Baptism being necessary for salvation...

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I am not against water baptism, how can a christian be against water baptism? On the other hand I am against having FAITH in water baptism,the bible NEVER teaches us to have faith in being dunked under water, as if such an action will cause anything to occur but water touching the flesh(as Peter said). If you believe that being dunked under water saves you then that would be faith in water baptism, people are saved by Jesus Christ because of faith in Jesus Christ,not because of a ritual. Is this hard to understand?

Obedience in baptism is a demonstration of our faith in the working of God as it says in Colossians 2. People often speak against the need for being baptised by saying it is wrong to have 'faith in water' because being dunked in water does nothing. The Bible teaches that our faith is to be placed in God and if God mandates something then placing our trust therein is warranted.
Let's take the example of Naaman who was told to dip 7 times inn the dirty waters of the Jordan to have his leprosy cursed. The mandate from God was to dip in the water and because of that, there was power in the water. The same is true with water baptism.

 

[Sam21]

Obedience in baptism is a demonstration of our faith in the working of God as it says in Colossians 2. People often speak against the need for being baptised by saying it is wrong to have 'faith in water' because being dunked in water does nothing. The Bible teaches that our faith is to be placed in God and if God mandates something then placing our trust therein is warranted.
Let's take the example of Naaman who was told to dip 7 times inn the dirty waters of the Jordan to have his leprosy cursed. The mandate from God was to dip in the water and because of that, there was power in the water. The same is true with water baptism.

Whoa! Big Fellow(as the Lone Ranger said to Silver). God does not tell us to "place our trust therein(water baptism)". There would be no problem with water baptism if people would trust totally in Jesus Christ because water baptism would be seen for what it is,a symbol. People want to add their own work, so when they are water baptized then they have helped God save them...it is only a dunking in the water folks,how could water do anything but get you wet...it is simply a symbol of conversion, conversion is of the mind and heart. Be water baptize,but if you want to make Heaven, your trust and faith has to be 100%in Christ and His sacrifice and nothing else.

 

[Sam21]

Whoa! Big Fellow(as the Lone Ranger said to Silver). God does not tell us to "place our trust therein(water baptism)". There would be no problem with water baptism if people would trust totally in Jesus Christ because water baptism would be seen for what it is,a symbol. People want to add their own work, so when they are water baptized then they have helped God save them...it is only a dunking in the water folks,how could water do anything but get you wet...it is simply a symbol of conversion, conversion is of the mind and heart. Be water baptize,but if you want to make Heaven, your trust and faith has to be 100%in Christ and His sacrifice and nothing else.

One other thing,if there was power in the Jordan river than other people could have been healed by getting in the river, the power was 100% in God.

 

[Free]

One other thing,if there was power in the Jordan river than other people could have been healed by getting in the river, the power was 100% in God.

But they still wouldn't have been healed if they didn't get in the river...


As I pointed out earlier, Rom 6:3-6 suggest that there is more to baptism then something that is merely symbolic, although it may include that.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. (ESV)

 

[Alabaster]

As I have already said, someone else's faith declaration stands in proxy for the child. Just as in circumcision.

There is nothing in Scripture about baptismal proxies. That is human reasoning, not God's.

 

[Alabaster]

Where does the Scripture state someone is a Christian BEFORE being baptized??? Was Saul Christian before becoming baptized?

We are told to repent, then be baptized. Only believers are called to obey that command. Yes, Paul was already a believer when He was baptized, just as ALL OTHERS in Scripture were, professing belief in Jesus Christ FIRST.

LOL... You commonly dismiss arguments that you have little to say about and are befuddled.

Moi? Befuddled? I think not.

Your explanation LIMITS God's Work!!! You prevent someone from being born FROM ABOVE simply because the "baby" wasn't "ready" yet...???

Actually, your belief shows lack of trust in God to bring all who will come to Himself. Rather the RC parent and Church intervenes by their own will.

In circumcision, the sign of the covenant between the child and God was made. God didn't have to await the infant's "age of reason". But in baptism, apparently, you have God waiting for a "faith experience" (which also forgets the notion that one is born from above...)

It is His job to perform His plan on our children's lives and it is our job to train them in the things of God. Baptism does nothing to or for a baby. Rather it assuages some kind of fear in the parent, that, should a baby die, he will be received by God---when we know that our innocent babies are already acceptable to God.

What is wrong with "ritual"? Is there some verse I missed from Scriptures that tell me that rituals and religious ceremonies, liturgy, is inherently bad? Beware, or I'll call the sola scriptura police on you... ;)

Pomp and ceremony that is unbiblical is empty, religious activity.

What IS very telling that you ignore my point to tell me of your insecurities regarding rituals - that parents and godparents are tasked with educating the child, just as sponsors are tasked with educating the adult newly baptized. There is no difference. I HOPE that people who join your community of faith are instructed, and that you don't just hand them a bible and say "fare thee well, good luck, you are an adult, figure it out yourself"...

