Salvation Not Possible Without Works

[eternally-gratefull]

"Where their worm dies not." Coulda, woulda, shoulda, but too late while forever being reminded of what they should have been done while the opportunity still remained.

yep.

How many will be there who did all these mighty works of God. obeyed his law to the best of their ability. Went to church, Got baptized and did all these things.

And think for eternity. I had the word of truth in my grasp. All I had to do is put my Trust in Christ and he would save me, And all these works would have actually counted for something. But since I trusted in my work and not in the grace of God. I am here..

As God said, it will be far worse for them than someone who never heard the word of truth, because they would never listen even if they heard it.

 

[Karraster]

"Where their worm dies not." Coulda, woulda, shoulda, but too late while forever being reminded of what they should have been done while the opportunity still remained.

I know..and what's the big deal anyway? What's so hard about the 10 commandments and observing Feasts? You'd think from all the complaining about it, that God has told us we have to climb Mt Everest every day, clean all the gas station toilets in your town, hang upside down from a bridge! What complainers!!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Lets look again:

Mark 16:16 (NKJV)
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

The semicolon separates the clauses, the first makes baptism on the condition one first believes saved, here could be a period as it makes a complete sentence, the second connected clause makes the first connected clause more clear and simply says (paraphrased) if you don't believe, no need for baptism as all you would do is just get wet...

Funny how people cannot understand what the semicolon means.

1st off. The semicolon was added by men.

Second, Even if this verse was the word of God (which is doubtfull) you would still be in error.

because one could believe, and not be baptized. And according to you they would go to hell (even if they had no opportunity to be baptized)

Next?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I know..and what's the big deal anyway? What's so hard about the 10 commandments and observing Feasts? You'd think from all the complaining about it, that God has told us we have to climb Mt Everest every day, clean all the gas station toilets in your town, hang upside down from a bridge! What complainers!!

lol.

Who is complaining? No one is.

What is amazing is you think because you do them you are righteous, and a good young lady. When if you actually looked at it. Instead of boasting how good you do it. You would be on your knees Begging Gods forgiveness, because you fall so short.

Those who claim they follow the law are ignorant of the fact the law proves they are so sinfull and so unworthy, they would never even deserve anything. Much like paul did in Romans 7

 

[Jabberjaw]

So how do we interpret the word for?

In order to recieve, or on account of?

The next verse gives us the answer.

[SUP]41 [/SUP]Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

In order to recieve his word and accept it and believe in it, One must repent. So those who repented were baptized why? To get wet? NO>> Because they had received remission of sin.

Now why would you stop your emphases at "word"?

"they that gladly recieved his word were baptized" and after baptism they were added to the church.

Also proved by the fact the same author later in the book speaks of just belief as a requirement for remmision of sin.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Where is the word baptize if it is essential??

It is in the encapsulated word "believeth" here "believeth" means the same as Mark 16:16 with the same requirements else we have a contradiction, and we know the bible does not contradict its self.

He came to the world to save those who believe on him :

John 12:46 (NKJV)
[SUP]46 [/SUP]I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.

but note what happens when one does not receive His words ("My words" is plural, meaning all including baptism in Mark 16:16) :

John 12:48 (NKJV)
[SUP]48 [/SUP]He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

 

[Jabberjaw]

1st off. The semicolon was added by men.

Second, Even if this verse was the word of God (which is doubtfull) you would still be in error.

because one could believe, and not be baptized. And according to you they would go to hell (even if they had no opportunity to be baptized)

Next?

so for fun lets take the semicolon out :

Mark 16:16 (NKJV)
He who believes and is baptized will be saved but he who does not believe will be condemned.

it does not remove the logical "and" that requires both believe and baptized to be true, for saved to be true, simple logic.

Baptism is a conditional command that must be obeyed to be in a saved condition, it is the bible that says baptism is required, not me, if one is not baptized they have not remitted their sins, therefore they would according to the bible go to hell, not according to me.

 

[BenFTW]

Now why would you stop your emphases at "word"?

"they that gladly recieved his word were baptized" and after baptism they were added to the church.



It is in the encapsulated word "believeth" here "believeth" means the same as Mark 16:16 with the same requirements else we have a contradiction, and we know the bible does not contradict its self.

He came to the world to save those who believe on him :

John 12:46 (NKJV)
[SUP]46 [/SUP]I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.

but note what happens when one does not receive His words ("My words" is plural, meaning all including baptism in Mark 16:16) :

John 12:48 (NKJV)
[SUP]48 [/SUP]He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

From a site, and it refutes baptism for salvation in a very clear and concise manner:
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.

Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation


Also from the site: The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

 

[Jabberjaw]

From a site, and it refutes baptism for salvation in a very clear and concise manner:
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.

Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation

this is nonsense, you (or your site) quote 1 Cor. 1:17 blowing right by 1 Cor. 1:16 :

1 Corinthians 1:16 (NKJV)
Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

The Gospel its self commands baptism, one cannot preach the Gospel without preaching baptism, you should be more careful with your choice of sites.

