BAPTISM SAVES, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS"

[LC627]

Thank you but Not true: Strong's Greek: 907. βαπτίζω (baptizó) -- to dip, sink (dip, implies submersion)
Baptizo - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version (to wash, to make clean with water)
Does the word baptism mean immersion or sprinkling? | CARM.org

As you can see there is more than one meaning to the word baptizo.

Furthermore, historically we know thru early Christian writings, specifically the Diache (70-80AD), that immersion was not used. Did the Christians who walked and talked with the Apostles misunderstand the meaning of the word baptizo or how to properly baptize?

Baptism in the Didache
Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).

Last, but not least, would you deny baptism to a person who is, due to medical reasons, physically unable to be immersed in water? I don't think you would. The meaning of the word baptizo and the 2,000 year historical practice/belief of The Church would not deny that person baptism either.

Mary

Do you have something against being fully immersed? I will follow the example of Jesus Himself. He "went up out of the water" One is not "buried" when they are sprinkled or just have water poured on then.

 

[LC627]

You’re right - they WEREN’T dunked in water. That brings up a fantastic point – especially to our “immersion only” friends.

They were in the city of Jerusalem, where there is NO RIVER – yet 3000 people were BAPTIZED.
Acts 2:41 says that ALL 3000 were BAPTIZED. This could only have been done by pouring three times over the head, as we read in the 1st century document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles):

The Didache
Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water;
But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm.
But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." (Paragraph VII).

Gee – sounds AWFULLY Catholic . . .

The fact is there were many pools in Jerusalem, some significantly large. J.W. McGarvey carefully investigated this matter in 1879. Consider the following:

1. The Virgin’s pool was about 132 feet square and some 3 feet deep.
2. The pool of Siloam occupied approximately 800 square feet and was more than three feet deep.
3. Lower Gihon covers more than 3 acres and can be as much as 40 feet deep.
4. Upper Gihon is about one and a half acres and can hold a depth of some 20 feet of water.
5. In addition, McGarvey surveyed several other sizable pools. He also noted that most houses had cisterns that collected water in the rainy season (Lands of the Bible, Philadelphia: Lippencott, 1881, p. 201).

Source: www.Christiancourier.com "What about baptism on the Day of Penetcost?"

 

[Marymog]

Do you have something against being fully immersed? I will follow the example of Jesus Himself. He "went up out of the water" One is not "buried" when they are sprinkled or just have water poured on then.

I don't and my Church recommends immersion. Do you have something against people that are physically unable to being immersed getting baptized?

As I stated before, of which you failed to address, we KNOW thru early Christian writings, specifically the Diache (70-80AD), which was written before the book of Revelations, that immersion ONLY was not used. Did the Christians who walked and talked with the Apostles misunderstand the meaning of the word baptizo or how to properly baptize?

Is it possible to go chest deep in water and then come up "out of the water"?? If your kid walks in a puddle of water with their new $120 shoes you just bought them do you tell them to get "out of the water"? (The answer is yes)

Be honest here LC....Scripture does NOT say immersion, the earliest written recordings from your Christian brothers did not say immersion only, the earliest Christian art work showing baptism and the use of sea shells for pouring on the baptized does not support immersion only and the word baptizo does not only mean immersion.

Although immersion is preferred.

Historical Mary

 

[Enoch111]

Do you have something against being fully immersed?

That would not be *Catholic* enough. But the ancient Didache (The Teachings of the Apostles) from the 2nd century makes it clear that immersion was the proper mode for baptism. Of course, Scripture makes this crystal clear.

 

[Enoch111]

...the earliest written recordings from your Christian brothers did not say immersion only...

False and misleading.

Chapter Seven of the Didache (2nd century):
And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.

Running water = a stream or river, and just as John immersed Christ in the Jordan, Christians would be immersed for Christian baptism. How else would one symbolically experience death, burial, and resurrection?

 

[Marymog]

False and misleading.

Chapter Seven of the Didache (2nd century):
And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.

Running water = a stream or river, and just as John immersed Christ in the Jordan, Christians would be immersed for Christian baptism. How else would one symbolically experience death, burial, and resurrection?

Thank you for making my point and backing up what I stated by quoting the Didache: ....pour water on the head three times.... (not immersion)

Finally we agree on something enoch

Love, Mary

 

[ScottA]

There are many who believe that baptism is the point of salvation, where we come in contact with the blood of Jesus and are forgiven of our sins and when we receive the Holy Spirit. Talking to a church of Christ friend the other day and we discussed baptism.

Acts 2:38: Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:21: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 22:16: And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

Mark 16:16: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

church of Christ believes that the "for" (Eis) means "for the purpose of" in Acts 2:38. So, Baptism then would be for the purpose of "remission of sins" and where we come in contact with the blood of Jesus, with their interpretation of Scripture. Baptism is also how one gets "into / puts on Christ" (Galatians 3:27). Also, baptism is what "adds you to the church". Faith/belief/repentance does not add you to the church unless you've been baptized.

