Why does faith+works=not saved?

[mman]

Originally posted by JFox1:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JFox1:
The subject of baptism came up in Bible study class. The pastor said that people must be baptized, including children and babies: "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21 NASB). He emphasized the part of the verse that says "baptism saves you." I said, "It could be argued that you're adding works: Christ and baptism." The pastor responded, "Is baptism a work of God or a work of man?"

That passage definately says something saves us.

You can twist it, ignore or, belittle it, but something saves us. What is it?

Baptism. This is obviously water baptism else his example is meaningless and off target.

But is this all God has to say about baptism? No.

The eunuch asked, "What hinders me from being baptized?" - Acts 8:37.

The reply was if you believe, you may. Can a baby believe?

Peter on the day of Pentecost told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins". Can a baby or small child repent? Repent of what?

Baptizing a baby or small child is without precedent and without biblical authority.

Baptizing an adult who believes and has repented, is with precedent and with biblical authority. </font>[/QUOTE]You asked whether or not a baby can believe. The pastor said that they can and that God works faith in the heart of an infant. He also defended infant baptism by quoting Matthew 28:19, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He said that babies are part of all nations. He also said that when the jailor from Acts 16 was baptized, he and his whole family were. He said that would have included children. </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, he cannot know more than what is revealed. The jailor and his household may have contained children but their ages are not given.

If God creates faith, why did they have to speak the word of the Lord to them? (Acts 16:32).

God's word says, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." - Rom 10:17. Implied in the hearing is understanding. What good are words that cannot be understood? Read I Cor 14:9 "So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air."

A baby cannot understand. A baby cannot have faith, because the source of faith is God's word, not God directly imparting it.

Of what sins would a baby repent? How could a baby repent?

Can a baby confess? With the mouth, confession is made unto salvation - Rom 10:10.

It is not possible for an infant to comply with the instructions and prerequisites for baptism.

There is no biblical authority or precedent for baptizing infants.

There were no infants in the Jailor's house because his whole household was baptized and "he rejoiced along with his entire household" - Acts 16:34, impossible for an infant.

 

[JFox1]

I understand what you're saying, mman. What about someone who is severely retarded? Should that person be denied baptism because he or she cannot understand?

 

[JFox1]

Here is a link about the Lutheran Church's views on baptism. You will need an Adobe Acrobat reader:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_baptism.pdf

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Tazman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:


One thing that Jesus doesn't do is come down in the flesh and baptize you. You are baptized by a man. A man does the baptizing and a person receives the baptizing. You get wet when you get baptized. There is no magic in it. Man does it; receives it, etc. It is a work of man, not of God.

Prayer is a work of man.
Witnessing is a work of man.
Baptism is a work of man.

All of these things we, as believers must do. They are works. We are exhorted to do good works. And the first work of obedience for a Christian to do is that of baptism. To say that baptism has anything to do with salvation is heresy. It is akin to spitting in the face of Jesus and saying: "Jesus your blood was not enough, not sufficient to cover my sins; I must help you out by being baptized." That is heresy, if not outright blasphemy.
DHK

The only one spitting in Jesus' face are those who You baptism Jesus means nothing to my salvation. Baptism is directly connected to Christ because he made it happen through is death.</font>[/QUOTE]This is a new and innovated doctrine outside of the Bible, and certainly not taught either by Jesus or by the Apostles. You won't find any Scriptural for it. When Jesus said in John 19:30 "It is finished," he was saying 'the work of salvation is finished.' There is nothing more that can be done. It is finished, complete; the penalty has been paid. Our sins have been atoned for. The blasphemy comes in when the COC denies Christ's statement in John 19:30 and says: "No Christ you are not finished! We have to be baptized before your work is finished. We have to be part of the work of atonement, the work of salvation also. The work of salvation, and your atoning for sin will never be finished Lord until all COCers will have been baptized." And that is blasphemy. It is not found in the Bible, not taught anywhere except in the COC churches.

this is your problem along with others out there:

My problem?? Hardly. I believe the Bible. I would suggest you study it and do the same.

