So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[ltwin]

So then, like only those Israelites who placed the blood on their doors were saved, so too, only those who are baptized are saved.

That sounds very Catholic

But they had the blood of the lamb applied before they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea. Death passed over them before they left Egypt. And yet, Egypt did not want to let them go, it attempted to cling to them and keep them from advancing and walking in their freedom and deliverance. The enemy that wants to pull us back and take away what God has given us must be buried. If we are to fully walk in the freedom Christ has given us, our old natures must die. Baptism gives us that finality. It gives those who are in faith an assurance that the old has gone and the new has come. When the enemy comes and tries to accuse us and steal what God has given us, we know that we are washed in the blood of the lamb and that we have been baptized, and we know that that means we are free indeed.

Just as the children of God were free from judgment and death at passover, we are free from death and judgment when we come to the Cross. Yet, the Hebrew’s freedom was not secure until they passed through the sea. Likewise, we need the power of baptism to allow us to fully walk in the deliverance we already have.

 

[PRmerger]

But they had the blood of the lamb applied before they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea.

What do you mean by “baptized into Moses”?

 

[Jon_S_1]

But they had the blood of the lamb applied before they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea. Death passed over them before they left Egypt. And yet, Egypt did not want to let them go, it attempted to cling to them and keep them from advancing and walking in their freedom and deliverance. The enemy that wants to pull us back and take away what God has given us must be buried. If we are to fully walk in the freedom Christ has given us, our old natures must die. Baptism gives us that finality. It gives those who are in faith an assurance that the old has gone and the new has come. When the enemy comes and tries to accuse us and steal what God has given us, we know that we are washed in the blood of the lamb and that we have been baptized, and we know that that means we are free indeed.

Just as the children of God were free from judgment and death at passover, we are free from death and judgment when we come to the Cross. Yet, the Hebrew’s freedom was not secure until they passed through the sea. Likewise, we need the power of baptism to allow us to fully walk in the deliverance we already have.

Ltwin,

Perhaps it’s because you backed yourself in the corner, but this is the most convoluted, ridiculous intellectual contortion that I have ever seen.

Keep clinging to your error, even to the absurd!

But alas, I will follow you down this path.

You say the Israelites were saved at Passover and confirmed after they escaped through the sea.

If this is a true analogy, then why did the Osraelites “publicly display the blood as a sign of their faith?”

Surely the angel of death knew who “was saved” without the blood on the door.

Also,

If the Israelites had chosen not to go through the Red Sea, or to wait around for a few months or years to go through the Red Sea, they would have been killed. They would not have been saved.

Only those who passed through the water were saved, just as Noah and his family were saved by entering the ark.

So why is this symbol so unimportant to you ?

We all know why …because it was thrown out with the bath water by your reformers and now you are stuck trying to defend the indefensible.

Come on home man, it all makes sense over here…

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So then, like only those Israelites who placed the blood on their doors were saved, so too, only those who are baptized are saved.

That sounds very Catholic

Oh, yeah, and to paraphrase St. Peter: that promise was for them and their families!

If a first-born son was an infant, then the act of the father saved the son!

 

[ltwin]

Yes, this is what is called “moral assurance” of our salvation.

But it is not assurance in the way you have posited.

How have I posited it? I’ve been saying the same thing in all my posts.

Well, if you mean a general moral assurance that God will save us, then, yes.

But, as you acknowledge, one can think he’s a true believer when he’s actually a faux believer.

That means no one can be assured of his own personal salvation.

Yes, we can if we stand on the Word of God and believe in his promises. If we fail to walk in the promise and come up with our own reasons for why we deserve to be saved, then of course we can’t have real assurance for ourselves.

Yep. Exactly. An individual cannot be assured of his salvation. At least, not until he actually is, well, saved, and enjoying the Beatific Vision.

An individual is not assured that he will persevere, which is why real assurance is never presumption.But we are told that if we persevere in him he will never let us go. Assurance is not about insulting God’s grace or presuming that if we keep on sinning there will be sacrifice for sins. Assurance is about resting in God’s promises. And he has given us the means to examine ourselves.

And this includes judging OURSELVES. Maybe even primarily, since we can so easily “justify” our own sins.

1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.

If St. Paul couldn’t have this “assurance of salvation”, how much less should you & I?

