Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[dadof10]

That is indeed how James uses 'faith alone'. A man can not be justified (shown to be righteous) by his faith alone. That only makes sense. How can someone show themselves to have been made righteous by faith, apart from works, if he does not somehow show that declaration of righteous he got (by faith apart from works) by what he does? A faith that is unable to validate itself in what a person does is a faith that can not save. That is James' argument. And it is entirely true.

No it isn't.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[g] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Was Abraham's faith a "saving faith" before he offered Isaac?

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." (Heb 11:8)

I'm sure you'll agree that Hebrews 11 is talking about "saving faith", so when Abraham left Haran, he had "saving faith". The only problem is that this happened in Gen. 12. If justification is a one time event and by "faith alone", how is it that he was justified in Gen. 12 and then again in Gen. 20 when he offered Isaac? Certainly he had "saving faith" in Gen. 12, so why is this faith BY ITSELF not enough to justify him?

What about Romans 4:2-3?

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'" (Romans 4:2-3)

This happened in Gen 15:6, and that makes three. Again, why does Paul say he is justified in Gen 15 when he was already justified in Gen 12? James says he is justified in Gen. 20 AFTER he already had "saving faith" according to Paul.

As you can see, Abraham's faith alone is not what justifies him, yet his faith was "saving faith" according to Paul. James has nothing to do with "said faith" or "shown faith" unless you believe that is the "kind of" faith Abraham had.

If Abraham was justified by his "faith alone", then how could he be "re-justified" when he offered Isaac?

Paul's argument is that a person is justified (made righteous) by what he believes about God's forgiveness, and not by the merit of righteous deeds, but "apart from works" of righteousness. This does not mean good works do not, and don't have to, accompany justification by faith (apart from the merit of works). It only means we are not made righteous by our works, but by our faith..alone, apart from our works. From there we are shown to be righteous (also called being 'justified') by what we do.

Where does Paul make any connection to "works" and anything but "works of the law"? In every case this is the obvious meaning. You are trying to stretch the meaning of "works" to include all deeds.

 

[dadof10]

What aspect of 'accepting' are you talking about?

If you mean walking an aisle...that did not save you. Confessing with your mouth did not save you either. The faith that caused you to do that...that is what saved you...all by itself, alone, apart from the works, even the work it motivated.

We must "have" faith, correct? Having faith is an action we can either do or refuse to do. So we don't get bogged down in minutia, anything you personally mean by "have faith".

I know where you're probably going next, so here, I'll post the scripture for you:

27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.â€

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?â€

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.†(John 6:27-29 NIV1984)


I know what point you're trying to make. Just be prepared to show me where Jesus in any way shape or form is teaching people that salvation is secured by the literal works of baptism, or circumcision, or 'love your neighbor as yourself', etc., and not just by believing alone.

Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?â€
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.â€

There is one from Jesus' own lips. Do you want more? I have others from Him. I have "women are saved through childbearing" from Paul, and the "baptism, which now saves you" from Peter. Do they all have to be from Jesus?

 

[stovebolts]

Cheap Grace? It's not cheap, it's free. Isn't that the definition of Grace?

I agree with your other two statements from your previous post to me. However, I disagree with your above statement within the context it was written.

Do all unbaptized babies go to hell? What is the official Roman Catholic ruling on this matter since Limbo has been rejected?

 

[dadof10]

I agree with your other two statements from your previous post to me. However, I disagree with your above statement within the context it was written.

Do all unbaptized babies go to hell? What is the official Roman Catholic ruling on this matter since Limbo has been rejected?

No, they do not go to Hell, the Church never taught that. The Church never authoritatively taught that they went into a state called "limbo", although it was taught by Augustine and widely accepted, as you said. Limbo has been officially rejected, and only in recent years. I'm traveling now and won't have access to my laptop until tomorrow, so I can't look up the "official" teaching. Maybe someone else can. I think the Church is silent on WHERE specifically they go, except that its not Hell and they are perfectly happy.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jethro Bodine]

We must "have" faith, correct? Having faith is an action we can either do or refuse to do. So we don't get bogged down in minutia, anything you personally mean by "have faith".

Yes; trust in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

That has the unique power of then causing a person to 'love your neighbor as yourself', thus fulfilling the law:

"19 We love because he first loved us." (1 John 4: NIV1984)

“Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:9-10 NIV1984)

Righteous work (obedience) follows saving faith. It is the result of saving faith, not the trigger of salvation.

Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

There is one from Jesus' own lips. Do you want more? I have others from Him. I have "women are saved through childbearing" from Paul, and the "baptism, which now saves you" from Peter. Do they all have to be from Jesus?

No, they don't have to all be from Jesus. That's not the point. It is the whole context of the Bible that helps us understand the implication of Jesus' instruction to the rich ruler above is that good works are the result of saving faith, not the trigger or the means of salvation. The works being the evidence of saving faith, and so in a figurative way those works saving us.

Paul talks about this in Galatians. He explains to them that it is faith that justifies, and how that is the only thing that matters towards justification:

The only thing that counts (towards justification --see context) is faith..." (Galatians 5:6 NIV1984)

Then he immediately explains to them what the faith that justifies--the only thing that matters, all by itself, apart from works--looks like:

"...faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6 NIV1984)

The faith that justifies (all by itself, apart from works) is the faith that finds it's expression in 'love your neighbor as yourself' as opposed to ritualistic things like circumcision (see context), and as I'm contending...water baptism. The only thing that counts is faith. Not circumcision, not baptism, not communions, etc. The only thing that counts toward justification is faith all by itself, apart from works..faith that causes you to then perform works of righteousness that uphold the law 'love your neighbor as yourself' (or get baptized, go to church, etc.). And when we love that love becomes the outward work that confirms (shows us) that our faith is real and able to save us. This is James' teaching.

 

[stovebolts]

No, they do not go to Hell, the Church never taught that. The Church never authoritatively taught that they went into a state called "limbo", although it was taught by Augustine and widely accepted, as you said. Limbo has been officially rejected, and only in recent years. I'm traveling now and won't have access to my laptop until tomorrow, so I can't look up the "official" teaching. Maybe someone else can. I think the Church is silent on WHERE specifically they go, except that its not Hell and they are perfectly happy.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I will be away until next tuesday, so take your time. I would ask that you would send me a link to your post because I know this thread is moving right along and it would make it easier for me to find it come tuesday.

What I can say, and I know some other protestants would disagree, but I believe that all infants who die go to be with God, and I believe I have a pretty good argument from scripture to support that view. Based on that, infant baptism serves no purpose in God's redemptive plan for infants.

I understand that Catholic discussion is forbidden. We could take this conversation to the 1 on 1 forum. Not that I'm looking for a debate, I'm not. But it would afford us the opportunity to discuss the matter, and while I would disagree with the RCC, I would remain respectful toward you as an individual.

 

[dadof10]

I agree with your other two statements from your previous post to me. However, I disagree with your above statement within the context it was written.

Do all unbaptized babies go to hell? What is the official Roman Catholic ruling on this matter since Limbo has been rejected?

I had a few minutes and a smart phone (duh) so here is a link that explains the Church's position.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21542

 

[dadof10]

I will be away until next tuesday, so take your time. I would ask that you would send me a link to your post because I know this thread is moving right along and it would make it easier for me to find it come tuesday.

What I can say, and I know some other protestants would disagree, but I believe that all infants who die go to be with God, and I believe I have a pretty good argument from scripture to support that view. Based on that, infant baptism serves no purpose in God's redemptive plan for infants.

Ok. Sounds good. Talk to you Tuesday.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[dadof10]

Yes; trust in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

So a person must "trust", which is an ACT of the will. If the person doesn't "trust", he is not saved. So, in your opinion, we must DO something or we won't be saved. How is this different from my view on baptism? Having faith, or "trusting" is a work too.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[handy]

So a person must "trust", which is an ACT of the will. If the person doesn't "trust", he is not saved. So, in your opinion, we must DO something or we won't be saved. How is this different from my view on baptism? Having faith, or "trusting" is a work too.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Stepping back into the discussion here and no, I'm not even going to try to "catch up" on what's been said since the last time I posted...

But, Dad brings up a point that I've been thinking about in regards to this thread.

We all tend to draw hard lines at "faith alone"... That it is faith that saves us.

Ephesians 2:8-10 gets brought up a lot... and for good reason, it's a very tight, concise text about what it is that brings about our salvation... Let's look at it again:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."

What is it that saves us? Faith.... No. This passage does not teach us that our faith saves us.