What you are missing here is that God chose to use something physical & spiritual to bring us to him in a new covenant. This is NOT uncommon with God at all.

This is strictly opinion and not Biblical.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
--There is nothing physical there. Belief is not physical. Salvation requires faith and faith alone. Denial of that is denial of Scriptural salvation.

The Scripture is very plain:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--Why don't you believe this verse, and so many others just like it?

Consider Christ: A physical/spirtual act to bring about forgiveness.

Okay, I will. You do the same.
Christ said:
John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
--So Christ is a physical wooden door. That is how you picture him? Which door is he? Which door must you knock on? Which door must you enter. Where is that door? Which house/room is it located?

It's seen all throughout the old testament and new testament.

Christ used a metaphor when he said; "I am the door," but he never said "I am the baptism."

If you don't believe baptism is necessary then Jesus' death should be questioned too since He has the authority to forgive sins before dying. But He still chose to Die (physical).

You sound like a Catholic. Do you perform extreme unction before a person dies?
The baptism of Jesus had nothing to do with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus--nothing. It marked the beginning of his ministry. It was to fulfill all righteousness. It was an example for believers to follow. You infer by your statement that Jesus needed to be saved--heresy!!
Jesus had the authority to forgive sins because he was God.

The Scribes and Pharisees were correct:
Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
--Only God can forgive sins.

Mark 2:9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
Mark 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
--He demonstrated his deity and power to forgive sins long before he ever went to the cross.

Baptism is From God. And combined with a genuine faith it saves by connecting us to Christ.

Baptism is from God in as much as prayer is from God. They are both commands given to the believer after they are saved. They are both meaningless to the unbeliever.

The sad thing is you can't see that all your doing is adding and twisting your own verson of the gospel. You draw the line of what "Work" is. And all work to you(even obeying Jesus) seems worthless and Mosiac. Paul doesn't see it that way.

Paul does see it that way. You contradict Paul.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--You are unable to properly exegete this passage aren't you. Why can't you explain it. It says how one is saved, and at the same time omits baptism. It is totally comprehensive on salvation.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--You need to redefine words to twist the Bible to make it fit into your theology. Here is another verse that is a problem for you. We are saved by grace, and not by works; otherwise grace is no more grace.
However baptism (which everyone on this board concurs except the COC) is a work.
DHK

[ March 31, 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Eric B]

No, you still don't understand. The power is in the blood. The water is how we come in contact with the blood.

Your twisted logic would put the power in a brass snake. There is no virtue in a brass snake, yet when the people who had been injected with the deadly poison, they would live when they looked upon it. They could stay in their tent all day and believe, yet until they got up and went to the center of the camp and looked at the snake, they could not expect to receive healing.

Now, was the power in the brass snake or in God? Is this really that hard for you to see or are you that desperate to minimize the importance of baptism.

No, it's your twisted logic that would put the power in the brass snake and simply say it was in God. The brass serpent did not make them come into contact with God (who had the power). The blood is spiritual, and we come into contact with it spiritually, not through a physical substance. Else, you are changing a spiritual "heavenly" concept into a physical, "earthly" one.
God used things symbols like the serpent in the Old covenant, but this was not unto salvation. The principles do carry over in thus fashion: the healing gained from the serpent may have prefigured salvation, but then the brass serpent itself prefigured Christ Himself, not the waters of baptism! Notice John 3:14, where Jesus correlates it to Himself; not to water. You're the one desperate to maintain a deed you do that gets you in.

By your logic, God would owe them a cure. Well, if there were virtue in looking at a brass snake, then let's destroy all anti-venom and replace it with brass snakes. God would owe it to everyone who performed the same actions.

The same could be said for the waters of the Jordan River. God used it to cure leprosy. Now do you really think that the power was in the water or in God? Did Naaman's obedience earn him a cure for leprosy? If you think so, then everyone who will dip in the Jordan river 7 times can be cured of leprosy, because God would owe it to them.