Where we currently live, this doctrine is very popular. What are your thoughts on this matter? :)

Matthew 23:19
Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?

 

[LC627]

I don't and my Church recommends immersion. Do you have something against people that are physically unable to being immersed getting baptized?

As I stated before, of which you failed to address, we KNOW thru early Christian writings, specifically the Diache (70-80AD), which was written before the book of Revelations, that immersion ONLY was not used. Did the Christians who walked and talked with the Apostles misunderstand the meaning of the word baptizo or how to properly baptize?

Is it possible to go chest deep in water and then come up "out of the water"?? If your kid walks in a puddle of water with their new $120 shoes you just bought them do you tell them to get "out of the water"? (The answer is yes)

Be honest here LC....Scripture does NOT say immersion, the earliest written recordings from your Christian brothers did not say immersion only, the earliest Christian art work showing baptism and the use of sea shells for pouring on the baptized does not support immersion only and the word baptizo does not only mean immersion.

Although immersion is preferred.

Historical Mary

I do not believe that baptism saves so a person who physically can't would not be an issue. In those cases you have to do what you have to do. But for able people fully immersed is the only mode. I believe that the early Christians and Apostles knew that baptism was suppose to be fully immersed. Being "BURIED" is to be FULLY immersed.

Was Jesus' baptism one of pouring?

 

[Marymog]

I do not believe that baptism saves so a person who physically can't would not be an issue. In fact, that is how you Catholics started pouring in 253 AD. Novatian was bedridden and ill and was allowed to be poured on since he couldn't be baptized. I believe that the early Christians and Apostles knew that baptism was suppose to be fully immersed. Being "BURIED" is to be FULLY immersed.

Was Jesus' baptism one of pouring?

Now, now. Let's not ignore your Christian history and what I have already stated as fact: We KNOW thru early Christian writings, specifically the Diache (70-80AD), which was written before the book of Revelations, that immersion ONLY was not used. The 70-80AD writing is a few years before your 253AD reference of which I am proud of you for knowing.

Scripture says baptism saves. You don't believe Scripture?

Be honest here LC....Scripture does NOT say immersion, the earliest written recordings from your Christian brothers did not say immersion only, the earliest Christian art work showing baptism and the use of sea shells for pouring on the baptized does not support immersion only and the word baptizo does not only mean immersion.

 

[ScottA]

That would not be *Catholic* enough. But the ancient Didache (The Teachings of the Apostles) from the 2nd century makes it clear that immersion was the proper mode for baptism. Of course, Scripture makes this crystal clear.

That makes it clear mechanically, but not spiritually. Which is the whole point of things foreshadowed, giving a parable of the object by means which is not the subject thereof...according to the scriptures which say “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

 

[Hidden In Him]

In John 3, Jesus is speaking with the Pharisee, Nicodemus:

John 3:2-5
He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.
”Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be BORN AGAIN? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of WATER and Spirit.

I’ve had countless Protestants tell me that Jesus is speaking here is the amniotic fluid that we are ALL surrounded by in our mother’s wombs. This is the most ridiculous explanation I’ve ever heard because that’s NOT what they were talking about. Nicodemus explicitly asked Jesus how a person can be Born AGAIN.

Through amniotic fluid is the way we are initially born into the world – NOT into CHRIST. We are born into Christ through WATER and Spirit. This is why Peter, comparing the waters of the Flood and the Ark, states that Noah and his family were saved THROUGH WATER – just as “BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU” (2 Pet. 3:21).

As for the Thief on the cross – he was baptized with the Baptism of desire. He never got the chance to be baptized – but he came to faith at the end. God can and DOES make exceptions. That’s how BABIES and aborted children can be saved who never came to faith in Christ.

Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation (Mark 16:16).

Greetings Bread of Life, and blessings in Christ.

I don't believe we've talked, and I know I have not publicly debated on this topic before, but let me discuss this with you.

Here is what I believe: The context of the entire passage in John 3:1-15 is that Jesus was "born from above," and only he who is born from above could have been in Heaven to descend from Heaven to earth to begin with (in answer to Nicodemus's lead off statement).

But is water baptism necessary to salvation or merely incidental in this context? The entire focus of the teaching was on being born from above, ie. born of the Spirit. The reason water baptism is mentioned in this context is because the original pattern was to be baptized in water and then immediately baptized in the Holy Spirit upon rising up out of the water, just as Jesus did. In cases where one was baptized in the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water, water baptism became merely a formality; a formalism representing something that had already taken place: The birth of the believer into newness of life in the Spirit.

So in this sense it is not truly necessary for salvation, is it? Why stress that a formality and a formalism is necessary unto salvation when it was really only an outward ceremony to be practiced as a means to an end?

