Forest Bueller III said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think Scripture provides a lot of information we should consider.

In all the accounts listed, we have seen people saved whom many would expect to be lost, including foreign soldiers, prostitutes, tax collectors and at least one murderer. We have also seen people condemned by God who might seem to be obedient servants of God, including priests and high officials.

My point is that we should, all of us, make sure we are humble and focused on God rather than our own pride.

That pride extends to discussion about what God requires of us.

---

"For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." For the scripture says everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame.

Anything beyond that as far as requirements for salvation is sketchy at best.

The heart is the innermost being of a man, believing in your heart is not mental ascent, it is a total reliance on Jesus Christ for your salvation, knowing you bring nothing to the table assisting your own salvation.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

---

Don't forget the next verse. 10 "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

I mean we all need to be clear that it's not insinuating that we should refrain from fighting sin or behaving like Christ or we're guilty of works righteousness.

The person who willingly sins, doesn't care about it, doesn't repent, it doesn't move his heart, no shame etc…yeah that guy doesn't genuinely believe and likely won't be saved.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's say, for example, that a person has the heart change resulting from salvation, and appears to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but doesn't get baptized? ...Let's just say he forgot and didn't get around to it.

---

Think about what you just wrote there.

---

So if you just didn't get around to it, or say were nervous to do so in front of a crowd of people, there is no heart change. That is your position? And it is blatantly self evident, apparently?

Let's say the person is saved, and then dies a month later because he didn't get around to it.

---

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What hinders me from being baptized?"

Acts 8:35-36

An individual's intentional meaningless delay or rejection of baptism is in fact evidence that a heart has not been changed.

---

Incredible that you are able to make eternal judgments simply because a ministerial act that scripture is clear isn't necessary for salvation wasn't performed.

That is nothing short of heresy.

Forest Bueller III said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think Scripture provides a lot of information we should consider.

In all the accounts listed, we have seen people saved whom many would expect to be lost, including foreign soldiers, prostitutes, tax collectors and at least one murderer. We have also seen people condemned by God who might seem to be obedient servants of God, including priests and high officials.

My point is that we should, all of us, make sure we are humble and focused on God rather than our own pride.

That pride extends to discussion about what God requires of us.

---

"For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." For the scripture says everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame.

Anything beyond that as far as requirements for salvation is sketchy at best.

The heart is the innermost being of a man, believing in your heart is not mental ascent, it is a total reliance on Jesus Christ for your salvation, knowing you bring nothing to the table assisting your own salvation.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

---

Bingo. Glad to see we have someone who believes the plain language of scripture.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's say, for example, that a person has the heart change resulting from salvation, and appears to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but doesn't get baptized? ...Let's just say he forgot and didn't get around to it.

---

Think about what you just wrote there.

---

So if you just didn't get around to it, or say were nervous to do so in front of a crowd of people, there is no heart change. That is your position? And it is blatantly self evident, apparently?

Let's say the person is saved, and then dies a month later because he didn't get around to it. Going to hell in your book? Does that demonstrate his heart change wasn't real in your eternal judgment?

How about this. Let's say the person doesn't believe that the sacraments area prerequisite for salvation. Let's say he doesn't believe he has to engage in communion. Evidence he's not truly saved in your Orthodox heart?

---

You're trying to push us into making absolute, black-and-white judgments about edge cases so you can force us into your position and framework. We don't accept your framework.

For us it's not "do this one thing and your ticket to heaven is punched".

So stop trying to argue on your terms and instead justify why your framework is correct to begin with. Why do you think salvation is a legal arrangement?

---

No, I am instead trying to get you to answer a question from a Catholic legalistic framework, and you simply refuse to do it, likely because you understand the implications and don't want to go on record.

Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, as you should know. The idea that someone who didn't get baptized or take communion is condemned is just not a position supported by scripture.

The irony here is the only person arguing for a legal arrangement is yourself. It is by grace we have been saved, and not by works. Salvation is demonstrated by a changed heart, not some contract with God. And as long as we have a changed heart and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are saved, regardless of whether we got sprinkled or ate bread and drank wine - as you should well know.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think Scripture provides a lot of information we should consider.

In all the accounts listed, we have seen people saved whom many would expect to be lost, including foreign soldiers, prostitutes, tax collectors and at least one murderer. We have also seen people condemned by God who might seem to be obedient servants of God, including priests and high officials.

