Instant Salvation and Eternal Security
What do I need to be saved? To listen to a preacher—never mind about the details—and wait for him to invite me to acknowledge that I am sinful and has no power to save myself, and believe that Jesus died in my place for my justification and salvation and after believing, follow the preacher’s prayer wholeheartedly? I wonder where these self-named “Bible Christians” found in the Bible the occurrence of the same activity that they are doing. Did Peter, Paul or James, when their listeners asked them what must they do to be saved, ever answer in such manner, saying “Believe that Jesus died for your sins and accept him as your personal Lord and Savior…Pray this prayer with me”? If ever, I haven’t encountered yet. I think, it is more frequent that you will hear about salvation such lines as “repent and be baptized”, “unless a man is born through water and the Spirit…”, “sell all that you own”, “if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” The questions of those who want to be saved all fall down to one short line: “What shall we do?” and it is just fitting to answer them accordingly. “DO repent and be baptized”, “DO sell all that you own”, etc. Besides, to acknowledge one’s own sinfulness is doing; to believe that Jesus died for oneself is also doing; to pray with the preacher is no doubt a deed; and to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior is also one. Working out one’s salvation is not a matter of acquiring a little theoretical knowledge about Jesus combined with a one-time powerful preacher’s prayer. If you cannot know a human person in just 2 to 3 meetings with him, it is much more impossible to know God and Jesus within a short period of time. Eternal life—that is salvation—is to know God and his Christ, not in theoretical sense as if knowing a certain historical event. You don’t know a person just because you know his name, or his family background, or his social background, or his past life; you know a person if you experience his existence. To know God is to experience him in your life; to be aware of his existence all the time; to know his truth and essence. Only through this knowing of truth can one worship God as one ought to—in truth and in spirit—and only through this can one have eternal life. Do not be deceived that God made an instant access to heaven. Jesus is the Way, and how can one claim to know the way if he doesn’t know Jesus? You may have a map of every road in the Philippines but you really don’t know the way to anywhere unless you took that way. You really don’t know Jesus unless you walk in Jesus.
What if I have gone astray? Let this question be answered by an elementary student: What will happen if you have a map but did not follow the right path unto the end? “Don’t delude yourself into thinking God can be cheated: where a man sows, there he reaps.” Even if you sincerely believed that you were saved by Christ’s death and that you accept him as your personal Lord and Savior, the Justice of God will not change its standard: “He is a God who is always enraged by those who refuse to repent.” No one who knows the truth will apply a Boy Scout motto concerning salvation. “The man who stands firm to the end will be saved.” How about those who will change their minds? The conclusion is clear and self-explanatory. “If after we have given the knowledge of truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them.”
Will you honestly believe that God’s Justice will deem you sinless if you believe so—never mind if you’re cooperating or not? Would it not bother your conscience to believe that God will overlook your turning away from him provided that you have once accepted him as your personal Lord and Savior?
A Catholic's Blog 
Dan Holloman said,
August 2, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Romasn 10:8-13
8 But what does it say? “aThe word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 1that aif you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and bbelieve in your heart that cGod raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, 1resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, 2resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, “aWhoever believes in Him will not be 1disappointed.”
12 For athere is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is bLord of call, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13 for “aWhoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
angfrayle said,
September 19, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Dan Holloman, read this article on those verses.
vanillae said,
September 26, 2010 at 3:37 am
It is a very good reading and a great site. Thanks for sharing!
Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco said,
January 14, 2014 at 6:16 am
[Note from the editor: This impostor is not the real Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco, who is a Catholic.]
The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized – as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.
With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism – as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).
Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling – if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.
vanillae said,
January 15, 2014 at 3:22 pm
I would rather answer repetitive points like these if an honest soul asks. I’ll wait for those souls and I will answer these for them, instead of going around in circles here.
Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco said,
January 14, 2014 at 6:16 am
[Note from the editor: This impostor is not the real Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco, who is a Catholic.]
The word “expiation” does not appear in the New Testament, but it does accurately describe an aspect of the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. Expiation means “to cover sin” and/or “to cleanse sin.” Expiation reflects the idea that the negative and degrading effects of our sin are removed through the grace of God. Another word for expiation is atonement, and truly this is one of the results of Jesus’ atoning death for us.
Through expiation—the work of Christ on the cross for us—the sin of all those who would ever believe in Christ was cancelled. That cancellation is eternal in its consequence, even though sin is still present in the temporal sense. In other words, believers are delivered from the penalty and power of sin, but not the presence of it. Justification is the term for being delivered from the penalty of sin. This is a one-time act wherein the sinner is justified and made holy and righteous in the eyes of God who exchanged our sinful natures for the righteousness of Christ at the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). Sanctification is the ongoing process whereby believers are delivered from the power of sin in their lives and are enabled by the new nature to resist and turn away from it. Glorification is when we are removed from the very presence of sin, which will only occur once we leave this world and are in heaven. All these processes—justification, sanctification and glorification—are made possible through the expiation or cancellation of sin.