Yes, God told them those things, but did not say that brass snakes would cure all disease, or dipping in the Jordan 7 times would forever cure leprosy. It's your line of reasoning that suggests they would, because you see someone told to be baptized to wash their sins away, then it's the water baptism that actually saves, and all in the future would have to depend on it to have their sins washed away.
And yes, their obedience did EARN them the cure. God said to do this to be cured, they did it, and what was promised came to pass. If it didn't, then God would have been lying. But with salvation, once again, it is not placed in deeds, that's why there is no "earning". You (a Campbellist, who so emphasizes we are in the NT and not the OT, rely heavily on OT examples, not translating the principles to the spiritual NT counterpart, but thinking everything works the same way).

Naaman was told to wash and be clean, so are we. Naaman had a different idea of how God would cleanse him. He had it in his mind how he thought God ought to do it. When God chose something foolish in the mind of Naaman, he got angry. Later, he washed and was cleansed. To minimize the power of God and wrongfully place the power in the water is a grave mistake.

You do err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God.

Why is it beyond your ability to understand that the power is in God?

I'm not the one who misunderstands that. You are the one who fixes everything spiritual on physical deeds (based on the OT shadows). One of the reasons God did things like that then, was the point you ade, that Naaman thought it was foolish, so it was a test of faith. But we are in the NT now, and God is not testing faith by making everything seem foolish on purpose. (though many popular evangelical teachers are making millions suggesting stuff like that, and how we may deal with it, but that's a whole other issue).

Eph 5:25-26 "...just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word"

Accept it for what is says. You don't have to figure it out or understand it.

You're the one who gets that completely wrong. It is obvious that "water" there is symbolic. The "WORD" is the subject. If your interpretation was correct, it should be "washing with the Word by water".

Again, your attempt is unsuccessful. Your example and logic is flawed. There is no way that someone can keep the old law when the new law was in effect, "by faith", because the new law abolished the old law. When someone does something in sincerity does not equate them to doing it "by faith".

Paul/Saul was persecuting christians. He was living as though there were no new law. The things he was doing were right and required under the old law. However, he was not doing them by faith, but he was doing it in sincerity (Act 23:1).

Later Paul writes, "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." - Gal 3:24-25

Faith had come but he was still living as though under the law, therefore, his actions were not "by faith".

The whole problem here is that you are simply replacing an "old law" with a "new law" (which is just as physically oriented, only the rituals and days of worship are changed). The only "new law" recognized by the NT is "love". Saul and those others recognized no "new law", so they were only doing "what God had commanded". Whether this had been superseded by God or not is irrelevant, because your whole argument was that "faith" simply meant they only did it because God told them to, rather than them making it up. By that definition, they were acting in "faith".

In the next verses he states, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Gal 3:27-29

Who are the heirs? Those who are Christ's.

How do we belong to Christ? We are baptized into Christ and put on Christ.

How is this done? Through faith.

Notice, this passage explains itself, and should solve the whole puzzle for you. It's all spiritual. You want to make every instance of the word "baptized" literal physical water baptism, but then are we "immersed into" the physical body of Christ? (as if it was liquid to begin with). Not; so no matter how you wrangle it, this is spiritual baptism. "By ONE SPIRIT we are baptized INTNE BODY". Your last word says it right: It is through faith. If only you would grasp what that really means, and stop trying to turn it into works.

 

[Dustin]

Some just refuse to accept grace...

 

[steaver]

Some just refuse to accept grace...

Amen!

And they will thank God and see in the end that their salvation was all Grace and none of self to the Glory of Jesus Christ!

God Bless!

 

[Matt Black]

I wonder what posters make of this quote by the late Pope John Paul IIon this topic?

 

[Dustin]

I dont foller no POPE, speshly not no DEAD un!

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks for that intelligent contribution to the discussion

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> In the next verses he states, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Gal 3:27-29

Who are the heirs? Those who are Christ's.