Grace is what saves us... Something we need to keep very much in the forefront of our mind. We gain access to that grace via faith and the faith isn't even our own faith, saving faith itself is a means of God's grace...His gift to us.

Is faith then, the only means of God's grace applied to our salvation?

I don't believe the Scriptures teach us that. I do believe that if one were to look at the Scriptures without glasses tinted by 500 years of Church squabbling over the issue, we would recognized that the bible also teaches that baptism is a means of God's grace as well.

Our repentance is also a gift from God... surely no one believes that we would repent if left on our own, if the Holy Spirit wasn't working in our heart...

Perhaps we should have that discussion, hmmmm... Could it be that repentance is a work of man's?

I don't believe repentance is a work of our's... I believe that repentance that breaks our hearts before God and seeks His forgiveness is wholly a work of the Spirit within us.

Believe, Repent, Be Baptized....

All three are means of God's grace and it is God's grace that saves us. These three means though are vitally important in that they are the means by which God has chosen to bestow His grace upon His people. I don't see where we can take any one out of the three and either elevate it or discard it as a means of God's saving grace.

 

[beforHim]

This is why I'm careful to say faith "apart from works".

"...to whom God credits righteousness apart from works." (Romans 4:6 NIV1984)

It takes away the weak support people use to say justification is not by 'faith alone'. They misunderstand (intentionally?) James' message to suggest that a person is declared righteous (justified) by faith and works and not by faith all by itself (apart from works).

Righteousness is credited to a person apart from the condition of a satisfactory effort of commanded work to solicit it. If circumcision is a work, as it most certainly is because that is what Paul uses to illustrate the truth about works that he teaches, then so is baptism. Both circumcision and baptism are 1) commanded by God, 2) not confined to works of the law, 3) performed on you or on your behalf, 4) presented as a condition for salvation, both being misunderstood as legalistic acts that must be completed to trigger salvation.

Good insights

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[g] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Was Abraham's faith a "saving faith" before he offered Isaac?

Yes. But we didn't know that he had faith in God's promise of a son given to him earlier in chapter 15 until his actions proved, or showed that faith. When he offered him up that is when God said:

"Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." (Genesis : NIV1984)

You see? Abraham's faith, the faith that he already had, became known and validated as genuine when he put Isaac on the altar, fully believing God would just raise him up from the dead to keep the surety of his promise (as Paul says).

Abraham was justified (made, or declared righteous) when he believed God's promise for a son coming from his own body. And then Abraham was justified (shown to righteous) by what he did. Both are necessary for salvation. A declaration of righteousness is only genuine if it can show itself genuine by what it does. A declaration of righteousness that can not be validated by actions commensurate with a declaration of righteousness is not a declaration of righteousness that can save. The point being, it wasn't a real declaration of righteousness.

The 'faith' that produces a (perceived) declaration of righteousness that can not show itself in what it does (specifically, 'love your neighbor as yourself') is a 'faith' that cannot save. Period. That's why it is necessary to also be justified (show your righteousness) by what you do--not to secure salvation, but to validate the faith you have (that saves all by itself, apart from works) as genuine and able to secure an official declaration of righteousness that saves.

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." (Heb 11:8)

I'm sure you'll agree that Hebrews 11 is talking about "saving faith", so when Abraham left Haran, he had "saving faith".

I don't know. The passage is talking about faith that pleases God. I had faith that did pleasing things for and because of God, before I actually placed my trust in Christ's blood. But I wasn't declared righteous until I had a very specific faith in God's promise of His Son, Jesus. A Son that would come from my own Body via the Holy Spirit. And that is the point. I think it is missing the point to go down the road you're going here. Christianity is about faith in the Promised Son of God who would inherit our blessing on our behalf. I don't see value in dissecting every detail of Abraham's life to form doctrine. We know what is important in the account.

The only problem is that this happened in Gen. 12. If justification is a one time event and by "faith alone", how is it that he was justified in Gen. 12 and then again in Gen. 20 when he offered Isaac? Certainly he had "saving faith" in Gen. 12, so why is this faith BY ITSELF not enough to justify him?

Because the faith that justifies (all by itself, apart from works) for it to be validated as being able to justify (all by itself, apart from works) must be seen in what we do. If it can not, then we have a 'faith' that can not justify.

