Faith without works........is Faith.

[JLB]

Sure:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, Ephesians 2:8

THROUGH faith, not AND faith. We were given faith as a freewill gift from God. We didn't earn it or anything else that we receive THROUGH faith. This verse (and others like it) make it clear that salvation is a freewill gift from God given through faith, but not faith ALONE.



No, not any separate set of conditions. There are no conditions, that would be earning. Baptism is the normal way of salvation due to the Fall. We are made capable of justification (and truly justified if we happen to die) at baptism. After we reach the age of reason, faith justifies us. We MUST cooperate with Grace throughout our lives or risk damnation because we CAN lose salvation through sin, but even this cooperation is Grace.

There are only two ways to receive something given. Either it is a freewill gift, or it is earned. There is no middle ground that I can see. It seems that Paul condemns the one (God being put in obligation to man), so the only way left is Grace.

Explain how you see infant baptism as a way of salvation.


JLB

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Good to talk to you, too, my good friend.


Yes. We are in agreement here.


The point is, there is only one 'act' of the will that lays hold of God's forgiveness. And that is believing in that forgiveness. There is no righteous thing you can do to qualify yourself for God's complete forgiveness. The things worthy of death require death. There's nothing short of death that can somehow set a person free from the due penalty for things deserving death. That's why sin debt can only be removed through God's gracious gift of forgiveness, made possible through Christ's substitutionary death. And we receive it by simply......well......receiving it. That's the difference between believing as an 'act' of the will to receive forgiveness/salvation and all other acts of the will to receive forgiveness/salvation, even if those other acts of the will are borne of faith in God.

So all those other acts are not required to be forgiven in a single moment of salvation and transformation. They are powerless to solicit God's forgiveness for sin guilt. Those other acts--all other righteous acts besides believing itself--are required for salvation on the Day of Judgment, not because they have power to solicit forgiveness, but because they are the expected and obligatory way that belief in God's forgiveness acts. Those acts being absent indicate that somewhere along the line you stopped believing and trusting in the forgiveness of Christ. So it is only in that way that works are required for salvation on the Day of Judgment, and not required for being born again in a single moment.


But he does distinguish between being made righteous through believing in the forgiveness of your sins, and being made righteous through doing righteous things: Everything I wrote here is based on this single passage:

" he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5 NIV)

Gotta run.........brain surgeries are stacking up......God bless.

Interesting quote here, using Titus 3:5;
Paul says "he saved us" twice in this passage.
Past tense.
How can we lose our salvation if he has already saved us?

Now if Paul had said, he saves us" then it would indicate something else could happen as well.
But he didn't.
Once God gets his hands on us, he wins.
Go ahead, try to open God's hand and break loose all that is in it.

If anyone thinks they have that power, then we should be worshiping them instead.

 

[smaller]

Interesting quote here, using Titus 3:5;
Paul says "he saved us" twice in this passage. Past tense.
How can we lose our salvation if he has already saved us?

Indeed. I really question the intentions of anyone of faith trying to diminish or eradicate faith of another.

1 Corinthians 15:
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

I don't recall being called to lay stumbling blocks in front of anyone of faith in Christ.

Romans 14:13
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

The general intentions of most of these types of theological slants is to try to get people not to sin. But is that really a legitimate quest? I don't recall the "promise" of having sinless flesh being on the table of scriptural fact to start with. Containment? Yes. Admonishments not to let sin progress past thought into greater forms of captivity such as in "word" or "deed?" Again, YES.

Eradication of sin however, in our current state of affairs, I do not believe is a truthful position whatsoever. And those who take that stance have eliminated themselves from spiritual credibility, again, imho.

No one by any means has ever made "themselves" sinless.

The internal problems of SIN is the very essence of our need for our Savior. The perpetual "need" for Repentance, Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness is built on this fact of being sinners.

