Faith Alone

[sandusky]

Chaldean Rite:

Wow, nice spin! How much more can you bend the text to fit your theology? WOW! None, and NONE of the ECFs will agree with you. You are alone pre-16th century.

Not so; the writers of sacred scripture were pre-16th century; no?

If baptism were the means of salvation, then all of the OT saints perished as none of them were baptized. You’ll search in the vain in the OT to find baptism at all, let alone as the norm.

Furthermore, the water of the flood was the instrument of God’s wrath upon the world, and not the means of salvation for the eight who were saved.

The eight who were saved, were not saved by the water, but by the ark—thus the antitupos, the anti-type spoken of by Peter in the passage is the ark as Christ, NOT the water as Christ.

Gamera:

So when the Bible says “baptism,” it doesn’t mean baptism? So much for sola scriptura.

Baptism means immersion. You’re emotionally tied to baptism as immersion into water, but that’s not the meaning of baptism.

The “immersion” part of baptism is determined by the context. The context of Peter’s passage is the ark as Christ, not the water as Christ, as the water was the instrument of destruction, and the ark was the instrument of salvation.

Notice at the end of v20 that the eight were brought to safety through the water; they were not brought to safety by the water.

What brought them safely through the water was the ark, and the ark is the antitupos of Christ.**1 Peter 3:20

who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction OF THE ARK, IN WHICH a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.**

 

[Gamera]

… If baptism were the means of salvation, then all of the OT saints perished as none of them were baptized. You’ll search in the vain in the OT to find baptism at all, let alone as the norm…

No. Baptism was not required under the Old Covenant. Circumcision was. Since God did not yet require baptism under the Old Covenant, the Old Testament saints did not need baptism before death. They were incorporated into God’s people by circumcision, which baptism replaced.

 

[Gamera]

Not so; the writers of sacred scripture were pre-16th century; no?

If baptism were the means of salvation, then all of the OT saints perished as none of them were baptized. You’ll search in the vain in the OT to find baptism at all, let alone as the norm.

Furthermore, the water of the flood was the instrument of God’s wrath upon the world, and not the means of salvation for the eight who were saved.

The eight who were saved, were not saved by the water, but by the ark—thus the antitupos, the anti-type spoken of by Peter in the passage is the ark as Christ, NOT the water as Christ.

Baptism means immersion. You’re emotionally tied to baptism as immersion into water, but that’s not the meaning of baptism.

The “immersion” part of baptism is determined by the context. The context of Peter’s passage is the ark as Christ, not the water as Christ, as the water was the instrument of destruction, and the ark was the instrument of salvation.

Notice at the end of v20 that the eight were brought to safety through the water; they were not brought to safety by the water.

What brought them safely through the water was the ark, and the ark is the antitupos of Christ.1 Peter 3:20

who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction OF THE ARK, IN WHICH a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

We are brought to safety THROUGH baptism. Nobody thinks the baptismal water holds “magic powers.” Baptism is simply a means through which Jesus gives us His saving grace. You’re trying to draw a contrast between Christ’s grace and baptism. Baptism is a sacrament through which Christ gives us His grace.

 

[moondweller]

Oops, Sorry - I must have confused you with Sandusky.
If you dont you mind answering I would still appreciate your answer to the original, bolded question. " …your contention that the purpose of the epistle is in “identifying false brethren” seems to simply beg the question. What, exactly, is the purpose of identifying false brethren?"

Paul gives two very critical reasons:Gal 2:4 But {it was} because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, ** (1) in order to bring us into bondage**. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, (2) so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you."To ensure the believer’s freedom in Christ, according to grace, and that the purity of the gospel would remain. Prevention of apostasy.

 

[moondweller]

[sign]Furthermore, it says we are saved by Hope as well, hence, the entire “faith alone” heresy is easily dismantled[/sign]

By being “saved” [in the protestant sense] we would have nothing to hope for anymore because we KNOW that Heaven is ours. This is wrong and unbiblical because our salvation is founded upon the hope of something says Paul: “**For in hope **we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? “[Romans 8:24].

A believer is saved “in hope,” not “by hope.” “In hope” is an abiding expectation of that which is promised and yet to be experienced: (1) the revelation of the believer’s full identity in Christ (Jn. 3:2-3; Col. 3:4) and (2) the redemption of our bodies (translation/resurrection, Rom. 8:22-23). These amout to the believer’s future glorification, which we do not yet “see.”

