Explicit future denials of apostasy of true children of God

One basic common sense rule of intepretation is that you do not interpret the clear by the unclear. You do not build doctrines on examples, metaphors, figures of speech, allegories, inferences, parables but upon clear and explicit precepts and statements. Examples, figures of speech, allegories, parables, inferences, ambiguous language can be used as supportive for explicit and clear precepts and statements but not vice versa.

Go to those passages that deal clearly and directly with the specific question and build doctrine upon that. Go to passages that deal directly with true children of God and deal specifically whether they can be lost in the future and build your doctrine on that.

This is exactly what OSAS is built upon - those clear and explicit precepts and statements that speak directly to this point about true children of God.

What you cannot find in scripture is equally clear and explicit precepts and statements that deal specifically with that point and teach true children of God will become lost - no such precepts, no such explicit statements.

 

Here is what I mean as an example of improper interpretation. Where is the word "baptized" used here? It is not to be found. You are making an INFERENCE and I believe an inference that is not called for by the context. Nicodemus asks a specific question about how can someone who is OLD go back into their mother's womb and be born a second time. That is his question. Now we can assume that Jesus ignored his question or answered it. Verse 6 indicates he was answering it - "that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit."

The fleshly birth is a birth in water in the womb of your mother while the new birth is birth in spirit by the Holy Spirit. One must be born of water but the birth that Jesus spoke of at the beginning is in addition to that, one must be born of the Spirit to enter heaven.

 

Yes, I use the same approach on Mark 16:16. There is no question that it teaches that all who believe the gospel and are baptized shall be saved. I use the same approach with Acts 22:16 where in baptism our sins are washed away. The question is not what it says for it says what it says and says it clearly. The question is how does baptism save us and wash away our sins. I Peter. 3:21 is very explicit and clear in answering that question. Baptism saves us figuratively and therefore washes away our sins figuratively. This is indicated in Mark 16:16 by the latter part of the verse where it is unbelief rather than lack of baptism that damns a person. Furthermore, I take in the clear and explicit statements in regard to the general rule that God has used for four thousand years to characterize all external divine ordinances (Heb. 10:1-4; Col. 2:14-16; Rom. 4:9-13). Every external divine ordinance God has instituted from Genesis to Revelation are but SHADOWS and SIGNS and TYPES that although are directly associated with redemptive langauge such as "for sin" and "for cleansing" yet could NEVER take away sins (Heb. 10:4) except as a Shadow/type. Acts 10:43 is a very clear and explicit statement that defines exactly how Old Testament saints had their sins literally remitted.

Hence, I take in all the explicit and clear statements to form a conclusion and when you do it clearly and explicitly repudiates the use of external ordinances a literal and actual means to remit sins.

 

"the LIKE FIGURE whereunto baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. 3:21

Paedobaptist commentators are wrong and it is easy to prove it. If you simply erased the words "like figure" from this text it would not affect their commentary on this text in the least bit as their commentary is devoted to explaining away the clear explicit meaning of these words. No Jew would understand "baptism" to be misunderstood as a "bath" to clean your physical body. Jews were completely versed in ceremonial baptisms. Peter is using the ceremonial language of the day, completely understood by Jews, to mean that baptism saves figuratively it does not remove the corruption of the human nature - sin - but is a response of a conscience already cleansed from sin that makes that INTERNAL cleansing manifested in submission to baptism as baptism is a figure just as the ark was a figure of what ultimately gives victory over sin, death and hell - BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

 

I regard the Ante-Nicene Fathers to be the history of apostasy that led to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Apostate positions.

I have never read anyone give any syntactical basis for rejecting the human birth interpretation. I have read several who say the conjunction "kai" should be understood as "even" or "also" suggesting that Jesus was talking to some one steeped in Jewish ceremonial use of wate and that Jesus was simply saying "born of water EVEN the Spirit" thus making a transition from the use of ceremonial use of water as a type of the Holy Spirit. Many go on to see this consistently in the gospel of John where in the very next chapter the Holy Spirit is characterized as "water" bubbling up in side a person just as in John 7 it is used to represent the Holy Spirit within a person. I don't take great issue with that interpretation as that is a direct and explicit application of water by both Jesus and Paul (Eph. 5:26-27).

However, Mark 16:16 makes it very clear that if Jesus wanted to say "baptize" he could say it but he did not say it in John 3:3-5.

 

They taught baptismal regeneration among many other heretical doctrines. They writings were preserved by the old Harlot because it gives the proper developmental history of her while she destroyed the writings of New Testament churches as she persecuted and killed them.

If verse 6 is explanatory of verse 5, then there is the repetition of the preposition in verse 6 before each noun. I would venture to guess that Thomas Constable probably took the position of water being the counterpart symbol of the Holy Spirit in Jewish ceremonialism and thus made his case on the conjunction "kai" to mean "even" or "also."

 

I believe both the Old Latin and Old Syric translation were made around 150 A.D. demonstrating the New Testament churches already had a complete canon before the harlot ever dreamed about doing it. Indeed, Jerome's was a reaction to the Old Latin.