So why is it so difficult to speak truthfully about SIN? That is the real question. I'd rather just be truthful/honest, that as it pertains to "having sin" I am not one bit different than any man, and I REFUSE to step into the shoes of a pharisee:

Luke 18:11
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

No, as it pertains to this subject, I am not one bit better than any other given sinner, and prefer to go to my house, justified and honest in the sight of God, even if it is personally detrimental:

Luke 18:
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

The scriptures are a bit of a paradox in this direction. The UPward direction is in fact DOWNward.

God, in His Direct Words to Paul, shows us that the power of God resides upon the weak. It is one of the few direct quotes from God given by Paul, and probably the most profound, as it is in an opposite direction that most perceive.

2 Corinthians 12:
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

To know the strength of God is to enter fully into the weakness of ourselves. Our inherent self pride does not seem to like that direction much, and pharisee cloth seems the most popular garb.

To follow Paul as he follows Christ will take a downward, rightful path. And it is a very self deprecating path. A person of faith who takes that path will find no cause whatsoever to tear down the faith of another believer for any reason, and will find every reason to do the exact opposite, to build them UP in their faith, and not condemn them.

There is no condemnation in Christ, when we are seated at the bottom.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

And in this we should fully expect Christ to "condemn" our own sin, which He Has, but not to our eternal detriment.

In Galatians 4, Paul lays out clearly, this "personal reality." It is not about "us" as believers and the "other people," but about us, individually.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

One of the above will be left behind, on the respective crosses of each of us, in the dust. The voices of persecution should be recognized for what they are, and who they are from.

God in Christ did not come to condemn, but to SAVE.

Expecting "he that was born after the flesh" to be saved is a dead end. We all who believe, are currently, both.

So, who wants to "divide" on this ground? I'd say we are all on equal footing. Personally, I look forward, every day, to leaving "he that was born after the flesh" behind me in favor of what has been set before me.

Wisdom Sword of Solomon for the child, anyone? The evil mother said KILL IT. The real mother grabbed her child for LIFE.

Jesus gave us the identical picture here, and again, most will read themselves as "the wheat" and the other person, "the tare." That was never the case. The wheat and the tare grow "together" in the same ground:

Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

We are just not used to hearing The Words of God in stereo, personally. When any believer emerges from the ground of darkness, then this is what they will see:

Matthew 13:26
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

Where does the "severing" transpire, but personally? These are all absolutely identical pictures as Paul provided in Galatians 4 above.

Matthew 13:49
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

Most of us are so "tuned" to only the "good side" of the scriptural equations, when all the promises that we look forward to are on the other side of the equations.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Interesting quote here, using Titus 3:5;
Paul says "he saved us" twice in this passage.
Past tense.

The argument is not that we're not born again until the Day of Judgment.
Being born again happens when you first believe. Being saved on the Day of Judgment is still to come. We must endure in our faith to the very end so our names do not get blotted out of the book of Life:

"3 'So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you. 4 'But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. 5 'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." (Revelation 3:3-5 NASB)

How can we lose our salvation if he has already saved us?

By not enduring to the very end and turning our backs on the blood that sanctified us:
Matthew 24:13 NASB
Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB

Now if Paul had said, he saves us" then it would indicate something else could happen as well.
But he didn't.

So, are we to ignore everything the Bible DOES say about something else happening?

Once God gets his hands on us, he wins.
Go ahead, try to open God's hand and break loose all that is in it.

If anyone thinks they have that power, then we should be worshiping them instead.

Sounds good, but the Bible talks in so many places about the necessity to continue in one's faith to be saved, not just now, but on the Day of Wrath.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The argument is not that we're not born again until the Day of Judgment.
Being born again happens when you first believe. Being saved on the Day of Judgment is still to come. We must endure in our faith to the very end so our names do not get blotted out of the book of Life:

"3 'So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you. 4 'But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. 5 'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels." (Revelation 3:3-5 NASB)


By not enduring to the very end and turning our backs on the blood that sanctified us:
Matthew 24:13 NASB
Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB


So, are we to ignore everything the Bible DOES say about something else happening?


Sounds good, but the Bible talks in so many places about the necessity to continue in one's faith to be saved, not just now, but on the Day of Wrath.