Sponsors are unbiblical. Godparents are unbiblical.

We disciple all our new believers.

But inherently, the act does not lead to merely "wetting the infant". They are instructed on the invisible behind the visible symbols.

Nothing is done in the heavenly realm when babies are baptized, as there is no biblical mandate to do it. It is a man-made idea. How does a baby respond to the new knowledge of invisible, and the visible and even symbols?

How do you know what Jesus taught and what He didn't teach? The Apostles clearly confirm people baptized in several places in the Acts of the Apostles. Confirmation provides the answer to your concern about infants not being able to speak for themselves, so this shouldn't be a problem...

I know what Jesus taught and what HE DIDN'T teach because I know the word.

Confirmation is unbiblical.

We aren't confering either onto the child. More non-sequitars.

God brings about the birth from above, whether you like it or not. You don't generate the faith, nor does the Church. Whether the infant speaks for himself or depends upon the community to speak for the child. Scriptural precedent is present for such proxy actions, and the Bible does not rule out infant baptism, neither in action or in doctrinal considerations - since baptism is a birth FROM ABOVE.

If a 3 month old baby could read the Bible for himself and be convicted of his sin and repent, then he could be baptized. No one has the right to confer salvation upon a baby. Our responsibility is to EVANGELIZE him by word and by our being a living example.

Are you saying Jesus made a mistake by healing the servant of the Centurion, that HOW DARE Jesus not await for the servant's own faith declaration??? You ignore it because you recognize it destroys part of your argument against infant baptism and depending upon the faith of another for the sake of the healed person.

Jesus heals anyone at the behest of others--He honours the faith of others in that respect, but as for salvation, our children are safe in His care when we DEDICATE ourselves to raising them in His ways.

Baptism frees us from sin, but it doesn't follow that we can never sin again. You have been asked that before. Do you think because you are 'saved' that you cannot sin again?

Baptism does NOT free us from sin. Jesus' BLOOD does that.

Saved people who are walking in the Spirit will sin occasionally, and we know to repent and are blessed to be restored immediately into fellowship again with God.

ANY freedom can be abused. It is poor logic to deny something merely because something can be abused. Sex is abused. Does that mean you are going to stop having sex with your spouse? Children are abused, emotionally and physically. Does this mean we should stop having a relationship with our children for fear of abusing that relationship again?

Your argument here is very weak. An infant brought into the community is a natural continuation of the People of God, Israel. It takes a village to raise a child. Let's think biblical times, not now, where everyone thinks that they are a self-sufficient and independent person "free" to do whatever they like, like a good spoiled teenager... Children of the religious community are trained and taught about Christ. Does it always "stick"? Of course not - but often times, that is because the village didn't do their job. Our job, as custodians of our children, is to train them in our beliefs of God and allow THEM to share in the life that Christ promises to those who love Him and obey HIm. Why keep the children from Christ, then?

I can trust God with His promises about my children. He makes promises to us about our children. we need to be in constant prayer over them, and training them as He says, so WHEN they are old, THEY WILL NOT DEPART FROM IT.

EVERY ONE OF YOU. Believers and unbelievers. All within earshot. Peter did NOT say "hey, elect, get over here and get baptized... All you pagans, get OUT of here...you are going to hell, anyways..."

Jesus gave them a command - to spread the Gospel throughout the WORLD, not just go find the "believers" in the diaspora and baptize them...

We are charged to MAKE DISCIPLES.

Wrong, there are multiple meanings of the term. That is probably why you are confused and having a difficult time accepting what I am writing (at least to a degree). The first part of your paragraph is one use of the term. The second half of the paragraph is ANOTHER, SEPARATE use of the term. You have convoluted the different definitions into one definition.

Salvation can refer to something in the past. The forgiveness of sins. The BEGINNING of a new life in Christ. It does NOT follow that THAT salvation WILL lead to eternal life. You yourself have admitted this when you said adults can fall away.

Salvation ALSO can refer to something happening NOW. "We are being saved". Being made holy and being freed from sin, living life to the fullest in the freedom of God is BEING saved NOW. Christians sin NOW and today need the mercy that God continues to offer.

Salvation can ALSO refer to something of the future. Eternal life in heaven. That is something we can only HOPE to achieve, which is why St. Paul says we CONTINUE to run that race so as not to be disqualified. It hasn't happened yet, nor is it "automatic". In addition, eternal life in heaven requires other things than just baptism.

You have combined the first and third definition, and this is a mistake, because it PRESUMES that all people who become baptized will go to heaven.

That explains why you have a hard time with infant baptism, since you think the forgiveness of sins irrevocably leads to eternal life in heaven - when the Bible gives OTHER requirements to achieve that. Obey His Commandments. Eat/Drink His Body/Blood. Do the Will of the Father. Etc....

There is only one strong meaning for salvation offered to us by God in Jesus Christ.