 

[moondweller]

This is a false dichotomy. Many people such as Catholics believe that baptism is a method through which Christ gives people grace, but there isn’t a single religious group that I’ve ever heard of who believe baptism has any independent power that doesn’t come from Christ. So no, nobody believes in baptism “rather than” Christ.

Sure they do, subtle as it is. The introduction of “leaven” into the church began way back in the Apostolic age. Many look to baptism like the Galatians looked to circumcision - which Paul called “deserting Him…for a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6).

 

[moondweller]

No. Baptism was not required under the Old Covenant. Circumcision was. Since God did not yet require baptism under the Old Covenant, the Old Testament saints did not need baptism before death. They were incorporated into God’s people by circumcision, which baptism replaced.

Then by your theology no uncircumcised Gentile in O.T. times (before and after Abraham) were saved. And no unbaptized person today can be.

 

[Pax]

A believer is saved “in hope,” not “by hope.” “In hope” is an abiding expectation of that which is promised and yet to be experienced: (1) the revelation of the believer’s full identity in Christ (Jn. 3:2-3; Col. 3:4) and (2) the redemption of our bodies (translation/resurrection, Rom. 8:22-23). These amout to the believer’s future glorification, which we do not yet “see.”

This is a ridiculous nit pick on your part. The KJV of the bible says:

“For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?”

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

If baptism were the means of salvation, then all of the OT saints perished as none of them were baptized. You’ll search in the vain in the OT to find baptism at all, let alone as the norm.

Baptism did not exist before Christ came and we were all pre-destined to Hell before that. If you recall the “underworld” in ancient thought did not mean Hell, it means that place of the dead, where both the righteous and unrighteous resided. The concept of “Bosom of Abraham”. a Jewish Tradition would be a revealing study for you.

The only reason any of the prophets could preach was because Christ sacrifice extends throughout time, past, present, and future. He payed for it in advance. If you had the Liturgy in your faith, you could understand this, but you don’t.

Anyhow, sandy, the last words from Jesus mouth commanded the Apostles to Baptize. Why do you ignore this?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

A believer is saved “in* hope*,” not “by* hope*.” “In hope” is an abiding expectation of that which is promised and yet to be experienced: (1) the revelation of the believer’s full identity in Christ (Jn. 3:2-3; Col. 3:4) and (2) the redemption of our bodies (translation/resurrection, Rom. 8:22-23). These amout to the believer’s future glorification, which we do not yet “see.”

The fact that a few translations change it to “in hope” vs “by hope” doesn’t give you the right to create a new theology on Salvation. You do realize its not the translations that are inspired right?

King James Bible
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
American King James Version
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for?
American Standard Version
For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth?
Bible in Basic English
For our salvation is by hope: but hope which is seen is not hope: for who is hoping for what he sees?
Douay-Rheims Bible
For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for?
http://darbybible.com/romans/8.htm

 

[Pax]

…
…
Notice at the end of v20 that the eight were brought to safety through the water; they were not brought to safety by the water.

What brought them safely through the water was the ark, and the ark is the antitupos of Christ.1 Peter 3:20

who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction OF THE ARK, IN WHICH a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

This whole post is problematic but I find the nit picking on the language of “by water” vs. “through water” to be really wanting.

Once again, the KJV renders 1 Peter 3:20 this way:

“…eight souls were saved **by **water.”

Websters bible translation renders it exactly the same way. Historically the understanding has been that this is, indeed, a reference to water baptism. Likewise, the following passage supports this view and the water mentioned in the following passage has historically been viewed as a reference to baptism.

1 John 5:6-8
“This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.”

Notice again, the connection of the water with “The Spirit.” If needed, we can go back over all of the passages of scripture associated with baptism to make this case even stronger. In the meantime, please consider the following:

Matthew 3:15-17
But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

In this passage we see Jesus receiving baptism. Obviously, Jesus did not need baptism as we do. Nevertheless, Jesus is baptized for two reasons. One is to “fulfil all righteousness” This makes holy and efficacious baptism for all Christians of all times. Secondly we see that Jesus receives the Holy Spirit. Thus we are shown what takes place for us in baptism. We receive the Holy Spirit and we become adopted sons and daughters and we are made pleasing to God. That is how we are made righteous before the Lord.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

[sign]
Once again, the KJV renders 1 Peter 3:20 this way:
“…eight souls were saved **by **water.”[/sign]

 

[guanophore]

Short answer: baptizo means “immersion.”