So I say I'm saved and you say you are not saved yet.
I know I'm going to heaven when I die but you are not sure if you are.
Oh well, to each his own.

 

[smaller]

So I say I'm saved and you say you are not saved yet.
I know I'm going to heaven when I die but you are not sure if you are.
Oh well, to each his own.

Normally believers who are saved with continuing "if's" do believe they are saved at any given point in time because, in their minds, they have done their "if" work, but how would anyone really know it but them? And even less, how would "they" know "if" anyone else didn't do their "if" works?

Such salvation can only be moment to moment and only based on "if's" which also, buy right of their own supposed sights, includes the "ever present" possibility of "if not" striking up at less than a moments notice.

I lived that believing iffy life already, constantly living in questions of security, always trying to make sure I had my "iffy" bases covered, and found it quite frustrating as every sect has their own "iffy" constructs, and trying to pin them all down proved to be quite difficult because none of them really agreed on any "iffy" proposal and were all quite sure other sects "iffy" proposals were entirely "iffy."

What's a believer to do? Iffy themselves to death, which is where I eventually landed.

Therefore such postures can only be "maybe salvation" "maybe not" entirely based on the "if/if not" postulations resulting in "maybe/maybe not" positions. How for example might one really know for sure if the if'er is really already in an "if not" position other than their claim to be an "iffer", which may or may "not" be true?

It may in fact all be quite "iffy" territory!

Hebrews 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

It may seem that our Advocate has removed all doubt based on His Own Actions.

 

[dadof10]

"15 But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1 Timothy 2:15 NIV) is pretty straightforward, too. But I don't think anyone would insist that a woman has to have a baby in order to be forgiven her sins and saved on the Day of Judgment.

No, all virgins do not burn in eternal hellfire because "the Bible says so"...lol. My interpretation of this verse is that physical sacrificial pain effects our salvation. That's why Paul says "I buffet my body...". (1Cor. 9:27) Accepting sacrifice and "offering it up" is also consistent with Paul's teaching in Colossians "Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." (1:24)

How would you interpret it?

 

[dadof10]

Good to talk to you, too, my good friend.


Yes. We are in agreement here.


The point is, there is only one 'act' of the will that lays hold of God's forgiveness. And that is believing in that forgiveness. There is no righteous thing you can do to qualify yourself for God's complete forgiveness. The things worthy of death require death. There's nothing short of death that can somehow set a person free from the due penalty for things deserving death. That's why sin debt can only be removed through God's gracious gift of forgiveness, made possible through Christ's substitutionary death. And we receive it by simply......well......receiving it. That's the difference between believing as an 'act' of the will to receive forgiveness/salvation and all other acts of the will to receive forgiveness/salvation, even if those other acts of the will are borne of faith in God.

So all those other acts are not required to be forgiven in a single moment of salvation and transformation. They are powerless to solicit God's forgiveness for sin guilt. Those other acts--all other righteous acts besides believing itself--are required for salvation on the Day of Judgment, not because they have power to solicit forgiveness, but because they are the expected and obligatory way that belief in God's forgiveness acts. Those acts being absent indicate that somewhere along the line you stopped believing and trusting in the forgiveness of Christ. So it is only in that way that works are required for salvation on the Day of Judgment, and not required for being born again in a single moment.

Hummm....I've read this five times and I can't find anything to argue with. Maybe differences in emphasis, but why quibble...

But he does distinguish between being made righteous through believing in the forgiveness of your sins, and being made righteous through doing righteous things: Everything I wrote here is based on this single passage:

" he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5 NIV)

Gotta run.........brain surgeries are stacking up......God bless.

I think the "righteous things" are referring to "works of the law", not all good deeds. (Surprise!!) The reason is because Paul uses the past tense ("righteous things we HAD done...") instead of the present tense (are doing). Then, when talking about good deeds, he switches to present tense "And I want you to stress these things [present tense], so that those who have trusted in God [past tense] may be careful to devote themselves to doing [present tense] what is good. These things are [present tense] excellent and profitable for everyone."

