Loss of salvation???

[studier]

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The context of Romans 10 says nothing about endurance, nor any other verse throughout Paul's epistles. Yes I follow Paul, who wrote what was inspired, just as what James wrote was inspired for Israel. Blurring the lines of DIVISION within all of truth, and you end up with the gobbledygook of modern Evangelicalism's confusing orchestral members playing each his own score to the confusing beat of the director, it's chaos. Look at all the denominations out there that differ in doctrine, some of which are CORE doctrines of the faith.

BELIEVED [in Ephesians 1 above]. Not worked, not strived, not sweated, not ordinances, not commandments, not tithing, not attending churchianity, not abstaining, but FAITH...BELIEVING. Why is that so difficult for you?

Rom10:17 and Eph1:13 describe the beginning of obedient faith. Claiming that endurance is irrelevant simply because it’s not mentioned is an argument from silence.

BTW, Rom10:16 is one of the verses that show the vital union between faith and obedience per Paul - where he uses the two words interchangeably.

Of course it's very clear your denomination is not a denomination... Oy vey...

 

[studier]

We're talking about salvation here, not rewards. So long as those under the Kingdom Gospel ENDURED, then they SHALL [future tense] be saved. We are not anything but saved RIGHT NOW, not at some point in the future based upon our endurance. Taking that requirement laid upon others under another dispensation and trying to lay it upon the body of Christ, that's pure subjectivism.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The context of this verse says nothing about a requirement for endurance, neither is the a hint at Holy Spirit being withdrawn on the basis of sin. If that were the case, then you too right now would not be saved until some point in the future, striving always to try and be good enough.

How good is good enough? You don't even know where that line rests. You don't know where you would be right now in relation to that line [if it even existed, which it doesn't] because you can't define it. You're smug labeling of what I've presented, never once offering a rebuttal to my highlights of the key words, phraseology and contexts, it all goes to show how puny your stance really is in all this. Accusing me of upholding "dichotomy," and yet you never once addressing the highlights that I made within their respective, INSPIRED verses in their contexts, none of which point to the side of this where you choose to sit.

Come on, stop claiming I've refused to address your question. Here it is again. Don't you have anything better to do than to falsely accuse another through your meaningless little quips that prove nothing?

Endurance gets for us REWARDS, not salvation. How many pounds do you have to lift to show faith? What does it weigh? What finger being moved makes faith a reality for you? If faith is on the basis of some effort OF OURSELVES or BOASTING, then what's that ACTION one must perform apart from faith within the mind and heart? James never talked to Israel about their ability to boast about their faith proven by their actions, but we were not nor are under the TRUE teachings of James to Israel when the Kingdom Gospel was still in force.

So, rather than to deflect away into other questions about what I've just said here in these last couple of paragraphs, stick to the ONE thing you keep harping falsely about in relation to my allegedly having not addressed. Enough about your false claims, and let's deal head-on with the item about endurance and how it allegedly ties in with salvation in relation to us today, which it doesn't.

I have no interest in discussing your two gospels theory again - which you inevitably and repetitively insert into discussions - nor in commenting again on lines re: goodness, intent, or apostasy - God is the sovereign and omniscient judge of all such things. There is also no need to respond to all your wordiness or repetitive points.

 

[Ouch]

Ok.
Thanks for clarifying

Thank you for challenging me, I do not what to say anything that goes against HIS word.

This thing was and maybe still is a mess.

Now to go to apologize to someone.

GOD BLESS YOU.

 

[Ouch]

The word ghost is old english for spirit.

So yeah, He's the Holy Ghost.






And the Lord says faith without corresponding action is dead as in not true faith. (study the Book of James for starters)

True faith results in people turning from sin to walk in agreement with the Lord.

Fake faith like the so called reformers taught is nothing more than mental assent that leaves people the same old sinners they always were. These people won't be found in God's Kingdom.





Yeah, that's what the OSAS people do, after getting saved they go back to living in sin and aren't changed.





Yeah, you don't know what God's Word teaches which is why you don't know.

Eternal life is only applicable to those who abide in Christ.
One must endure to the end to be saved according to Jesus.






That's what the demons have been teaching for years now.

The slow ones listen to the demons instead of God's Word. Sad.

If one is disqualified from entering the Kingdom of God they go to hell.

There are only TWO eternal destinations - God's Kingdom or hell.

