Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

[Thinkingstuff]

To show how my view is applied with regard to faith can you answer my question in post 135?

 

[JarJo]

1. BY grace alone = No other basis = alone
2. THROUGH faith = No other means - alone
3. IN Christ = No other object = alone

Wouldn't faith be the BASIS and grace the MEANS?

 

[The Biblicist]

Wouldn't faith be the BASIS and grace the MEANS?

Justification is completely based upon grace not works. Faith is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16) and the MEANS to receive, embrace the promise of the gospel.

 

[DHK]

Surely you must understand that a Catholic puts his faith in Christ, and only belongs to the church because he or she believes that it was Christ's will to create a church under the direction of the apostles and their successors.

Some of us read the bible and concluded that infant baptism was practiced right from the beginning, when 'entire households' were baptized. It's not that we choose to disobey the bible to follow the RCC. It's that we think the RCC is in line with biblical teachings.

Entire households were baptized. There is no indication that an entire household had any infants. My household does not have any infants. There are many households without infants. You are reading into Scripture that which is not there. It is called eisigesis. There is not one example in the entire Bible of a baby being baptized anywhere. You cannot demonstrate that through Scripture.

You say you put faith in Christ. But then you immediately contradict that by saying you put your faith in unsubstantiated history. There were "churches" that were established by the apostles, et. al., not a "Church." The "Church" is a concept foreign to NT thought. the word used is ekklesia which means assembly. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me ask you this question Biblicist.

If a man were to hear an evangelist and say the sinners prayer(evidence of faith) and follow up with an alter call (public show of a personal need for Jesus Christ before the congregation). Would you believe he is truelly saved if he then persued the life course of being a pastor. How about if he then got married, had some kids whom he abused (not sexually) and humiliated citing scripture to support this behavior and then his wife developed alzheimers which all he did was ignore her and not take care of her? How about if he was quick to judge without facts? But instead "preached the gospel" to people he didn't know while he lost those of his own household? Not taking care of his wife humiliating and abusing his chrildren driving them from God. I personally think the man had his priorities crossed and I would question his salvation. because the scriptures say What do you think?

It seems by the very specific descriptions you have some one in specific in mind?

First, the description you give of his salvation is not Biblical. Simply saying a sinner's prayer saves no one nor does going forward to an altar call. Hence, if that is the basis of his salvation then he is a lost man.

In regard to all the other things you list, if any one of these charges were true, in my opinion it would disqualify him from the ministry at minimum and would place a question mark on his actual salvation. Not that actual saved persons have done done the same or worse (Lot, Solomon, David, etc.).

However, such a man should never be placed in the ministry or ordained by any congregation and if he is the Pastor of any congregation they should immediately remove him from the Pastorate and place him under church discipline if he does not repent of such things. However, even after repentance he is no longer fit to be in the office of Bishop.

However, why do you even give this illustration in regard to our discussion??? The actual salvation of this person would be questionable merely upon the basis he assumes he is saved much less, what follows?

This does not accurately portray the Biblical doctrines of regeneration/justification.

 

[The Biblicist]

To show how my view is applied with regard to faith can you answer my question in post 135?

Your illustrates only perverts the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith.

Justification by faith is not a mere profession but is accompanied with regeneration. That is the point you fail to grasp. They are distinct and separate works but yet inseparable in time. You are confusing the manifest evidences of regeneration with justification.

 

[JarJo]

Entire households were baptized. There is no indication that an entire household had any infants. My household does not have any infants. There are many households without infants. You are reading into Scripture that which is not there. It is called eisigesis. There is not one example in the entire Bible of a baby being baptized anywhere. You cannot demonstrate that through Scripture.

You say you put faith in Christ. But then you immediately contradict that by saying you put your faith in unsubstantiated history. There were "churches" that were established by the apostles, et. al., not a "Church." The "Church" is a concept foreign to NT thought. the word used is ekklesia which means assembly. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly.

It's true, the new testament doesn't clearly state what age people had to be to receive baptism. It talks about households being baptized when the head of the household converted, but doesn't explain if that included children and whether or not each member of the household had to also have had a personal conversion. Since it wasn't clear, I turned to history to see what the practice of the early Christian churches were. This is all in good faith. I want to know the practice of the apostolic church(es).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your illustrates only perverts the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith.

Justification by faith is not a mere profession but is accompanied with regeneration. That is the point you fail to grasp. They are distinct and separate works but yet inseparable in time. You are confusing the manifest evidences of regeneration with justification.