I don't have a "hard time with infant baptism"! It is unbiblical. I concern my life around things that God clearly teaches, and not empty rituals a religious group teaches.

 

[RoadDebris]

More silliness...

Given that you believe necessary can mean "occasionally essential" that statement makes a certain ironic sense.

James calls BOTH living faith AND dead faith "FAITH". That is what he says. Both are faith, conditioned by "live" or "dead". The later cannot save. Faith it remains, and that is WHY "faith alone does not save", according to Sacred Writ.

James uses the metaphor of living organisms vs. inanimate objects. Just as a corpse is not a person, so dead faith is not actual faith. There's a fundamental difference. People can be intellectually aware of the truth, and in fact Paul tells us in Romans 1 that all men are, but that knowledge does not save them. People who say "I believe" but then run around living a life that is antithetical to Christianity don't have saving faith, according to James.

The terminology that you conveniently change (as Calvinists are wont to do) makes a world of difference.

They do. There's a fundamental difference between a corpse and a person. You're arguing that they're both basically the same thing. That says a lot about your theology (IMO).

Do you know how we define "salvation"? To us, it generally means 'going to heaven'.

Saved people do go to heaven, that is true. But what is evident about them is the way they walk. They exhibit Christian behavior.

Are you saying that it is not necessary to obey God's Commandments to gain eternal life??? "What must I DO to inherit eternal life"... Jesus tells the young man. He doesn't provide a "roadblock" called "fate" and tells him "nothing. Just passively sit by and HOPE that God choose you from the beginning of time"...

I've been pretty clear on this: our actions are not the cause of salvation. You can claim you caused your own salvation by your actions all the live long day and that won't change the fact that the Bible says otherwise.

Are you saying that I do NOT HAVE to eat the flesh of the Son of Man to gain eternal life? Thanks, but I'll stick with the Bible and the words of Jesus. Unless you DO these things, you cannot have eternal life.

Again, Jesus is using a metaphor. The reaction of the Pharisees when He said this is an indication that some didn't and still don't know what He was talking about. Christianity is not about cannibalism, but those who are saved have Jesus inside them.

In addition, you make the typically amateur logical fallacy that I addressed above. The "either/or" syndrome that only sees two extremes and does NOT see that there is middle ground that the Bible CLEARLY presents. Because I reject one extreme, you automatically (incorrectly) assume that I hold to the OTHER extreme. And thus, your accusation that I am an Arminian...

Yeah, well, I think you should stay away from arguing about logical fallacies, given your repeated contradiction of the Laws of Logic. There is no middle ground when it comes to absolutes. Your "logic" is not better than someone claiming they choose the middle ground when looking at triangles by saying that some may have more or less than three sides.

So your first mistake, not figuring out what the Bible states: We are saved by faith WORKING IN LOVE. Not by works (good deeds) alone, not by faith alone.

Actually, we are saved by grace, through faith.

The other mistake is that either God does it all or I do it all. Another extreme picture that fails to take into account the Biblical notion of SYNERGY.

No, I'm not claiming you claim to do it all. I'm simply pointing out the truth that you claim your works are integral to the cause of your salvation. The Bible says otherwise. The Bible says your works are evidence of your walk, not the cause of your direction.

 

[RoadDebris]

God doesn't make us repent and believe. He provides the grace, the impetus to note and convict us and our consciense, but He does NOT force us to repent. The command to do so would be a moot point.

Straw man. No-one is arguing that He does. He changes our will so we want to repent and believe and that is what we do.

Do you also ask your 5 year old son to pick up a forklift with his bare hands??? But in that feeble mind of Calvinism, that is exactly what you think God is doing...

Non sequitur

If He was entirely responsible for that, than God is directly and entirely responsible for men being reprobate to hell. This is not a just God, no matter what double-talk Calvinsim presents, such as your denial that God is also not then responsible for sin...

Again we strike closer to the real flaw in your thinking. You are not entitled to salvation. God owes you nothing. He could have chosen to damn all of us and He would have been entirely just in doing so.

What people like Sproul teach is not Christianity, because it completely misunderstands Who God is. You are nearly as far away on Who God is as the Muslim... To them, God's idea of justice is up to His whim. To you, God is called just, but is not just by any definition of the word... The only saving grace is that Calvinists turn to Jesus Christ as their savior. It's too bad they missed the bus on WHY He was our savior...

Morality is not something God is subject to. He is it's source. That you don't seem to understand this, that you seem to think there is a source of justice above God that entitles you to salvation is one of the fundamental flaws in your thinking. God owes you nothing. He is sovereign, literally.

 

[francisdesales]

There is nothing in Scripture about baptismal proxies. That is human reasoning, not God's.

Christ healed people based on the faith of other people. Whether you like it or not, that is GOD'S reasoning. I am merely observing what happened, as related to Scriptures. You DO believe that the Bible is the Word of God, don't you? That it can be trusted? It appears that you don't.

