An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

[The Biblicist]

We are not discussing infant baptism right now. We are discussing the "HOW" of salvation, not the "WHEN". No Lutheran believes that anyone is saved by the act of baptism, we are saved IN or at the time of baptism. Let's set this issue aside, for now, and first establish the HOW of salvation.

To claim infants are saved "IN" the act of baptism is to claim they are saved "BY" the act of baptism or otherwise you would never restrict their salvation WITHIN the boundaries of baptism. Hence, your "HOW" is also your "WHEN."

So are you stating that God can and DOES give dying infants faith to believe? So the infant does not have to have adult intellect, maturity and decision making ability to believe?

Adults are spritually blind and spiritually deaf and spiritually dead and so adluts are regenerated IN ORDER TO believe - likewise with dying infants.

So we are in agreement on the "HOW" of salvation? God elects who he will save and at the time of his choosing, at some point in the person's life, he gives them faith, belief and repentance. It is a free gift. They do nothing but receive it. Agreed?

Our disagreement is over the elected means that obtains salvation or "way" of salvaiton. I believe the Bible has but ONE way to be saved while you believe there are at least THREE ways.

1. Pre-Circumcision or non-Circumcision Canaanite infants death - without circumcision, without baptism but "through sanctification of the Spirit (regeneration) AND belief of the truth (made believers).

2. Circumcision dying infants - remission of sins/regeneration obtained "in" circumcision.

3. Baptized dying infants - remission of sins/regeneration obtain "in" baptism.


At the very minimum you have two WAYS of salvation for those who live to adulthood.

1. Infant baptism - given the promise of salvation confirmed later in actual regeneration/faith.

2. Non-infant baptized elect - remission of sins/regeneration/justification received "in" baptism.

The Bible simply does not offer these options but the means is built in with the salvation "to salvation THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth."



I believe the elected means is spelled out in the words "chosen to salvation THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" which is the same in all elect. However, what you have is OPTIONAL means applicable to some and not others in obtaining the same salvation.

 

[Wittenberger]

One thing you are forgetting is that predestination, Calvinism if you will, is not divided along denominational lines, as you can tell from the ad nauseum threads on the subject in the Baptist only section. The Protestant denomination that comes closest to believing 100% in election is the Presbyterians. To me, it is an interesting subject, but does not determine someone's eternal destiny. The only thing that determines that is faith in Jesus Christ.

Regardless of which way one believes, when eternal security is added to election, your posts and many Baptist posts are inconsistant. If one is quickened, predestined, elected to salvation, it was the choice of the Lord. Then how can that same person decide to reject Christ and "become unsaved" for lack of a better term. On the other hand, if one believes God has put it within each man to choose or reject Jesus Christ, with only God's foreknowledge, then how can that person believe in eternal security. He had the ability to choose salvation, but has no choice to reject it down the line. Both positions seem to contradict themselves.

As far as denominations go, the only two I know that believe in eternal security, "preservation of the saints," or whatever you call it, are Baptists and Presbyterians.

You keep bringing up the fact that you were brought up in an IFBC. You imply that this gives you a better perspective. I was raised in a PCA church (conservative Presbyterian), and while I to admit it helps understand the difference, you conclusion to me is totally backwards. Granted, as a child one does not have much choice in which church they attend, and also acknowledging that Presbyterian is as close to Baptist as one can get in another denomination, but as an adult, studying Scripture as well as I know how, it is obvious on issues like Baptism and hierarcy, Baptists are spot on.

That brings up another point you mentioned in relation to communion. You said that one part of the Lutheran church practiced open communion, and the conservative section practiced closed with the exception of a few other denominations. Lets get serious here. Doesn't it seem odd to you, if one is going to practice closed (which I am totally against in any church), that one of the denominations that your faith would allow, is the RCC, the very church you claimed to have broken away from? Talk about a red flag!!! Are you saying by this that Lutherans have more in common with the RCC than the SBC???

This brings up another question about Lutheran doctrine. What other denominations would a Lutheran church accept baptism from with a transfer of a letter?

More later...............

You are thinking like a Calvinist, brother!

Calvinists require the Bible to make sense, to be logical, to all fit together in a neat package. Lutherans do not believe it is proper to do this.

There are many paradoxes in the Bible. Lutherans believe that we should accept the paradoxes instead of trying to make them make sense. Therefore we apply this approach to the Doctrine of Predestination: The Christian who trusts in Christ can be 100% assured of his eternal security. The Christian who turns his back on Christ, and chooses a life of sin, will lose his salvation.