The devils tricked the slow ones in to believing there is a third option, but he lied and the slow one are going around teaching lies of the devil.





A twisted version of what God's Word teaches that came from demons and not from the Lord.






Paul did not believe in once saved always saved.

1 Corinthians 9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

I am sorry for calling you a liar and deceiver.

I thought you were on a mission to make it look like I said something I didn't.

After looking into the problem you was not the problem, Please forgive me.

 

[studier]

You're just as much the master of deflection that you accuse me. How pathetic indeed. I answered you, asked questions, and you continue in your evasive deflections rather than to address ALL that I had written in answer to your demand.

MM

So, you can't identify the dichotomy you allege?

Do you know what "false-dichotomy" means? You now have time to look up the meaning.

 

[studier]

Then present something of substance that proves your case that actually does apply to us today. Enough chirping, present something of substance rather than mere claims. SHOW it to us as I have done for you.

MM

You went into endurance and I asked you to explain your methodology, which request you ignored and evaded. You show me it's not a part of genuine faith. When you actually deal with more Scriptures about endurance, I'll comment.

 

[Musicmaster]

Please explain, with Scripture specific to the seal/earnest, why it means what you are saying.

Earnest deposits guarantee that the one making the deposit will perform and solidify all terms of a contract. The Spirit seals and guarantees God’s promise, but this does not remove any condition of continuing, obedient faith as our Lord-Christ-King requires of us.

Anyone knows that something given as guarantee cannot be withdrawn at will by the one giving it, for that would be forfeiture. Paul wasn't using some esoteric term clearly aligned as a comparative with economic wording if it had not the full impact of the meaning. Trying to constrain the meaning only to the giving aspect without all the other completions to the definition, that's subjectivism yet again you're trying to apply to get it to mesh with your chosen beliefs.

So, what part of "...ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." do you not understand? Where is that imaginary line for withdrawal of salvation injected into the scriptures? None of you people ever seem to want to define that line for anyone else, but you speak of it as if there were a distinct, recognizable line. Where is it? Why do you continue to evade this question?

Believers can walk in the Spirit or grieve or quench (“resist,” “suppress,” or even “extinguish”) the Spirit, and salvation involves grace-enabled, responsive, cooperative, enduring obedient faith. No matter how many times you push your false dichotomy, we know to Whom the boast belongs.

BTW, your statement re: the Lord forfeiting over to us His Spirit is really out there.

Prove it! Where did the scriptures ever say "extinguish," or anything equal? Why throw that into the mix what clearly isn't there? I can understand when trying to proselytize someone into your personal belief system, but not all of us here are so gullible.

Also, go and offer $10,000 for the purchase of a home on the market, then withdraw from the deal and see if you get it back.

Out there...INDEED! This is a well defined understanding given that the portion of the verse quoted above clearly stands at odds to your injections into the scripture words and meaning that aren't there. What else could those words mean except that the strength of the earnest is the promise of it being unto the day of redemption. The language in words has a clear meaning that is consistent throughout. Grieving and extinguishing are the same thing? Where do you get this stuff...I mean seriously, where did all that come from other then personal whim? If my kids grieve me with what they do at times, it doesn't extinguish the relationship and I do not withdraw anything from them as them being a part of the family still.

Seriously, though, where do you come up with this stuff?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Rom10:17 and Eph1:13 describe the beginning of obedient faith. Claiming that endurance is irrelevant simply because it’s not mentioned is an argument from silence.

BTW, Rom10:16 is one of the verses that show the vital union between faith and obedience per Paul - where he uses the two words interchangeably.

Of course it's very clear your denomination is not a denomination... Oy vey...

More injections in your posts without quoting the contexts to capture what's REALLY bneing said:

Romans 10:14-17
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Paul clarified it all with that last statement, which is so clear. He laid down what it is that they had to believe in order to be saved, and your over-magnification of one word in an attempt to legalize it back into works and even Law...that's a stretch beyond the bounds of reason given the clarification offered in verse 17 AND in relation to other of Paul's inspired statements:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

So, obedience in what sense given that it's NOT of any personal EFFORT on our part? Obedience to the true and only gospel of their salvation that Paul clearly laid down as the one gospel by which we today are saved:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Obedience? Yes, to keep in mind what they were taught rather than to try and go into Judaism, which alone had the commandment for self effort through water baptism unto the remission of sins, something that Paul was NEVER inspired to preach nor command.\

Obedience to keep in mind what they were taught by Paul, not obedience to abstaining from sin through self effort, thinking one can do so the Father's pleasure and willingness to not withdraw salvation. If you believe such, then PLEASE show to us that line over which one can step to lose his salvation. I keep asking that, and you dance around it without one piece of evidence.

