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

[PRmerger]

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.

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”.

It sounds like a relatively new buzz phrase.

Do you have any references that the ECFs used this phrase? Or even any of the Reformers?

Just curious.

 

[pablope]

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.

A type???

Or did you mean a forerunner?

 

[Porknpie]

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.

Itwin, I’m confused now on this point. Why is baptism needed and what power does baptism bestow if it is symbolic?

 

[benhur]

“All salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body…”

Amen. For faith cometh by hearing and that by the word of God, and for God chose that by the foolishness of the preaching should men be saved. And of course it is very catholic that there is grace and salvation outside of fellowship with Rome as there has been inside.

 

[benhur]

In what sense?

Well is it an adjective as well as as a noun, or is one or the other and for whom and what is the history ?

 

[ltwin]

It sounds like a relatively new buzz phrase.

Do you have any references that the ECFs used this phrase?

No.

Or even any of the Reformers?

No.

Just curious.

I don’t know how old the terminology is. I do know the debate over perseverance is not a new one.

One of the five articles of the Remonstrance of 1610 was about the uncertainty of perseverance.

FIFTH ARTICLE.

The Uncertainty of Perseverance.—Although grace is sufficient and abundant to preserve the faithful through all trials and temptations for life everlasting, it has not yet been proved from the Scriptures that grace, once given, can never be lost.

On this point the disciples of Arminius went further, and taught the possibility of a total and final fall of believers from grace. They appealed to such passages where believers are warned against this very danger, and to such examples as Solomon and Judas. They moreover denied, with the Roman Catholics, that any body can have a certainty of salvation except by special revelation.

 

[ltwin]

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

Are we agreed on that?

If you mean is Passover a type of baptism, I’d say no. Though crossing the Red Sea was a type of baptism.

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

Their parents put the blood on the doorpost in obedience to the instructions given them. But it was the slaughter of the lamb and shedding its blood that saved them.

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

Yes, I imagine there were infants, and they did cross the Red Sea with their parents and baptized by Moses. In the New Testament, we aren’t told to wait until our children are all born and with us to be baptized. Jesus told the apostles to make disciples and to baptize. We are taught, we believe and repent, and we are baptized.

A type???

Or did you mean a forerunner?

Yes, a type is a person or thing that represents someone or something else.

Itwin, I’m confused now on this point. Why is baptism needed and what power does baptism bestow if it is symbolic?

It’s a symbol. It’s symbolic, but it is not a mere symbol if it is entered into in faith. Baptism, as Jack Hayford says, is a “miracle moment” (Living the Spirit-Formed Life, p. 53)

Water baptism is not just a church tradition. It is a miracle moment!

In it I obey the lordship of Jesus. In it I welcome the Holy Spirit. In it I bury my past. In it my heart is circumcised so new life power and God’s fullest promise for my life might be realized. In it every bondage and every yoke is broken, and my future is opened to fullest freedom in Christ that I may arise and walk in the life-giving power of my living Savior.

Like Jesus, when we are baptized the heavens open and the Father says, “I am pleased with you” and the Holy Spirit is present. We are called to be baptized not just to fulfill a command but to abide in the truths of baptism.

 

[PRmerger]

If you mean is Passover a type of baptism, I’d say no. Though crossing the Red Sea was a type of baptism.

Ok.

Their parents put the blood on the doorpost in obedience to the instructions given them. But it was the slaughter of the lamb and shedding its blood that saved them.

Well, that’s similar to baptism. Our parents baptize us in obedience to the instructions given to them, but it was the atoning death of the Lamb and shedding of His blood that saved us.

At any rate, we have an example of something that PARENTS do that saved the child.

That is in direct contrast to your position that parents cannot do anything that offers salvation.

Yes, I imagine there were infants, and they did cross the Red Sea with their parents and baptized by Moses. In the New Testament, we aren’t told to wait until our children are all born and with us to be baptized. Jesus told the apostles to make disciples and to baptize. We are taught, we believe and repent, and we are baptized.

I think at one point you had mentioned that the "households being baptized"argument was not a “slam dunk” in favor of infant baptism.

And, of course, we all ought to agree on that. There is no one particular verse or apologia that can serve as a “slam dunk” for this.

However, given all of the rest of the thread, in particular the parents saving of the child by spreading blood on the lintels and the precursor to baptism in the Red Sea including infants, one ought to be able to see a very, very good argument arising for infant baptism.