You haven't told me what you thought about the salvation of the person I presented in my senario. Go through the senario and tell me how you view the person with regard to their salvation. You're just making an accusation but it was a question of how you viewed it. Why the person is justified or not

 

[The Biblicist]

It's true, the new testament doesn't clearly state what age people had to be to receive baptism. It talks about households being baptized when the head of the household converted, but doesn't explain if that included children and whether or not each member of the household had to also have had a personal conversion. Since it wasn't clear, I turned to history to see what the practice of the early Christian churches were. This is all in good faith. I want to know the practice of the apostolic church(es).

Isn't the practice of the early churches recorded in the book of Acts and the epistles? Why seek uninspired tradition when inspired history unmistakenly sets forth their practice by several different criteria?

1. Repentance precedes faith in the Biblical accounts
2. Not a single record of infants being baptized in the Biblical record
3. New Covenant terms deny proxy faith - Jer. 31:34 "from the least"

 

[JarJo]

Isn't the practice of the early churches recorded in the book of Acts and the epistles? Why seek uninspired tradition when inspired history unmistakenly sets forth their practice by several different criteria?

1. Repentance precedes faith in the Biblical accounts
2. Not a single record of infants being baptized in the Biblical record
3. New Covenant terms deny proxy faith - Jer. 31:34 "from the least"

In all honesty, I went to uninspired history because I felt it wasn't possible to come to a sure conclusion on the matter from just the new testament. You can make a reasonable argument one way or the other from the new testament, which can be demonstrated by looking at the practice of the reformers - some went one way and some went the other. If it was so obvious, then people much smarter than me wouldn't disagree on what it said. People far more wise than me have responded to the points you just made, and I can't tell whether your argument or your opponent's argument is better. So instead I tried to find out what the apostles actually did in practice, through historical research.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It seems by the very specific descriptions you have some one in specific in mind?

Of course. I do have someone specific in mind. But names and other details aren't required.

First, the description you give of his salvation is not Biblical. Simply saying a sinner's prayer saves no one nor does going forward to an altar call. Hence, if that is the basis of his salvation then he is a lost man.

Ah you haven't treated my post fairly what did I exactly say? Did I say the sinners prayer justified the man? Or did I say the alter call justified the man? I didn't say either. If you read my post you will see what I exactly said to be understood by your soteriology.

say the sinners prayer(evidence of faith)

and

follow up with an alter call (public show of a personal need for Jesus Christ before the congregation).

My exact words. It assumes that the person has attested to recieving faith. Thus he should have been regenerate as well as justified upon declaration of belief. ie all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Because in truth you can only judge a man by what he says and does. So you didn't treat it fairly. So treat it fairly which you haven't. How can a man show you his faith if its all internal? And if faith is only internal then all it can be is intellectual. Thus intellectual accent.

In regard to all the other things you list, if any one of these charges were true, in my opinion it would disqualify him from the ministry at minimum and would place a question mark on his actual salvation.

True except for salvation because the man is unrepentant. He thinks he's right.

Not that actual saved persons have done done the same or worse (Lot, Solomon, David, etc.).

Of this group David repented and note: Never did it again! I think that is pretty key.

However, such a man should never be placed in the ministry or ordained by any congregation and if he is the Pastor of any congregation they should immediately remove him from the Pastorate and place him under church discipline if he does not repent of such things. However, even after repentance he is no longer fit to be in the office of Bishop.

Good we agree.

However, why do you even give this illustration in regard to our discussion??? The actual salvation of this person would be questionable merely upon the basis he assumes he is saved much less, what follows?

The point was made above. But you didn't treat my actual comments you ignored and important part. Your only argument then is to say he wasn't truelly saved to begin with. Question how do you know? Is faith internal only? if so then again you are left with intellectual assent. I think that is a paramount issue.

This does not accurately portray the Biblical doctrines of regeneration/justification.

It shows accurately the experience and observation of one person to which the the biblical doctrines of regeneration / justification must apply or ask.

 

[The Biblicist]

It seems by the very specific descriptions you have some one in specific in mind?

First, the description you give of his salvation is not Biblical. Simply saying a sinner's prayer saves no one nor does going forward to an altar call. Hence, if that is the basis of his salvation then he is a lost man.

In regard to all the other things you list, if any one of these charges were true, in my opinion it would disqualify him from the ministry at minimum and would place a question mark on his actual salvation. Not that actual saved persons have done done the same or worse (Lot, Solomon, David, etc.).

However, such a man should never be placed in the ministry or ordained by any congregation and if he is the Pastor of any congregation they should immediately remove him from the Pastorate and place him under church discipline if he does not repent of such things. However, even after repentance he is no longer fit to be in the office of Bishop.