Paul also said to “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

Of course, we can’t take the place of Christ and judge others or ourselves. Yet, we are commanded to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith. Paul would not have told us to do that if we could not. This is actually a part of sanctification. Unless we take on the task of working out our salvation in fear and trembling and examining ourselves to see if we are in the faith, the Holy Spirit’s work of purification and refinement is hindered in our lives.

He also says: “if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:31-32). Likewise, he says, “In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God” (Romans 15:17). Paul did examine and judge his work and he concluded there was reason to be proud.

He writes to us in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-24,

We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.

That is our assurance. Not presumption. Not arrogance. Simple trust in him because he is worthy of our trust. Yes, we know this in a general way, but I would say that no one can truly trust in Jesus Christ unless by the Holy Spirit. All of us can read this and acknowledge it on an intellectual level, but those whom Christ abides in know this on a deeper level because they know Christ and are known by him.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, yeah, and to paraphrase St. Peter: that promise was for them and their families!

If a first-born son was an infant, then the act of the father saved the son!

Indeed. I think this is a perfect example that demonstrates that ltwin’s position below is untenable.

Salvation is not about what our parents can do for us, but what Christ has done.

The mercy and grace that God bestows on infants has everything to do with Christ and his merit. It is not contingent upon the actions of the parents.

Clearly, the Scriptures have given examples of salvation that is contingent upon the actions of one’s parents.

 

[PRmerger]

How have I posited it? I’ve been saying the same thing in all my posts.

If by “assurance of salvation”, you mean that God keeps his promises, and that all of us have a generalized assurance that salvation is possible, then

Yes, we can if we stand on the Word of God and believe in his promises. If we fail to walk in the promise and come up with our own reasons for why we deserve to be saved, then of course we can’t have real assurance for ourselves.

Yep. A very conditional assurance it is, then.

An individual is not assured that he will persevere, which is why real assurance is never presumption.But we are told that if we persevere in him he will never let us go. Assurance is not about insulting God’s grace or presuming that if we keep on sinning there will be sacrifice for sins. Assurance is about resting in God’s promises. And he has given us the means to examine ourselves.

 

[ltwin]

What do you mean by “baptized into Moses”?

1 Corinthians 10:2

 

[FathersKnowBest]

An individual is not assured that he will persevere,

Guess that’s the bottom line. Oh, and definitely Catholic teaching!!!

Paul also said to “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

:yup:
That’s why Catholics are told to make an “examination of conscience” nightly, and why we do this before we confess our sins. Oh, and we do so communally at the beginning of every Mass.

He also says: “if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:31-32). Likewise, he says, “In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God” (Romans 15:17). Paul did examine and judge his work and he concluded there was reason to be proud.

This is perfectly Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

1 Corinthians 10:2

But what does that mean in your exegesis?

And why did you bring it up in the context of this discussion?

 

[ltwin]

You say the Israelites were saved at Passover and confirmed after they escaped through the sea.

If this is a true analogy, then why did the Osraelites “publicly display the blood as a sign of their faith?”

Surely the angel of death knew who “was saved” without the blood on the door.

Passover is a type of our salvation. The blood of the lamb is shed and it covers us. Death and judgment pass over us. The Hebrews could leave their homes and thus the covering of the blood if they so choose. That illustrates the possibility of rejecting salvation.

There is no forgiveness of sins without the blood of Christ. The blood must be applied. If there had been no blood at Passover, there would have been no Passover. That is God’s plan.

Also,

If the Israelites had chosen not to go through the Red Sea, or to wait around for a few months or years to go through the Red Sea, they would have been killed. They would not have been saved.

Only those who passed through the water were saved, just as Noah and his family were saved by entering the ark.

So why is this symbol so unimportant to you ?

It is important to me. I wish I would have been baptized the moment I was saved. In my case, it was years later. It was not because I didn’t believe that Jesus said be baptized. It was simply that I had never an urgency for it impressed upon me. When I was baptized, it was like an entirely new phase in my Christian walk. And I wish I had not waited so long.

I agree that there needs to be an urgency to baptism. I think your point is a good one. We don’t know how many professing Christians are out there who are succumbing to struggles and temptations in their walk with God because they have not been baptized.

Come on home man, it all makes sense over here…

Thanks for the warm invitation.

 

[ltwin]

Yep. A very conditional assurance it is, then.

Yep, this position is actually called “the conditional security of the believer.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

Passover is a type of our salvation. The blood of the lamb is shed and it covers us. Death and judgment pass over us. The Hebrews could leave their homes and thus the covering of the blood if they so choose. That illustrates the possibility of rejecting salvation.

