A Personal Relationship with Jesus is not enough

[D28guy]

EricB,

"Though I have seen many RC's mention faith and pledge salvation by grace, etc.

If any RC professes salvation by grace through faith alone I praise God for that, but if they say that then they are not professing what the CC teaches about salvation. They got it somewhere else, most likely from an evangelical who shared the true gospel with them...and it "took".

The RCC clearly teaches salvation by works, and they curse anyone who denies that.

Praise God that the saving gospel is getting to some catholics and being recieved.

God bless,

Mike

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Eric B:
So it seems that the main difference between the Lutheran view and the RCC is "penance, satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory", that they call "flesh and blood of Christ" ceremony a "
sacrifice", a you emphasize "faith" (Though I have seen many RC's mention faith and pledge salvation by grace, etc).
Is this true? Because other than those points, the two systems seem the same.

There are similarities in worship. The Lutheran Church simply removed the abuses that had crept in under the papacy. The RCC has removed many of these abuses (e.g., compare a pre-Reformation mass with a post-Vatican II mass), but many still remain.

 

[John Gilmore]

At this point, it is necessary to draw a sharp distinction between the mysteries of grace instituted by God and the false worship of the Baptists:

In the Christian preaching of the gospel, the Holy Spirit works faith through the hearing of the Word. In the false preaching of the Baptists, man works faith by accepting Christ or making a decision for Christ.

In Christian Baptism, God saves man through faith alone. In the false worship of the Baptists, man serves God by being baptized.

In Christian Communion, Christ gives man His body and blood for the forgiveness of sin. In the false communion of the Baptists, man serves God by participating in a memorial meal.

 

[Briguy]

John, Of what significance is the act of infant Baptism when a huge percentage of those infants never "grow up" to be Christians. They have no faith, no worship, no real dealings with God. This act which you esteem to impart grace doesn't do anything for many people. Why is that? If God endorses Baptism, especially infant Baptism as a means of giving his grace why doesn't that grace stick with people. I know many many people who were Baptized as infants and it menas nothing to them now, in fact, God means nothing to them now. I was baptized as a Lutheran myself, grew up in the Lutheran church, was a choir member, SS tacher, youth director, and Council member. All that and it was through a Christian co-worker that I came to faith in Christ. Not of baptism, not of what I heard at the Lutheran Church, but by a simple Gospel presented to me and lived out in front of me. BTW, I am non-demoninational, not Baptist. Your claims to baptism are in error or Baptism for the infants, such as myself, my wife, and a host of others would have meant more and would have produced a life lived out for Christ.

John, if you read my answers to a couple baptism verses a page or so ago, please respond to what I said or if you wish present another verse, one at a time, which you believe proves Baptism is needed for salvation.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Brian

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
At this point, it is necessary to draw a sharp distinction between the mysteries of grace instituted by God and the false worship of the Baptists:

That's quite a statement.
First, I don't believe Baptists have false worship; but Lutherans, well...
Secondly, What do you mean by "mysteries of grace?" Grace has no mystery. Grace is the free unmerited favor of God. It is not difficult to understand. God freely gives to man that which he does not deserve. That is grace. Salvation is all of the grace of God. Christ paid the penalty of man's sin. He paid it all. There was nothing that man could do to merit eternal life. He can only receive the gift of God (etrenal life--Rom.6:23) by faith. And that is grace. The grace of God provides salvation which we do not deserve.

In the Christian preaching of the gospel, the Holy Spirit works faith through the hearing of the Word. In the false preaching of the Baptists, man works faith by accepting Christ or making a decision for Christ.

This is a false statement and a misunderstanding on your part.
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Man cannot be saved without the Word of God being preached (the preahing of the Gospel). Neither can he be saved without the operation of the Holy Spirit working upon him, as is evidenced in Acts 2, where they were "pricked in their heart, and cried out men and brethern what shall we do?" Responding to both the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word of God they put their faith in Christ and were saved.

What you said about Baptists is false. This is not a "mere decision for Christ."

In Christian Baptism, God saves man through faith alone. In the false worship of the Baptists, man serves God by being baptized.

This is false doctrine on your part. Can you back it up without taking Scripture out of context? The Scripture never teaches that baptism saves. That is mere superstition. Water does not wash away sin. Only the blood of Christ can do that.

In Christian Communion, Christ gives man His body and blood for the forgiveness of sin. In the false communion of the Baptists, man serves God by participating in a memorial meal.

Communtion, or the Lord's Table, is a service in order to remember the death of the Lord--how He died for us. It specifically says: "Do this in remembrance of me." There is no forgiveness of sin imparted here. Forgiveness is imparted once and for all at the point of salvation (as far as one's salvation is concerned).