It is good to know also that there are other benefits of Jesus’ death for us. One of them, not included in the concept of expiation, but just as true and biblical, is propitiation, which is “to appease wrath.” Truly the atoning death of God the Son satisfies the wrath of God the Father against rebellious, sinful humanity (John 3:36; Romans 5:9). Expiation, justification, sanctification, glorification, propitiation, and many more – we have countless reasons to praise God and to run to Him in faith and trust.
vanillae said,
January 15, 2014 at 3:25 pm
If it’s written, it’s enough, right? No need for you to interpret them or define words for the “Bible reader” to understand. It’s between you and the Bible, right? Pastors are just…well, we know what our pastors are for.
Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco said,
January 18, 2014 at 11:15 pm
[Note from the editor: This impostor is not the real Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco, who is a Catholic.]
I do not have pastor I have a high Priest and his name is Jesus Christ the begotten son of God almighty. Who now set at the right hand of God. He taught that water baptism will not wash away sin. It has already taken blood sacrifice. This why Jesus Christ had to come and be our blood sacrifice. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized – as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.
With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism – as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).
Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling – if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.
vanillae said,
January 19, 2014 at 3:18 am
The concept of salvation through baptism is not contrary to the truth of the redemption through the blood of Christ. It is the improper understanding of truth that makes it complicated. Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus say that water baptism will not wash away sin. That idea arose simply because some people cannot reconcile the relationship of baptism with the Sacrifice at the cross. The only recorded events where Jesus spoke about Christian baptism were when he said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God,” which he further explained on the very same occasion, saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” The other occasion was when he sent the apostles with this command: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”
Both of these events emphasized that there is no salvation without baptism. To say that Jesus taught that baptism cannot cleanse man’s sin is a man-made teaching. It is coming from the same line of thinking that says Jesus is a man, therefore he is not God, because “God is not man”. Just because one cannot reconcile seemingly contradictory ideas, doesn’t mean they are not true.
Contrary to your claim that baptism does not wash away sin, Ananias actually said to Paul, “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” To be immersed and be washed is the basic idea here, both with the use of baptismal water. Aside from that Peter also expressly writes in his letter, “Baptism…now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Peter made it clear here that the water of baptism is not to cleanse the body but to actually “appeal to God for a clear conscience.” This is the real thing, not a show.
With a wrong view on baptism, people thought that infant baptism is not appropriate. It is not an accident or a small thing that God had the words of Jesus recorded in the Bible when he said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” He is not just referring to the children coming to him then, but he’s actually telling us that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the children and to those who will be like them. If the kingdom is theirs, what will hinder them from being disciples of Jesus and being baptized? They are more disciples of Christ than the adults are, in terms of trust. God’s salvation is not dependent on age of reason. An infant doesn’t need to understand what water baptism symbolizes because what he needs is the grace that baptism confers. Again, Christ did not institute baptism for a show but for the real thing.
The Bible did not record any proof that infants were not baptized. On the contrary, Peter said to the people listening to them, “The promise is for you and for your children.” Salvation is not only for adults; it is for the whole family and for every individual. Relating the conversion of Lydia, Luke wrote these words: And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” The household (Gr. oikos) — the whole family — was baptized, not excluding anyone. According to what was recorded, only Lydia professed her faith but the whole household was baptized. That is because she professed in behalf of those who cannot (yet or anymore). Actually, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English put it in this way: “And she was immersed and the children of her house…” Of course, this is not the only case where the whole family was baptized, but one example should suffice. The concept of professing the faith in behalf of someone is not at all surprising, because we already saw that Jesus healed a paralytic when he saw “their faith” — his friends’ faith. The faith of those who represented him did matter, and was instrumental to his healing. The centurion’s servant was also healed because of the master’s faith. Same with the dying son of a court’s official. Furthermore, it is obvious that children also entered the Church (was baptized) and became a part of Christ’s Body, because if they were not, then Paul has no right to say to them, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” He, himself, said that he doesn’t have any jurisdiction on those who are not part of the Church: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?”
Infant baptism is NOT the origin of the sprinkling method of baptism because there is no such a method. The 7th chapter of the “Didache” instructed the first century Christians that if water is not abundant, “pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
Actually, it is not unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant into the water. Some babies nowadays were actually delivered in a bathtub. The same chapter of Didache said, “If you cannot do so (baptize) in cold water, do so in warm,” and this is perfect for infants.