What about Romans 4:2-3?

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'" (Romans 4:2-3)

This happened in Gen 15:6, and that makes three. Again, why does Paul say he is justified in Gen 15 when he was already justified in Gen 12? James says he is justified in Gen. 20 AFTER he already had "saving faith" according to Paul.

I don't know if Abraham was officially justified when he left Haran. It doesn't say. And Hebrews is talking about things that faith did that pleased God--but then again I did things from faith that pleased God before I was actually justified by my faith in the promise of God's Son.

Paul is talking about being declared (made) righteous. James is talking about being justified in regard to being shown to be righteous. True saving faith means being justified both in what we believe and in being justified as really having that faith by what we do. Both are necessary. The person who can't justify himself as one who has faith in Christ's blood (by obeying 'love your neighbor as yourself') is the one who has a faith that can not justify him, making him righteous and prepared for the judgment to come.

As you can see, Abraham's faith alone is not what justifies him...

In regard to being made righteous...yes, it was. But it is true that being made righteous, apart from works, must also be seen in what we do for that faith to be validated as real and able to save all by itself.

...yet his faith was "saving faith" according to Paul. James has nothing to do with "said faith" or "shown faith" unless you believe that is the "kind of" faith Abraham had.

As I pointed out, the account James sites there in Genesis 22 says that Abraham's faith was revealed by his actions. Abraham was indeed justified by what he did with Isaac. He was not justified (made righteous) by what he did. He was justified (shown) to be righteous by what he did. Justified means both, to be made righteous, and to be shown to be righteous. Remember the teacher of the law who was trying to justify himself with the trick question for Jesus? Certainly he was not trying to make himself righteous by that. He was trying to show himself righteous by doing that. Biblically, justify means to, both, be made righteous, and to be shown to be righteous.

If Abraham was justified by his "faith alone", then how could he be "re-justified" when he offered Isaac?

Because, Biblically, 'justify' means two things. And we are required to be justified in both of those ways.

And where does Paul make any connection to "works" and anything but "works of the law"? In every case this is the obvious meaning. You are trying to stretch the meaning of "works" to include all deeds.

...all literal deeds done...and most importantly with the intention of triggering salvation by the performance of those literal deeds.


I'm staring down a four day weekend here, so I'll be in and out as I can.

God bless.

 

[beforHim]

I guess we could define faith as "belief that manifests itself in actions when given the chance".

This, to me, seems to make sense of most uses of the scenarios in the Bible, like the Prodigal, the Rich young Ruler, all those baptism episodes in Acts, Paul's point in Galatians about faith, James' point about faith, sayings about the God who judges us according to our deeds, etc.

And it answers such questions as a death-bed conversions, a person coming to Christ in a communist prison and not having access to baptism, etc.

 

[beforHim]

Under the OT there were some things God 'tolerated', Acts 14:16. For example, God intended for one man to marry one woman for life, no divorce or polygamy.
Mt 19:8, "from the beginning it (divorce) was not so". And David had many wives. But God does not 'tolerate' things anymore..."And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:", Acts 17:30.

Good point

Grace does not allow a person to do as they please, grace does not allow one to live in disobedience to God.

I agree! Too bad, if baptism is required no-matter-what, that God had to go and create a universe in which He knew there'd be circumstances where ones who genuinely loved Him would not be able to be baptized.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But, Dad brings up a point that I've been thinking about in regards to this thread.

We all tend to draw hard lines at "faith alone"...

This HAS to be qualified as meaning either "faith, apart from works, to be justified", or "faith with no accompanying works to validate it".

That is why I use "apart from works", and not "faith alone" when I'm talking about being justified by faith all by itself. People misunderstand it and then use it against you if you don't clarify what you mean, because, certainly, they are two very different things.

Is faith then, the only means of God's grace applied to our salvation?

For the purpose of being declared righteous? Yes.

I don't believe the Scriptures teach us that. I do believe that if one were to look at the Scriptures without glasses tinted by 500 years of Church squabbling over the issue, we would recognized that the bible also teaches that baptism is a means of God's grace as well.

But still, an obedience that results from faith. Everything is motivated by the grace of faith.

Our repentance is also a gift from God...

But still wrought by faith.

surely no one believes that we would repent if left on our own, if the Holy Spirit wasn't working in our heart...