He seems to be describing what "we" were like before conversion from Judaism ("foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another"), which included thinking "we" were justified by "righteous things" instead of Grace alone. I do agree with you, that no good deeds by themselves can save anyone, even done in faith, although I would say that they effect salvation either positively or negatively (emphasis). I just disagree that "good deeds" are what Paul is talking about in his faith vs. works passages. Like you....errr....CS Lewis said. At all moments of our lives we are either growing closer or further away from God by the choices we make. I don't believe this is "works salvation", because the "works" Paul is talking about are "works of the Jewish law".

 

[dadof10]

So you see by your own words that whoever is saved, is done so by grace through faith, of which infants, don't qualify, because a person must hear the Gospel and receive the faith that comes by hearing and then believe what they hear...and furthermore confess with their mouth Jesus is Lord, then they can be Baptised.

Not just having an adult sprinkle some water on them.

JLB

My own words have said more than once, that baptism saves, whether performed on infants or adults. You are looking for the Golden Ticket here and there isn't one. We are saved by Grace alone and that Grace takes many forms. We are saved by baptism, faith, keeping the commandments and sacrifice. That these specific actions save, is Scriptural. We move through life and make choices, JLB. We are different people in different phases of our lives. Certainly we must remain faithful and cooperate with Grace as much as we can. Those who CAN accept and believe are obliged to. It is not optional. However, those who can't (like children and severely handicapped people) are not damned because they don't have the intellectual capacity to accept and believe.

 

[dadof10]

Explain how you see infant baptism as a way of salvation.


JLB

I don't see infant baptism in this verse, that's not what you asked. It's taught elsewhere. I see salvation by Grace alone in this verse, which is what you asked for, a verse that teaches it. Here is another that does teach both:

"He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."

Note, no mention of faith. "Washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" is an obvious reference to water baptism. How does Paul say we are justified? "...by his grace..." only. Not by Grace through faith, by grace, period. So, does this negate his teaching on faith? Of course not, faith IS ALSO GIVEN BY GRACE, hence justification is by Grace through faith and baptism. One operation, two channels..

 

[Seabass]

Faith without works is Faith.
This is because its not built on works., but its built on TRUST.
And trust, is faith.

See, the issue is "righteousness".
The issue, is, how can you become as righteous as God., as this is what He requires for you to be accepted into his family.
How do you get the Righteous from God that you need, so that you end up in heaven after you die?
Now ask yourself...
Before you were saved, or regarding any religion......you go about doing good, giving to the poor, loving the hurting, trying to live a good life, maybe even got W-baptized or took Communion for half your life.
Thats all "works".
Now, did any of that save you?
I'll ask you again.......BEFORE YOU WERE SAVED.........if you went around doing good, giving the poor, loving the hurting, trying to live a good life....(Wbaptism, Communion)..> did any of that ......do any of those WORKS save you?
Then how is it, that some falsely believe and teach that those exact same works that COULD NOT save you before you met Jesus and trusted him as Savior.......How is it that you now think that those very same works that didnt save you before you met Christ are going to keep you saved if you do them, or cause you to lose your salvation if you dont do them?

Here is how Paul explains it., and he explains it perfectly as he is the only Apostle who says that Jesus came to him an taught him the revelation of the "Grace of God".
No other apostle says this, including James, so, dont run there to argue with Paul about "works".
Thats a FAIL every time you do it.
So dont do it.

Here is Paul:

"Faith is >counted< as RIGHTEOUSNESS"""............(not works, = never works.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New International Version
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Hi,

Paul in Rom 6:17-18, in referring the salvation of the Jews in Rome to whom he was writing, put the events of their salvation in this order:

1) were servant of sin
2) obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine
3) then they were freed from sin/justified

Note how OBEYING came BEFORE freed from sin. Furthermore, in Rom 6:16 Paul said you, me, all of us serve either one of two masters, we either serve:

1) sin unto death
or
2) obedience unto righteousness

I serve (2) obedience UNTO righteousness. Where does this leave those that follow a 'faith only' theology?

