Faith Alone

[sandusky]

Gamera:

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.

Correct, and neither save.

Eternally, salvation has been by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

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.

The believer is brought to safety THROUGH FAITH in Christ—believe it, or not.

Baptism is not a sacrament, it is, as the Lord’s supper, an ordinance, as was the Passover (Ex 12).

 

[sandusky]

moondweller:

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

My point exactly.

If baptism is the MEANS OF REGENERATION/JUSTIFICATION/SALVATION, then why didn’t God baptize Abraham?**1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”**Through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God.

 

[sandusky]

Chaldean Rite:

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

Don’t need the liturgy for that, I just the Scripture Alone:**Galatians 3:8

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.”**(cf Gen 12)—the Gospel is eternal, and I don’t the liturgy to know, and understand that.

Eternally, salvation has been by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.
Chaldean Rite:

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

Why is that you misinterpret my saying that baptism doesn’t save to mean that I’m against, or forbid baptism?

That misinterpretation begs the question, IMHO, how much more do you misinterpret the Scripture?

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

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.”

That’s not what the Greek says, Pax.

The Greek says di’ a contraction for dia, or “through.”

Literally, eight souls were brought through the water, and what water would that be?

The flood—they weren’t saved by the flood, but were brought through the flood by the ark which is a type of Christ.

Pax:

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?”

Actually “in” “by” or “for,” could be used; however, the best would be either “in,” or “for,” as it is the final redemption of the body (v23), that is the object of the hope.

We are not saved “by the hope of redemption of the body,” but “in the hope of redemption of the body.” There’s big difference between the two.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Don’t need the liturgy for that, I just the Scripture Alonecf Gen 12)—the Gospel is eternal, and I don’t the liturgy to know, and understand that.

Try telling Christ you don’t need the Liturgy as he was on his way to Celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, Yom Kippor, and the rest of the Liturgical year…

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Why is that you misinterpret my saying that baptism doesn’t save to mean that I’m against, or forbid baptism?

It would be reasonable to assume you don’t want to be into “traditions” that serve no purpose right? If Baptism does not save, then its meaningless and should be rejected. I am assuming correctly that believe you don’t need baptism, therefore, you are against it, implicitly, even if you yourself don’t want to admit it.

 

[SyCarl]

It would be reasonable to assume you don’t want to be into “traditions” that serve no purpose right? If Baptism does not save, then its meaningless and should be rejected. I am assuming correctly that believe you don’t need baptism, therefore, you are against it, implicitly, even if you yourself don’t want to admit it.

It does not go together that if someone doesn’t believe that water baptism saves they don’t believe in baptism. Whether it saves or not we should want to be baptized simply because Jesus says we should.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

It does not go together that if someone doesn’t believe that water baptism doesn’t save they don’t believe in baptism. Whether it saves or not we should want to be baptized simply because Jesus says we should.

From the perspective of pure obedience, I agree, we should not question, rather, we ought to do something, even if we don’t understand it completely.

 

[sandusky]

Chaldean Rite:

Try telling Christ you don’t need the Liturgy as he was on his way to Celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, Yom Kippor, and the rest of the Liturgical year…

I’ve always thought that the early church erred in going down the road of supercessionism.

This book, Israel and the Church, deals with that error, and its effect of anti-Semitism.
Chaldean Rite:

It would be reasonable to assume you don’t want to be into “traditions” that serve no purpose right? If Baptism does not save, then its meaningless and should be rejected. I am assuming correctly that believe you don’t need baptism, therefore, you are against it, implicitly, even if you yourself don’t want to admit it.

Oh, please; IMHO, that’s psycho-babble.

The Lord commands that His followers make disciples, and baptize them. ‘Nuff said.

Read the book of Acts; a clear pattern is stated by Luke—Repent, Believe, Be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins in the name of Christ.

Baptism is always subsequent to faith/belief.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I’ve always thought that the early church erred in going down the road of supercessionism.

This book, Israel and the Church, deals with that error, and its effect of anti-Semitism.

Oh, please; IMHO, that’s psycho-babble.

The Lord commands that His followers make disciples, and baptize them. ‘Nuff said.

Read the book of Acts; a clear pattern is stated by Luke—Repent, Believe, Be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins in the name of Christ.

Baptism is always subsequent to faith/belief.

The burden of proof is on you really. Show me someone who beleived baptism does not save. I’ll give you from 33AD to about 1033AD. Can you produce anyone?

 

[Gamera]

Correct, and neither save.

Eternally, salvation has been by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

So let me get this straight. The Bible never uses the words “we are saved by faith alone,” but that’s what it really means … and the Bible does say “baptism … now saves you,” but it doesn’t really mean that.

The believer is brought to safety THROUGH FAITH in Christ—believe it, or not.

Amen! When I was baptized as an infant, my parents’ faith in Christ was the faith involved, since I wasn’t able yet to believe it. Now that I am an adult, I have my own faith in Christ.

Baptism is not a sacrament, it is, as the Lord’s supper, an ordinance, as was the Passover (Ex 12).

Of course baptism is a sacrament.

 

[Gamera]

The Lord commands that His followers make disciples, and baptize them. ‘Nuff said.

And the Bible says “baptism … now saves you.” 'Nuff said.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

So let me get this straight. The Bible never uses the words “we are saved by faith alone,” but that’s what it really means … and the Bible does say “baptism … now saves you,” but it doesn’t really mean that.

 

[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.

Belief in Christ is faith that works. Those who come to believe in Him do “all that He has commanded”. He commanded that we all be baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.