My point is that we should, all of us, make sure we are humble and focused on God rather than our own pride.

That pride extends to discussion about what God requires of us.

---

"For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." For the scripture says everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame.

Anything beyond that as far as requirements for salvation is sketchy at best.

The heart is the innermost being of a man, believing in your heart is not mental ascent, it is a total reliance on Jesus Christ for your salvation, knowing you bring nothing to the table assisting your own salvation.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

---

Don't forget the next verse. 10 "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

I mean we all need to be clear that it's not insinuating that we should refrain from fighting sin or behaving like Christ or we're guilty of works righteousness.

The person who willingly sins, doesn't care about it, doesn't repent, it doesn't move his heart, no shame etc…yeah that guy doesn't genuinely believe and likely won't be saved.

---

Honestly, who here has said otherwise? Forest is merely pointing out that works - such as sacraments - do not save us. The way we live is the evidence of a changed heart. So, the person who goes on sinning with abandon, very hard to argue that his or her heart was in fact changed.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's say, for example, that a person has the heart change resulting from salvation, and appears to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but doesn't get baptized? ...Let's just say he forgot and didn't get around to it.

---

Think about what you just wrote there.

---

So if you just didn't get around to it, or say were nervous to do so in front of a crowd of people, there is no heart change. That is your position? And it is blatantly self evident, apparently?

Let's say the person is saved, and then dies a month later because he didn't get around to it. Going to hell in your book? Does that demonstrate his heart change wasn't real in your eternal judgment?

How about this. Let's say the person doesn't believe that the sacraments area prerequisite for salvation. Let's say he doesn't believe he has to engage in communion. Evidence he's not truly saved in your Orthodox heart?

---

You're trying to push us into making absolute, black-and-white judgments about edge cases so you can force us into your position and framework. We don't accept your framework.

For us it's not "do this one thing and your ticket to heaven is punched".

So stop trying to argue on your terms and instead justify why your framework is correct to begin with. Why do you think salvation is a legal arrangement?

---

No, I am instead trying to get you to answer a question from a Catholic legalistic framework, and you simply refuse to do it, likely because you understand the implications and don't want to go on record.

Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, as you should know. The idea that someone who didn't get baptized or take communion is condemned is just not a position supported by scripture.

The irony here is the only person arguing for a legal arrangement is yourself. It is by grace we have been saved, and not by works. Salvation is demonstrated by a changed heart, not some contract with God. And as long as we have a changed heart and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are saved, regardless of whether we got sprinkled or ate bread and drank wine - as you should well know.

---

Those aren't my positions and I'm not Catholic.

Do you even understand Eastern Orthodox salvation?

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's say, for example, that a person has the heart change resulting from salvation, and appears to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but doesn't get baptized? ...Let's just say he forgot and didn't get around to it.

---

Think about what you just wrote there.

---

So if you just didn't get around to it, or say were nervous to do so in front of a crowd of people, there is no heart change. That is your position? And it is blatantly self evident, apparently?

Let's say the person is saved, and then dies a month later because he didn't get around to it.

---

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What hinders me from being baptized?"

Acts 8:35-36

An individual's intentional meaningless delay or rejection of baptism is in fact evidence that a heart has not been changed.

---

Incredible that you are able to make eternal judgments simply because a ministerial act that scripture is clear isn't necessary for salvation wasn't performed.

That is nothing short of heresy.

---

And your low view of baptism as a ministerial act is heresy. Even Jesus - who clearly did not need to be baptized - was baptized. Saint John the Forerunner said something like that to him: hey, you of all people don't need this. And what was Jesus' response? Did he say, my bad Cuz, you're right? Or did he say something else? After his baptism, what happened? Nothing? Or did something happen as a result of his obedience?

This sort of argument is why Baptists and Methodists sometimes bicker about what sort of baptism counts.

Jesus loves you, but even He face palms at some of what believers say to other believers.

The_barBEARian said:

---

"Jews have been in Europe since the Roman Empire, but they've been a foreign element in Europe, right?"

"So, that, Fuentes is right about. That's one thing that he's correct about. Another thing that he's correct about is that the organized Jewish community, Jewish… pic.twitter.com/QS77uK5kQA

— Seethroughitall (@seethroughit2) March 19, 2026

---

Here's one you missed.

Few people know this, but Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 because of Israel.