Since Paul clearly made an OBEDIENT FAITH a necessity before one can be saved here in Rom 6, then the "worketh not" of Rom 4:5 cannot/does not eliminate work of obedience as believing, else Paul contradicts himself.
The context of Romans 4, Paul writing to Jews in Rome warning/admonishing them 1) not to return back to the law of Moses and 2) prove wrong the idea many Jews held onto, that being, one must circumcised to be saved. Paul refutes the circumcision issue using Abraham as an example of one reckoned righteous in uncircumcision, (Rom 4:10-12)
Paul also tries to deter those Jews from returning back to the OT law reminding them that that OT law made complete justification impossible. The most the law of Moses allowed for was flawless law keeping where the Jews attempted to keep the law perfectly thereby making their reward of debt (merited) and not of grace, (Rom 4:4). Of course the Jew would always fail in his attempt to keep the law flawlessly. Abraham was one who "worketh not", that is, he did not attempt flawless law keeping (he did sin) but rather Abraham had an obedient faith by which he was justified. Paul is contrasting two different works, contrasting the work of flawless law keeping (does not save) to an obedient belief (does save)

When James says work justify (James 2:24), the work James is speaking about is an obedient faith.
When Paul says works do not justify (Rom 4:2) the work he is talking about is the work of flawless law keeping where on tries to merit his reward where it is then not of grace. Therefore James and Paul do not contradict each other for they are not talking about the same type of work.

Paul used Abraham as an example of one who "worketh not" yet we know Abraham did do works! (Heb 11:8;17; Gen 26:5).
Again, James is saying Abraham was justified by his obedient work (Heb 11:17;) while Paul is saying Abraham "worketh not" in flawless law keeping.

Lastly, Rom 4:12 "And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised."

I really like what Coffman commentary has to say about Rom 4:12: (in blue, my emp)

Who also walk after the steps of that faith of our father Abraham ... These words mean "who have an obedient faith like Abraham." Abrahamic faith was not any such thing as faith ONLY, but it was a faith that walked after God's commandments, as pointed out under Romans 4:3; and Gentiles (or others) who would participate in the promise of salvation God gave through Abraham are here identified as those who "walk" in the steps of that faith, which is a way of saying they must have an obedient faith as did Abraham. Some of the so-called translations and modern speech renditions of the New Testament have butchered this verse by eliminating all reference to obedience:


1)For Abraham found favor with God by faith alone, before he was circumcised (The Living Word New Testament, paraphrased).
2)For those who have the faith of Abraham (NEB).
3)Because they live the same life of faith (The New Testament in Today's English)


The word "walk" or "tread" is in the Greek New Testament, and it should be in all valid translations of the word of God; but that expression is so obviously a reference to obedience that it cannot fit into the theories of salvation by faith alone; and the conviction persists that this fact influenced some of the so-called translations. It is admitted by all that Christians are saved by the same kind of faith Abraham had, before circumcision and the law; and a further study of the steps of Abraham's faith will reveal that obedience was coupled with it, and that it was by obedient faith that Abraham was justified.

Truly telling in how three different versions (Edit, Obadiah) of the bible seem to have (Edit, Obadiah) MIStranslated verse 12 to avoid the word "walk" which denotes an obedient action.

 

[Seabass]

Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;'

Paul is referring to the group "Christian" with the pronoun 'us'. God has predetermined this group would be saved, yet God did not predetermine which individuals would or would not be in this group. If I choose to obey the gospel, I thereby become a Christian, part of the group, one of the 'us".
As long as I remain faithful (Rev 2:10) I will remain in this "saved" group. If I become unfaithful, I fall from the "saved" group. The group is still and always "saved" but not me for I am no longer one of the "us".

 

[Seabass]

(Edit: Post removed for violation of ToS 2.14 "If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public." Obadiah)

 

[JLB]

Interesting quote here, using Titus 3:5;
Paul says "he saved us" twice in this passage.
Past tense.
How can we lose our salvation if he has already saved us?

Now if Paul had said, he saves us" then it would indicate something else could happen as well.
But he didn't.
Once God gets his hands on us, he wins.
Go ahead, try to open God's hand and break loose all that is in it.