Don't you have anything solid in your arsenal that can prove your claims without adding words to alter the meaning of verses that clearly do not back your claims?

MM

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Where is that imaginary line for withdrawal of salvation injected into the scriptures? None of you people ever seem to want to define that line for anyone else, but you speak of it as if there were a distinct, recognizable line. Where is it? Why do you continue to evade this question?

Not bearing godly fruit

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. John 15:2​

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Prove it! Where did the scriptures ever say "extinguish," or anything equal?

In the parable of the 10 virgins. The lamps of the 5 foolish virgins are extinguished

And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are extinguished. Matthew 25:8​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Obedience to keep in mind what they were taught by Paul, not obedience to abstaining from sin through self effort, thinking one can do so the Father's pleasure and willingness to not withdraw salvation. If you believe such, then PLEASE show to us that line over which one can step to lose his salvation. I keep asking that, and you dance around it without one piece of evidence.

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Romans 8:13​

 

[studier]

More injections in your posts without quoting the contexts to capture what's REALLY bneing said:

Romans 10:14-17
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Paul clarified it all with that last statement, which is so clear. He laid down what it is that they had to believe in order to be saved, and your over-magnification of one word in an attempt to legalize it back into works and even Law...that's a stretch beyond the bounds of reason given the clarification offered in verse 17 AND in relation to other of Paul's inspired statements:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

So, obedience in what sense given that it's NOT of any personal EFFORT on our part? Obedience to the true and only gospel of their salvation that Paul clearly laid down as the one gospel by which we today are saved:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Obedience? Yes, to keep in mind what they were taught rather than to try and go into Judaism, which alone had the commandment for self effort through water baptism unto the remission of sins, something that Paul was NEVER inspired to preach nor command.\

Obedience to keep in mind what they were taught by Paul, not obedience to abstaining from sin through self effort, thinking one can do so the Father's pleasure and willingness to not withdraw salvation. If you believe such, then PLEASE show to us that line over which one can step to lose his salvation. I keep asking that, and you dance around it without one piece of evidence.

Don't you have anything solid in your arsenal that can prove your claims without adding words to alter the meaning of verses that clearly do not back your claims?

MM

Not interested in your lengthy diatribes any more. They are too full of misrepresentation, misunderstanding, avoidance, diversion and a host of other categories of flawed reasoning.

Obedience to the Gospel is not legalism nor is it works. Works done in obedient faith are good works for which we were created in Christ Jesus, and those good works are inherent in genuine faith per the Greek of James2:17, as is obedience inherent in genuine faith (Rom10:16; Heb3:18-19, 1John3:23a; Acts16:30; plus all verses that speak of believing the Gospel compared with verses that speak of obeying the Gospel and the truth; plus verses like Heb5:9 that speak of salvation for all who obey Jesus Christ who learned obedience from what He suffered (an endurance verse BTW)).

One verse at a time. No mid-Acts dispensationalism. No Israeli or Th. M. or assertions that others need to learn critical thinking skills - all forms of empty assertions of self-perceived authority.

 

[studier]

Anyone knows that something given as guarantee cannot be withdrawn at will by the one giving it, for that would be forfeiture. Paul wasn't using some esoteric term clearly aligned as a comparative with economic wording if it had not the full impact of the meaning. Trying to constrain the meaning only to the giving aspect without all the other completions to the definition, that's subjectivism yet again you're trying to apply to get it to mesh with your chosen beliefs.

So, what part of "...ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." do you not understand? Where is that imaginary line for withdrawal of salvation injected into the scriptures? None of you people ever seem to want to define that line for anyone else, but you speak of it as if there were a distinct, recognizable line. Where is it? Why do you continue to evade this question?



Prove it! Where did the scriptures ever say "extinguish," or anything equal? Why throw that into the mix what clearly isn't there? I can understand when trying to proselytize someone into your personal belief system, but not all of us here are so gullible.

Also, go and offer $10,000 for the purchase of a home on the market, then withdraw from the deal and see if you get it back.