" And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ Acts 22:16

Baptism is our first act of obedient faith. In Baptism, we call upon His name, and our sins are washed away. This is done, not by “water” but by the HS. Water is the physical means by which Jesus wants us to express this obedient faith.

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.

I think you are misunderstanding, sandusky. Baptism (immersion in water) is not salvific in itself. We are saved by the blood of Jesus on the cross. Baptism is the means by which that saving work of Christ is applied to us as individuals. This is what is spoken of in scripture for those who come to believe. Nowhere does it say “accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior” but everywhere, those that came to believe were baptized.

On the contrary, we do see many pre-figurements to baptism in the OT, but perhaps we should take this to another thread?

" I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea…" 1 Cor 10:1-2

We are baptized into Christ, just as the Israelites were baptized into Moses.

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.

The water was not separate from their salvation, but part of it, just as water is in baptism today. True, the water itself is not salvific, but they were saved “through” water, just as Christians pass through the water in immersion, die with Christ, then emerge from the water (as did Noah, etc) with newness of life. As with Noah, we are then separated as a new creation from the decadence of the world.

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.

I don’t understand the use of the word “emotionally” here. I guess you are trying to say that Catholic theology is formed by hysterics?

Yes, the water is an instrument of destruction, and of salvation. The waters parted for the children of Israel to pass through, but obliterated the chariots and horsemen. Through water, we die to ourselves, and are raised to a new way of life.

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.

Yes, and Christ bring us to new life through the waters of baptism.

Rom 6:3-4
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

 

[guanophore]

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).

Sorry, moondweller, this teaching on baptism has never been “subtle”. It is, on the contrary, blatant throughout the NT, and the early fathers, beginning with the Didache, produced around the same time as the Gospel of John. Unlike all the heresies that arose, there was no outcry against the sacraments. The Church has always believed and practiced that God’s grace and healing flow through the sacraments. The non-sacramental view that you espouse is the “new gospel”, that did not emerge for 1500 years.

 

[sandusky]

Chaldean Rite:

The burden of proof is on you really.

You won’t accept what I’ve offered as proof—read the book of Acts. Instead, you insist that I offer proof based upon sola ecclesia, and her Traditions.
Chaldean Rite:

Show me someone who beleived baptism does not save. I’ll give you from 33AD to about 1033AD. Can you produce anyone?

How generous of you.

The answer to that question is found by examining the scriptures to see whether or not salvation is imputed to those who believe and are baptized only, or to those who merely believe. If baptism is necessary for salvation, as post-apostolic writers propose, then we should not find, in Scripture, any cases where individuals are “saved” apart from baptism.

However, several glaring examples of salvation apart from baptism are recorded. The thief on the cross (Luke 23:40-43), the household of Cornelius, all of who believed and were filled with the Holy Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:43-48).

In Paul’s endeavors, he preaches and many believe, yet there is no reference to water baptism. Therefore, we must conclude that water baptism cannot an equal agent to faith in salvation, since there are cases of individuals being saved by faith apart from baptism.

Neither can the act of baptism be salvific in and of itself, since there are scriptural examples of individuals being baptized by the apostles, yet being declared to be perishing because their heart was not right with God (cf. The Story of Simon Magus, Acts 8:9-24).

From eternity, salvation has always been by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

 

[Pax]

My point exactly.

If baptism is the MEANS OF REGENERATION/JUSTIFICATION/SALVATION, then why didn’t God baptize Abraham?

You should know the answer to this. God initiated circumcision through a covenant with Abraham in the OT. God makes a New Covenant that requires baptism as the initiation into the NT family of God.

Abraham was not of the New Covenant.

 

[sandusky]

Gamera:

So let me get this straight. The Bible never uses the words “we are saved by faith alone,” but that’s what it really means

Paul states that the just shall live by faith (Rom 1:17), no qualifier to that faith, just faith…alone.

I posted this specifically to you, Gamera, in post #463, and will post it again: Martin Luther believed that Romans 3:28 should have the word “alone” added to the passage, and he did so in his German translation.

Turns out, Luther had some good company in so doing.

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Gamera:

… and the Bible does say “baptism … now saves you,” but it doesn’t really mean that.

Believe what you like, Gamera. I’ve shown that 1 Pet 3:21 is not talking about water baptism, but if you believe that baptism is the agent that saves you, that makes no difference to me.

 

[Pax]

Neither can the act of baptism be salvific in and of itself, since there are scriptural examples of individuals being baptized by the apostles, yet being declared to be perishing because their heart was not right with God (cf. The Story of Simon Magus, Acts 8:9-24).

From eternity, salvation has always been by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

Sorry, but Simon was saved and then perished due to sin. If you wish to take baptism out of the equation for salvation by way of Simon’s case, then you must also declare that faith is not salvific. We know this because the book of Acts says:

Acts 8:13
“Even Simon himself believed.”

 

[Pax]

Paul states that the just shall live by faith (Rom 1:17), no qualifier to that faith, just faith…alone.

…
…

Explain to me just how it is that you find no qualifiers in Paul’s statement in Romans 1:17. First of all you added a qualifier that isn’t in the text and then neglected a qualifier that is in the text. You added the qualifier “alone.” Likewise, you ignored the qualifier that says that the just shall live by faith.

This means that you will live a life in Christ and be led by the Spirit. You will no longer live in the flesh which leads to death. The wages of sin is death. “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.”[Romans 6:22]

None of this means “faith alone” as you suggest.