Christ died for me

[Monica4316]

I think that works done out of love for God, by Christians, under grace are very different than works done under the Law… and Christ said that we need them for salvation, again not because they save us, but neither does faith save us… we need works in order to cooperate with grace.

Christ said, those who love Him, follow His commands.

 

[SyCarl]

I think that works done out of love for God, by Christians, under grace are very different than works done under the Law… and Christ said that we need them for salvation, again not because they save us, but neither does faith save us… we need works in order to cooperate with grace.

Christ said, those who love Him, follow His commands.

You see, I don’t think most Protestants and Catholics are too far apart on this. It is largely semantics. Protestants emphasize faith to show it is by grace that we are saved, looking at Paul’s statement that if it is by works then it is not by grace. Catholics emphasize co-operating with grace but also say that our co-operation is also only possible by grace. Be both say that one with faith should do works. I don’t think God is going to condemn anyone if they can’t fully explain His plans, which, because they are His, are unexplainable and beyond our capacity to fully understand or put into words.

 

[mdcpensive1]

If you look at the Mosaic covenant, you will see that it is not a salvific covenant. It was a covenant with national Israel that they would prosper as a nation if they obeyed and suffer if they did not. The nature of this covenant is most clearly seen in Deuteronomy. The salvific covenant was made with Abraham before the law was given. This was based on faith. That this is the relevant covenant is clear from the emphasis placed on the promise to Abraham being fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament. Paul makes it clear that no one was saved by obeying the Mosaic law and it is also made clear in Hebrews.

Augustine clearly expresses the view that the same faith has always justified the saints, both those before and after Jesus’ incarnation.

Thanks for your reply, SyCarl.

Your reply is correct in that the Mosaic Law did not save. However, the covenant of Abraham can be taken differently than you are proposing. The Abrahamic Coventant was one of promise that Abraham’s ancestors would be many and that faith was required that God would be faithful to that promise of building His people through Abraham (Acts 2:39). (Please know that I understand that salvation will be the end result of all the Covenants God has made starting with Genesis.)

The Mosaic Coventant has in its history the story of God’s people being saved through water. Once while being chased by Pharoh and again by being led by Joshua through the Jordan to the promised land (not to mention the rock in the desert). Their faith was important at this time in understanding who Yahweh was, but it was not something that regenerated a person to be “alive in Christ”. You are correct in stating this point. This action of being saved and led through water is the for-runner of Baptism as shown typographically in scripture.

What we can agree upon is that faith is an essential part of the process. Without faith we have nothing, but faith is not what regenerates us (Titus 3:5), but it is part of the process.

This conversation should not pit faith against Baptism but show that they go hand in hand. They cannot exist without the other. The passages you noted are correct but do not negate the need for Baptism.

mdcpensive1

 

[SyCarl]

This conversation should not pit faith against Baptism but show that they go hand in hand. They cannot exist without the other. The passages you noted are correct but do not negate the need for Baptism.

mdcpensive1

If baptism is needed, how was someone like David saved, or Ruth, who, being female, would not have been circumcized?

 

[TriuneUnity]

mdcpensive1:

What we can agree upon is that faith is an essential part of the process. Without faith we have nothing, but faith is not what regenerates us (Titus 3:5), but it is part of the process.

This conversation should not pit faith against Baptism but show that they go hand in hand. They cannot exist without the other. The passages you noted are correct but do not negate the need for Baptism.

Good observations, mdc.

God communicates the gift of faith in several different ways. The means of grace. In order to be justified, we must have faith in the object of the person and work of Christ. Faith cannot be communicated to us immediately…that is, without an intervening means (no bolts of Spirit from the heavens). The graces of the cross do not come to us through the cross, because it is 2000 years removed. So, God has instituted the means of the Word, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper in order to mediate faith to us.

You are correct in stating Baptism and faith go hand in hand. Baptism gives faith to us. Not only when we are initially baptised as infants; but also throughout our lives. How do I know I am justified in Christ? Because I am Baptised. That continually creates faith in me. How do I know Christ was crucified for me? He gives me His Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Altar. That also continually renews and strengthens my faith. In a very real way, I am justified everytime I remember my Baptism, partake of the Holy Supper, and hear the words of Holy Absolution. That is the continuing process of my sanctification and renewal of my justification.

Being a Protestant, I do believe justification is complete, either at Baptism or later when faith is confessed. However, we must continually return to the means of grace God has given us, otherwise, my faith will die; and if that happens, I am no longer justified. Slightly off-topic I know, but just wanted to add to what you’d written.

 

[Monica4316]

If baptism is needed, how was someone like David saved, or Ruth, who, being female, would not have been circumcized?

In Catholicism it is taught that there are “ordinary” ways to be saved, and “extraordinary” ways. Baptism is the “ordinary” way, and it’s a work of God, by the Holy Spirit.
To those who never got the chance to be baptized, like the thief on the cross, God is merciful

God bless

 

[SyCarl]

In Catholicism it is taught that there are “ordinary” ways to be saved, and “extraordinary” ways. Baptism is the “ordinary” way, and it’s a work of God, by the Holy Spirit.
To those who never got the chance to be baptized, like the thief on the cross, God is merciful

God bless

So any who lived before Christ were saved by “extraordinary” ways?

I believe that that it is baptism of the Spirit that saves and that does not coincide with water baptism. In the Old Testament, it was called circumcision of the heart. Paul refers to it in Romans.

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
(Romans 2:28-29 NASB)

In Colossians Paul refers to us being circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
(Colossians 2:9-12 NASB)

Water baptism corresponds to the fleshly circumcision, not to the inward one.