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There is no condemnation--none.

The only forgiveness a believer needs is that which he may seek on a daily basis to keep that sweet fellowship with Christ restored. That has nothing to do with one's salvation. For example, John writing to believers said:

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

In neither one of these passages is there any reference to communion. Forgiveness of sins is never connected to the Communion Table. The Communion Table is simply a remembrance of what the Lord did for us on Calvary--nothing less, nothing more. It does not impart grace to anyone. There is nothing magical in the elements.
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Briguy:
John, Of what significance is the act of infant Baptism when a huge percentage of those infants never "grow up" to be Christians. They have no faith, no worship, no real dealings with God. This act which you esteem to impart grace doesn't do anything for many people. Why is that? If God endorses Baptism, especially infant Baptism as a means of giving his grace why doesn't that grace stick with people. I know many many people who were Baptized as infants and it menas nothing to them now, in fact, God means nothing to them now. I was baptized as a Lutheran myself, grew up in the Lutheran church, was a choir member, SS tacher, youth director, and Council member. All that and it was through a Christian co-worker that I came to faith in Christ. Not of baptism, not of what I heard at the Lutheran Church, but by a simple Gospel presented to me and lived out in front of me. BTW, I am non-demoninational, not Baptist. Your claims to baptism are in error or Baptism for the infants, such as myself, my wife, and a host of others would have meant more and would have produced a life lived out for Christ.

John, if you read my answers to a couple baptism verses a page or so ago, please respond to what I said or if you wish present another verse, one at a time, which you believe proves Baptism is needed for salvation.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Brian

Baptism is necessary but not essential for salvation. Only the Word itself is essential. As Luther wrote, "the word of God is the greatest, most necessary, and most sublime part in Christendom--for the sacraments cannot exist without the word, but indeed the word can exist without the sacraments, and in an emergency one could be saved without the sacraments (as for example, those who die before receiving the desired baptism) but not without the word" (LW 38, p 189).

Perhaps you recall Luther’s explanation to the third article, “I can not of my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel.” No one ever believed the gospel by making a decision to do so. Holy Ghost calls us to faith in Christ through faith alone.

Faith alone justifies us. But the Baptist church denies this. In their view, the effectual call of Spirit is not sufficient; we must save ourselves by using our own reason and strength.

This is why the Baptist church will not baptize anyone who has not made a conscious decision and this is why they twist dozens of scripture to support their rationalist view. The Word of God is clear: “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not.” Mark 10:13-15 The Baptist Church stands under God’s judgment: “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matt. 18:6.

I don’t know if the Holy Spirit worked faith before, at, or after your baptism. The outward act of baptism does not save. The Lutheran Church baptizes children solely upon the command of Christ, “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not."

Grace does not always “stick”. But the Lord restores those who have fallen from baptism when the return to Christ through repentance and faith.

 

[Eric B]

the false worship of the Baptist

The Baptist Church stands under God’s judgment

Gee, I never knew the Lutheran was that harsh on Baptists! It seems you are pretty much like the RCC before the "abuses" were added, and after Vatican II. A few years ago, you all were asking for unity or recognition by the RCC, but it was like "Sorry, you must be apart of the one Holy Church to be saved". You were still just another Prostestant heretic, er, separated brother. And now you look down on us the same?

Perhaps you recall Luther’s explanation to the third article, “I can not of my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel.” No one ever believed the gospel by making a decision to do so. Holy Ghost calls us to faith in Christ through faith alone.

Faith alone justifies us. But the Baptist church denies this. In their view, the effectual call of Spirit is not sufficient; we must save ourselves by using our own reason and strength.

I guess you ignore all the Baptists who are on the same side as Luther on that issue; the Calvinists, including the Primitive Baptists (probably a majority here, or at least more vocal on the issue). For those who are not Calvinist, we deny that having faith without an "effectual call" is "saving ourselves" or using our own "reason" or "strength" (common misrepresentations). So it's not a matter of the Spirit's work being "not sufficient"; it is whether the Spirit irresistably draws or not (in which case, we do not of our own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called all by the Gospel, but allows people to refuse it, rather than passing people over unconditionally).

This is why the Baptist church will not baptize anyone who has not made a conscious decision and this is why they twist dozens of scripture to support their rationalist view.

Well, nobody is "effectually called", let alone "irresistably drawn" simply because they happened to be baptized as a child. (which simply moves the decision of salvation from the person to the parents!) Who's really saving by works, here?! That's why, whether Calvinist or Arminian, Baptists, and other similar churches allow the person's adult decision to be the means God uses to effectively save someone.