If anyone thinks they have that power, then we should be worshiping them instead.

This seems to be the view in the OSAS camp, however, it really shows a lack of understanding of what it means to be saved "by faith".

The definition of faith is: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

If you are saved by faith, then you have not yet obtained the reality of salvation, but rather you have the hope of salvation.


For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?
But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. Romans 8:24-25

"IT" here in verse 25 is the object of the thing hoped for, as described in verse 24, which is salvation...

For we were saved in this hope...

That is why Peter says - ...receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls. 1 Peter 1:9

The reality of our faith, the thing we are hoping for, and waiting for with perseverance is the salvation of our soul.


Between now and the end of your faith, is the life you live and the temptations you endure, in order to continue in the faith steadfast to the end.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Note, no mention of faith. "Washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" is an obvious reference to water baptism.

Has nothing to do with water Baptism.

The regeneration of the the new birth comes from believing the Gospel message.

having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
1 Peter 1:23

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6


There is no such thing or verse of scripture to support "infant Baptism".


JLB

 

[turnorburn]

No, all virgins do not burn in eternal hellfire because "the Bible says so"...lol. My interpretation of this verse is that physical sacrificial pain effects our salvation. That's why Paul says "I buffet my body...". (1Cor. 9:27) Accepting sacrifice and "offering it up" is also consistent with Paul's teaching in Colossians "Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." (1:24)

How would you interpret it?

How does "physical sacrificial pain effects our salvation." are you talking about flagellation?

tob

 

[Seabass]

Has nothing to do with water Baptism.

The regeneration of the the new birth comes from believing the Gospel message.

having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
1 Peter 1:23

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6


There is no such thing or verse of scripture to support "infant Baptism".


JLB

Tts 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

I disagree with you in that "washing of regeneration" IS water baptism. Below are three "new birth" verses and when harmonized with each other we get:

Jn 3:5------------Spirit+++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1 Cor 12:13-----Spirit++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>in the body
Tts 3:5-----------Spirit+++++++washing of reg.>>>>>>>>>>saved

All 3 verses express the exact same idea, that being, it takes Spirit + water/baptized/washing of regeneration to be saved/in the kingdom/body.

Lastly, the underlying word for "washing" is loutron which refers to a laver of water.

Coffman Commentary has:
The ASV margin gives "laver" in this clause instead of "washing"; but as Spence said, "Laver here can only signify the baptismal font."[12] The allusion, of course, is to the great bronze laver that stood at the entrance to the Jewish temple, in which priests washed themselves before engaging in their duties within the sanctuary. The analogy in the Christian religion is the baptistery, the same being the only laver connected with the holy faith, and being the place where sinners are cleansed and justified prior to their entry into the true sanctuary, which is the Lord's church. The use of the term laver is very fortunate, because the primary meaning of it, in context, is the baptistery, standing in a figure (metonymy) for baptism, for which alone a baptistery is used, and adequately translated as "washing." But please note the significance of this. It is a thundering, emphatic denial of the nonsense that "The washing referred to is wholly spiritual."
"[13] Is a baptistery needed for that?

[12] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 261.
[13] WIlliam Hendrikson, "NT Commentary on Titus" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957). p. 391

 

[JLB]

Tts 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

I disagree with you in that "washing of regeneration" IS water baptism. Below are three "new birth" verses and when harmonized with each other we get:

Jn 3:5------------Spirit+++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1 Cor 12:13-----Spirit++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>in the body
Tts 3:5-----------Spirit+++++++washing of reg.>>>>>>>>>>saved

All 3 verses express the exact same idea, that being, it takes Spirit + water/baptized/washing of regeneration to be saved/in the kingdom/body.

Lastly, the underlying word for "washing" is loutron which refers to a laver of water.

