Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Yeshua1]

Any man can do works. And most do. But it is faith that is perpetually challenged.

The problem is that good works have to meet the standard of God, and ONLY Jesus can do that!

 

[Yeshua1]

By way of example, and not intended to be exhaustive:

1. Confess with your mouth. Romans 10:9-10.

2. Confess before men. Matthew 10:32.

3. Believe. Acts 16:31; Mark 16:16.

4. Repent. Acts 2:38.

5. Be baptized. Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; John 3:5.

6. Through faith. Ephesians 2:8.

Water baptisim is not part of the salvation process, as is done after we believe, for then we are in Christ, which the baptism represents!

 

[Reformed1689]

By way of example, and not intended to be exhaustive:

1. Confess with your mouth. Romans 10:9-10.

2. Confess before men. Matthew 10:32.

3. Believe. Acts 16:31; Mark 16:16.

4. Repent. Acts 2:38.

5. Be baptized. Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; John 3:5.

6. Through faith. Ephesians 2:8.

All of those follow faith. We do not believe in a works based salvation but you clearly do.

 

[Yeshua1]

All of those follow faith. We do not believe in a works based salvation but you clearly do.

He would say that we would follow teachings of paul, he does james, but we should heed both!

 

[Reformed1689]

He would say that we would follow teachings of paul, he does james, but we should heed both!

Nor do Paul and James contradict each other. It is taking Scriptures out of context.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nor do Paul and James contradict each other. It is taking Scriptures out of context.

Which Rome does so often!

 

[Walpole]

Nor do Paul and James contradict each other. It is taking Scriptures out of context.

Once again, the ONLY place in Scripture where the words "faith alone" appear are a condemnation of it. Your statement is based on a false presumption that Paul taught that man is in fact saved by "faith alone."

In order for there to be an actual contradiction, one would need to demonstrate Paul taught man is saved by faith alone. If you have such a verse, by all means post it.

Spoiler alert: The verse(s) will NEVER be posted because Paul NEVER taught sola fide. It was an invention of the progenitors of Protestantism. As the Protestant theologian Alister McGrath wrote, it was a theological novum.

 

[Reformed1689]

Once again, the ONLY place in Scripture where the words "faith alone" appear are a condemnation of it. Your statement is based on a false presumption that Paul taught that man is in fact saved by "faith alone."

In order for there to be an actual contradiction, one would need to demonstrate Paul taught man is saved by faith alone. If you have such a verse, by all means post it.

Spoiler alert: The verse(s) will NEVER be posted because Paul NEVER taught sola fide. It was an invention of the progenitors of Protestantism. As the Protestant theologian Alister McGrath wrote, it was a theological novum.

You don't need the specific words faith alone. And you have to look at all of Scripture, not just cherry-picked verses taken out of context.

 

[Yeshua1]

Once again, the ONLY place in Scripture where the words "faith alone" appear are a condemnation of it. Your statement is based on a false presumption that Paul taught that man is in fact saved by "faith alone."

In order for there to be an actual contradiction, one would need to demonstrate Paul taught man is saved by faith alone. If you have such a verse, by all means post it.

Spoiler alert: The verse(s) will NEVER be posted because Paul NEVER taught sola fide. It was an invention of the progenitors of Protestantism. As the Protestant theologian Alister McGrath wrote, it was a theological novum.

Jesus paid in full and accomplished in full salvation, and the just shall live by their faith in Him!

 

[Walpole]

You don't need the specific words faith alone. And you have to look at all of Scripture, not just cherry-picked verses taken out of context.

Nice try, but unfortunately you do given the specific words are explicitly condemned.

---> "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Once again, the reason there is no contradiction between Paul and James is because Paul NEVER taught sola fide (faith alone). His words to the faithful at Rome easily confirm this...

Romans 8:24 ---> "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"


Here he says we are saved by hope. Therefore sola fide is demonstrably fallacious.

 

[Reformed1689]

Nice try, but unfortunately you do given the specific words are explicitly condemned.

---> "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Once again, the reason there is no contradiction between Paul and James is because Paul NEVER taught sola fide (faith alone). His words to the faithful at Rome easily confirm this...

Romans 8:24 ---> "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"


Here he says we are saved by hope. Therefore sola fide is demonstrably fallacious.

They are not condemned, again, you take things WAY out of context. I don't subscribe to Catholic heresy.

 

[Walpole]

They are not condemned, again, you take things WAY out of context. I don't subscribe to Catholic heresy.

It's not condemned? Ok, convince me that "NOT BY FAITH ALONE" really means "BY FAITH ALONE."

Go...

 

[Reformed1689]

It's not condemned? Ok, convince me that "NOT BY FAITH ALONE" really means "BY FAITH ALONE."

Go...

Again, quit taking verses out of context and read all of Scripture. Paul explicitly states that we are NOT saved by works.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's not condemned? Ok, convince me that "NOT BY FAITH ALONE" really means "BY FAITH ALONE."

Go...

How did you receive Jesus as Lord, by faith, or by water baptism as baby?

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, quit taking verses out of context and read all of Scripture. Paul explicitly states that we are NOT saved by works.

Good works are a result of salvation, but not the cause of salvation.

 

[RCommando]

Love rejecting Church teaching from the time of Christ until now for something a random dude made up in the 1600's... awesome stuff.

 

[Reformed1689]

Love rejecting Church teaching from the time of Christ until now for something a random dude made up in the 1600's... awesome stuff.

Which of course isn't what is happening at all.

 

[utilyan]

Where does Scripture say anything else is?

The very next verse literally says: 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

You didn't include it why?

Shouldn't the line read:

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that are TOTALLY OPTIONAL.

Which line is in the bible? and which one is in the David Taylor version?

 

[utilyan]

You know PATIENCE gets in line BEFORE FAITH.

James 1
4But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
\

If some idiot were to argue "PATIENCE ALONE" on account of Scripture Alone. YOU WOULD ALL BE LOSERS.

Because scripture plainly teaches all you need to be PERFECT and ENTIRE is patience.

There is no scriptural backing for FAITH ALONE. There is however scriptural backing for PATIENCE ALONE, its a miracle none have gotten the dumb idea of taking that verse and running with it.

(aside from Catholics who also made up the stupidity of faith alone)

Take one moment to try to challenge "PATIENCE ALONE" .. You can't it got a BETTER alibi than faith alone. Scripture plainly teaches it will make you perfect and entire.

 

[Reformed1689]

The very next verse literally says: 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

You didn't include it why?

Shouldn't the line read:

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that are TOTALLY OPTIONAL.

Which line is in the bible? and which one is in the David Taylor version?

Because that is the result after salvation. Works.