Contextually, this baptizo of which Peter speaks is baptism into Christ; Peter is not referring to water baptism.

I agree about immersion. It is both. According to the Apostles, HS baptism goes together with water baptism. That is why they taught that when we go under the water, we are “buried with Him in baptism”.

Peter makes that clear when he says, “it is not the removal of dirt from the body…”

Water baptism would certainly remove dirt from the body; therefore, water baptism is not what’s being presented.

Actually, it does not. Most dirt has to be removed with soap and scrubbing. In any case, the PURPOSE of going into the water is not to remove dirt from the body, but to remove dirt from the soul. The Apostles did not separate water baptism from the sealing of the HS that occurs at that time.

Baptism saves as well as circumcision saves—not at all.Mark 16:16

Why do you suppose the Apostle states that baptism saves? I agree that circumcision does not save. Both are entrance rites into a covenant.
sandusky;3751086:

“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

We see from the above verse that salvation is predicated upon belief, and not water baptism.

Some are not able to get baptized, such as the thief hanging on the cross. Water baptism is part of the profession of faith for a new believer.

 The disbelieving one may well be baptized; however, his baptism cannot save him from the condemnation of his unbelief.

Since baptism is not valid without faith, then I agree with you.

You’re emotionally affected by the phrase “baptism now saves you,” and, IMHO, that blinds you to the truth that baptism, indeed, cannot save anyone.

It is not getting immersed in water that saves, sandusky, but being cleansed of all sins by the blood of Christ, into which we enter through baptism.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Since baptism is not valid without faith, then I agree with you.

I do not think this statement is accurate. Baptism is the work of Christ and even if the parents are unbelievers (materially), and go to get their baby baptized, its as valid as you can imagine.

 

[moondweller]

The fact that a few translations change it to “in hope” vs “by hope” doesn’t give you the right to create a new theology on Salvation. You do realize its not the translations that are inspired right?

Contextually the theology does not change. “Hope” in that context is still the abiding expectation of that which accompanies salvation and that which the saved do not yet see (experience). However, making “hope” a means of salvation you present a change in soteriology - in fact, “a different gospel.”

 

[Pax]

moondweller,

Paul is the one that said “saved by hope”…it isn’t a different gospel. Yours is the different gospel.

 

[guanophore]

Christ Himself concurs:John 3:17-18 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved (how?) through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, (why?) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.Many believe in their baptism for salvation, rather than Christ.

Baptism is joining with Christ, it is the manner by which we become joined with HIm in His death, then His resurrection. In baptism we are washed, regenerated, sanctified, and sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it. The Apostles taught that baptism is the manner in which we enter into the Kingdom of God, and are made adopted sons and daughters of God. Baptism is not “rather than Christ” but joining into oneness with Christ. Water was not separated from HS baptism until only very recently in Fundamentalist Theology. Even the Reformers did not cast out baptism.

 

[Pax]

Paul also has this to say about “hope” relative to salvation.

Eph 1:11-12
In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will, so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, might live for the praise of his glory.

Col 1:5-6
You have heard of this hope before in the word of the truth, the gospel that has come to you. Just as it is bearing fruit and growing in the whole world, so it has been bearing fruit among yourselves from the day you heard it and truly comprehended the grace of God.

Titus 3:6-7
This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Heb 3:6
Christ, however, was faithful over God’s house as a son, and we are his house **if we hold firm **the confidence and the pride that belong to hope.

Heb 6:11 And we want each one of you to show the same diligence so as to realize the full **assurance of hope **to the very end,

 

[Pax]

Contextually the theology does not change. “Hope” in that context is still the abiding expectation of that which accompanies salvation and that which the saved do not yet see (experience). However, making “hope” a means of salvation you present a change in soteriology - in fact, “a different gospel.”

I think the problem you have is with terminology and your own doctrine. You cannot let your own doctrine and terminology rule the meaning of scripture. We simply are not saved by faith alone, and nowhere in scripture can you find that statement. So much for you doctrine vs. scripture.