You said, “The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision.” On the contrary, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul explained, “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” The sentence might be in a complex form but, basically, it describes baptism as “circumcision made without hands” and “circumcision in Christ”. And it is also worth noting that he used the phrase, “buried with him in baptism,” which plainly expresses the truth that in baptism, we are really (not symbolically) buried with Christ. So, in this passage alone, Paul has clarified two points: that baptism is circumcision and baptism is not a show.
To say that baptism does not save a person is to be in contradiction with what Peter said that, “Baptism saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).
“Baby dedication service” is something that was not instituted by Jesus Christ, baptism was.
Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco said,
January 23, 2014 at 11:22 pm
[Note from the editor: This impostor is not the real Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco, who is a Catholic.]
“Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?”
As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.
Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all (like the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39-43). A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).
Thankfully, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting-wet part that saves but is the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.
An excellent explanation of this passage is given by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. “Water baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word ‘counterpart.’
“So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type….Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, ‘not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.’ Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words ‘the answer of a good conscience toward God,” and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, ‘by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,’ in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”
Part of the confusion on this passage comes from the fact that in many ways the purpose of baptism as a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and identification with Him has been replaced by “making a decision for Christ” or “praying a sinner’s prayer.” Baptism has been relegated to something that is done later. Yet to Peter or any of the first-century Christians, the idea that a person would confess Christ as his Savior and not be baptized as soon as possible would have been unheard of. Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter would see baptism as almost synonymous with salvation. Yet Peter makes it clear in this verse that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact that we are united with Christ in His resurrection through faith, “the pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).
Therefore, the baptism that Peter says saves us is the one that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25-26; 4:5). Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco said,
January 23, 2014 at 11:25 pm
[Note from the editor: This impostor is not the real Reinner Joseph Melegrito Velasco, who is a Catholic.]
It always has taken a Blood sacrifice to remove sin. Never has water baptism ever was away sin.
The reality of the blood of Christ as the means of atonement for sin has its origin in the Mosaic Law. Once a year, the priest was to make an offering of the blood of animals on the altar of the temple for the sins of the people. “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). But this was a blood offering that was limited in its effectiveness, which is why it had to be offered again and again. This was a foreshadowing of the “once for all” sacrifice which Jesus offered on the cross (Hebrews 7:27). Once that sacrifice was made, there was no longer a need for the blood of bulls and goats.
The blood of Christ is the basis of the New Covenant. On the night before He went to the cross, Jesus offered the cup of wine to His disciples and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20). The pouring of the wine in the cup symbolized the blood of Christ which would be poured out for all who would ever believe in Him. When He shed His blood on the cross, He did away with the Old Covenant requirement for the continual sacrifices of animals. Their blood was not sufficient to cover the sins of the people, except on a temporary basis, because sin against a holy and infinite God requires a holy and infinite sacrifice. “But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:3). While the blood of bulls and goats were a “reminder” of sin, “the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19) paid in full the debt of sin we owe to God, and we need no further sacrifices for sin. Jesus said, “It is finished” as He was dying, and He meant just that—the entire work of redemption was completed forever, “having obtained eternal redemption” for us (Hebrews 9:12).
Not only does the blood of Christ redeem believers from sin and eternal punishment, but “His blood will make our consciences pure from useless acts so we may serve the living God” (Hebrews 9:14 NCV). This means that not only are we now free from having to offer sacrifices which are “useless” to obtain salvation, but we are free from having to rely on worthless and unproductive works of the flesh to please God. Because the blood of Christ has redeemed us, we are now new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), and by His blood we are freed from sin to serve the living God, to glorify Him, and to enjoy Him forever.
Reinner joseph Melegrito Velasco said,
February 15, 2014 at 6:36 am
FOR YOUR INFORMATION. FOR THOSE WHO ARE READING THIS BLOG POST. A BORN AGAIN IS USING MY NAME REINNER JOSEPH MELEGRITO VELASCO TO DESTROY/ DISCREDIT ME. I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC. AS YOU CAN READ MY POST ON SIMBAHANG TOTOO PAGE. THANK YOU. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON THE SOUL WHO ARE USING MY NAME.. I KNOW THIS PERSON WHO IS USING MY NAME BY THE WAY THEY ANSWER YOU ALL..THE BORN AGAIN MICHAEL MULLER A.K.A. HELEN BALATAYO ARCANGEL. THE WAY HE/SHE REASONS OUT. SHE/HE ALWAYS LIE.
Reinner joseph Melegrito Velasco said,
February 15, 2014 at 6:38 am
She/he never wins in any of our discussion and for their revenge they are using my name to discredit me to my fellow Roman Catholics please read all my posts in Simbahang Totoo.