Out there...INDEED! This is a well defined understanding given that the portion of the verse quoted above clearly stands at odds to your injections into the scripture words and meaning that aren't there. What else could those words mean except that the strength of the earnest is the promise of it being unto the day of redemption. The language in words has a clear meaning that is consistent throughout. Grieving and extinguishing are the same thing? Where do you get this stuff...I mean seriously, where did all that come from other then personal whim? If my kids grieve me with what they do at times, it doesn't extinguish the relationship and I do not withdraw anything from them as them being a part of the family still.

Seriously, though, where do you come up with this stuff?

MM

Re: the deposit - without dealing with background, I'm well-versed in making and receiving deposits. Forfeiture is far from being the only structure for earnest deposits. God forfeiting His Spirit is simply dumb on too many levels.

Re: "extinguish": NET 1 Thessalonians 5:19 Do not extinguish the Spirit. Check numerous Greek lexicons including: Frieberg, UBS, Louw-Nida, Liddell-Scott, Thayer, BDAG, and others. Do word searches in the NC and the LXX.

I can understand when trying to proselytize someone into your personal belief system, but not all of us here are so gullible.

Ironically poetic projection - perfect closing.

 

[Musicmaster]

Not interested in your lengthy diatribes any more. They are too full of misrepresentation, misunderstanding, avoidance, diversion and a host of other categories of flawed reasoning.

Obedience to the Gospel is not legalism nor is it works. Works done in obedient faith are good works for which we were created in Christ Jesus, and those good works are inherent in genuine faith per the Greek of James2:17, as is obedience inherent in genuine faith (Rom10:16; Heb3:18-19, 1John3:23a; Acts16:30; plus all verses that speak of believing the Gospel compared with verses that speak of obeying the Gospel and the truth; plus verses like Heb5:9 that speak of salvation for all who obey Jesus Christ who learned obedience from what He suffered (an endurance verse BTW)).

One verse at a time. No mid-Acts dispensationalism. No Israeli or Th. M. or assertions that others need to learn critical thinking skills - all forms of empty assertions of self-perceived authority.

I understand your not wanting to continue against all the scriptural evidence I have presented. It's not easy going against the clear language of scripture, especially when trying to go to the Greek and subjectively pick out a definition you personally like, even though it likely isn't at all representative of the context and grammatical continuity of meaning within the text. You're not alone when it comes to believing what one wants in spite of the clear language of scripture. Nay-sayers almost always poo-poo going to the literal before invoking the allegorical because the allegorical has no rules and very little comparative continuity when such is exercised on the level of subjectivity.

So, what you call diatribe is what truly intellectual men call discussion at a level you clearly are incapable of, nor willing, to engage. That's ok. Everyone here is free to believe as he so chooses. I simply wanted to understand your objections, and you aren't willing to lay them out in a coherent fashion for all to see. the little quips of pathetic accusations that fail to rise up out of the dusts of meaninglessness, they show how pathetic your stance really is in all this. Accusations of dichotomies and incoherence and whatever other groundless nonsense you spew at your detractors, they prove nothing apart from the portrait you painted of yourself that says, "This is what I believe, and nothing else matters..."

Go for it.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Re: the deposit - without dealing with background, I'm well-versed in making and receiving deposits. Forfeiture is far from being the only structure for earnest deposits. God forfeiting His Spirit is simply dumb on too many levels.

Re: "extinguish": NET 1 Thessalonians 5:19 Do not extinguish the Spirit. Check numerous Greek lexicons including: Frieberg, UBS, Louw-Nida, Liddell-Scott, Thayer, BDAG, and others. Do word searches in the NC and the LXX.

Grieve, extinguish, whatever modern version and/or lexical definition you may choose that happens to mesh with your personal and subjective beliefs, go for it. I chose Thayer's because he has far more accolade among his peers for the accuracy of defining terms within the grammatical rules for Hermeneutics than others of his peers.

I also point to 1 John 2:27, which proves to us that we're not all alone in our endeavors for truth. The Author Himself has made Himself available to those who seek HIS truth. Never have I seen you yet make such a credible appeal. One or both of us can be wrong, but He is not.

MM

 

[Barber]

So just tell me with scripture how we get rid of our sins, keep it simple.

I will say the only way is to be baptized in JESUS name, now I need to back it up with HIS WORD.