However, why do you even give this illustration in regard to our discussion??? The actual salvation of this person would be questionable merely upon the basis he assumes he is saved much less, what follows?

This does not accurately portray the Biblical doctrines of regeneration/justification.

I can't get much clearer than what I have said in the above post/response to your question!

I said, if the sinners prayer and alter call are basis of his salvation he is LOST and still in his sins. Regeneration not mere profession is essential to genuine conversion. Here is exactly where you fail to understand justification by faith in regard to experience in the life of the justified, it never is apart from regeneration and the fruits of regeneration.

I said, if ANY OF THESE ACCUSATIONS are true his personal salvation and IF he has been confronted with such facts and does not confess to the truth of them or shows no signs of repentance then his salvation is QUESTIONABLE but his qualifications for Pastor is not questionable but he is clearly unqualified and should be removed from the office of bishop whether or not he repents. If he does not repent then he should be placed under church discipline.

What more can I say?

 

[DHK]

It's true, the new testament doesn't clearly state what age people had to be to receive baptism. It talks about households being baptized when the head of the household converted, but doesn't explain if that included children and whether or not each member of the household had to also have had a personal conversion. Since it wasn't clear, I turned to history to see what the practice of the early Christian churches were. This is all in good faith. I want to know the practice of the apostolic church(es).

The practice of the Apostles is given in the inspired Word of God. We have a book called "The Acts of the Apostles." What can be more accurate and inspired than that? John lived just into the second century, writing his Gospel, epistles and the Book of Revelation all in the 90's. He was an apostle. The apostles lived in the first century. We have testimony to their practices, testimony that is inspired of God.

There is no testimony anywhere of an infant being baptized.
This is against the teaching of the Word of God.
One must believe first, and then be baptized, such as the Ethiopian Eunuch. Likewise the Philppian jailor, and the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost. All of them believed and then were baptized. You will never find a different order. That was the order Christ gave in the Great Commission, and that is the order in which the Apostles carried it out. An infant is not capable of believing and thus cannot be baptized.

You may find early instances of infants being baptized.
You can also find early instances (even in the OT) of witchcraft and astrology. That doesn't make it right. All three are condemned by God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Isn't the practice of the early churches recorded in the book of Acts and the epistles? Why seek uninspired tradition when inspired history unmistakenly sets forth their practice by several different criteria?

1. Repentance precedes faith in the Biblical accounts
2. Not a single record of infants being baptized in the Biblical record
3. New Covenant terms deny proxy faith - Jer. 31:34 "from the least"

So your contention is whole households do not include everyone in the household?

I don't think you understand the Jewish or Roman Culture of that time. Repentance preceeded baptism by the head of housholds it is assumed the rest of the Household would follow the Head's faith. Or do you believe the head of household was the only baptized person and the distinction whole households only means one or two?

2. Not specifically but certainly weren't children apart of households? Certainly Col refers to the connection between baptism and circumcision.

3. Explain what you mean by "proxy faith" and where the new covenant "terms" deny that. Certainly New Testiment has very little to say with infants. and Certainly we both conceed an adult must have their own faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I can't get much clearer than what I have said in the above post/response to your question!

look in the above post you'll see my response. I missed your first response. in post 151

 

[JarJo]

The practice of the Apostles is given in the inspired Word of God. We have a book called "The Acts of the Apostles." What can be more accurate and inspired than that? John lived just into the second century, writing his Gospel, epistles and the Book of Revelation all in the 90's. He was an apostle. The apostles lived in the first century. We have testimony to their practices, testimony that is inspired of God.

There is no testimony anywhere of an infant being baptized.
This is against the teaching of the Word of God.

That's just it. It simply isn't mentioned in a direct and specific way. I don't take that to mean its against the word of God, but rather that it isn't directly addressed by the word of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ah you haven't treated my post fairly what did I exactly say? Did I say the sinners prayer justified the man? Or did I say the alter call justified the man? I didn't say either.

However, your illustration assumed that justification by faith was mere confession without regeneration. Unregenerate confessions occur all the time and indeed it is this type that populate the vast majority of professing Christendom (Mt. 13).

It assumes that the person has attested to recieving faith.

No, it assumes that this person has attested to receiving YOUR definition of faith not mine or the Biblical definition.

True except for salvation because the man is unrepentant. He thinks he's right.