How do we belong to Christ? We are baptized into Christ and put on Christ.

How is this done? Through faith.

Notice, this passage explains itself, and should solve the whole puzzle for you. It's all spiritual. You want to make every instance of the word "baptized" literal physical water baptism, but then are we "immersed into" the physical body of Christ? (as if it was liquid to begin with). Not; so no matter how you wrangle it, this is spiritual baptism. "By ONE SPIRIT we are baptized INTNE BODY". Your last word says it right: It is through faith. If only you would grasp what that really means, and stop trying to turn it into works. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, so you have the ability to baptize others with the Holy Spirit? I thought that was a promise from Jesus and something He would do.

When was water baptism abolished? In other words, when did Jesus commission end when he told his apostles, "And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." - Matt 28:18-20

Notice Jesus said, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." What had he just commanded them? Answer - "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

Therefore those who were taught were to go teach and baptize others.

For you to be consistent, this must be a command for Holy Spirit baptism. This is a never ending cycle.

Let's also look at the other two accounts.

Luke 24:45-47, "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

and

Mark 16:15-16 "And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Make disciples/baptize - Matt 28:18-20
Repentance and remission of sins, beginning at Jerusalem - Luke 24:45-47
Believeth and baptized shall be saved - Mark 16:16

When did this commission begin to be carried out? In Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

Unless man has the ability to baptize others with the Holy Spirit, he could not fullfil the commission given by Jesus.

The commission is a continuing cycle, therefore, never ending. The baptism of the commission is water baptism, because that is a command man can carry out. (Acts 8:35-36 we know baptism is in water).

Eph 4:5 says there is one baptism. You show me where Jesus commission stopped and your point has merit. Until then, your statements are without any merit.

There are not two baptism now. Do you believe in two Lords? How about 2 Fathers in heaven? How about 2 faiths? 2 Holy Spirits? 2 Hopes? No, these are all singular and so is BAPTISM. Accept one and reject the other.

Baptism in the scriptures always means immersion in water unless something in the text indicates it is used in a metophoric sense. So, you hit the nail on the head when you said I think baptism always means water baptism, unless something in the text lets you know otherwise.

If I say it is raining, you understand that water is coming from the sky. You don't have to wonder the substance. But, if I make a statement it was raining pine cones under some pines, you understand that it was not water but pinecones. Baptism means immersion. Acts 8;35-36, we see that it means immersion in water. Unless something in the text indicates otherwise, you need to understand baptism in its common, everyday meaning, immersion in water.

Gal 3:26-27 is therefore water baptism. Rom 6:3-4 is water baptism. I Pet 3:20-21 is water baptism, that is undeniable, else Peter's example of the water is pointless.

I Cor 12:13 is talking about water baptism. A simple comparision to Acts 2 lets you know that those who gladly received the word were baptized and added to them (vs 41). Added to who? Verse 47 says the Lord added to the church. How were they added to the church? Baptism. Why were they baptized? Peter told them to (vs 38). How did Peter know what to tell them? The Holy Spirit was speaking through him (vs4). Is it not hard to see how that by one Spirit, they were all baptized into one body/church. Also the text does not say they were baptized WITH the Holy Spirit, but by the Holy Spirit.

Unless you can baptize others with the Holy Spirit and can show where baptism in water was abolished, your points have no merit.

Is the only reason you don't want to accept it for what is says is because it conficts with your prior beliefs?

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Dustin:
Some just refuse to accept grace...

And others refuse to understand grace.

Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, (Gen 6:8). That grace provided instruction to build an ark. Noah did all that God commanded him (Gen 6:22). The Hebrew writer said by faith Noah prepared an ark for the saving of his household (Heb 11:7). By grace he was saved from the flood waters, though faith.

Titus 2:11-12. God's grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men. Surely you don't think all men will be saved, do you?

The bible doesn't teach that. In fact, most men are lost (Matt 7).