Acts 2:38-39
King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Acts 22:16
King James Version
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

I think the big problem is some do not rightly divide the word.

All books after the book of Acts was to established churches not to the unsaved.

But, your turn show me how we get rid of sins using HIS word please.

Admittedly, just reading the Scripture verse you quoted makes it sound as if baptism is required for the remission of sin. BUT, when studying The Word one needs to take the preponderance of Scripture into consideration. And clearly the majority of Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace through faith and not of ANY works that we could boast of. So obviously that would include our going down into a pool of water with words said over us. We should be baptized once we are saved, as the Lord commands us to do it as an outward sign of an inward change. But the Holy Spirit moves in to us the minute we are saved, and we are forgiven. Just as the repentant thief on the cross was saved by his faith. Not being submerged in water.

 

[studier]

Grieve, extinguish, whatever modern version and/or lexical definition you may choose that happens to mesh with your personal and subjective beliefs, go for it. I chose Thayer's because he has far more accolade among his peers for the accuracy of defining terms within the grammatical rules for Hermeneutics than others of his peers.

Before proceeding, I note you've left the concept of earnest and forfeiture. To use your rhetorical tactics, this is wise of you.

Now, where do you get this stuff highlighted above? You seem to have no clue of why what you say cannot be trusted. You simply do not need to say things that so easily can be refuted and even evidence lack of knowledge about things like this.

Besides our personal knowledge and awareness, are you not aware that we can go to many sources and get information on things like this? Here are a few internet resources and [FWIW] some personal experience:

• Logos who sells such resources doesn't even identify Thayer's in it's article about them
• FWIW, a few decades ago when I was among, learning from, and doing some work with language "scholars" the favored Greek lexicon among the ranks was - and has been since then - BDAG. I use BDAG primarily but also look at several including Thayer's.
• It's hard to do a basic web search anymore without having AI jump in. Here's Google's AI answer to a web search: what is the favored Greek lexicon among exegetical scholars today? Copy & pasted response:
  • The favored Greek lexicon for exegetical scholars today is overwhelmingly the Bauer, Arndt, & Danker (BDAG), considered the gold standard for New Testament (NT) Greek, complemented by the comprehensive Liddell, Scott, Jones (LSJ) for broader Ancient Greek, with other key resources like the Louw-Nida Semantic Domain Lexicon and specialized works like Muraoka's for the Septuagint (LXX) also highly valued for deep study.
    Top Choices for New Testament (NT) Greek:
    • BDAG (Bauer, Arndt, Danker): The definitive standard for NT & Early Christian Literature, praised for its detailed definitions, usage examples, and context.
    • Louw-Nida (Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint-Greek New Testament): Excellent for understanding semantic ranges and how words function in different contexts.
    • Friberg Analytical Lexicon: A handy, quick-reference tool for parsing and basic meanings, often used alongside BDAG.
  • For Broader Ancient & Hellenistic Greek:
    • LSJ (Liddell, Scott, Jones): The comprehensive lexicon for all of Ancient Greek, essential for understanding words used outside the New Testament.
    • Muraoka (Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint): Highly recommended for LXX studies, providing context beyond the NT.

• Since AI chimed in, I went over to ChatGPT and fed your statement into it for research. Its response:
• • That claim from musicmaster really doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, and—importantly—it trades on anachronism and category confusion.
    
    
    1. Thayer’s real standing (historically, not rhetorically)
    
    Joseph Henry Thayer (1828–1901) was respected in his own time, but:
    
    • His lexicon is a translation and expansion of Grimm, not an original work
    • It predates:
      • papyrological discoveries (Oxyrhynchus, Tebtunis, etc.)
      • modern semantic theory
      • discourse-sensitive lexicography
    • It reflects 19th-century philology, not modern lexical method
  • 
    Thayer was never regarded as uniquely superior among his peers—he was simply the best available English option at the time.
    
    
    No modern lexicographer or grammarian argues that Thayer is more accurate than BDAG for NT Greek.
    
    
    2. The fatal category error: lexicon vs. hermeneutics
    
    The statement
    
    
    
    “accuracy of defining terms within the grammatical rules for Hermeneutics”​
    
    is itself confused.
    
    Key clarification
    • Lexicons do not operate “within grammatical rules for hermeneutics.”
    • Lexicons describe usage and sense, not interpretation or theology.
    • Grammar handles syntax; hermeneutics handles meaning-in-context.
  • 
    This phrasing signals non-technical language—not scholarly precision.
    