Perhaps we should have that discussion, hmmmm... Could it be that repentance is a work of man's?

But, again, still a work wrought by the grace of faith. The grace of faith is the common denominator here.

I don't believe repentance is a work of our's... I believe that repentance that breaks our hearts before God and seeks His forgiveness is wholly a work of the Spirit within us.

Believe, Repent, Be Baptized....

All three are means of God's grace and it is God's grace that saves us. These three means though are vitally important in that they are the means by which God has chosen to bestow His grace upon His people. I don't see where we can take any one out of the three and either elevate it or discard it as a means of God's saving grace.

Why are you choosing not to include every other obedience commanded by God to illustrate this concept of 'means of God's grace that saves us'? The common denominator of them all is faith in God's forgiveness. That is what makes us righteous, all by itself. A righteousness that in turn then leads us into righteous obediences. Those righteous obediences 'save us' in a figurative sense, the faith that motivated them being the actual agent that made us righteous before God.

All you need is faith...faith that can be validated by what it does. The validation part doesn't make us righteous. It shows us to be righteous by our faith in Christ's blood.

 

[beforHim]

You have already said you do not believe baptism is necessary to be saved. The last I have to say about this and as I have posted before, you will have to prove what you believe from the bible. Just making up various circumstances will never prove it. I can make up circumstances and make Christ's gospel unnecessary to salvation. I will debate book, chapter and verses with you about baptism, but arguing over 'circumstances' is pointless as I see it for it will never prove anything.

So if a situation is not in the Bible, we must refer back to. . . what?

 

[dadof10]

Stepping back into the discussion here and no, I'm not even going to try to "catch up" on what's been said since the last time I posted...

But, Dad brings up a point that I've been thinking about in regards to this thread.

We all tend to draw hard lines at "faith alone"... That it is faith that saves us.

Ephesians 2:8-10 gets brought up a lot... and for good reason, it's a very tight, concise text about what it is that brings about our salvation... Let's look at it again:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."

What is it that saves us? Faith.... No. This passage does not teach us that our faith saves us.

Grace is what saves us... Something we need to keep very much in the forefront of our mind. We gain access to that grace via faith and the faith isn't even our own faith, saving faith itself is a means of God's grace...His gift to us.

Is faith then, the only means of God's grace applied to our salvation?

I don't believe the Scriptures teach us that. I do believe that if one were to look at the Scriptures without glasses tinted by 500 years of Church squabbling over the issue, we would recognized that the bible also teaches that baptism is a means of God's grace as well.

Our repentance is also a gift from God... surely no one believes that we would repent if left on our own, if the Holy Spirit wasn't working in our heart...

Perhaps we should have that discussion, hmmmm... Could it be that repentance is a work of man's?

I don't believe repentance is a work of our's... I believe that repentance that breaks our hearts before God and seeks His forgiveness is wholly a work of the Spirit within us.

Believe, Repent, Be Baptized....

All three are means of God's grace and it is God's grace that saves us. These three means though are vitally important in that they are the means by which God has chosen to bestow His grace upon His people. I don't see where we can take any one out of the three and either elevate it or discard it as a means of God's saving grace.

Excellent!!! Now, to stir the pot, does our RESPONSE (or lack thereof) to God's Grace affect or salvation? In other words, where does our free will to reject God come into play?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is why I say the answer to the baptism question is you have to know why a person is not getting baptized to know whether or not they are saved or condemned by what they think about baptism.

Faith determines if baptism saves you, or if not getting baptized condemns you. Baptism is not a legalistic act to secure salvation. It's an expression of saving faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Excellent!!! Now, to stir the pot, does our RESPONSE (or lack thereof) to God's Grace affect or salvation? In other words, where does our free will to reject God come into play?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I'm going to butt in here...

Your response shows the validity of your faith. Your response does not determine the status of your faith. It reveals it.

 

[beforHim]

This is why I say the answer to the baptism question is you have to know why a person is not getting baptized to know whether or not they are saved or condemned by what they think about baptism.

Faith determines if baptism saves you, or if not getting baptized condemns you. Baptism is not a legalistic act to secure salvation. It's an expression of saving faith.

Yes, and I'm wondering why God would create a world were sometimes that "expression of saving faith" cannot be accomplished between the moment of belief, and death of our body.