God's graces provides teaching or instruction (Titus 2:11-12). When we do what God has commanded, that is called faith (Heb 11). For by grace, we are saved though faith (Eph 2:8-9).

I believe and trust God's grace more than you know. There is nothing I can do to earn one iota of my salvation, even if I worked for a trillion years, non-stop. I must rely on His grace. If I earned any of it, it wouldn't be grace, now would it.

Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? and Matt 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’- Did Jesus understand Grace?

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

From your link in your last post...

From Pope John Paul II...

"In speaking of conversion, the New Testament uses the word metanoia, which means a change of mentality. It is not simply a matter of thinking differently in an intellectual sense, but of revising the reasons behind one's actions in the light of the Gospel. In this regard, St. Paul speaks of "faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6).

Faith, when legitimate. will produce fruit, but the fruit contributes (((zero))) to the justification/salvation of the person involved.

To say that is does is to proclaim the very false gospel that God Himself curses in Galaciens.

"This means that true conversion needs to be prepared and nurtured through the prayerful reading of sacred Scripture and the practice of the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist."

This is nothing more than a regurgitaion of classic Catholic false doctrine regarding how Catholics are commanded to view the gospel

Namely: "You are *maybe* saved by faith plus "being good", and also dont you ever ever ever break away from 'Holy Mother Church' and her *sacraments*, or you will be damned if you do"

"Conversion leads to fraternal communion, because it enables us to understand that Christ is the head of the church, his mystical body; it urges solidarity, because it makes us aware that whatever we do for others, especially for the poorest, we do for Christ himself."

Again, make sure you work work work!

"Conversion, therefore, fosters a new life,...

Thats true.

"...in which there is no separation between faith and works in our daily response to the universal call to holiness."

That statement could be true, if not for the fact that the Catholic is taught that it means more than it actually does. That your works will be a determining factor in your eternal destination.

It is that false gospel, along with the abundance of blasphemy, heresy, and false teaching that dammn the Catholic Church.

Sadly,

Mike

 

[Eric B]

Oh, so you have the ability to baptize others with the Holy Spirit? I thought that was a promise from Jesus and something He would do.

When was water baptism abolished? In other words, when did Jesus commission end when he told his apostles, "And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." - Matt 28:18-20

Notice Jesus said, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." What had he just commanded them? Answer - "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

Therefore those who were taught were to go teach and baptize others.

For you to be consistent, this must be a command for Holy Spirit baptism. This is a never ending cycle.

Also the text does not say they were baptized WITH the Holy Spirit, but by the Holy Spirit.

Unless you can baptize others with the Holy Spirit and can show where baptism in water was abolished, your points have no merit.

Who said anything about US baptizing with the holy Spirit? That was ONE use of the term baptize. There are others which are literal referring to water, and still others that are spiritual meaning immersed into the Body of Christ. You are blurring them all together to try to get literal water baptism to be what saves.

Let's also look at the other two accounts.

Luke 24:45-47, "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

and

Mark 16:15-16 "And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Make disciples/baptize - Matt 28:18-20
Repentance and remission of sins, beginning at Jerusalem - Luke 24:45-47
Believeth and baptized shall be saved - Mark 16:16

When did this commission begin to be carried out? In Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

Unless man has the ability to baptize others with the Holy Spirit, he could not fullfil the commission given by Jesus.

The commission is a continuing cycle, therefore, never ending. The baptism of the commission is water baptism, because that is a command man can carry out. (Acts 8:35-36 we know baptism is in water).

Eph 4:5 says there is one baptism. You show me where Jesus commission stopped and your point has merit. Until then, your statements are without any merit.

There are not two baptism now. Do you believe in two Lords? How about 2 Fathers in heaven? How about 2 faiths? 2 Holy Spirits? 2 Hopes? No, these are all singular and so is BAPTISM. Accept one and reject the other.