Bibi Netanyahu himself approved it (before he was replaced by AI).

I have the dreams to prove it. pic.twitter.com/RjDLyXkjdx

— Han Shawnity 🇺🇸 (@HanShawnity) March 20, 2026

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's say, for example, that a person has the heart change resulting from salvation, and appears to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but doesn't get baptized? ...Let's just say he forgot and didn't get around to it.

---

Think about what you just wrote there.

---

So if you just didn't get around to it, or say were nervous to do so in front of a crowd of people, there is no heart change. That is your position? And it is blatantly self evident, apparently?

Let's say the person is saved, and then dies a month later because he didn't get around to it. Going to hell in your book? Does that demonstrate his heart change wasn't real in your eternal judgment?

How about this. Let's say the person doesn't believe that the sacraments area prerequisite for salvation. Let's say he doesn't believe he has to engage in communion. Evidence he's not truly saved in your Orthodox heart?

---

You're trying to push us into making absolute, black-and-white judgments about edge cases so you can force us into your position and framework. We don't accept your framework.

For us it's not "do this one thing and your ticket to heaven is punched".

So stop trying to argue on your terms and instead justify why your framework is correct to begin with. Why do you think salvation is a legal arrangement?

---

No, I am instead trying to get you to answer a question from a Catholic legalistic framework, and you simply refuse to do it, likely because you understand the implications and don't want to go on record.

Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, as you should know. The idea that someone who didn't get baptized or take communion is condemned is just not a position supported by scripture.

The irony here is the only person arguing for a legal arrangement is yourself. It is by grace we have been saved, and not by works. Salvation is demonstrated by a changed heart, not some contract with God. And as long as we have a changed heart and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are saved, regardless of whether we got sprinkled or ate bread and drank wine - as you should well know.

---

Those aren't my positions and I'm not Catholic.

Do you even understand Eastern Orthodox salvation?

---

Do you remember the subject of our discussion? It was my questioning your defense of Catholicism, and you defending your defenses of their beliefs regarding salvation.

Context is important here, and I think you seem to have forgotten the subject of our discussion.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's say, for example, that a person has the heart change resulting from salvation, and appears to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but doesn't get baptized? ...Let's just say he forgot and didn't get around to it.

---

Think about what you just wrote there.

---

So if you just didn't get around to it, or say were nervous to do so in front of a crowd of people, there is no heart change. That is your position? And it is blatantly self evident, apparently?

Let's say the person is saved, and then dies a month later because he didn't get around to it.

---

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What hinders me from being baptized?"

Acts 8:35-36

An individual's intentional meaningless delay or rejection of baptism is in fact evidence that a heart has not been changed.

---

Incredible that you are able to make eternal judgments simply because a ministerial act that scripture is clear isn't necessary for salvation wasn't performed.

That is nothing short of heresy.

---

And your low view of baptism as a ministerial act is heresy. Even Jesus - who clearly did not need to be baptized - was baptized. Saint John the Forerunner said something like that to him: hey, you of all people don't need this. And what was Jesus' response? Did he say, my bad Cuz, you're right? Or did he say something else? After his baptism, what happened? Nothing? Or did something happen as a result of his obedience?

---

Baptism doesn't save us. So whether it's getting sprinkled or dunking, it's nothing more than a public expression to the world of an inward heart change. The change has already occurred, and there is nothing that occurs during baptism, spiritually speaking.

We also know it's not a prerequisite to salvation.

Forest Bueller III said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think Scripture provides a lot of information we should consider.

In all the accounts listed, we have seen people saved whom many would expect to be lost, including foreign soldiers, prostitutes, tax collectors and at least one murderer. We have also seen people condemned by God who might seem to be obedient servants of God, including priests and high officials.

My point is that we should, all of us, make sure we are humble and focused on God rather than our own pride.

That pride extends to discussion about what God requires of us.

---

"For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." For the scripture says everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame.

Anything beyond that as far as requirements for salvation is sketchy at best.

The heart is the innermost being of a man, believing in your heart is not mental ascent, it is a total reliance on Jesus Christ for your salvation, knowing you bring nothing to the table assisting your own salvation.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

---

Don't forget the next verse. 10 "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

I mean we all need to be clear that it's not insinuating that we should refrain from fighting sin or behaving like Christ or we're guilty of works righteousness.