The Didache
Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water; But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." (Paragraph VII).

This quote from the Didache seems to all the more support my case. The symbolism was of being resurrected from the dead unto newness of life in Spirit, which made immersion the only type of baptism that properly represented what was taking place. And yet they allowed for other methods. If it were not little more than an outward formalism, why would they have not stressed that it be observed properly, and unwaveringly?

What you are preaching is the opposite of what Scripture says:

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 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.

Mary

Greetings in Christ, Mary.

Not that I am simply being nit-picky, but in this case it is important enough that it needs to be drawn attention to: You are quoting the first half of 1 Peter 3:21 but short-cutting the rest of the verse which argues that it was actually not water baptism that saves (i.e. "the putting away of the filth of the flesh"), but the answer of a good conscience towards God, which comes through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the true sign that we have been accepted by God, and therefore once again the real issue at hand: Being born from above by the Holy Spirit.

I look forward to both your responses,
and blessings in Christ.
Hidden In Him

 

[Enoch111]

That makes it clear mechanically, but not spiritually.

For the spiritual significance of baptism by immersion, we need to go to Romans 6.
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

 

[ScottA]

For the spiritual significance of baptism by immersion, we need to go to Romans 6.
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

This is the meaning behind being born of water, which is of the flesh unto death, and the good news that Christ has offered new life in the spirit to those who will enter in. So, then, it is not by choice that we die, but rather to live. For this we have been given freewill, whether for death or for life.

Thus, it is not water that gives life, but the spirit of God.

 

[Marymog]

Greetings in Christ, Mary.

Not that I am simply being nit-picky, but in this case it is important enough that it needs to be drawn attention to: You are quoting the first half of 1 Peter 3:21 but short-cutting the rest of the verse which argues that it was actually not water baptism that saves (i.e. "the putting away of the filth of the flesh"), but the answer of a good conscience towards God, which comes through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the true sign that we have been accepted by God, and therefore once again the real issue at hand: Being born from above by the Holy Spirit.

I look forward to both your responses,
and blessings in Christ.
Hidden In Him

Thank you for the kind greeting. It is refreshing.

It is important to put ALL of scripture in context in the matter at hand. I will attempt to do this in as few words as possible.

Matthew 3 Jesus is baptized in water.

Acts 8 the eunuch is baptized in water.

Romans 6 says, "Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." This is reiterated by Paul in Colossians 2:12, and in Galatians 3:27 when he likens baptism to "being clothed with Christ."

Romans 6, backed up by Colossians 2 and Galatians 3, is not the only evidence from the New Testament that baptism is effective/necessary for salvation. In Acts 2 the people ask what they must do to be saved. Peter replies, "Repent and be baptized....for the forgiveness of your sins".

John 3 Jesus says to Nicodemus that a person cannot enter the kingdom of God without being born again. Nicodemus asks how a man might enter again into his mother’s womb and Jesus corrects him, saying, "No one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water and the Spirit". Immediately after this exchange with Nicodemus Jesus immediately goes out with his disciples and begins baptizing.

(Historical note: This passage, since the 2nd Century, has always been interpreted as baptismal regeneration. The teaching OPPOSITE of that began 1,500 years later)

1 Peter 3 Noah’s ark is referred to as a type of baptism: "In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:20-21).

The pattern of the stories in Acts concerning baptism is consistent: preaching, repentance of the hearers, belief in Christ, and immediate baptism. The Apostles believed and practiced that baptism was both effective and necessary for salvation.

Historically we KNOW what the NT Christians practiced. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water (running water). But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (Chapter 7,Didache 70-80AD)

Summary: Baptism with water was practiced and preached by Jesus and the Apostles. The earliest historical recording we have from our Christian brothers is water baptism of which the person is to fast before being baptized. Jesus said no one can enter heaven unless they are born of water AND Spirit which is what baptism entails: Water and Spirit.

Some want to leave out the water part and say it is not necessary. Jesus said it is.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

The fact is there were many pools in Jerusalem, some significantly large. J.W. McGarvey carefully investigated this matter in 1879. Consider the following:

1. The Virgin’s pool was about 132 feet square and some 3 feet deep.
2. The pool of Siloam occupied approximately 800 square feet and was more than three feet deep.
3. Lower Gihon covers more than 3 acres and can be as much as 40 feet deep.
4. Upper Gihon is about one and a half acres and can hold a depth of some 20 feet of water.
5. In addition, McGarvey surveyed several other sizable pools. He also noted that most houses had cisterns that collected water in the rainy season (Lands of the Bible, Philadelphia: Lippencott, 1881, p. 201).

Source: www.Christiancourier.com "What about baptism on the Day of Penetcost?"