I don’t know if the Holy Spirit worked faith before, at, or after your baptism. The outward act of baptism does not save. The Lutheran Church baptizes children solely upon the command of Christ, “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not."

But where does this say anything about baptism? Let them come unto Me and learn, or just love me and receive my love. Why read anything else into this? (and then, whenever they understand salvation and what the Church/Christian life is about, they can be baptized).

 

[John Gilmore]

Eric B,

The Lutheran Church has never condemned individual Baptists or Catholics except for the Pope. The Lutheran condemnations of the Baptist (aka Anabaptist), Reform, and Roman Churches remain in effect despite the declarations of the apostate Lutheran World Federation. As far seeking unity with papacy, as little as we can worship the devil himself, can we endure the rule of his apostle, the Pope.

Your statement that Arminian and Calvinist Baptists allow the person's adult decision to be the means God uses to effectively save proves that the Baptist church denies justification by faith alone and should be condemned.

Unregenerate children can not love God or receive His love as you also imply.

 

[Eric B]

See, but right there, you have baptism regenerating! (That is denying justification by faith alone.) But Christ's statement is totally silent on baptism. And he does not make any distinction between "regenerate children" and "unregenerate children". He just says not to prevent any from coming to Him. Like the RCC, way too much is being read into scriptures from out of nowhere.

Also, why would the Lutherans condemn the Reformed? Aren't they closer in doctrine and practice (infant baptism, etc)?

 

[John Gilmore]

DHK,

I agree the gospel is easy and simple to those who believe. But to unbelievers, it is a mystery.

"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." Luke 8:10

Your statement that we are saved by our response to the gospel denies justification by faith alone. We are justified by the faith of Christ (Gal. 2:15-20) not by the works of the law.

Also, your statement that the forgiveness of sins is never connected to the communion table is contrary to Matt. 26:26-28.

 

[John Gilmore]

Eric B,

Christ silent on baptist? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", "Be baptized and wash away thy sins", "Baptism doth now save us", etc. Christ did not single out baptism in this passage because baptism is not the only means that God uses to regenerate children. But He states that the children had faith so they definitely were regenerate.

The Reform Church teaches many serious errors that deny the doctrine of justification (e.g., the two natures of Christ, predestination, the Holy Supper, etc.).

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Baptism is necessary but not essential for salvation. Only the Word itself is essential.

What? 'Necessary' and 'essential' are synonyms. I think you had better rephrase the statement.

jason

 

[John Gilmore]

At this point, it is necessary but not essential to draw a sharp distinction between the mysteries of grace instituted by Christ and the false worship of the Reform.

In Christian worship, Absolution is granted to those who have fallen from grace and who have returned to Christ in repentance and faith. In the false worship of the Reform, Absolution is denied those who have fallen from grace because the Reform deny that regenerate man can ever return to the bondage of Satan.

In Christian worship, the body and blood of Christ, God and man, is distributed and received in, with, and under the bread and the wine for the forgiveness of sins. In the false worship of the Reform, the meaning of Christ's Words is changed to separate Christ's humanity from His divinity so that the Reform may eat and drink only spiritually. Since the time that Christ became our brother to save us, the divine and human natures of Christ are never separated. Therefore, the Reform receive only bread and wine.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
At this point, it is necessary but not essential to draw a sharp distinction between the mysteries of grace instituted by Christ and the false worship of the Reform.

Okay...maybe I should say it again:

'Necessary' and 'essential' are synonyms. I think you had better rephrase the statement.

How can something be A and not A at the same time?

jason

 

[John Gilmore]

jasonW,

How can something be A and not A at the same time?

When we establish a false premise that the meanings of two words are identical.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

The Lord says that faith and baptism are needed for salvation. Yet, He also says that only unbelief damns. Therefore, baptism is necessary for salvation but not essential. I see no reason to rephrase.

 

[Eric B]

Once again, as I have explained earlier, baptism was the public sign of one's profession of Christ. To refuse baptism was tantamount to denying Christ, and "whoever shall deny Me before men, I will deny before my Father". It symbolized conversion, which was baptism "by one Spirit into one body". This was the "baptism" that saved, and washed away sins, and the water ceremony was the outward sign of it. If someone did not believe, it did not matter whether they were baptized in water or not, and they were not baptized into the body.

The Reform Church teaches many serious errors that deny the doctrine of justification (...predestination, etc.).