This "two baptisms" thing is old already. No one ever confessed to any two baptisms, and nobody sees it that way, except you, as a straw man you make of our position, because that's the only answer you have against it. There is one baptism, with both a spiritual and physical aspect. Nobody said anything about one of them "ending", or one being "replaced" by the other. This continues as long as the Church and this world continues.

Baptism in the scriptures always means immersion in water unless something in the text indicates it is used in a metophoric sense. So, you hit the nail on the head when you said I think baptism always means water baptism, unless something in the text lets you know otherwise.

If I say it is raining, you understand that water is coming from the sky. You don't have to wonder the substance. But, if I make a statement it was raining pine cones under some pines, you understand that it was not water but pinecones. Baptism means immersion. Acts 8;35-36, we see that it means immersion in water. Unless something in the text indicates otherwise, you need to understand baptism in its common, everyday meaning, immersion in water.

Gal 3:26-27 is therefore water baptism. Rom 6:3-4 is water baptism. I Pet 3:20-21 is water baptism, that is undeniable, else Peter's example of the water is pointless.

You're so busy trying to divide water baptism from spirit baptism into "two baptisms", that you miss when we point out that once again, the water ceremony simply represented the spiritual transaction that occurred when people received Christ. They then made the public profession of him on the spot. Yet since it is faith that saves, and not works, (and "Faith" is NOT works, though it should be accompanied by them), then we see that it is not the water ceremony that has the saving power, but the spiritual act of joining Christ. The two were viewd as one in the same and thus used interchangeably, as we see in your examples, yet in the Church it later changed, with the water ceremony taking place later. It was this later Church that split them into two things, (and we cannot just wave our hands and change it back), so it is futile to keep using that "two baptisms" rhetoric against us. You still cannot deny salvation to the people who have received Christ until that later date.

I Cor 12:13 is talking about water baptism. A simple comparision to Acts 2 lets you know that those who gladly received the word were baptized and added to them (vs 41). Added to who? Verse 47 says the Lord added to the church. How were they added to the church? Baptism. Why were they baptized? Peter told them to (vs 38). How did Peter know what to tell them? The Holy Spirit was speaking through him (vs4). Is it not hard to see how that by one Spirit, they were all baptized into one body/church.

It says what they were baptized "INTO" was a "BODY", not a pool of water. This is the spiritual baptism, and yes BY the Spirit. Yes, it was to be accompanied by water, but once again, this shows you that the water is not what put one into Christ; it just symbolized it.

And others refuse to understand grace.

Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, (Gen 6:8). That grace provided instruction to build an ark. The Hebrew writer said by faith Noah prepared an ark for the saving of his household (Heb 11:7). By grace he was saved from the flood waters, though faith.

You are making up your own definition of words. Where does it say there that the "instructions" WERE themselves the "grace", or even "provided by" the grace? The word means "favor", and is also translated as that, and as "precious", and "pleasure" elsewhere. He found the grave or favor with God FIRST, then God decided he should be saved from the flood and provided him the instructions for the ark. Two totally separate things! THEN he by faith in God's warning prepared the ark. A THIRD separate thing. The building of the ark was in itself not the "faith", but was something done "BY" the faith [separate entity!], showing the opposite of what you are always trying to teach by it. Yet then you try to mesh it all together by mixing Hebrews' use of the word "grace" into it, along with the "grace through faith" of Eph. to prove that the "grace" WAS the instructions, and the "Faith" was the work. Faith is trusting God for whatever He says. Whether it is instructions to do something, or otherwise. In Noah's case, it was instructions for work that physically "saved" him. It is used as an example for the spiritual salvation promised us now, and like the salvation translating from a physical one to a spiritual one; God has determined this is attained by a spiritual act (acceptance of Christ) and not a physical work, "lest any man should boast".

 

[Matt Black]

Mike, are you seriously saying that all you have to do is have faith in Jesus (pray the sinners' prayer, whatever/however you do it on your denomination) and then you're saved, that's it? Fine - OK, I've done that, now I'm off to the local bar to get totally bladdered, smoke some dope, and hook up with a hooker for some adulterous 'fun'. Still saved, am I?