However, someone who is the elect will not turn his back on Christ and therefore the elect CANNOT lose their salvation. Only those, who as in the Parable of the Sower, fall on poor ground or rocks will perish, not those who fall on good soil.

The Elect will never lose their salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Calvinists require the Bible to make sense, to be logical, to all fit together in a neat package. Lutherans do not believe it is proper to do this.

The Bible is logical and it does fit together in a neat passage because God is not "the author of confusion." The only place it does not fit is in the mind of a heretic or a confused mind.

There are many paradoxes in the Bible.

A paradox is not a contradiction but only an APPARENT contradiction (not a real one) that further study and insight reveals to be perfectly logical within the framework of its proper context.

Lutherans believe that we should accept the paradoxes instead of trying to make them make sense.

Much of the Bible is a "paradox" to the LOST! Much of it is a paradox to the MISLED and poorly instructed believer. You are advocating the position of the lost and the deceived by insisting they need not STUDY or SEEK the truth but merely accept the paradoxes instead of trying to make sense of them!

Therefore we apply this approach to the Doctrine of Predestination: The Christian who trusts in Christ can be 100% assured of his eternal security. The Christian who turns his back on Christ, and chooses a life of sin, will lose his salvation.

Because Lutherans are uneducated in the Bible teaching they fail to comprehend the Biblical distinction between the "PROFESSED" Christian versus the REAL Christian (1 Jn. 2:19). The REAL Christian can never be lost - Jn. 5:24; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; etc. The PROFESSED Christian may be lost or saved depending on the genuiness of their spiritual state.

Only those, who as in the Parable of the Sower, fall on poor ground or rocks will perish, not those who fall on good soil.

The Elect will never lose their salvation.

All four soils "received the seed" as a matter of PROFESSION. Only the fourth soul is a genuine regenerated heart and the variety of output proves not all Christians manifest it to the same extent in progressive sanctification.

 

[Wittenberger]

You are thinking like a Calvinist, brother!

Calvinists require the Bible to make sense, to be logical, to all fit together in a neat package. Lutherans do not believe it is proper to do this.

There are many paradoxes in the Bible. Lutherans believe that we should accept the paradoxes instead of trying to make them make sense. Therefore we apply this approach to the Doctrine of Predestination: The Christian who trusts in Christ can be 100% assured of his eternal security. The Christian who turns his back on Christ, and chooses a life of sin, will lose his salvation.

However, someone who is the elect will not turn his back on Christ and therefore the elect CANNOT lose their salvation. Only those, who as in the Parable of the Sower, fall on poor ground or rocks will perish, not those who fall on good soil.

The Elect will never lose their salvation.

I don't believe I have a better perspective because I grew up BBF Baptist. I'm not sure where you got that from. Baptists are a very diverse group, with alot of varying beliefs.

I do not like it that my Church has closed communion. If it were me I would make the Lord's Supper open to all baptized Christians.

We criticize the RCC for its excesses, but we still believe that a Roman Catholic whose faith is in Christ is just as much a Christian as me or you.

 

[Wittenberger]

I don't believe that God gives faith to any person in order to believe. That doesn't make sense and cannot be backed up by Scripture. It also makes infant baptism totally unnecessary, and even foolish in the sight of God. It even looks very superstitious. Salvation is by faith in God, not God's faith, but your own. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It is your decision not God's. It is your faith, not God's. Thus infant baptism is the most ridiculous concept ever invented by Christendom and parallels rituals in paganism, on par with Hinduism.

So if it is YOUR faith, then your salvation is not totally dependent on Christ, it is partly dependent on you. Thus salvation is a type of transaction:

The sinner brings his faith, belief and repentance, Christ brings forgiveness, justification, and eternal life, then the sinner and Christ do an exchange and the transaction of salvation is completed. Is that what you believe?

 

[Wittenberger]

I think if you will reveiw our posts it was not I who introduced the word "decsion" but YOU! You introduced it to interpret my position that regeneration was concluded in faith. I do not believe in decisionism as the cause of regeneration but the consequence so all the following arguments based on the rationale are mute.



If your "free will" Baptist church denied and rejected the doctrine of eternal security than it was an apostate Baptist church. Remember, this was my response to your question concerning if a regenerate person could become unregenerated!