 

[francisdesales]

We are told to repent, then be baptized. Only believers are called to obey that command. Yes, Paul was already a believer when He was baptized, just as ALL OTHERS in Scripture were, professing belief in Jesus Christ FIRST.

Only believers are called to repent? Can you provide some Scriptures for that? Please explain how anyone is evangelized, if only the believers are called to repent...

EVERYONE is called to repent and believe. Why are you ignoring that?

Moi? Befuddled? I think not.

Hmm. Your refusal to address Scriptural verses is telling us otherwise.

Actually, your belief shows lack of trust in God to bring all who will come to Himself. Rather the RC parent and Church intervenes by their own will.

Is that how you explain the notion of PREVENTING God from working, in bringing about a birth from above?

It is His job to perform His plan on our children's lives and it is our job to train them in the things of God. Baptism does nothing to or for a baby.

Where is your Scripture that tells us that baptism does nothing for babies? Baptism is not dependent upon your faith or mine. It is a birth from above. I realize you want to work and earn your salvation by your proclamation, but can't you accept that God CAN AND DOES bring about a birth from above by His Own free will?

The bible says that baptism forgives sins. It makes one a child of God. Which Christian with children would NOT want their child's sins forgiven? To have a relationship with God as a child of His? To have an inheritance in heaven??? I find this conversation odd...

Rather it assuages some kind of fear in the parent, that, should a baby die, he will be received by God---when we know that our innocent babies are already acceptable to God.

We KNOW this? How do we know that? Where is your bible verse?

Pomp and ceremony that is unbiblical is empty, religious activity.

Tell that to the billion or so who watched the royal wedding...

Sponsors are unbiblical. Godparents are unbiblical.

We are talking about common sense and history. Sponsors were a necessity as early as the first century. The sponsor spoke for the candidate's conversion experience, partly to ensure no Roman infiltrators and partly to ensure that the candidate had indeed begun along the road to conversion, that his life was changing to God's ways. Writings such as the Didache vouch for this, written before the Apocalypse. The bible also notes that the Church has been given the ministry of teaching. Are you saying new Christians were not taking part in this ministry???

We disciple all our new believers.

Who is "we"? For us, the sponsor is the first point of contact between the community and the candidate. Is that different over there?

Nothing is done in the heavenly realm when babies are baptized

You have an amazing amount of knowledge based upon absolutely nothing concrete. You should consider writing your own addendum to the bible...

as there is no biblical mandate to do it.

Nor is there a biblical mandate that states the positive assertion you make - "that nothing happens when a baby is baptized". It is your responsibility to prove this is true from Scriptures, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The best you can say is "I don't know". You have no evidence or proof to state otherwise.

I know what Jesus taught and what HE DIDN'T teach because I know the word.

The Word ITSELF says that there are things that Jesus taught and did that are NOT in the bible, dude.

Confirmation is unbiblical.

Whatever, so is "infant baptism is meaningless". I find no verses that suggest it.

If a 3 month old baby could read the Bible for himself...

You are missing the entire point of proxy faith statements, which ARE INDEED biblical. They are based upon another biblical idea that even YOU believe, I think. Interceding for another person.

Why do you intercede for someone else? According to you, ONLY the individual can make such appeals to God based upon their own personal faith. I suggest that you have fallen into this culture's way of thinking, rather than following the teachings of Sacred Scriptures. Jesus healed others based upon the faith of an intercessor. Even as far back as Abraham - interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah, so this isn't a NT line of thought. Circumcision is based upon the idea of proxy statements of faith and baptism of infants follows this biblical line of thought.

What is at issue for YOU PERSONALLY is not whether it is in the Bible or not, but whether it suits your own limited personal interpretations of Scripture. I say limited, because it is apparent that you are unaware that baptism forgives sins, that the Jews practiced circumcision on infants (and was a shadow of Baptism) and that God heals people based upon the prayers and intercessions of OTHER people. These are all biblical facts that you have chosen to ignore.

Jesus heals anyone at the behest of others--He honours the faith of others in that respect

Your denial seems strained and artificial.

Physical healing is connected to spiritual healing in the Gospels. Haven't you read them? Read Mark 2, for example. Jesus links the forgiveness of sins to physical healing. The Jews THEMSELVES were well aware of this fact - that sin and sickness were often related to each other, the later caused by the former. Another example is John 9. Paul verifies this in 1 Cor 11.

Baptism does NOT free us from sin. Jesus' BLOOD does that.

Are you serious? HOW are we linked to Jesus blood again? Baptism... Romans 6. Or you can read the speach of Peter immediately following the Descent of the Spirit on Pentacost. Come on now...

Saved people who are walking in the Spirit will sin occasionally, and we know to repent and are blessed to be restored immediately into fellowship again with God.

I can trust God with His promises about my children.

What are you talking about, wishful thinking? Which Scripture verses are you speaking of? What promises?