Uh, don't Lutherans believe in predestination as well? You may disagree on limited atonement, but but predestination is more concerned with unconditional election, which you did seem to acknowledge wih statements about the "effectual call" and regenerate and unregenerate children.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
DHK,

I agree the gospel is easy and simple to those who believe. But to unbelievers, it is a mystery.

"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." Luke 8:10

In Luke Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in parables, who in their minds had already rejected their Messiah. There was already a veil over their minds, their hearts hardened, and their eyes blinded to the truth of God, ever since their rejection of the law of Moses (2Cor.3:7-13). Christ had not died yet. His message to them was pre-cross. The message of the gospel after the resurrection was and is very simple to understand. There is no excuse for man not to accept Christ as Saviour. It is no mystery. It is the foolishness of man that prevents him from trusting Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Your statement that we are saved by our response to the gospel denies justification by faith alone. We are justified by the faith of Christ (Gal. 2:15-20) not by the works of the law.

Not at all. We are saved by faith and faith alone. If there is no response to the gospel it is impossible for one to be saved. Read 1Cor.15:1-4. It is by the gospel by which you were saved. It was there response to the gospel by which they were saved. If you deny this then you deny what the Bible says in 1Cor.15:1-4.
It was the jailor's response to the gospel that jusstified him.
It was the Ethiopian's response to the gospel that brought him salvation, forgiveness of sins, and justification.

Also, your statement that the forgiveness of sins is never connected to the communion table is contrary to Matt. 26:26-28.

Matthew 26:26-30 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Jesus shed his blood but once, and it wasn't at the Communion Table. His blood washes away all our sin--the blood that was shed on the cross at Calvary--the blood that came from his body when the soldier pierced his side with a spear. There is no blood at the Communion Table. There is no forgiveness at the Communion Table--only the remembrance of the death of Christ--his sacrifice for us on the cross; that is what we remember when we partake of the elements at the Lord's Table. There is no magical forgiveness of sins contained in the elements.
DHK

 

[Briguy]

Mark 16:16 has several ways to be looked at. I stand by the fact that Baptism then was different then Baptism now. Let us look at the passage as a whole,

[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
[19] So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
[20] And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Hmmmmm - so John, does your belief stop at 16:16 or have you survived poison and snakes? Does your church show these miraculous signs when you preach Baptism for salvation? Be careful now because if anything here has changed it all can have changed. The point is that Baptism in the early church was a "signal" that your commitment to Christ was real. If a person refused to be Baptized, in those early days, he was showing that he did not have saving faith. We are now in a different dispensation of time. We have church buildings and church memberships and our faith is demonstrated differently. Also, the second part of Mark 16:16 does not say "Not baptized". However my main point is the better argument. John, scripture has to be taken in context and the audience must be known. I cringe at Acts 2:38 because it is just simply not for you and I yet it is quoted all the time. Actually Acts 2:38 if used as an argument for Baptism leading to salvation, really messes up your infant baptism belief, as infants can't repent. John, you are better off seeing Acts 2:38 from my perspective.

John, Is the Christian held in God's hand or does the Christian hold on to God's hand?

In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Uh, don't Lutherans believe in predestination as well? You may disagree on limited atonement, but but predestination is more concerned with unconditional election, which you did seem to acknowledge wih statements about the "effectual call" and regenerate and unregenerate children.

The Calvinists don't go far enough in total depravity and unconditional election:

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

Westminster Confession

Man, in no way, cooperates in his own justification. And, of course, we deny irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
When we establish a false premise that the meanings of two words are identical.

Uhm...Ok. I guess I am going to have to rely on the good ole dictionary instead of your word for this one.

www.m-w.com

Entry Word: necessary
Function: adjective
Text: 1
Synonyms ESSENTIAL 4, imperative, indispensable, necessitous, prerequisite

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

The Lord says that faith and baptism are needed for salvation. Yet, He also says that only unbelief damns. Therefore, baptism is necessary for salvation but not essential. I see no reason to rephrase.

That is possibly the most illogical statement in this thread.

Firstly, as noted earlier, necassary and essential are synonyms. To say what you have stated is a non-sequitor.

Secondly, given the lack of reference to baptism in damnation, the only thing you can possibly infer is that faith trumps baptism. If baptism+faith == salvation, but !faith == damnation, what does that say about baptism? You seemingly have no idea, do you?

But, just so you can see this clearly, solve the following:

X: Baptism + Faith = Salvation

Y: Baptism - Faith = Damnation (we can say this because we know that lack of faith + anything leads to damnation....)

So, what is the difference between the two? Faith and lack of faith. So, what is really important here?

So, for now, how about you rephrase your statement (the non-sequitor), so that it makes sense and we can start over.

jason