"

Death is by appointment only. God chose these to die at the particular time they died - Heb. 9:27

The babies that died among the heathen Canaanite when Israel killed women, children and infants - utterly destroying all that breathes were by divine appointment. They were not circumcised babies. They were not baptized babies but babies born among parents who were the most ungodly and false religionists of that time. Hence, all your arguments for infant baptism, infant circumcision, regeneration, remission of sins is all mute and void in this Biblical example - right?

Now, did these canaanite babies go to heaven or hell? My position on these babies is the same as my position on adult believers salvation. They must be regenerated - meaning regenerative change - meaning regenerative faith as defined in 2 Thes. 2:13 so that they are CHANGED from unregenerate to regenerate, from unbelief to belief must occur or they will not enter heaven.

The Bible has three different kind of preachers of the gospel listed in the Word of God:

1. Human Preachers
2. Angel preachers - Gal. 1:8-9, Rev. 14:6
3. God Himself - Gal. 3:8

We know from the story of Lazerus and the rich man that "angels" transport the soul of the saved to heaven and therefore must be present at the death of God's elect.

We also know there is no salvation for anyone at anytime OUTSIDE of Christ and only those chosen "IN CHRIST" are chosen "to salvation" and the means of salvation is chosen as well "through sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth."

This rules out external ordinances as the chosen means and that should be obvious in the case of dying infants and especially that should be easily seen in the case of these canaanite infants - no baptism, no cirucmicision - nothing.

The only difference between dying infant elect and living infant elect is the TIME when they are regenerated. Dying infant elect are regenerated either at death as defined by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and living elect are regenerated at the appointed time in their life as defined by 2 Thessalonians 2:13. In neither case are external ordinances the defined means or essential means as is obvious with these dying canaanite infants.

The bottom line in my first versus second Adam argument is that dying infants are the elect and their salvation is secured by Christ's representative action apart from any individual personal action in their own life time where as the living elect receive regenerative faith in life rather than at the point or in death previous to entrance into heaven.

2 Thessalonians 2:13
English Standard Version (ESV)

13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits[a] to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Footnotes:a.2 Thessalonians 2:13 Some manuscripts chose you from the beginning

I don't see anywhere in this verse the discussion about "all" dying infants being given faith, repentance and belief in order to get into heaven. This verse only discusses those who are the Elect. There is no passage in Scripture that states that ALL infants who die will be automatically granted forgiveness, belief, faith and repentance so that they can get into heaven.

Lutherans believe that ALL sinners, including infants, absolutely must believe by faith in Christ as Savior and repent to get into heaven. There are no exceptions. Faith, belief and repentance ALWAYS OCCUR at the same time that the free gift of salvation is given. Not before, not afterwards.

 

[The Biblicist]

2 Thessalonians 2:13
English Standard Version (ESV)

13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits[a] to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Footnotes:a.2 Thessalonians 2:13 Some manuscripts chose you from the beginning

I don't see anywhere in this verse the discussion about "all" dying infants being given faith, repentance and belief in order to get into heaven.

So you believe some dying infants are in hell? Since you do not believe all dying infants are "elect" then obviusly some are in hell. This is where my representative application by Christ in Romans 5:12-21 kicks in and where "sin abounded grace did MUCH MORE abound" as it covers all dying infants as elect in Christ saving them the same way as those who continue to live.

Hence, circumcision and/or baptism does not provide the "promise" for all infants since that promise is only given to the "elect" and only the elect have been "chosen in him" as there is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ, hence no such "promise" exists OUTSIDE of Christ. Therefore, who makes the determination which infant baptism serves as "the promise" of salvation since no such "promise" exists outside of election to salvation?????

Do you have any of the elect infants DYING before circumcision or baptism? If so, then don't you have TWO ways of salvation. One way where remission of sins; regeneration; justification is received WITHOUT circucmsion and baptism whereas another way received "IN" or IN CONNECTION WITH circumcision and baptism???

Lutherans believe that ALL sinners, including infants, absolutely must believe by faith in Christ as Savior and repent to get into heaven. There are no exceptions. Faith, belief and repentance ALWAYS OCCUR at the same time that the free gift of salvation is given. Not before, not afterwards.

You believe there are THREE DIFFENENT WAYS to recieve salvation. You have some of the elect receiving only "the promise" of salvation THROUGH baptism while others receiving it "IN" baptism and others receiving it without baptism whatsoever (theif on the cross, etc.).

The Scriptures have it only ONE WAY - "through sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" plus minus nothing for ALL the elect.