 

[ltwin]

Well, that’s similar to baptism. Our parents baptize us in obedience to the instructions given to them, but it was the atoning death of the Lamb and shedding of His blood that saved us.

Where are parents instructed to baptize their infant children?

At any rate, we have an example of something that PARENTS do that saved the child.

That is in direct contrast to your position that parents cannot do anything that offers salvation.

Parents can obey God and bring salvation of children by that means as yielded vessels, just as pastors bring salvation when they preach the gospel. We can obey God to teach our children to love the Lord, and our obedience will be blessed as we see our child loving the Lord as he/she grows. Yet, it is always God who saves, and it is always personal salvation. We can be an instrument of God in the lives of our children and others, but salvation is always a matter of personally receiving Jesus and personal discipleship.

I think at one point you had mentioned that the “households being baptized” was not a “slam dunk” in favor of infant baptism.

And, of course, we all ought to agree on that. There is no one particular verse or apologia that can serve as a “slam dunk” for this.

However, given all of the rest of the thread, in particular the parents saving of the child by spreading blood on the lintels and the precursor to baptism in the Red Sea including infants, one ought to be able to see a very, very good argument arising for infant baptism.

Except that in the New Testament, both the Lord’s Supper and baptism, take on personal qualities. Unlike the Passover, the Lord’s Supper becomes a meal only for those who can discern the Lord’s body. Those that can’t bring judgment on themselves. In baptism, there is a personal response to the piercing of the heart by Holy Spirit-filled preaching.

I don’t deny that in many places in Scripture God deals with households as single units, as he often deals with nations as single units. That does not negate the very personal quality of salvation. It is not enough that God has given us promises and blessings in Christ. All of those promises are yes and amen. But we must lay hold of those promises and blessings for ourselves. If we will not, no one else can do it for us.

 

[BeingSaved]

:tiphat:

It sounds like a relatively new buzz phrase.

Do you have any references that the ECFs used this phrase? Or even any of the Reformers?

Just curious.

This is not a new 'buzz phrase" and is a quote directly from the Bible which was
what the Earliest Church Fathers preached and taught ie. Paul and Peter.

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 16:31Bible quote

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

:tiphat:

 

[PRmerger]

:tiphat:

This is not a new 'buzz phrase" and is a quote directly from the Bible which was
what the Earliest Church Fathers preached and taught ie. Paul and Peter.

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 16:31Bible quote

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

:tiphat:

We are talking about the term “conditional security”, BeingSaved.

Of course, “conditional security” is very much a Catholic concept, as I understand it as it is being presented.

However, I asked where the ECFs or Reformers used that term.

You quoted Acts and Romans.

But I do not see the phrase “conditional security” there.

 

[PRmerger]

Where are parents instructed to baptize their infant children?

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1213

Parents can obey God and bring salvation of children by that means as yielded vessels, just as pastors bring salvation when they preach the gospel. We can obey God to teach our children to love the Lord, and our obedience will be blessed as we see our child loving the Lord as he/she grows. Yet, it is always God who saves, and it is always personal salvation. We can be an instrument of God in the lives of our children and others, but salvation is always a matter of personally receiving Jesus and personal discipleship.

Very Catholic, this!

Except that in the New Testament, both the Lord’s Supper and baptism, take on personal qualities. Unlike the Passover, the Lord’s Supper becomes a meal only for those who can discern the Lord’s body. Those that can’t bring judgment on themselves. In baptism, there is a personal response to the piercing of the heart by Holy Spirit-filled preaching.

This appears to be a nonsequitur, ltwin.

I don’t deny that in many places in Scripture God deals with households as single units, as he often deals with nations as single units. That does not negate the very personal quality of salvation.

Indeed.

The CC teaches that there is indeed a “personal quality of salvation.”

It is not enough that God has given us promises and blessings in Christ. All of those promises are yes and amen. But we must lay hold of those promises and blessings for ourselves.

Yep.

If we will not, no one else can do it for us.

I dunno.

I pray every day for folks, offering them before the eternal throne of heaven, asking for their conversion.

I know that my prayers are efficacious.

Thus, I have done something for them.

 

[BeingSaved]

I quoted the Earliest Church Fathers, the ones that preached the gospel in the NT itself.

(are you joking around on these pages,…I read back a few, and I think you may be being lightheard, correct?)

 

[PRmerger]

I quoted the Earliest Church Fathers, the ones that preached the gospel in the NT itself.

Please show me the phrase “conditional security” in these writings.