As far as I know, a person is born in sin and until that is washed away by the lather of salvation, you remain in sin. Now, PERHAPS God will grant mercy to infants - and perhaps God will judge them differently for parents who were too stubborn to yield to common sense and Scriptures. But I wouldn't be so "certain" about anything on this matter, since the bible doesn't state what happens to infants that die before baptism. We can only speculate, and that's a fact, since the Scriptures OR Sacred Tradition are not definitive on this.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Given that you believe necessary can mean "occasionally essential" that statement makes a certain ironic sense.

LOL!!! Talk about being clueless... That matter was SETTLED!!! You bringing it up again merely reminds everyone here that you are without a clue and were demolished...

James uses the metaphor of living organisms vs. inanimate objects. Just as a corpse is not a person, so dead faith is not actual faith.

As I said before, Calvinists like to change the words of Scriptures to suit their silly ideas. For those interested in God's Word, rather than RD's attempt to change God's Word:

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The body remains a body. It is not called something else, by James, only by Calvinists. It is given a modifier, an adjective. It is a Dead Body, but a body it remains.

Same with faith. It remains faith. It is not called something else. But it is given a modifier, an adjective. It is a Dead Faith. The comparison is obvious, but lost on Calvinists, unfortunately, because this verse EXPLAINS the vaunted "faith alone does not save". A dead faith (which IS CALLED FAITH, not something else) cannot save. Faith without works, a dead faith, cannot save.

Is this clear enough?

There's a fundamental difference. People can be intellectually aware of the truth, and in fact Paul tells us in Romans 1 that all men are, but that knowledge does not save them. People who say "I believe" but then run around living a life that is antithetical to Christianity don't have saving faith, according to James.

That is true, and on sanctification, at least, Calvin had not totally put aside the truth of the Catholic Church. But 'dead' faith is still called faith. Thus, James can write: "faith alone does not save". A faith that is dead, without "works", ALONE, is lifeless. Dead. Just like a dead body.

This aint rocket science...

I've been pretty clear on this: our actions are not the cause of salvation. You can claim you caused your own salvation by your actions all the live long day and that won't change the fact that the Bible says otherwise.

I suggest you read up about the Biblical concept of synergy. In addition, perhaps you might consider that Catholics are not Arminians. So there is no need to erect this strawman. We hold to the Second Council of Orange. Most Calvinists that I know are aware of and agree with the elements of this Catholic Council. You? Your attempts to focus on an extreme is shallow theology. This subject is more than just 'black and white'.

Again, Jesus is using a metaphor.

Hardly. He couldn't have been more clear on the literalness of His words. But that is a discussion for another day.

Yeah, well, I think you should stay away from arguing about logical fallacies, given your repeated contradiction of the Laws of Logic.

Examples? I suggest that you are just having a problem with reading what is written. The "contradictions" are strictly in your mind, not in writings of the Catechism or myself.

There is no middle ground when it comes to absolutes.

Non-sequitar, we aren't dealing with two absolutes.

The world is not black and white, and how God acts in the world is ALSO not so simple. God's interaction here is not based upon 'absolutes'. Again, this is Calvinists' inability to accept the biblical term of 'synergy'. No, REFUSAL to accept it.

Actually, we are saved by grace, through faith.

...working in love. You need to add that in there, because dead faith doesn't save.

No, I'm not claiming you claim to do it all. I'm simply pointing out the truth that you claim your works are integral to the cause of your salvation.

Without works, faith is dead. Something dead will not win you eternal life. This is fundamental. We are not saying "10000000000 + 1" but "1000000000 X 1". Those who refuse "10000000000 X 0". This is what we believe, mathematically speaking. We aren't "adding" to God's work. But without our participation (which God desires as part of a relationship of Love with us), there is no value. You end up with nothing salvific.

And yes, despite Calvin's disregard for Scriptures, men CAN and DO reject the Spirit of God's work.

The Bible says otherwise. The Bible says your works are evidence of your walk, not the cause of your direction.

??? I am not understanding your point.

Regards

 

[Sam21]

Christ healed people based on the faith of other people. Whether you like it or not, that is GOD'S reasoning. I am merely observing what happened, as related to Scriptures. You DO believe that the Bible is the Word of God, don't you? That it can be trusted? It appears that you don't.

At time God does heal people based on the faith of another,however God never saves people in the sense of forgiveness of sins and the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit,at the request of another, the individual has to ask and believe God himself.

 

[Sam21]

LOL!!! Talk about being clueless... That matter was SETTLED!!! You bringing it up again merely reminds everyone here that you are without a clue and were demolished...



As I said before, Calvinists like to change the words of Scriptures to suit their silly ideas. For those interested in God's Word, rather than RD's attempt to change God's Word:

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The body remains a body. It is not called something else, by James, only by Calvinists. It is given a modifier, an adjective. It is a Dead Body, but a body it remains.