You do not believe in strictly "justification by faith without" but Justification by faith with baptism and sometimes without baptism."

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't see anywhere in this verse the discussion about "all" dying infants being given faith, repentance and belief in order to get into heaven.

In regard to eternal judgement there is only one basis for judgement presented in the scriptures and it is presented in the Old as well as the New Testament repeatedly and that is all who stand in that day before that judgement will be judged "according to his works."

Dying infants have no such basis for judgment. They have only the representative actions of one man - Adam - as a possible basis for eternal judgement. Yet that basis is NEVER mentioned in regard to judgement day.

Second, in the Old Testament Judgement of Korah and all his family God did not send the "infants" of Korah's family alive down into "sheol" hell. Instead, the infants were not judged and at least some of them grew up and became beleivers and wrote some of the Psalms.

Why is it that only those members of Korah's family sent down into Sheol were those capable of being judged on the basis of personal merit or "according to their works" while infants were not sent down to Sheol but were savd from it and many went on to be writers of the Psalms?

The infants were equally family members as those who perished but God spared them and not the rest of the family of Korah.

My view is this is a type of eternal judgment. All who were sent alive down into sheol fit the principle "according to their works" in regard to personal ability. All his other family members were old enough to discern between good and evil manifested in their own personal works.

Just as Adam represented dying infants and living infants by his own act bringing condemnation upon all, I believe Christ represented all who could not represent themselves apart from Adam's act and thus they were saved just as they were condemned so that where sin abounded grace did MUCH MORE abound by Christ's representative work. This does not mean the dying infants were saved differently but rather none will be condemned solely by Adam's personal action but ultimate condemnation is determined "according to his own works."

 

[DHK]

So if it is YOUR faith, then your salvation is not totally dependent on Christ, it is partly dependent on you. Thus salvation is a type of transaction:

The sinner brings his faith, belief and repentance, Christ brings forgiveness, justification, and eternal life, then the sinner and Christ do an exchange and the transaction of salvation is completed. Is that what you believe?

I believe what the Bible says. Let's consider it:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

There is only one simple sentence with a subject and a verb. Everything else revolves around it.

You are saved.
That is the heart and soul of this verse.

"By grace" This is a prepositional phrase modifying the verb. It tells us how we are saved. We are saved by the grace of God that Christ offered us on the cross. The payment was made by Him.
Thus, "By grace are you saved."

"Through faith" This is another prepositional phrase modifying the verb "are saved." We are saved by faith, and faith alone. Paul told the jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." We are saved by faith. "Through faith are you saved."

"and that not of yourselves" There is nothing you can do of yourself to attain salvation. It is by the grace of God and by faith in that grace and that is all. You cannot merit salvation. There is nothing you can do. It is not of yourself. "Salvation is not of oneself."

"It is the gift of God." What is the gift of God? Salvation is the gift of God. This is the subject all throughout. It is a gift to be received, freely received, without any strings attached, without works, for it is not of yourself.
"Salvation is the gift of God."

"not of works" Salvation cannot be obtained by works. If it could there would be no need for Christ to die on the cross. If your works merited salvation in any way it would be an insult to Christ, a slap in his face. It would be like saying that his blood was insufficient; that he failed on the cross and that you had to come along and help him to get you into heaven, because he could not possibly get you there himself. It is a blasphemous doctrine.
"Salvation is not of works."

"Lest any man should boast." Abraham could not boast in his works. Why? Righteousness was imputed on him by God simply because he believed, and for no other reason. Read Romans 4:1-5. If it were by works then you would be "boasting" in heaven for all eternity about what you had done to get to heaven, and then heaven would not be heaven at all, would it?
"Salvation is not for those who boast of their works."

 

[The Biblicist]

So if it is YOUR faith, then your salvation is not totally dependent on Christ, it is partly dependent on you. Thus salvation is a type of transaction:

The sinner brings his faith, belief and repentance, Christ brings forgiveness, justification, and eternal life, then the sinner and Christ do an exchange and the transaction of salvation is completed. Is that what you believe?

I am not answering for DHK but merely pointing out that "faith" in justification is simply receiving salvation as finished without your works. Justifying faith merely RESTS on the declaration that all work for salvation has been FINISHED and thus no cooperation or participation or action is necessary to receive the promise or can be done to receive the promise. See Romans 4:21.

So there is no partly dependence upon God or self but total dependence on God but simply acceptance it is FINISHED with nothing you can do or must do but receive it as such - finished - thus faith is an empty hand that merely receives salvation but never participates in obtaining salvation because all the work is FINISHED.