Let’s look at the terminology. Your doctrine forces you to reject the terminology of scripture concerning hope. When scripture says we are “saved by hope”, your defense mechanism immediately goes up because you believe that we are saved by faith alone which is non-biblical.

The term “hope” is related to the word “trust.” In scripture the two words are used interchangeably and you can easily see this by looking at multiple translations of the same passage that uses either word. The word “trust” is very helpful here. It tells us something important about our relationship with God and salvation.

Surely, you would not contend that a person doesn’t need to trust in God to be saved. If you do make such a contention then you are quickly proceeding down the path that faith is also unneccessary. I can make that comment with confidence because the word hope is related to the word faith in the NT. Likewise, the scriptural translation of the greek word “eÍlpiðv” is sometimes as “faith” and sometimes as “hope.”

The two words are closely tied together. Faith obviously means belief. Hope means trust. Nevertheless, you cannot have saving faith in Jesus without trust in Jesus. It is, therefore, proper to say that we are saved by hope, just as it is proper to say that we are saved “by faith,” and that we are “saved by grace.” It is improper, however, to say that we are “saved by faith alone.” When we do such a thing we are leaving out the other necessary elements for salvation such as:

–love of God and neighbor.
–trust in God.
–and being created in Christ Jesus for good works.
–obedience to Christ.
–living in the Spirit.
-etc.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

Short answer: baptizo means “immersion.”

Contextually, this baptizo of which Peter speaks is baptism into Christ; Peter is not referring to water baptism.

Peter makes that clear when he says, “it is not the removal of dirt from the body…”

Water baptism would certainly remove dirt from the body; therefore, water baptism is not what’s being presented.

Baptism saves as well as circumcision saves—not at all.Mark 16:16

“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.We see from the above verse that salvation is predicated upon belief, and not water baptism.

The disbelieving one may well be baptized; however, his baptism cannot save him from the condemnation of his unbelief.

You’re emotionally affected by the phrase “baptism now saves you,” and, IMHO, that blinds you to the truth that baptism, indeed, cannot save anyone.

Eh, wrong again, sandusky. You seem to be an intelligent individual. Do the terms faith and belief have to be explained to you to know the difference? Belief is that which we hold to be true. Faith is the vehicle that our beliefs must sometimes utilize to substantiate them. So while faith is contigent upon a belief to exist, belief is not necessarrily contigent upon faith to exist. If we could physically see and talk to God we would have no need of faith for our beliefs. We would know for certain. Jesus makes the distinction simply with the Apostle Thomas. “You have believed because you have seen. Happy are those who have not seen but have believed.”

You see, faith alone will not save you. Neither will baptism. Neither will the sacraments, going to church, acts of charity or anything one can think of. Anything that you can think of that you must do in order to be saved will fail you. The only thing that will save you is to place your life into Jesus’ hands. Only through Jesus can we get to the Father and in being willing to do that we must give all that is ourselves over to Him. That’s the belief which requires the faith that so many are unwilling to accept. They want it for themselves but they aren’t willing to work for it.

Believing that Jesus came to die for our sins and to gain eternal salvation for us won’t gain you Heaven but it may well gain you Hell. Even Satan knows what Jesus did and why He did it. Satan knows the salvation of Jesus as well as Michael the archangel knows it. The essential difference is that Satan will use it against you to trick you. Why do you think Jesus forbade the possessing spirits to speak when He did exorcisms? It was more than just merely the fact that He didn’t want to be revealed as the Messiah at that particular point. Why do you think that Paul exorcised the possessed slave girl? (Acts 16:16-18) It wasn’t strictly because he thought her to be an annoyance. Demons will use the salvation of Jesus against you. A good book to read on this is C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters. We are in a spiritual warfare so nothing is predetermined about us.

Our best possession is our only possession, our free will. We must choose Jesus and the life He wills for us. We must freely hand ourselves over to Him and with that hand over our free will with it as well. In order to fully accept the gift of salvation we must accept the way of Jesus which is the way of the Cross. That’s the belief that we fail at so miserably.

Quoting scripture to back up and justify your beliefs won’t always work. Satan tried that with Jesus in the desert. Or as Shakespeare so aptly put it, “Satan can cite scripture for his purposes.” You need to understand them fully. There is no simple formula that makes the road to salvation easy for us.