The person who willingly sins, doesn't care about it, doesn't repent, it doesn't move his heart, no shame etc…yeah that guy doesn't genuinely believe and likely won't be saved.

---

100% agree. 100% agree we were prepared in advance to do good works in His name. Some who behave as if nothing has changed, nothing has not changed. No matter how many recitations or baptisms or communions they participate in, because as it is written salvation is from the heart and comes from belief that comes from the heart.

But, those whose hearts are moved to true belief in Christ, which is not mental ascent of His existence, but total reliance on Him for salvation. They are indeed saved, outside of our works of righteousness.

Isaiah 64:6 states: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away"(KJV).

Our righteous acts, no matter how good and well intended, will always fall short of His righteousness. And as written are as filthy rags when compared to the Righteous One. This is why our total reliance for salvation must be in His completed work of salvation.

---

Well said. This is the ONLY view that scripture reasonably supports.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Baptism doesn't save us. So whether it's getting sprinkled or dunking, it's nothing more than a public expression to the world of an inward heart change. The change has already occurred, and there is nothing that occurs during baptism, spiritually speaking.

We also know it's not a prerequisite to salvation.

---

The physical practice of baptism is not found in the Old Testament.

So why did Jesus of all people, insist on being baptized?

And did this event simply occur as a "ministerial act", or did something supernatural occur when he was baptized?

---

For the exact same reasons expressed in my post you responded to. It is an obedient act, which scripture says the believers is to engage in, just like the other sacraments mentioned. But it is not a salvific act. This much, scripture is crystal clear on. Indeed, there can be no reasonable debate that baptism is required for salvation. It's not, and the plain language of scripture is very clear on this point.

Those who recognize this truth aren't downplaying the importance of baptism. They merely recognize it is not a saving work, as you erroneously believe.

However, if you have some scriptural support that believers obtain some time of supernatural benefit by being baptized, please feel free to cite the scripture supporting your position.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Baptism doesn't save us. So whether it's getting sprinkled or dunking, it's nothing more than a public expression to the world of an inward heart change. The change has already occurred, and there is nothing that occurs during baptism, spiritually speaking.

We also know it's not a prerequisite to salvation.

---

The physical practice of baptism is not found in the Old Testament.

So why did Jesus of all people, insist on being baptized?

And did this event simply occur as a "ministerial act", or did something supernatural occur when he was baptized?

---

For the exact same reasons expressed in my post you responded to. It is an obedient act, which scripture says the believers is to engage in, just like the other sacraments mentioned. But it is not a salvific act. This much, scripture is crystal clear on. Indeed, there can be no reasonable debate that baptism is required for salvation. It's not, and the plain language of scripture is very clear on this point.

Those who recognize this truth aren't downplaying the importance of baptism. They merely recognize it is not a saving work, as you erroneously believe.

However, if you have some scriptural support that believers obtain some time of supernatural benefit by being baptized, please feel free to cite the scripture supporting your position.

---

What role does obedience play in salvation?

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not as the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," (1st Peter 3:21).

Which basically supports what I said. The refusal to be baptized is evidence of the lack of that pledge of a good conscience toward God.

The truly penitent man runs to the waters of baptism just like the Ethopian Eunuch.

Why are you looking for loopholes for disobedience?

---

What part of an "act of obedience" is difficult for you to understand? How is an "act of obedience" a loophole? And who on this thread said or suggested baptism isn't important?

Certainly not me. If a person is saved, he should get baptized. Scripture is very clear on this point. As stated for a third time, what scripture is also clear on is baptism, along with the other sacraments, is not a salvific work. That's the distinction you appear to be missing. Either that, or you are purposely mischaracterizing my comments.

Scripture is replete with verses that describe what constitutes salvation. Baptism is not mentioned as a prerequisite. Even in the verse you reference, Peter is clear that baptism it is not the physical removal of dirt, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through Christ's resurrection. That is why context is important, and those verses must be read in context to Christ's own words in the Gospels.

All of the above deliberation is pointless argument over the words of Christianity. The words of Christianity are contradictory, questionable sourced, devoid of the evidence of reality, and have had no real effect on behavior as evidenced by the "Christian" posters on this board - meaningless Iron Age mysticism.

Realitybites said:

---

I'm not the one who attends a Baptism optional church.

Can God extend grace and mercy to someone who physically cannot be baptized? Of course.

Is that a normative form of obedience? No.

So what role does obedience play in salvation?