The difference between faith and faithfulness (works) is found in the distinction made in the following sentence:

"I believed in Christ and therefore I will be faithful to Christ."

Faith is resting "IN" what Christ did for you - His works. Faithfulness is what you dor for Him - your works. That is why "it is of faith that it might by BY GRACE."

 

[Wittenberger]

So you believe some dying infants are in hell? Since you do not believe all dying infants are "elect" then obviusly some are in hell. This is where my representative application by Christ in Romans 5:12-21 kicks in and where "sin abounded grace did MUCH MORE abound" as it covers all dying infants as elect in Christ saving them the same way as those who continue to live.

Hence, circumcision and/or baptism does not provide the "promise" for all infants since that promise is only given to the "elect" and only the elect have been "chosen in him" as there is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ, hence no such "promise" exists OUTSIDE of Christ. Therefore, who makes the determination which infant baptism serves as "the promise" of salvation since no such "promise" exists outside of election to salvation?????

Do you have any of the elect infants DYING before circumcision or baptism? If so, then don't you have TWO ways of salvation. One way where remission of sins; regeneration; justification is received WITHOUT circucmsion and baptism whereas another way received "IN" or IN CONNECTION WITH circumcision and baptism???






You believe there are THREE DIFFENENT WAYS to recieve salvation. You have some of the elect receiving only "the promise" of salvation THROUGH baptism while others receiving it "IN" baptism and others receiving it without baptism whatsoever (theif on the cross, etc.).

The Scriptures have it only ONE WAY - "through sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" plus minus nothing for ALL the elect.

There is only ONE "how" of salvation:

"For by grace are you saved, through faith."

We are not saved by any action on our part or by being a "good" person.

We are only saved by being among the Elect, chosen by God before the world existed to be his children, and then at some point in our lives, God quickens us (makes us spiritually alive) so that we believe. We believe not out of our own human strength or efforts, but because God wills it and gives us the faith and repentance so that we can believe.

If you are not one of the elect you will not be saved regardless of how many times you are baptized or how many times you pray the Sinner's Prayer. SALVATION IS ALL GOD. He predestines, he chooses, he quickens, he creates belief, faith and repentance. God does it all! God takes the free gift of salvation and places it into your hands.

Your participation in your salvation is purely passive. It is as if God puts salvation into a beautiful, wrapped gift box and places it in your hands.

What did you do in that action? You kept your hands still, that's it! You didn't pull your hands away and reject the gift.

That is how Salvation works. It isn't a transaction where you do your part and Christ does his: you bring your faith, your belief, your repentance and exchange it with Christ's forgiveness, Christ's justification, and Christ's eternal life. If that is how salvation works then salvation is partly of God and partly of you. If salvation is partly of you, then you are partly saved by your efforts, and another name for efforts is GOOD WORKS!

That is not how salvation is. Salvation is all God.

So what is our real difference, Brother Biblicist: We disagree about WHEN God saves.

We both agree that the timing of salvation is determined by God and not us. We both agree that one cannot be saved unless he/she is one of the Elect.

You beleive that God saves adults when they believe. Their (truly genuine) profession of faith is proof to all that they are of the Elect and that God has just quickened them to believe. Salvation is all God. I agree with you completely on this!

However you also state that all dying infants are given faith, belief and repentance at the moment of their death. This shows that you believe that it IS possible for an infant to believe, for an infant to have faith, and for an infant to repent.

So our difference is not whether or not an infant can believe, have faith or repent, our difference is WHEN God chooses to give belief to infants and to which infants God gives belief.

Lutherans do not believe that non-baptized infants of Christian parents who die and the infants of non-believers who die go to hell. You assumed that. We say "We don't know what happens to these infants. We have to place our faith in a loving, merciful God, and leave it in his hands." It is the hyper-Calvinists who believe that the infants of non-believers go to hell, not us Lutherans.

So you believe that God gives belief to dying infants at death. We believe God chooses to give belief to infants at baptism. THAT is our real difference.

I don't think you have any Scripture which backs up your position on "all" dying infants receiving faith, belief and repentance from God at their death.

However, if you interpret the Bible in the orthodox Christian interpretation that since God tells us the promise of salvation is for "us and our children", to "repent and be baptized', "to baptize all nations" with no age restrictions, and since God says that infants can believe (the story of the little children coming to Christ), we follow his command to baptize them and leave their believing by faith and their repentance to Him.