Same with faith. It remains faith. It is not called something else. But it is given a modifier, an adjective. It is a Dead Faith. The comparison is obvious, but lost on Calvinists, unfortunately, because this verse EXPLAINS the vaunted "faith alone does not save". A dead faith (which IS CALLED FAITH, not something else) cannot save. Faith without works, a dead faith, cannot save.

Is this clear enough?



That is true, and on sanctification, at least, Calvin had not totally put aside the truth of the Catholic Church. But 'dead' faith is still called faith. Thus, James can write: "faith alone does not save". A faith that is dead, without "works", ALONE, is lifeless. Dead. Just like a dead body.

This aint rocket science...



I suggest you read up about the Biblical concept of synergy. In addition, perhaps you might consider that Catholics are not Arminians. So there is no need to erect this strawman. We hold to the Second Council of Orange. Most Calvinists that I know are aware of and agree with the elements of this Catholic Council. You? Your attempts to focus on an extreme is shallow theology. This subject is more than just 'black and white'.



Hardly. He couldn't have been more clear on the literalness of His words. But that is a discussion for another day.



Examples? I suggest that you are just having a problem with reading what is written. The "contradictions" are strictly in your mind, not in writings of the Catechism or myself.



Non-sequitar, we aren't dealing with two absolutes.

The world is not black and white, and how God acts in the world is ALSO not so simple. God's interaction here is not based upon 'absolutes'. Again, this is Calvinists' inability to accept the biblical term of 'synergy'. No, REFUSAL to accept it.



...working in love. You need to add that in there, because dead faith doesn't save.



Without works, faith is dead. Something dead will not win you eternal life. This is fundamental. We are not saying "10000000000 + 1" but "1000000000 X 1". Those who refuse "10000000000 X 0". This is what we believe, mathematically speaking. We aren't "adding" to God's work. But without our participation (which God desires as part of a relationship of Love with us), there is no value. You end up with nothing salvific.

And yes, despite Calvin's disregard for Scriptures, men CAN and DO reject the Spirit of God's work.



??? I am not understanding your point.

Regards

The book of James is about the wrong kind of faith(incorrect faith),James did not teach faith and works if you REALLY read what he said in context,James taught that incorrect faith would not save you and that correct faith would correspond to correct actions.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

One other thing,if there was power in the Jordan river than other people could have been healed by getting in the river, the power was 100% in God.

You totally missed the point Sam. The power was not in the Jordan anymore than it is in baptismal waters. The power was in and is in the person's obedience to God! In Naaman's case God's command was to dip in the Jordan, in the case of those who wished to enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus, baptism was commanded.

We know that as you said the Jordan had no power to heal in and of itself, but because God's instruction to Naaman was to dip in it, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEALING HIM, those waters were impowered by God. Had he not entered those waters as the prophet of God instructed, he would not have been healed. The same is true with baptism, Jesus' instruction to be baptised empowered the baptismal waters for the express purpose of having one enter into a covenant relation with Jesus. Without baptism, one would not enter into the covenent relationship because THAT IS THE WAY JESUS SET IT UP.
So to say baptism had no power is foolish because the fact is that the COMMAND OF JESUS empowered it to accomplish the task he wanted it to accomplish. Baptism was but a part of submission and obedience to the authority of Jesus, and because he authorized it, it was necessary!

 

[francisdesales]

The book of James is about the wrong kind of faith(incorrect faith),James did not teach faith and works if you REALLY read what he said in context,James taught that incorrect faith would not save you and that correct faith would correspond to correct actions.

He wasn't talking about "incorrect faith", but a lifeless faith, a faith that cared nothing for the poor (as in his example before he discusses the vaunted "faith alone does not save" verses). We DO need "incorrect faith", if you consider this to be "mere" intellectual belief. We DO need that faith - but that is not enough, if it is dead. James says "that is well" if you "merely have intellectual belief". He is not chiding that level of faith. He is chiding the LACK of a living faith, a lack of works.

Thus, faith alone - a dead faith - doesn't save. Faith that is not dead - with good deeds - save. Paul calls this "faith working in love".

Thus, you must have both. Faith AND works to attain eternal life.

There is very little possibility of misinterpreting that if one goes to the Gospels...

Regards

 

[Sam21]

You totally missed the point Sam. The power was not in the Jordan anymore than it is in baptismal waters. The power was in and is in the person's obedience to God! In Naaman's case God's command was to dip in the Jordan, in the case of those who wished to enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus, baptism was commanded.

We know that as you said the Jordan had no power to heal in and of itself, but because God's instruction to Naaman was to dip in it, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEALING HIM, those waters were impowered by God. Had he not entered those waters as the prophet of God instructed, he would not have been healed. The same is true with baptism, Jesus' instruction to be baptised empowered the baptismal waters for the express purpose of having one enter into a covenant relation with Jesus. Without baptism, one would not enter into the covenent relationship because THAT IS THE WAY JESUS SET IT UP.
So to say baptism had no power is foolish because the fact is that the COMMAND OF JESUS empowered it to accomplish the task he wanted it to accomplish. Baptism was but a part of submission and obedience to the authority of Jesus, and because he authorized it, it was necessary!