    
    If someone actually understood modern lexicography, they would never describe a lexicon this way.
    
    
    3. What contemporary scholarship actually says
    
    Among actual scholarly consensus:
    
    • BDAG superseded Thayer precisely because:
      • Thayer lacked papyri evidence
      • Thayer relied heavily on theological glosses
      • Thayer could not control semantic range the way BDAG does
  • 
    This is not controversial. It is assumed.
    
    
    Even scholars who admire Thayer do not privilege him over BDAG.
    
    
    4. Appeal to “accolade among peers” is meaningless
    
    Ask: Which peers? When? Where?
    
    • Thayer’s “peers” lived before 1900
    • His acclaim reflects availability, not superiority
    • No modern peer-reviewed lexicon endorses that claim
  • 
    In academic work, current consensus matters, not historical prestige.
    

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The favored Greek lexicon for exegetical scholars today is overwhelmingly the Bauer, Arndt, & Danker (BDAG), considered the gold standard for New Testament (NT) Greek, complemented by the comprehensive Liddell, Scott, Jones (LSJ) for broader Ancient Greek, with other key resources like the Louw-Nida Semantic Domain Lexicon and specialized works like Muraoka's for the Septuagint (LXX) also highly valued for deep study.
Top Choices for New Testament (NT) Greek:

• BDAG (Bauer, Arndt, Danker): The definitive standard for NT & Early Christian Literature, praised for its detailed definitions, usage examples, and context.
• Louw-Nida (Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint-Greek New Testament): Excellent for understanding semantic ranges and how words function in different contexts.
• Friberg Analytical Lexicon: A handy, quick-reference tool for parsing and basic meanings, often used alongside BDAG.
• For Broader Ancient & Hellenistic Greek:
  • LSJ (Liddell, Scott, Jones): The comprehensive lexicon for all of Ancient Greek, essential for understanding words used outside the New Testament.
  • Muraoka (Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint): Highly recommended for LXX studies, providing context beyond the NT.

I'm surptised that didn't mention TDNT

 

[studier]

I'm surptised that didn't mention TDNT

I use it and have for decades. It may have been the first such resource I bought. I was surprised in seminary to find it wasn't used much and their library had no copy. It's still referenced in many scholarly articles.

 

[Ouch]

Admittedly, just reading the Scripture verse you quoted makes it sound as if baptism is required for the remission of sin. BUT, when studying The Word one needs to take the preponderance of Scripture into consideration. And clearly the majority of Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace through faith and not of ANY works that we could boast of. So obviously that would include our going down into a pool of water with words said over us. We should be baptized once we are saved, as the Lord commands us to do it as an outward sign of an inward change. But the Holy Spirit moves in to us the minute we are saved, and we are forgiven. Just as the repentant thief on the cross was saved by his faith. Not being submerged in water.

Sorry you will not accept HIS WORD, but I'm glad you are seeking.

You speak as what you say is true, have you ever searched in HIS word to make sure all of your comments are true?

You claim we are saved and then baptized for show.

So your calming we can be saved and never get rid of our sins how is that possible?

So to prove the scripture I share wrong, can you back up what you claim is right?

I do know most people that don't like HIS word (we have to be baptized in JESUS name to remove our sins) use the thief as an excuse to back up their thoughts.

So why didn't the thief need to be baptize?

I can explain, we need to rightly divide the word.

When the thief on the cross died, he died OT laws. Where people had to take a sacrifice to the high priests ones a year to have their sins forgiven GOD RULES.

JESUS is our high priest and he became our sacrifice our lamb.
When JESUS was on this earth and forgave sins as he wished like the thief.

JESUS preach app 3 years, died on the cross, buried and rose again. Then he ascended to Heaven to put his blood on the mercy seat.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

He then returned to earth and was here app 40 days and ascended again commanding his disciples to wait because they will be filled with the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:3-4

He ascended the second time and this was the first message of how to be reborn.
Acts 2:38-39
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Since then until he returns again, we live in NT laws and how to be saved we need to repent, get baptized in JESUS name to get rid of our sins and receive the Holy Ghost like JESUS gave his disciples in Acts 2:4.

So who are you going to follow men with their twist on HIS word OR HIS WORD?