You and I are never going to agree that God chooses (in some people) to quicken them at the time of their baptism, but it is a big step forward if we can agree that God does in fact give faith to infants so that they can believe.

You and I are much closer than free-will Baptists who would never accept your position on God choosing who will be saved, and saving them at the timing of his choice not when they make a free will decision on their own. I would be interested in DHK's take on your position on dying infants.

God chooses "when" to save us. He can save us at the time of baptism as infants or he can save us when we are adults and believe before baptism. The "how" of salvation is always the same, however: by his grace, accepted through faith.

You do realize that you also have two "whens" of salvation:

1. When an adult or older child believes
2. When an infant dies

Our theology is much more similar than we thought, brother!

 

[Wittenberger]

In regard to eternal judgement there is only one basis for judgement presented in the scriptures and it is presented in the Old as well as the New Testament repeatedly and that is all who stand in that day before that judgement will be judged "according to his works."

Dying infants have no such basis for judgment. They have only the representative actions of one man - Adam - as a possible basis for eternal judgement. Yet that basis is NEVER mentioned in regard to judgement day.

Second, in the Old Testament Judgement of Korah and all his family God did not send the "infants" of Korah's family alive down into "sheol" hell. Instead, the infants were not judged and at least some of them grew up and became beleivers and wrote some of the Psalms.

Why is it that only those members of Korah's family sent down into Sheol were those capable of being judged on the basis of personal merit or "according to their works" while infants were not sent down to Sheol but were savd from it and many went on to be writers of the Psalms?

The infants were equally family members as those who perished but God spared them and not the rest of the family of Korah.

My view is this is a type of eternal judgment. All who were sent alive down into sheol fit the principle "according to their works" in regard to personal ability. All his other family members were old enough to discern between good and evil manifested in their own personal works.

Just as Adam represented dying infants and living infants by his own act bringing condemnation upon all, I believe Christ represented all who could not represent themselves apart from Adam's act and thus they were saved just as they were condemned so that where sin abounded grace did MUCH MORE abound by Christ's representative work. This does not mean the dying infants were saved differently but rather none will be condemned solely by Adam's personal action but ultimate condemnation is determined "according to his own works."

Interesting position. I would be curious if any other Baptists and/or evangelicals on this site agree with this. I've never heard of it before.

 

[Wittenberger]

I believe what the Bible says. Let's consider it:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

There is only one simple sentence with a subject and a verb. Everything else revolves around it.

You are saved.
That is the heart and soul of this verse.

"By grace" This is a prepositional phrase modifying the verb. It tells us how we are saved. We are saved by the grace of God that Christ offered us on the cross. The payment was made by Him.
Thus, "By grace are you saved."

"Through faith" This is another prepositional phrase modifying the verb "are saved." We are saved by faith, and faith alone. Paul told the jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." We are saved by faith. "Through faith are you saved."

"and that not of yourselves" There is nothing you can do of yourself to attain salvation. It is by the grace of God and by faith in that grace and that is all. You cannot merit salvation. There is nothing you can do. It is not of yourself. "Salvation is not of oneself."

"It is the gift of God." What is the gift of God? Salvation is the gift of God. This is the subject all throughout. It is a gift to be received, freely received, without any strings attached, without works, for it is not of yourself.
"Salvation is the gift of God."

"not of works" Salvation cannot be obtained by works. If it could there would be no need for Christ to die on the cross. If your works merited salvation in any way it would be an insult to Christ, a slap in his face. It would be like saying that his blood was insufficient; that he failed on the cross and that you had to come along and help him to get you into heaven, because he could not possibly get you there himself. It is a blasphemous doctrine.
"Salvation is not of works."

"Lest any man should boast." Abraham could not boast in his works. Why? Righteousness was imputed on him by God simply because he believed, and for no other reason. Read Romans 4:1-5. If it were by works then you would be "boasting" in heaven for all eternity about what you had done to get to heaven, and then heaven would not be heaven at all, would it?
"Salvation is not for those who boast of their works."

I agree with everything you said.

But please answer this question: is the faith through which you receive the free gift of salvation your faith, produced by your intellect, maturity and decision making capabilities as a sinner with a free will, or is that faith a gift from God also, just as salvation is a gift from God, that you receive by no effort on your part?