Coffman Commentary has:
The ASV margin gives "laver" in this clause instead of "washing"; but as Spence said, "Laver here can only signify the baptismal font."[12] The allusion, of course, is to the great bronze laver that stood at the entrance to the Jewish temple, in which priests washed themselves before engaging in their duties within the sanctuary. The analogy in the Christian religion is the baptistery, the same being the only laver connected with the holy faith, and being the place where sinners are cleansed and justified prior to their entry into the true sanctuary, which is the Lord's church. The use of the term laver is very fortunate, because the primary meaning of it, in context, is the baptistery, standing in a figure (metonymy) for baptism, for which alone a baptistery is used, and adequately translated as "washing." But please note the significance of this. It is a thundering, emphatic denial of the nonsense that "The washing referred to is wholly spiritual."
"[13] Is a baptistery needed for that?

[12] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 261.
[13] WIlliam Hendrikson, "NT Commentary on Titus" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957). p. 391

You can dispense with quoting commentary, as someone else's opinion is not needed.

Secondly, it would serve you well to post the scripture you are referring to, rather than stating your opinion, and tagging your opinion with a scripture reference, like so many others do.

Let's start with John 3 as our foundation, because everything that Jesus taught is the foundation of truth that Paul's doctrine is built upon.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:3-6

The first and most obvious point here in these verse's would be that Baptism is not mentioned.

The reason baptism is not mentioned is the discussion is about birth, and the contrast of natural birth and spiritual birth.
[That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.]

Baptism is not about birth, but just the opposite, Baptism is about death.

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Romans 6:3


JLB

 

[JLB]

My own words have said more than once, that baptism saves, whether performed on infants or adults. You are looking for the Golden Ticket here and there isn't one. We are saved by Grace alone and that Grace takes many forms. We are saved by baptism, faith, keeping the commandments and sacrifice. That these specific actions save, is Scriptural. We move through life and make choices, JLB. We are different people in different phases of our lives. Certainly we must remain faithful and cooperate with Grace as much as we can. Those who CAN accept and believe are obliged to. It is not optional. However, those who can't (like children and severely handicapped people) are not damned because they don't have the intellectual capacity to accept and believe.

No golden ticket, just the plain truth from the scriptures.

Please quote the scripture that shows us an infant can be sprinkled with water by their parents and be saved?

No opinion, no Catholic dogma, just the scripture.


JLB

 

[Seabass]

You can dispense with quoting commentary, as someone else's opinion is not needed.

Secondly, it would serve you well to post the scripture you are referring to, rather than stating your opinion, and tagging your opinion with a scripture reference, like so many others do.

Let's start with John 3 as our foundation, because everything that Jesus taught is the foundation of truth that Paul's doctrine is built upon.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:3-6

The first and most obvious point here in these verse's would be that Baptism is not mentioned.

The reason baptism is not mentioned is the discussion is about birth, and the contrast of natural birth and spiritual birth.
[That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.]

Baptism is not about birth, but just the opposite, Baptism is about death.

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Romans 6:3


JLB

Hello,

1) my quoting from a commentary is due to me not being an expert in the Greek language but simply used the commentary to support what I posted. Even without quoting the commentary the fact still remains, Paul included a laver of water, baptismal font, in how they were "saved" (same Greek word in Eph 5:26 also)

2) I harmonized three "new birth" verses showing "water" in Jn 3:5 is equivalent to "baptized" in 1 Cor 12:13 which is equivalent to "washing of regeneration" (laver of water) of Tts 3:5. Since there is just one way to be saved/born again, then all three verses MUST harmonize.
In harmonizing these three verses, the bible is its own best commentary here in telling me what "water" of Jn 3:5 refers to, that being, "baptized" and "laver of water".

3) John 3:6 shows there is a distinction between the physical birth and the spiritual birth but does not in anyway remove water/baptized/laver of water from the new birth.

4) I agree baptism is where one is baptized into the death of Christ but baptism is where one "rises to walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). The new birth is where an inward, spiritual change takes place and rising from water baptism to walk in newness of life is that new "birth from death". It can also be noted here also that Christ's resurrection from the dead is referred to as a 'birth from death', Rev 1:5; Col 1:18 therefore born of water is equivalent to a birth from death.