Suppose that as Naaman was going to the Jordan that he was suddenly healed before he got to the Jordan? The thief on the cross and the household of Cornelius were both accepted by God because of faith in Christ without any water baptism. You see, your problem is GOD, God just refused to play the game correctly. Peter preached to the household of Cornelius and presented the saving message of faith in Christ. According to the order established by Peter, he was to preach the gospel and then have people water baptized and then God would give them the Holy Spirit as the proof that God had accepted them. However something messed up what Peter was about to do, God just did not follow the original order presented by Peter, God chose to give the people the Holy Spirit immediately after they believed in Jesus Christ,totally apart from water baptism, demonstrating to all that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ,not by the ritual of water baptism. Since "GOD" chose to reveal that salvation can occur by faith in Christ apart from water baptism,therefore it becomes forever settled by God that water baptism is a symbol of conversion and not conversion itself, and that conversion is belief in Jesus Christ.

 

[Sam21]

He wasn't talking about "incorrect faith", but a lifeless faith, a faith that cared nothing for the poor (as in his example before he discusses the vaunted "faith alone does not save" verses). We DO need "incorrect faith", if you consider this to be "mere" intellectual belief. We DO need that faith - but that is not enough, if it is dead. James says "that is well" if you "merely have intellectual belief". He is not chiding that level of faith. He is chiding the LACK of a living faith, a lack of works.

Thus, faith alone - a dead faith - doesn't save. Faith that is not dead - with good deeds - save. Paul calls this "faith working in love".

Thus, you must have both. Faith AND works to attain eternal life.

There is very little possibility of misinterpreting that if one goes to the Gospels...

Regards

James established what he meant by faith in the first line of James2:14 what does it profit my brethren though a man "SAY" he has faith. James is speaking of the person who is claiming true faith in God but who does not have true faith in God and his lack of actions prove that he does not have
true faith in God. Actually the statement,by works a man is justified and not by faith alone, is simply saying that if you believe Jesus is the Saviour then you must call upon Him to save you, the works of calling upon Jesus along with your faith in Christ is what saves you.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Suppose that as Naaman was going to the Jordan that he was suddenly healed before he got to the Jordan? The thief on the cross and the household of Cornelius were both accepted by God because of faith in Christ without any water baptism. You see, your problem is GOD, God just refused to play the game correctly. Peter preached to the household of Cornelius and presented the saving message of faith in Christ. According to the order established by Peter, he was to preach the gospel and then have people water baptized and then God would give them the Holy Spirit as the proof that God had accepted them. However something messed up what Peter was about to do, God just did not follow the original order presented by Peter, God chose to give the people the Holy Spirit immediately after they believed in Jesus Christ,totally apart from water baptism, demonstrating to all that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ,not by the ritual of water baptism. Since "GOD" chose to reveal that salvation can occur by faith in Christ apart from water baptism,therefore it becomes forever settled by God that water baptism is a symbol of conversion and not conversion itself, and that conversion is belief in Jesus Christ.

place = position or rank

You're still missing the point of what baptism was. Baptism was not needed to be saved, it was needed in order to be given a place in the Kingdom of Heaven. It was the point in which a person entered into a covenant with Jesus for a place in the Kingdom. No baptism, no covenant. The thief was told that he would one day live in paradise (can someone say the New Earth), he was not promised a place in the Kingdom of God only that he would experience life under the reign of the Kingdom.
Did the events of Acts 10 set a new precedent or were they set in place by the Lord to prove a specific point to Peter and his Jewish countrymen? Cornelius situation was the exception as opposed to the rule. And despite that, he and all his household who believed as he did still got baptised, and it can be argued that it was at that point that those individuals entered into a covenant relationship with Jesus and not before.

Bigger than all this, here is my point, God expects us to obey Him and the One He Anointed as King, Jesus. Jesus installed baptism, therefore in obedience to the Lord, those who wished to enter that covenant relationship with Jesus got immersed. God need not play by our rules or subject Himself to our "what if" situations. He is the master and we are His subjects and that means that we do things the way He instructs or else we face the consequences of our stubborn and foolish behavior.

Gal. 3
26 The fact is; you’re all sons of God because of your faith in the Anointed Jesus. 27 And all who were baptized into the Anointed One have put on the Anointed One.

Romans 6
1 So, what can we say? Should we remain as sinners so there can be more loving care? 2 May that never happen! Since we’ve died to sin, how can we live in it any longer? 3 Don’t you realize that all who were baptized into the Anointed Jesus were also baptized into his death? 4 So, we were buried together into him by our baptism into death. And just as the Anointed One was raised from the dead to the glory of the Father, we should be walking in a new way of life. 5 Now, if we’ve been buried with him into the same type of death, then [like him], we will also be resurrected. 6 So we must recognize that the person we used to be was hung on a pole with [him] to end our sinful bodies… and this means that we won’t be slaves to sin anymore, 7 because, those who have died are acquitted of sin.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Before I post again I want to be clear that I do not any longer see baptism as a necessary ingredient in order to be saved from the wages of sin. What I do see baptism as having been is a necessary component of entering into a covenant relationship with Jesus for a place in his Kingdom. This means that being saved from the wages of sin and being given a place in the Kingdom are NOT one and the same IMHO.