 

[Wittenberger]

I am not answering for DHK but merely pointing out that "faith" in justification is simply receiving salvation as finished without your works. Justifying faith merely RESTS on the declaration that all work for salvation has been FINISHED and thus no cooperation or participation or action is necessary to receive the promise or can be done to receive the promise. See Romans 4:21.

So there is no partly dependence upon God or self but total dependence on God but simply acceptance it is FINISHED with nothing you can do or must do but receive it as such - finished - thus faith is an empty hand that merely receives salvation but never participates in obtaining salvation because all the work is FINISHED.

The difference between faith and faithfulness (works) is found in the distinction made in the following sentence:

"I believed in Christ and therefore I will be faithful to Christ."

Faith is resting "IN" what Christ did for you - His works. Faithfulness is what you dor for Him - your works. That is why "it is of faith that it might by BY GRACE."

I think we are in agreement: All the action involved in salvation is performed by God. He places the free gift of salvation into our hands and our only function is to keep still and not to withdraw our hands.

Our faith comes from God, however. If it is something we produce, it is a work.

 

[DHK]

I think we are in agreement: All the action involved in salvation is performed by God. He places the free gift of salvation into our hands and our only function is to keep still and not to withdraw our hands.

Our faith comes from God, however. If it is something we produce, it is a work.

Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God.
Faith is confidence in the Word of another, and in this case confidence in the Word of God, specifically the gospel.
It is not given by God. Demonstrate that faith is given by God.
God made us in his image and likeness with a will to choose. The choice is ours whether to accept or reject Christ. We are not robots controlled by God with faith injected in us and thus directed by God to choose. We choose.

 

[The Biblicist]

So what is our real difference, Brother Biblicist: We disagree about WHEN God saves.

No, we disagree about HOW one is saved.

1. Election is only "TO" salvation but it is not salvation - 2 Thes. 2:13a

2. Salvation is THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth, the truth of the gospel - 2 Thes. 2:13-14 as the effectual calling occurred in connection with the gospel (2 The. 2:14).

However, you ADD to these divine MEANS whereby the elect are saved. You add circumcision and baptism as ADDITIONAL means when you claim that "IN" baptism regeneration/remission of sins/justification.

More alarming is that these are OPTIONAL means which you admit that God may or may not use to save some elect as opposed to other elect.

Bottom line, you do not believe the gospel ALONE is the power of God unto salvation but something MAY be added - circumcision/baptism to convey salvation.

This does not harmonize with the contrast that Paul makes between the gospel and circumcision/baptism in 1 Cor. 1:17-18; Acts 15:1-10;etc.

Baptism is as much a "good" work or act of obedience to God's commandments, as circumcision and Paul denies that circumcision is connected with actual literal justification by faith but is a POST-salvation "sign" or symbol. So is baptism - a POST-salvational sign.

What we disagree about is that it is the gospel used in both infants and adults that is "the power of God unto salvation" - 1 Cor. 1:17-18. I believe the word of creation or the creative word to regenerate the elect is the gospel empowered by God (1 Thes. 1:4-5; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23,25; 2 Cor. 3:3-6; 4:6; etc.).

However you also state that all dying infants are given faith, belief and repentance at the moment of their death. This shows that you believe that it IS possible for an infant to believe, for an infant to have faith, and for an infant to repent.

The chosen means for "sanctication of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" is the Gospel (2 Thes. 2:14) alone - not external ordinances - but the internalization of the gospel by the power of God.

We believe God chooses to give belief to infants at baptism. THAT is our real difference.

Your position is so full of contradictions. First, you deny that baptism conveys salvation to the elect. Second, you demand salvation is conferred to infants in baptism. Third, you affirm that baptism gives only "the promise" of salvation which later must be confirmed by personal faith and hence, there is no faith in baptism in the first place.

 

[The Biblicist]

However, if you interpret the Bible in the orthodox Christian interpretation that since God tells us the promise of salvation is for "us and our children", to "repent and be baptized',

You have reversed the order above and that not only perverts the Word of God but leads to false conclusions. The order is:

1. Repent
2. Those who repent be baptized
3. Then the promise

"to baptize all nations" with no age restrictions,

This is plainly a lie, a distortion of God's Word, a complete falsehood as no such command can be found in scripture - nowhere!

Matthew 28:19 does not provide such a command! Remember, evangelization is the subject of going in Matthew 28:19a and this is made plain and clear in Mark 16:15.