If someone goes forward at a Billy Graham crusade and is emotionally swayed to say a prayer but then goes back to his life and lives in disobedience is that person saved?

---

Not sure what you mean by "Baptism optional." If you mean, my church recognizes that the plain language of scripture - including the words of Christ himself - is clear that baptism is not a prerequisite to salvation, then I guess it is "Baptism optional" in that sense. In short, we don't subscribe to the works-based heresy your church apparently holds, to the extent it believes someone not baptized is doomed to hell.

However, if you mean our church downplays the importance of baptism as an act of obedience, that is certainly not what my church believes.

As for the person at the Billy Graham crusade, it is a bit shocking you're asking such a hypothetical based on anything I wrote. I have repeatedly made clear that a heart change should be exhibited through fruit, which includes among other things turning from old ways, and living a redeemed life, full of good works that the Lord has prepared for us in advance.

You seem to be exhibiting a binary thinking regarding baptism that I would think would be a little more nuanced to a person who has been a believer for a number of years. Are you new to the faith?

Mothra said:

---

Not sure what you mean by "Baptism optional."

---

I mean precisely that. In your own words someone who had an internal heart change forgot or didn't get around to getting baptized.

I'm not the one making excuses for someone with a supposed heart change who didn't get around to being baptized or forgot about it.

Quote:

---

However, if you mean our church downplays the importance of baptism as an act of obedience, that is certainly not what my church believes.

---

And yet that is precisely the position you have taken in this thread.

Quote:

---

As for the person at the Billy Graham crusade, it is a bit shocking you're asking such a hypothetical based on anything I wrote. I have repeatedly made clear that a heart change should be exhibited through fruit, which includes among other things turning from old ways, and living a redeemed life, full of good works that the Lord has prepared for us in advance.

---

So is obedience a fundamental part of salvation? Or is obedience optional?

Quote:

---

You seem to be exhibiting a binary thinking regarding baptism that I would think would be a little more nuanced to a person who has been a believer for a number of years. Are you new to the faith?

---

40 years. The majority of that in SBCs, and left to become Eastern Orthodox. Far from being new to the faith.

The understanding that the obedient Christian should be baptized while leaving room for God's providence to save the individual who physically cannot be baptized is far from binary thinking.

Christians should be seeking God, not seeking loopholes.

" Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

Matthew 23:13

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Not sure what you mean by "Baptism optional."

---

I mean precisely that. In your own words someone who had an internal heart change forgot or didn't get around to getting baptized.

I'm not the one making excuses for someone with a supposed heart change who didn't get around to being baptized or forgot about it.

Quote:

---

However, if you mean our church downplays the importance of baptism as an act of obedience, that is certainly not what my church believes.

---

And yet that is precisely the position you have taken in this thread.

Quote:

---

As for the person at the Billy Graham crusade, it is a bit shocking you're asking such a hypothetical based on anything I wrote. I have repeatedly made clear that a heart change should be exhibited through fruit, which includes among other things turning from old ways, and living a redeemed life, full of good works that the Lord has prepared for us in advance.

---

So is obedience a fundamental part of salvation? Or is obedience optional?

Quote:

---

You seem to be exhibiting a binary thinking regarding baptism that I would think would be a little more nuanced to a person who has been a believer for a number of years. Are you new to the faith?

---

40 years. The majority of that in SBCs, and left to become Eastern Orthodox. Far from being new to the faith.

The understanding that the obedient Christian should be baptized while leaving room for God's providence to save the individual who physically cannot be baptized is far from binary thinking.

Christians should be seeking God, not seeking loopholes.

---

Your mischaracterization of what I said is certainly not what I said, but feel free to mischaracterize it anyway you want.

The fact remains there simply is no biblical foundation for your position, which is of course why you haven't been able to provide any scriptural support as asked. The idea that baptism, or any other action on the part of man, is necessary for salvation is heretical, plain and simple.

Gotta say, I am surprised at how old you are. But as a Baptist for almost 40 years, I certainly understand the bitterness.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Not sure what you mean by "Baptism optional."

---

I mean precisely that. In your own words someone who had an internal heart change forgot or didn't get around to getting baptized.

I'm not the one making excuses for someone with a supposed heart change who didn't get around to being baptized or forgot about it.

Quote:

---

However, if you mean our church downplays the importance of baptism as an act of obedience, that is certainly not what my church believes.