 

[Alabaster]

Only believers are called to repent? Can you provide some Scriptures for that? Please explain how anyone is evangelized, if only the believers are called to repent...

EVERYONE is called to repent and believe. Why are you ignoring that?

What am I ignoring? Yes, everyone is called to repent. Not everyone will. Only those who do are commanded to be baptized.

Nowhere does Paul say, "Be baptized and repent!" It's the other way around. We believe, then repent, then follow the command to be baptized.

Hmm. Your refusal to address Scriptural verses is telling us otherwise.

That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

Is that how you explain the notion of PREVENTING God from working, in bringing about a birth from above?

You circumvent God's plan for each child to know Him when you baptize him and then teach him he is a Christian before he is one. Your job is to be an example to him, an unbeliever, of Christ, and to train him up in the way he should go...all according to God's instructions to parents. Nowhere does God instruct parents to baptize them.

Where is your Scripture that tells us that baptism does nothing for babies?

Baptism is not for unbelievers. They are disqualified---just as babies are.

Baptism is not dependent upon your faith or mine. It is a birth from above. I realize you want to work and earn your salvation by your proclamation, but can't you accept that God CAN AND DOES bring about a birth from above by His Own free will?

If one hasn't faith in Christ, we shouldn't be baptizing them! Baptism doesn't save anyone, and if that is what you believe, then you are following a gospel of works, trying to earn your own salvation.

The bible says that baptism forgives sins. It makes one a child of God. Which Christian with children would NOT want their child's sins forgiven? To have a relationship with God as a child of His? To have an inheritance in heaven??? I find this conversation odd...

Baptism doesn't forgive sins. It represents the forgiveness that comes from Christ for all who repent.

It seals the deal.

Colossians 1:14 NKJV
in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 13:38-39 NKJV
Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Acts 10:43 NLT
He is the one all the prophets testified about, saying that everyone who believes in him will have their sins forgiven through his name.

Matthew 26:28 NLT
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.

Luke 24:47 NLT
It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.’

We KNOW this? How do we know that? Where is your bible verse?

It's history. The Catholic church instituted infant baptism during the Dark Ages as an indulgence. High infant mortality rates influenced that.

Tell that to the billion or so who watched the royal wedding...

Reiteration: Infant baptism is just another empty ceremonial ritual that keeps people in bondage to the institution. It may seem sweet and look pretty, but it is meaningless, just as a huge fancy wedding in a cathedral is for those who don't even go to church, yet will say vows before a priest and to a God they do not serve.

We are talking about common sense and history. Sponsors were a necessity as early as the first century. The sponsor spoke for the candidate's conversion experience, partly to ensure no Roman infiltrators and partly to ensure that the candidate had indeed begun along the road to conversion, that his life was changing to God's ways. Writings such as the Didache vouch for this, written before the Apocalypse. The bible also notes that the Church has been given the ministry of teaching. Are you saying new Christians were not taking part in this ministry???

Sponsors were and are never necessary. New believers need discipling by other believers, which will teach them about their need for baptism, among all other things that serve to establish them in their new life in Christ.

Who is "we"? For us, the sponsor is the first point of contact between the community and the candidate. Is that different over there?

Hopefully a new believer has been brought to faith by the love and friendship of other believers. If someone comes to Christ right off the street, there is no shortage of eager believers who will come to his or her assistance in getting plugged in to the word of God and fellowship with other strong believers. That is how it is done in our church, which is a Spirit-led house of God, and which sees multiple salvations weekly.

You have an amazing amount of knowledge based upon absolutely nothing concrete. You should consider writing your own addendum to the bible...

My knowledge is from the word of God. Your rudeness is well-noted.

Nor is there a biblical mandate that states the positive assertion you make - "that nothing happens when a baby is baptized". It is your responsibility to prove this is true from Scriptures, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The best you can say is "I don't know". You have no evidence or proof to state otherwise.

You have NOTHING scriptural that mandates dunking babies. Scripture says, repent and be baptized--which means only those who CAN REPENT and do, conform to that prerequisite!

You don't know, nor do you have ANY scriptural evidence that what you are arguing is of God at all.

The Word ITSELF says that there are things that Jesus taught and did that are NOT in the bible, dude.

Things we don't require knowledge of. Things we are required to know, GOD TELLS US! Hello!

Whatever, so is "infant baptism is meaningless". I find no verses that suggest it.

Of course. The Bible is silent on such a meaningless ritual.