#91
Jesus does not contradict Paul or vice-versa. It becomes a matter where they don't know how to reconcile Jesus/Paul/James. They are prone to works and will side and cling on to any hint of works just to bolster their pride...a work of the flesh.
There are various ways to reconcile these contradictory passages.

2 popular ways in this forum are

You can either read Paul into Jesus and James
You can also read Jesus and James into Paul.

Either way, one side will be convinced he is correct and stand fast against the other side. Both sides will think they are correct and the other wrong.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,769
3,677
113
#92
There are various ways to reconcile these contradictory passages.

2 popular ways in this forum are

You can either read Paul into Jesus and James
You can also read Jesus and James into Paul.

Either way, one side will be convinced he is correct and stand fast against the other side. Both sides will think they are correct and the other wrong.
A person can equivocate between two positions if they want but God has one intended meaning, and I believe that is why He moved Paul to spend four chapters in Romans and two or three in Galatians to establish the teaching on justification. To act like it isn't clear, or to pick a verse from James or the Gospels...out of context is to do a disservice to the clear teaching of Scripture.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#93
It's not that difficult to be saved at the Cross actually but the thing about it is that instead of believing it and throwing your hands over your face and thanking him for it,it usually gets complicated in doubt and then the other things to do come up. There's only the two groups there's the ones who say Jesus saved them on the Cross but then when you watch them their doing all sorts of things to get saved, and then the other group who see's that he saved them at the Cross and have no need to do anything other than thank him for his blood and body he gave to save them.

There are two groups one is at rest,full of hope and peace,,,the other is in denial of the Cross and they are those who struggle to find the things to do to "get saved" future tense,instead of as though he had actually saved them then. It is not unthinkable that the Lord is examining those who actually believe that he saved them on the Cross from those who actually don't and what better way would there be than to take note of those who thank him for that salvation or those who don't and go about getting saved because of their denial.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
#95
A person can equivocate between two positions if they want but God has one intended meaning, and I believe that is why He moved Paul to spend four chapters in Romans and two or three in Galatians to establish the teaching on justification. To act like it isn't clear, or to pick a verse from James or the Gospels...out of context is to do a disservice to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Of course, the easier way to reconcile, if you don't want to read one into another, is to just believe the following

Paul was writing to the Body of Christ in the but now.
Jesus and James were only addressing the lost sheep of the house of Israel in time past/age to come

The books of the Bible are placed in that order: 4 Gospels, Paul's letters, James
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,179
1,801
113
#96
^ "having been buried with him in THE baptism, in which also ye rose with him through the faith of the working of God, who did raise him out of the dead" Colossians 2:12



"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Romans 6:3


[neither speaks of "water" here = ) ]
Neither place NEEDED to mention water. That is what baptism (immersion) meant to people in those times. The only baptism they knew about, and fully understood was immersion in water.
(Unless they were making pickles, when the same word was used to describe immersing the cucumbers in the pickling solution.)

And Colossians 2 does not say "the" baptism. It says "baptism". Actually, if you read the literal translation of those verses, you would see the word "immersed" used instead of baptized/baptism.

"11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. "
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,179
1,801
113
#97
I already proved it was a work

ypur doing an act in order to recieve a wage or a reward, in this case baptism.

that makes it a work,
Absolutely not. You are being baptized in order to obey the teaching of Jesus. Being baptized is not done to "get" something.
How silly. Or purposely obtuse.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,769
3,677
113
#98
Of course, the easier way to reconcile, if you don't want to read one into another, is to just believe the following

Paul was writing to the Body of Christ in the but now.
Jesus and James were only addressing the lost sheep of the house of Israel in time past/age to come

The books of the Bible are placed in that order: 4 Gospels, Paul's letters, James
I don’t take a dispensational view when it comes to faith/justification/God’s promises etc.
Mankind has always been saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of the Promised One alone.
 

EternalFire

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2019
659
352
63
#99
So you believe Jesus needed our help to save us? Ignorant nonsense. :unsure:
I think Jesus said it best.

He told them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the Good News to every creature. He who believes and is immersed shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16).
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
I don’t take a dispensational view when it comes to faith/justification/God’s promises etc.
Mankind has always been saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of the Promised One alone.
The problem I see with the other 2 approaches is that people always need to explain what Jesus/Paul/James really meant, based on whichever side one choose to use to read into the other.

If they don't mean what they say, why don't they just say what they mean is the common remark.