---

And yet that is precisely the position you have taken in this thread.

Quote:

---

As for the person at the Billy Graham crusade, it is a bit shocking you're asking such a hypothetical based on anything I wrote. I have repeatedly made clear that a heart change should be exhibited through fruit, which includes among other things turning from old ways, and living a redeemed life, full of good works that the Lord has prepared for us in advance.

---

So is obedience a fundamental part of salvation? Or is obedience optional?

Quote:

---

You seem to be exhibiting a binary thinking regarding baptism that I would think would be a little more nuanced to a person who has been a believer for a number of years. Are you new to the faith?

---

40 years. The majority of that in SBCs, and left to become Eastern Orthodox. Far from being new to the faith.

The understanding that the obedient Christian should be baptized while leaving room for God's providence to save the individual who physically cannot be baptized is far from binary thinking.

Christians should be seeking God, not seeking loopholes.

---

Your mischaracterization of what I said is certainly not what I said, but feel free to mischaracterize it anyway you want.

The fact remains there simply is no biblical foundation for your position, which is of course why you haven't been able to provide any scriptural support as asked. The idea that baptism, or any other action on the part of man, is necessary for salvation is heretical, plain and simple.

Gotta say, I am surprised at how old you are.

---

Scriptural support:
Acts 2:38 Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins...".

Also understand that we adhere to the Church, not to a Scripture only model that really only kicked off in the 1800s..becuase the reformers still adhered to Baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist etc.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands believers to "stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." The apostles taught for years, and the epistles are brief. Scripture itself acknowledges that there is a substantial body of apostolic teaching that was transmitted orally and not written down.

Apostolic succession is rooted directly in Scripture. Acts 6:6 records the apostles laying hands on the first deacons to authorize them for ministry. This wasn't symbolic; it was the transmission of authority. In 2 Timothy 1:6, Paul reminds Timothy of "the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands," showing that authority and ministry were passed on through this same act.
The Ecumenical Councils were led by bishops who could trace their authority back to the apostles through this lineage. They didn't derive the practice of laying on of hands from reading Scripture; they received it as part of the apostolic tradition handed down to them. Scripture confirms the practice, but the Church lived it before the New Testament was even completed.

Jesus promised to build His Church and declared that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. We believe that Church is visible, historical, and continuous. Christ entrusted real men with real authority to establish and preserve it, and that is the Church we adhere to.

We have faith Christ established a real visible Church and didn't leave people in the dark until the reformation.

fascinating how so many people are able to see the sins and errors of others, but not in their own group.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Not sure what you mean by "Baptism optional."

---

I mean precisely that. In your own words someone who had an internal heart change forgot or didn't get around to getting baptized.

I'm not the one making excuses for someone with a supposed heart change who didn't get around to being baptized or forgot about it.

Quote:

---

However, if you mean our church downplays the importance of baptism as an act of obedience, that is certainly not what my church believes.

---

And yet that is precisely the position you have taken in this thread.

Quote:

---

As for the person at the Billy Graham crusade, it is a bit shocking you're asking such a hypothetical based on anything I wrote. I have repeatedly made clear that a heart change should be exhibited through fruit, which includes among other things turning from old ways, and living a redeemed life, full of good works that the Lord has prepared for us in advance.

---

So is obedience a fundamental part of salvation? Or is obedience optional?

Quote:

---

You seem to be exhibiting a binary thinking regarding baptism that I would think would be a little more nuanced to a person who has been a believer for a number of years. Are you new to the faith?

---

40 years. The majority of that in SBCs, and left to become Eastern Orthodox. Far from being new to the faith.

The understanding that the obedient Christian should be baptized while leaving room for God's providence to save the individual who physically cannot be baptized is far from binary thinking.

Christians should be seeking God, not seeking loopholes.

---

Your mischaracterization of what I said is certainly not what I said, but feel free to mischaracterize it anyway you want.

The fact remains there simply is no biblical foundation for your position, which is of course why you haven't been able to provide any scriptural support as asked. The idea that baptism, or any other action on the part of man, is necessary for salvation is heretical, plain and simple.

Gotta say, I am surprised at how old you are.

---

Scriptural support:
Acts 2:38 Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins...".