It is baptism of the Spirit that causes us to seek water baptism or makes our infant baptism effective when we do believe. It was baptism of the Spirit that Cornelius experienced before he was baptized by Peter. It is through baptism of the Spirit that the Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are effective. And if rebirth through circumcision of the heart by the Spirit and baptism of the Spirit are the same thing, then people were saved by the same means in both testaments through faith.

This will be my last post for tonight as I must be off to bed.

 

[Monica4316]

Hi,

I don’t believe there’s a difference between water and Spirit baptism. If water baptism is just a symbol, why is it necessary at all? In the Great Commission, Christ told the Apostles to go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit… why did He give this important command if it’s just a symbol…

He also said that we must be baptized of water and of the Spirit. This is the same thing. During water baptism, the Holy Spirit cleanses us of sin - as Paul says, we are buried with Christ and rise to new life. You mentioned verses that suggest that baptism is something spiritual, not something humans do, and I totally agree with you! Indeed it is “circumcision made without hands.” the Holy Spirit is the one who cleanses us during baptism, not the water itself (it’s all God’s work, by grace), but the water is used as a Sacrament.

If you look at it this way, it makes more sense, because it gives meaning to water baptism… otherwise, it’s just an empty ritual.

Additionally, there’s evidence that as early as 150 AD the Church considered baptism to be a Sacrament.

God bless

monica

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hi,

I don’t believe there’s a difference between water and Spirit baptism. If water baptism is just a symbol, why is it necessary at all? In the Great Commission, Christ told the Apostles to go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit… why did He give this important command if it’s just a symbol…

He also said that we must be baptized of water and of the Spirit. This is the same thing. During water baptism, the Holy Spirit cleanses us of sin - as Paul says, we are buried with Christ and rise to new life. You mentioned verses that suggest that baptism is something spiritual, not something humans do, and I totally agree with you! Indeed it is “circumcision made without hands.” the Holy Spirit is the one who cleanses us during baptism, not the water itself (it’s all God’s work, by grace), but the water is used as a Sacrament.

If you look at it this way, it makes more sense, because it gives meaning to water baptism… otherwise, it’s just an empty ritual.

Additionally, there’s evidence that as early as 150 AD the Church considered baptism to be a Sacrament.

I never thought I’d say it on here, as a Lutheran, but amen and amen Monica!

Baptism that now saves you. It truly is not the work of any priest’s or ministers hands. It is the work of the Spirit in and through the waters of Baptism. The washing of regeneration.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I never thought I’d say it on here, as a Lutheran, but amen and amen Monica!

Baptism that now saves you. It truly is not the work of any priest’s or ministers hands. It is the work of the Spirit in and through the waters of Baptism. The washing of regeneration.

Ummm…yah!!! You never thought you’d say it on here? This is the Catholic belief. Baptism is no smymbol!

 

[mdcpensive1]

So any who lived before Christ were saved by “extraordinary” ways?

I believe that that it is baptism of the Spirit that saves and that does not coincide with water baptism. In the Old Testament, it was called circumcision of the heart. Paul refers to it in Romans.

It seems like this thread has turned into a study on whether Baptism is effective or symbolic. To understand what the meaning of Baptism is one has to start with the Chosen People.

The promise of Abraham is to be through the People Chosen by God. To be in this important group one has to have the sign of initiation which was circumcision and it was to be done by the eighth day. Since females would have a hard time being circumcised, the male leader of the family sufficed for those who could not be circumcised. This is a model of a family church that has historical significance. All covenants had their sign. It was the distinguishing mark that defined physically the relationship with God (Yahweh).

Anyway, Baptism is the new sign of the New Covenant because it now takes the place of circumcision (Col 2:11) where we are brought “into Christ”. Baptism is now what “marks” us as being in the Body of Christ because we through Baptism have died with Him to rise with Him. It has now regenerated us to be acceptable to be children of God.

SyCarl, there is a difference between water Baptism and what you call Spirit Baptism. Water Baptism is the sign of being in the Body of Christ and the so-called Spirit one is just the Spirit coming alive in us that was given to us in water Baptism.

Monica 4316 is correct in saying that Baptism is the ordinary way of entering Chist’s Body because Christ can work any way He chooses since He is onipotent. I am not saying that there is just one way, but it is the easiest way given to us.

Another way of looking at this is where you find the talk about Baptism in the Gospel of John. It is included in other proofs of Christ called “signs”. If it were just a symbol then it would be in the wrong part of the Gospel. The readers of John would have noted this and would have maybe doubted the scripture. The writers of the Gospel were sure to have known this also and included it in the correct place in the book.

Peter knew of this also when he said that Baptism saves us (1Pt 3:21) and that it is the fulfillment of the promise made by Abraham back in Genesis.

Hope this helps, mdcpensive1

 

[AlegreFe]

Baptism that now saves you. It truly is not the work of any priest’s or ministers hands. It is the work of the Spirit in and through the waters of Baptism. The washing of regeneration.

Even though it is the work of the Holy Spirit it is still “the work of human hands” that have to minister the Sacrament with water and in the name of the Father, the Son & Holy Spirit. Three very key ingredients for this Sacrament to take place. We cannot baptize ourselves. We must use water. And it must be done in the name of the Trinity (separately named).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Even though it is the work of the Holy Spirit it is still “the work of human hands” that have to minister the Sacrament with water and in the name of the Father, the Son & Holy Spirit. Three very key ingredients for this Sacrament to take place. We cannot baptize ourselves. We must use water. And it must be done in the name of the Trinity (separately named).

Yeah…I agree…the mistake that symbolic Protestants make is they assume the verse that states not with a work of human hands means a reference to something totally void of human participation. The result of Baptism is without the work of human hands. Using the logic of those who think “spirit baptism” is separate from water baptism, is if it has no human element, logically, it would also mean no human being baptized, either.