Also from the site:

The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

This is absolutely false, not one place in the bible can it be found anyone saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, it was only done twice, once to the Apostles (on Pentecost), and once to the house of Cornelius fulfilling the prophecy of Joel.

Note verse 48, this is where they were saved, this is where their sins were remitted after the baptism of the HS:

Acts 10:48 (NKJV)
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

else the bible again contradicts its self as there is only one saving baptism:

Ephesians 4:5 (NKJV)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

 

[BenFTW]

this is nonsense, you (or your site) quote 1 Cor. 1:17 blowing right by 1 Cor. 1:16 :

1 Corinthians 1:16 (NKJV)
Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

The Gospel its self commands baptism, one cannot preach the Gospel without preaching baptism, you should be more careful with your choice of sites.



This is absolutely false, not one place in the bible can it be found anyone saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, it was only done twice, once to the Apostles (on Pentecost), and once to the house of Cornelius fulfilling the prophecy of Joel.

Note verse 48, this is where they were saved, this is where their sins were remitted after the baptism of the HS:

Acts 10:48 (NKJV)
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

else the bible again contradicts its self as there is only one saving baptism:

Ephesians 4:5 (NKJV)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Look at the red letters. Also, why don't you take that back just a little further.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17

King James Version (KJV)

14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.


Wow, that Paul could say, "Thank God" that he didn't baptize someone and baptism be necessary for salvation is quite the statement.

 

[Jabberjaw]

Look at the red letters. Also, why don't you take that back just a little further.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17

King James Version (KJV)

14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

The you is second person singular, Paul was addressing those who thought being baptized by one person is better than another and as can be seen in verse 15, he was glad he did not baptize any of them (second person singular meaning those who he was face to face with) so they could not say they were better or worse because he baptized them. your twisting this scripture.

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

He was glad he did not baptize any of those (second person singular) he was face to face with so that they could not boast they were baptized by him.

It does not say he did not baptize.

 

[BenFTW]

The you is second person singular, Paul was addressing those who thought being baptized by one person is better than another and as can be seen in verse 15, he was glad he did not baptize any of them (second person singular meaning those who he was face to face with) so they could not say they were better or worse because he baptized them. your twisting this scripture.

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

He was glad he did not baptize any of those (second person singular) he was face to face with so that they could not boast they were baptized by him.

It does not say he did not baptize.

Verse 17. He may have on occasion, but he clearly points out he didn't do it all the time. Which is odd, because if it was of necessity for salvation... Well, you get the point. Also, as in my earlier post, when Paul summarized the gospel, it didn't include baptism to be saved.

 

[Jabberjaw]

Verse 17. He may have on occasion, but he clearly points out he didn't do it all the time. Which is odd, because if it was of necessity for salvation... Well, you get the point. Also, as in my earlier post, when Paul summarized the gospel, it didn't include baptism to be saved.

How can you say the Gospel Paul preached did not include baptism?, see acts 19 :

Acts 19:4-5 (NKJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." [SUP]5 [/SUP] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

now tell me Paul did not preach baptism.

 

[BenFTW]

How can you say the Gospel Paul preached did not include baptism?, see acts 19 :

Acts 19:4-5 (NKJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." [SUP]5 [/SUP] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

now tell me Paul did not preach baptism.

What part of "on occasion" don't you understand? lol Also, it still stands, as were your own words, that to be baptized without accepting Christ is, basically, just getting wet. Exactly my point! You accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior through what He did and believe, and then later get baptized. Hence, first saving faith, to then be baptized as an outward expression of our inner renewal. You know, us being part of his death, burial, and resurrection that is the new life we have. Old nature cast off, and being born again. Hence, baptism doesn't save, but it is of importance to do as a manner of an outward expression of our faith and also a representation of the belief in our heart, to the world (those witnessing it). Baptism in reality shows a belief on the inside, through the outside.

 

[Hoffco]

What saves? Does water baptism, in itself save? NO! What about water baptism saves? " the answer of a good conscience" saves. A real working faith saves. Not a dead faith. Like Jesus said,"rise up, take your bed ,and walk" away, and be saved. How do we see faith?, in the action of faith! "by their fruit, you shall know them" No "abiding", no fruit. No fruit, no salvation. "Make the tree good and the fruit will be good" ONLY God can make the tree good. It is the work of God directly in our spirits: "by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit". Regeneration is the same as heart circumcision and Spirit baptism into the body of Christ. No one was ever saved without this work of the Spirit of God. When God saves us, then we are freed from sin and enslaved to God and to faith and good works, Rom. 6:22. This is the gift of God. Rom.6:23. When God saves us, then we are able, enpowered to "save yourself and those who hear you". 1Tim.4:16. Love to all, Hoffco

 

[Jabberjaw]

What part of "on occasion" don't you understand? lol Also, it still stands, as were your own words, that to be baptized without accepting Christ is, basically, just getting wet. Exactly my point! You accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior through what He did and believe, and then later get baptized. Hence, first saving faith, to then be baptized as an outward expression of our inner renewal. You know, us being part of his death, burial, and resurrection that is the new life we have. Old nature cast off, and being born again. Hence, baptism doesn't save, but it is of importance to do as a manner of an outward expression of our faith and also a representation of the belief in our heart, to the world (those witnessing it). Baptism in reality shows a belief on the inside, through the outside.