Also understand that we adhere to the Church, not to a Scripture only model that really only kicked off in the 1800s..becuase the reformers still adhered to Baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist etc.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands believers to "stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." The apostles taught for years, and the epistles are brief. Scripture itself acknowledges that there is a substantial body of apostolic teaching that was transmitted orally and not written down.

Apostolic succession is rooted directly in Scripture. Acts 6:6 records the apostles laying hands on the first deacons to authorize them for ministry. This wasn't symbolic; it was the transmission of authority. In 2 Timothy 1:6, Paul reminds Timothy of "the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands," showing that authority and ministry were passed on through this same act.
The Ecumenical Councils were led by bishops who could trace their authority back to the apostles through this lineage. They didn't derive the practice of laying on of hands from reading Scripture; they received it as part of the apostolic tradition handed down to them. Scripture confirms the practice, but the Church lived it before the New Testament was even completed.

Jesus promised to build His Church and declared that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. We believe that Church is visible, historical, and continuous. Christ entrusted real men with real authority to establish and preserve it, and that is the Church we adhere to.

We have faith Christ established a real visible Church and didn't leave people in the dark until the reformation.

---

That verse simply doesn't support the position that baptism is a requirement for salvation. It doesn't say it, and I would argue, doesn't suggest it. Christ himself told us what is necessary in John 3:16-18. There are of course numerous other verses which support his position in the Gospels.

And of course, as you pointed out previously, we have the thief on the cross. Kind of throws a monkey wrench in the whole "sacraments are necessary for salvation" heresy.

I would submit if Church tradition contradicts Scripture, then it is Church tradition that is in error.

As for the idea that the Orthodox church adheres to tradition passed down for millennia, we know that isn't true. If it were, many of your traditions would be described in Acts and in Paul's early teachings.

The_barBEARian said:

---

---

Other than trying to blame the Jews for a bunch of b.s. ideas that numerous ethnicities contributed to (again, no surprise coming from a racist such as yourself), I don't disagree.

Does that mean that there isn't a special plan in place to redeem the Jews as God's covenental people?

Nope. There is, as the covenant remains in place.

Oldbear83 said:

---

fascinating how so many people are able to see the sins and errors of others, but not in their own group.

---

"I don't need forgiveness " Signed , Donnie. But I will sell you a Trumpy Gold bible that I don't even to hold. It's hot I tell ya. that yalls guy!

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

---

Other than trying to blame the Jews for a bunch of b.s. ideas that numerous ethnicities contributed to (again, no surprise coming from a racist such as yourself), I don't disagree.

Does that mean that there isn't a special plan in place to redeem the Jews as God's covenental people?

Nope. There is, as the covenant remains in place.

---

Hey Mothra can you please provide a passage from the New Testament that states the Old Covenant remains? Since you're a big Sola Scriptura guy and all

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

---

Other than trying to blame the Jews for a bunch of b.s. ideas that numerous ethnicities contributed to (again, no surprise coming from a racist such as yourself), I don't disagree.

Does that mean that there isn't a special plan in place to redeem the Jews as God's covenental people?

Nope. There is, as the covenant remains in place.

---

Hey Mothra can you please provide a passage from the New Testament that states the Old Covenant remains? Since you're a big Sola Scriptura guy and all

---

Happy to. I will even go a step further, and explain how the covenant not only remains, but will be fulfilled:

Genesis 17:7: I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you

Summary: The Abrahamic Covenant is everlasting.

Jeremiah 31:31-37:

"The days are coming," declares the Lord,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]"
declares the Lord.
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time," declares the Lord.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the Lord.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
35 This is what the Lord says,
he who appoints the sun
to shine by day,
who decrees the moon and stars
to shine by night,
who stirs up the sea
so that its waves roar
the Lord Almighty is his name:
36 "Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,"
declares the Lord,
"will Israel ever cease
being a nation before me."
37 This is what the Lord says:
"Only if the heavens above can be measured
and the foundations of the earth below be searched out
will I reject all the descendants of Israel
because of all they have done,"
declares the Lord.

Summary: God's covenant with Israel is permanent.

Romans 11:25-29: 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." 28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

Summary: God has not cast away the descendants of Abraham, and his calling stands.

Luke 21:24: "They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Summary: Accord to Christ himself, Israel will be restored after the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Acts 1:6-7: Then they gathered around him and asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

Summary: Accord to Christ himself, Israel will be restored.

Romans 11:17-24: 17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Summary: Gentiles are grafted in. They do not replace Israel.