There is no forgiveness of sins without the blood of Christ. The blood must be applied. If there had been no blood at Passover, there would have been no Passover. That is God’s plan.

It is important to me. I wish I would have been baptized the moment I was saved. In my case, it was years later. It was not because I didn’t believe that Jesus said be baptized. It was simply that I had never an urgency for it impressed upon me. **When I was baptized, it was like an entirely new phase in my Christian walk. **And I wish I had not waited so long.

I agree that there needs to be an urgency to baptism. I think your point is a good one. We don’t know how many professing Christians are out there who are succumbing to struggles and temptations in their walk with God because they have not been baptized.

Thanks for the warm invitation.

The bolded above…that is that infusion of grace we’ve been talking about

Sadly so many Christians just ignore baptism since they are already saved in their minds.

What an error brought about by this theology reducing baptism to mere symbol.

It is also that theology that made you have to wait so long to experience it.

 

[PRmerger]

Yep, this position is actually called “the conditional security of the believer.”

Called by whom?

I’ve not heard that phrase before.

 

[ltwin]

But what does that mean in your exegesis?

The people were baptized in or by Moses, meaning they followed him. They crossed the sea under his leadership and his direction as he stretched out his hands and God divided the waters.

And why did you bring it up in the context of this discussion?

To be clear. Just as Passover is a type of Christ’s atonement, so the people’s baptism by the hand of Moses is a type of our baptism.

 

[dmelosi]

The people were baptized in or by Moses, meaning they followed him. They crossed the sea under his leadership and his direction as he stretched out his hands and God divided the waters.

To be clear. Just as Passover is a type of Christ’s atonement, so the people’s baptism by the hand of Moses is a type of our baptism.

Were the people carrying any infants with them? Were the infants excluded from being baptized?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Passover is a type of our salvation. The blood of the lamb is shed and it covers us. Death and judgment pass over us. The Hebrews could leave their homes and thus the covering of the blood if they so choose. That illustrates the possibility of rejecting salvation.

There is no forgiveness of sins without the blood of Christ. The blood must be applied.

And the flesh of the Lamb must be eaten. Don’t disregard this. It’s very important.

 

[ltwin]

It is also that theology that made you have to wait so long to experience it.

No. I don’t believe that… Like I said, there wasn’t an urgency for baptism that was impressed on me, but that is not the reason I never got baptized. There were opportunities that I had to be baptized. Our family had a baptism in our pool once. The preacher there asked me if I wanted to be baptized, but I declined.

I can’t honestly blame what I was taught. Because I was taught that baptism was a command of Christ. It was not the theology that was problematic, but something in me. I knew what Jesus had commanded., but I disobeyed. I have no excuse.

Called by whom?

I’ve not heard that phrase before.

Conditional and unconditional security are standard descriptors for the two opposing theological positions that evangelical Christians adopt on this issue. Sometimes, the terms “perseverance” or “preservation” are used instead of “security.” Many times, “eternal security” is used instead of “unconditional security.” There is a Wikipedia article on it (I haven’t read it, so can’t vouch for its accuracy!)

Gotquestions.org answers the question “What is conditional security” from a decidedly negative perspective.

If you want an explanation from people who actually believe in conditional security, I’d suggest reading “The Security of the Believer”, an Assemblies of God position paper. While I don’t see where it ever actually uses the phrase “conditional security” it does explicitly state on the very first page, “The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the** unconditional security** position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost.”

Also, Steve Sewell at the Society of Evangelical Arminians has written “A Case for Conditional Security, and Why It’s Not a Works-Salvation”.

 

[PRmerger]

The people were baptized in or by Moses, meaning they followed him. They crossed the sea under his leadership and his direction as he stretched out his hands and God divided the waters.

Ah. I see then.

To be clear. Just as Passover is a type of Christ’s atonement, so the people’s baptism by the hand of Moses is a type of our baptism.

The Passover, it appears in your initial reference to it, was also a type of baptism.

Are we agreed on that?

And are we agreed that the first born sons were saved by an action done by their parents?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Ltwin,

You may have personal responsibility as to your delay in baptism but it was not all you. It was a bit of apathy fed by the unimportance of a mere symbol or outward expression. It’s like if the pastor had asked you to put a fish sticker on your card…“whatever” is the response.

If your pastor had been teaching how Christians must be baptized and that you get real grace from baptism, then people, yourself included would’ve lined up.