Thanks.

are you joking around on these pages,…I read back a few, and I think you may be being lightheard, correct?)

 

[ltwin]

I dunno.

I pray every day for folks, offering them before the eternal throne of heaven, asking for their conversion.

I know that my prayers are efficacious.

Thus, I have done something for them.

Yes, you have done what Christians are called to do. The prayers of righteous people are effective, and I believe that God answers those prayers. Even so, you have not believed for them. You have not repented of their sins. They have to do that by the power of the Holy Spirit.

When you pray for people, asking for their conversion, do you ask that God will accept your faith and your repentance on their behalf? In other words, do you pray that they will be saved because they know you and you know Christ? Or do you pray that the Holy Spirit will quicken them, making them alive in Christ and dead to sin? Or in other words, do you pray that they will come to know Christ and his love for themselves?

 

[BeingSaved]

Please show me the phrase “conditional security” in these writings.

Thanks.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

ok, i read back a tad and now somewhat see what you are talking about,
to answer your question, of course they "don’t use that phrase, “conditional security”.

lovely living room furnishings you have… lol

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, you have done what Christians are called to do. The prayers of righteous people are effective, and I believe that God answers those prayers. Even so, you have not believed for them. You have not repented of their sins. They have to do that by the power of the Holy Spirit.

When you pray for people, asking for their conversion, do you ask that God will accept your faith and your repentance on their behalf? In other words, do you pray that they will be saved because they know you and you know Christ? Or do you pray that the Holy Spirit will quicken them, making them alive in Christ and dead to sin? Or in other words, do you pray that they will come to know Christ and his love for themselves?

It’s the good old Catholic both/and.

I do ask that God looks at my faith and applies it to those for whom I pray. I do this especially for my children.

I pray at mass during the consecration, “Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief. Lord, I believe. Help our unbelief.” I pray that God will not see their unbelief but rather the faith of the Church.

And, of course, I pray that they may come to the knowledge of truth themselves.

 

[PRmerger]

ok, i read back a tad and now somewhat see what you are talking about,
to answer your question, of course they "don’t use that phrase, “conditional security”.

That’s what I’m saying.

It’s a new buzz phrase. A tradition that wasn’t in vogue 500 years ago.

 

[ltwin]

I’m pretty sure the exact phrases “conditional security” and “unconditional security” are not in the Bible.

Searching Google Books, I found the following work published in 1790 by a Thomas Olivers entitled:* A Full Refutation of the Doctrine of Unconditional Perseverance: In a Discourse on Hebrews, Chapter Ii. Verse 3. In which the Possibility and Danger of the Total and Final Apostacy of True Believers is Demonstrated: and the Epistle to the Hebrews is Shown*.

When I specifically searched for the phrase “conditional security” in the advanced search option, the earliest theological work that came up was a 1645 work by Samuel Lane entitled: A vindication of free-grace:: in opposition to this Arminian position, (Naturall men may do such things as whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation.) / First preached, after asserted at Stephens Coleman-steete [sic] London, by Mr. John Goodvvin. Also an appendix proving the souls enjoying Christ after death, afore the Resurrection, against some errours hereafter specified.

Neither of these books are downloadable or searchable on Google Books, so I can’t really find out how these terms are being used.

 

[BeingSaved]

We are talking about the term “conditional security”, BeingSaved.

Of course, “conditional security” is very much a Catholic concept, as I understand it as it is being presented.

However, I asked where the ECFs or Reformers used that term.

You quoted Acts and Romans.

But I do not see the phrase “conditional security” there.

During my short walk with the Lord and study in the H. Bible I have come across plenty of scripture that supports conditional security and also scripture that supports unconditional security. I haven’t done a tally as to how many seem to line up on either side.

If I did one, could we decide which is the most “correct” idea, by which one had the highest number of supporting scripture? Probably not.

Perhaps the final answer is somewhere in between the two positions.

Sorry about jumping into the discussion at the end and its late,…

What conclusion have you come to regarding this idea?

I can see both, yes we are saved,(one time) and then changed more and more into His image.(progressive)

Saved, and also being saved, more and more,…as it is worked out in our daily lives…
also God saves us continually from things coming against us in life,…He delivers us from other people’s sins against us, and from even our thinking as we renew our minds

Then at the same time, we can choose to leave Him, however, no one who understands fully, ever really would leave Him,…but maybe through being deceived, we do, however,
there are scriptures that still talk about us in His hand, ie. and no one can take us out of there…