How can any human being that has two cents of common sense think he is right to treat his poor wife like that much less abuse his children? He is either sorta of sick in the head or has been maligned falsely as there can be no reasonable middle ground. If he is that sick in the head then it should be very obvious to his congregation IF he has been their pastor for any length of time. If he has been falsely maligned then woe to those who perpetuate such false accusations under the guise of righteousness.

The point was made above. But you didn't treat my actual comments you ignored and important part. Your only argument then is to say he wasn't truelly saved to begin with. Question how do you know? Is faith internal only? if so then again you are left with intellectual assent. I think that is a paramount issue.

I made that assessment on the two "IF" propositions I gave you. IF he bases his salvation upon a sinners prayer and IF he basis his salvation upon going to an altar call.

Here is where you pervert the Biblical doctrine of justification as your illustration assumes justification is by "mental assent" ABOUT Christ instead of faith "IN" Christ preceded by true repentance both in accompaniment with being "created in Christ" regeneratively.

You are looking at the external evidences to determine the internal condition but that does not always reflect the actual truth. There are two types of lost people - the RELIGOUS DO-GOODER who is "blameless" touching the law (Philip. 3:3-4) and the characteristic WICKED DO-BADDER as evident in James 2. Some may look at the LOST BUT characteristic RELIGIOUS DO-GOODER and think he is saved by simply judging his DO GOOD actions. Your EXTERNAL test does not always hold true in regard to the do-gooder and only holds true to the CHARACTERISTIC do badder. God does not need the EXTERNAL test because he knows His own through the good and bad behaviors.

 

[Moriah]

So your contention is whole households do not include everyone in the household?

I don't think you understand the Jewish or Roman Culture of that time. Repentance preceeded baptism by the head of housholds it is assumed the rest of the Household would follow the Head's faith. Or do you believe the head of household was the only baptized person and the distinction whole households only means one or two?

2. Not specifically but certainly weren't children apart of households? Certainly Col refers to the connection between baptism and circumcision.

3. Explain what you mean by "proxy faith" and where the new covenant "terms" deny that. Certainly New Testiment has very little to say with infants. and Certainly we both conceed an adult must have their own faith.

Matthew 19:13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

If the disciples were baptizing infants, as the Catholics claim, why do you think the disciples rebuked the people who brought the little children?
And, why did Jesus place his hands on them but not baptize them?

You see, infant baptism is not biblical. In fact, infant baptism goes against the Word of God.

John the baptizer prepared the way for Jesus. He came preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:76-80).
We are still to confess that we are sinners, and to repent, to prepare the way for Jesus Christ into our lives.
The Bible tells us before people were baptized-they repented. Infants cannot repent.
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.
Mark 1:5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
Acts 19:18
Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done.

Water baptism is a promise of a good conscience to God. See 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,

Infants cannot make a promise. Moreover, no one, not even the infant’s parents can make a promise for their child, nor can anyone make a promise for anyone else.

Infant baptism interferes with people knowing and obeying the Truth. Infant baptism confuses non-Christians and those who want to be a Christian. Many people baptized as an infant do not understand why they do not really know the Lord. Those baptized as infants do not usually walk the path that Jesus teaches...unless they learn more of the truth later. Infant baptism has been confusing millions of people for years. It is more serious of an issue that most even realize.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I made that assessment on the two "IF" propositions I gave you. IF he bases his salvation upon a sinners prayer and IF he basis his salvation upon going to an altar call.

Here you've shown the weakness of your thought. You say "IF" because you cannot determined what happened in a persons heart apart from their actions. According to the individual he doesn't place his faith on the prayer or the alter call these were just life affirming parts of what he already had when he believed. But this belief is internal thus it remains in the world of the intellectual or the emotional. Thus this faith is no more than intellectual assent until its lived out. Thus the difference between actual biblical faith and what you call faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here you've shown the weakness of your thought. You say "IF" because you cannot determined what happened in a persons heart apart from their actions. According to the individual he doesn't place his faith on the prayer or the alter call these were just life affirming parts of what he already had when he believed. But this belief is internal thus it remains in the world of the intellectual or the emotional. Thus this faith is no more than intellectual assent until its lived out. Thus the difference between actual biblical faith and what you call faith.

Here you have shown your weakness in understanding the Biblical DOCTRINE of justification by faith which is BEFORE God but you reinterpret it to be BEFORE MEN.

Since I am a man, all I can do is say "IF" but the doctrine is not based upon my perception or on your perception but upon God's perception "before God" (Rom. 3:19; 4:2).

James deals with justification not "before God" and not DOCTRINALLY but in its practical application in the life of the one still professing justification by faith who is WITHOUT WORKS before men. James deal with relation of justification with spiritual LIFE - regeneration connection.