The command is evanglize all nations not baptize all nations. Gospel BEFORE baptism and thus faith BEFORE baptism (Mk. 16:16). No other order can be found in the New Testament but that is exactly what you are trying to teach is the order in the New Testament when you make that false application to the Great Commission which is what the rest of the New Testament obeyed.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is a serious question, brother.

We both agree that it is God who has predestined, selected, chosen those he will save before the foundation of the world. It is your choice of the word "decision" that I am questioning.

If God quickens you (makes you spiritually alive) and then gives you a decision ( a free will choice) to believe or not believe, what happens to your spiritual state if you choose to reject Christ? If you were spiritually alive (a Christian) to make a decision, then if you reject Christ you: 1. Remain a Christian who has rejected Christ, or 2. You revert to being spiritually dead, and therefore you have lost your salvation.

I was raised in a free-will fundamentalist Baptist church. We believed that sinful man possesses a free will to choose God. Even you don't believe that, do you? Are you calling Free Will (Arminian) Baptists "nominal" Baptists?

Also, above you make this statement:

"No unbelievers will enter heaven regardless at what point they die."

I completely agree with you! However, you have previously stated that all infants who die will go to heaven because they are not held accountable for Adam's sin---How did these infants believe?? You said "no unbelievers" will get into heaven. When and how did these infants believe?

Bottom line: If you are not a free will Baptist who believes that the sinner possesses the capability to make a free will decision, but that God quickens one who he has previously chosen, then how does your belief in a "decision" square with your doctrine of Eternal Security?

If the quickened (Saved) man can then make a free will decision, that means he can make a free will decision to reject Christ, and therefore lose his salvation.

Please explain.

We are all sinners by both birth and chose!

Those saved by God are those predestined by Him, chosen beforehand to be found in christ, and that will happen once they receive jesus by the faith God enables them to possess...

God opens their hearts/minds to be able to do that, and their natural inclinations are now for jesus...

once saved, God seals them with/by Holy Spirit, and they have new nature...

Anchored by the Will of God, NOT their will!

 

[The Biblicist]

You and I are never going to agree that God chooses (in some people) to quicken them at the time of their baptism, but it is a big step forward if we can agree that God does in fact give faith to infants so that they can believe.

However, that is your major problem. You don't believe that God gives faith to all infants baptized but only elect infants and even then you believe it must be confirmed by a profession of REPENTANCE and faith later. Thus no faith was actually given in baptism and therefore there can be no regeneration/remission of sins or justification actually conveyed IN baptism for ANYONE at ANYTIME!

Why? Because there can be no remission of sins, no justification and no regeneration apart from actual repentance/faith and that demands knoweldge of God as "faith" without understanding given in conjunction with it is oxymoronic. Your doctrine of confirmation demands it never occurred as no baptized infant confesses the knowledge of God without HUMAN instruction. My doctrine says dying infants are given faith with understanding as even John the Baptist leaped with "joy" at the announcement of the birth of Christ demanding some extent of understanding occurred.

Yet ALL those in covenant relationship (from the least to the greatest) with God KNOW God experientially by direct revelation and do not need HUMAN INSTRUCTION to know God - Jeremiah 31:34; Heb. 8:8-10 as it comes by direct revelation - Mt. 16:17; Gal. 1:15.

 

[Wittenberger]

Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God.
Faith is confidence in the Word of another, and in this case confidence in the Word of God, specifically the gospel.
It is not given by God. Demonstrate that faith is given by God.
God made us in his image and likeness with a will to choose. The choice is ours whether to accept or reject Christ. We are not robots controlled by God with faith injected in us and thus directed by God to choose. We choose.

You are obviously an Arminian (free will) Christian.

Ephesians and Colossians chapter 2 each state that the sinner is spiritually dead. How can a dead man have faith??

A sinner has a free will to choose what cereal he eats in the morning, what baseball team he chooses to follow, and what woman he chooses to marry. However, the sinner cannot choose God, choose righteousness, choose to "accept" Christ, choose to make a "decision" for Christ, or choose to have faith. Those are all spiritual actions and according to God's Word, the sinner is spiritually dead, therefore the sinner CANNOT choose to have faith.

Dead men are dead...D-E-A-D! A dead man cannot produce faith. In order for a dead man to perform any action, God Almighty must qucken him (make him alive).

If you want to believe that after God has made a sinner alive (has saved him and he is now a Christian) that THEN the BELIEVER produces faith and repentance, I think you are wrong, but that is closer to the truth.

However, I believe that quickening by God, belief by faith, repentance, and therefore salvation, happen simultaneously. Salvation is not a process.