All 8 conversions in the NT were water baptized, show one that was not.

When did the Eunuch rejoice? after he believed? (Acts 8:37) :

Acts 8:37 (NKJV)
Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

or after he was water baptized? (Acts 8:39) :

Acts 8:39 (NKJV)
Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

[Hoffco]

Why is"believes" in Jh. 3:16 in the subjunctive case? and not the indicative case? It shows that faith by it self does not save. v,21 says, only an obedient faith saves; but those who "do good deeds" come to Jesus for salvation. Real faith always obeys. Love to all, Hoffco

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Now why would you stop your emphases at "word"?

"they that gladly recieved his word were baptized" and after baptism they were added to the church.

Nice twist. That is not what the passage says, It says 300 were added to the church. That is not the context. The context is those who were believed were saved, Then they were baptized.

And also nice you ignored everything else i wrote. Why is that?

It is in the encapsulated word "believeth" here "believeth" means the same as Mark 16:16 with the same requirements else we have a contradiction, and we know the bible does not contradict its self.

Your right it does not contradict itself. The one which cays believe on is correct. the one that says belief and is baptised is added. You do not add the word baptize to the word belief, Thats adding to the word of God

He came to the world to save those who believe on him :

John 12:46 (NKJV)
[SUP]46 [/SUP]I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.

but note what happens when one does not receive His words ("My words" is plural, meaning all including baptism in Mark 16:16) :

John 12:48 (NKJV)
[SUP]48 [/SUP]He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

lol. So the whole gospel is based on ONE verse in the bible.

Wow.. Now i have seen it all.

 

[Hoffco]

The thief on the cross was never baptized in water, only by the Spirit. Love to all, Hoffco

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The you is second person singular, Paul was addressing those who thought being baptized by one person is better than another and as can be seen in verse 15, he was glad he did not baptize any of them (second person singular meaning those who he was face to face with) so they could not say they were better or worse because he baptized them. your twisting this scripture.

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

He was glad he did not baptize any of those (second person singular) he was face to face with so that they could not boast they were baptized by him.

It does not say he did not baptize.

lol So you look at tense and person when it suits your belief. But reject it when it does not (ie ects 2: 38)

wow. And again you true self shines through

 

[BenFTW]

All 8 conversions in the NT were water baptized, show one that was not.

When did the Eunuch rejoice? after he believed? (Acts 8:37) :

Acts 8:37 (NKJV)
Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

or after he was water baptized? (Acts 8:39) :

Acts 8:39 (NKJV)
Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

From a site, it might reveal my perspective better than I have worded it:

Baptism clearly is commanded by God for those who have believed and been saved.[SUP](1)[/SUP] Overwhelmingly the Bible stresses that a person is saved by grace through faith and that salvation is a gift of God, freely given, when one believes in Jesus Christ for their salvation. (Eph. 2:8-9) There is no question that baptism is an important first act of obedience of the one who has believed in Jesus Christ and received forgiveness of sin and eternal life. However, baptism, as presented in the New Testament, always follows belief and never is the basis for receiving salvation. Baptism, in the Scriptures, is part of one's outward public profession of belief in Jesus Christ as one's Savior and it initiates one into the local body of believers. It follows salvation and though important it is not necessary for salvation.




The clear teaching of the New Testament is that it is faith and faith alone that saves. At least sixty times the New Testament states that salvation is received by faith with no mention of baptism. In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul parallels baptism with circumcision and in Romans 4:9-12, denies the "grace plus works for salvation" heresy by stating that Abraham was justified by God before he was circumcised. Circumcision was a practice commanded by the Lord to Israel and in believing God and outwardly acknowledging Him as a Jew by this sign, showed that he believed and identified himself with Jehovah God and as an Israelite. Circumcision never made anyone a Jew and likewise baptism does not make one a child of God. Like baptism, circumcision was an act of identification.

I think that is what I, more or less, subscribe to.

Just a bonus from the site:

• Applying Ephesians 2:8-9
  
  • "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)
    
    
    Often the baptismal regenerationist trying to reconcile his belief with Ephesians 2:8-9 will state that baptism is not a "work." However, the word translated "work" is the Greek noun ergon ergon er'-gon and means a "an act, deed, thing done" [SUP](2)[/SUP]. Baptism is indeed a physical act, to which a person submits and is physically immersed under water. It is the deliberate result of new believer exercising his will and agreeing to be baptized. This is the same word used in passages such as 1 Timothy 5:10, 25; 6:18, 2 Timothy 3:17, which refer to "good works" (kalos ergon). To silence any doubt note that the word is used in 2 Timothy 4:14, "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works(ergon)." There can be no mistake that the word means some action a person takes. Alexander the coppersmith's evil deeds were acts or works he committed.