And do you believe for ONE minute that the Jewish leaders would have allowed the immersion baptisms of 3000 people in the name of Christ in their Temple pools?? The same Jewish leaders who had Peter and John flogged for preaching Christ in the Temple??

Nice try . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is the meaning behind being born of water, which is of the flesh unto death, and the good news that Christ has offered new life in the spirit to those who will enter in. So, then, it is not by choice that we die, but rather to live. For this we have been given freewill, whether for death or for life.

Thus, it is not water that gives life, but the spirit of God.

WRONG.
Nicodemus was asking about REBIRTH, not initial, uterine birth.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I don't agree; in Acts 2.41, those who were already believers were baptised; they did not get baptised in order to become believers, in order to become cleansed.

From the OP of this thread, the question is about the Greek word "eis" as it is used in Acts 2:38 and whether the meaning of "eis" in this verse is looking forward (for remission of sins) or backwards (because sins have already been remitted).

The Greek word "eis" does not appear in Acts 2:41.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

It is truly amazing that even after what has been revealed in the New Testament, the *traditionalist* churches (RCC and EOC), as well as the CoC, and the Mormons (perhaps others) believe that the water of baptism washes away sins. But Jesus said that remission of sins is through repentance (Lk 24:46,47).

And [CHRIST] said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Luke 24:47 is Luke's account of the great commission...."And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

This was carried out in Acts 2:

--Luke said it would begin in Jerusalem>>>> Peter was in Jerusalem

--Luke said repentance & remission of sin would be preached in the name of Christ>>>>Peter preached "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sin".

Neither Luke nor Peter said repent for remission of sins.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Greetings Bread of Life, and blessings in Christ.

I don't believe we've talked, and I know I have not publicly debated on this topic before, but let me discuss this with you.

Here is what I believe: The context of the entire passage in John 3:1-15 is that Jesus was "born from above," and only he who is born from above could have been in Heaven to descend from Heaven to earth to begin with (in answer to Nicodemus's lead off statement).

But is water baptism necessary to salvation or merely incidental in this context? The entire focus of the teaching was on being born from above, ie. born of the Spirit. The reason water baptism is mentioned in this context is because the original pattern was to be baptized in water and then immediately baptized in the Holy Spirit upon rising up out of the water, just as Jesus did. In cases where one was baptized in the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water, water baptism became merely a formality; a formalism representing something that had already taken place: The birth of the believer into newness of life in the Spirit.

So in this sense it is not truly necessary for salvation, is it? Why stress that a formality and a formalism is necessary unto salvation when it was really only an outward ceremony to be practiced as a means to an end?

This quote from the Didache seems to all the more support my case. The symbolism was of being resurrected from the dead unto newness of life in Spirit, which made immersion the only type of baptism that properly represented what was taking place. And yet they allowed for other methods. If it were not little more than an outward formalism, why would they have not stressed that it be observed properly, and unwaveringly?

Hello Hidden . . .
When the Bible is silent or at best, ambiguous about Christian doctrines – it is helpful read the Early Church Fathers’ practices and beliefs to see how they were taught by the Apostles.

For example – the Bible is pretty much silent about Infant Baptism. It is alluded to in the baptisms of the entire households of Cornelius, Stephanas and the Philippian Jailer. The ECF’s, however, tell us that this was a teaching passed down by the Apostles themselves. They spoke of the Baptismal Water

- When Jesus healed the Blind man – he used MUD.
- When the Apostles bestowed the Holy Spirit upon people – they anointed them with OIL.
- James 5, we read about the anointing of the sick and dying for their cure and forgiveness of sins.
- Jesus have up His physical BODY as propitiation for our sins.
God uses tangible means to convey the Spirit to us because we are tangible beings.

This is why Peter tells his readers when comparing the waters of the Flood through which Noah and his family were saved:

1 Pet. 3:21
“. . . and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

The water of Baptism symbolizes the washing of the Holy Spirit and has NOTHING to do with getting wet.

As for the Didache – yes, it does say that immersion is the preferred method of Baptism – but in NO way the “only” method. It also says that “living water” id the preferred venue – but NOT the “only” venue. NOT everybody lives near a river or stream
There is not ONE verse in ALL of Scripture that describes a Baptism - not ONE.
We must rely on the ECFs who were taught by the Apostles for that information.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Romans 10:10 does not say it leads on towards salvation. It is salvation. "Confession resulting in salvation"

Romans 10:10 KJV "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
Romans 10:10 NIV "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."

There is an obvious difference between the KJV and NIV.

The KJV correctly renders "eis" with the word "UNTO", hence one believes and confesses looking forward, unto salvation. One does not believe and confess BECAUSE one is already saved. Again, the NIV is pushing Luther's faith onlyism therefore ignored the underlying Greek in an attempt to get one saved at belief only. And in wrongly doing so it has one saved when one believes and saved again when one confesses.