 

[D28guy]

MattBlack,

"Mike, are you seriously saying that all you have to do is have faith in Jesus..."

No. I'm not saying that. God is saying that...

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast."

And...

"knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified"

And...

"But now the rightiousness of God apart from the law is revealed, even the rightiousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe, for their is no difference...to demonstrate at this present time His rightiousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"

Christ said he came...

"...to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they might recieve the forgiviness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me."

The publican in the temple prayed "God, be merciful to me, a sinner", and Christ proclaimed him to be justified on no other basis.

The thief on the cross said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom", and Jesus told him that that day He would be with Him in paradise on no other basis than that.

Cornelius and his family were simply sitting their listening to the gospel being presented...nothing more...and they entered into a faith alone relationship with Christ and were immedietly indwelt by and "sealed for the day of redemption" by the Holy Spirit.

"...(pray the sinners' prayer, whatever/however you do it on your denomination) and then you're saved, that's it?"

No, not just mouthing the words to some "sinners prayer". That is as empty and meaningless as droning out mindlessly some creed(filled with true facts) every Sunday.

Praying a prayer to God is meaningless unless it is a reflection of a heart attitude that is reaching out by faith alone to embrace Christ as their only hope for salvation and new life.

Just like the thief on the cross, the publican in the temple, Nicodemous, Cornelius and his family, the Ethiopian eunuch, the phillipian jailer, and many others.

All of them...were justified through faith alone in Jesus Christ, and that faith alone produced justification in Gods eyes and eternal salvation...along with a new lifestyle.

And I can add myself to that list. When I surrendered myself to God I literally offered God nothing nor did I promise God anything. I repented of nothing that I was involved in...and I was quite the sinner...other than my unbelief and unwillingness to place my faith in Christ.

But....

From that very moment I knew that I was different.

I knew that the reefer and drugs and liquor and the loose girls werent what I needed to make me happy and give me an "abundant" life. In time...as the Holy Spirit continued to work in my life...God replaced those things with better things. He replaced my lousy attitudes and desires with new and better attitudes and desires.

I had been...born again!

Through faith alone.

"Mike, are you seriously saying that all you have to do is have faith in Jesus (pray the sinners' prayer, whatever/however you do it on your denomination) and then you're saved, that's it?"

Of course.

"Fine - OK, I've done that, now I'm off to the local bar to get totally bladdered, smoke some dope, and hook up with a hooker for some adulterous 'fun'. Still saved, am I?

Of course you would be.

Someone could very well do that. And they are as saved as Jesus Christ is.

But they wont be doing that for long. And they will find that they dont enjoy it as they once did. And in due time those things will fall off of that persons life, along with lots of other things. And as those things fall off they will be replaced with better things.

Not everyone has a "damascus road" conversion experience like Paul did. But they will not be able to go back into a very inconsistant lifestyle and be happy and joyful in it as they once did. It simply wont work any more, and it wont satisfy anymore.

In time they will grow and develop in their christian life, just like an infant grows and develops in due time.

In~His~Grace,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Hmmm...sounds too much like antinomianism to me...

 

[Eric B]

You miss his point. Antinomianism describes a perpetual state of that lifestyle, based on the notion that it's not even wrong, or we can't help it, so God overlooks it, etc. Not the change just described. Of course, no one here is encouraging "oh, you should keep on living that way until you don't enjoy it anymore; however long it takes". But that's the way it will be with some people, even if you try to scare them with "you're not saved, then!".

 

[Matt Black]

I'm not sure I really buy that distinction; sounds too much like splitting hairs to me. I mean, where do you draw the line: someone who is allegedly 'saved' and yet is an unrepentant serial killer and child rapist? Are they saved?

 

[Dustin]

That's assuming someone could be deranged and stupid enough to believe it's ok to murder or rape children, that the Lord wouldn't care. Common sense alone would tell you otherwise.