Faith Alone

[Pax]

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.

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.

Everytime I read stuff like this I always ask the same question. Have you read the rest of the stuff these same people happen to say about faith and works? Cherry picking out of the context of their work proves nothing.

 

[Gamera]

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…

Yes, I do know that one of Luther’s errors was his intentional alteration of the text of Scripture by adding the word “alone” to his German translation. It’s no better than the way the Jehovah’s Witnesses change John 1:1 in their Bible translation by adding “a” to make it say: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was ‘a’ God”, in accordance with their erroneous christology. You see, we can’t change the text of Scripture.

You paraphrase Paul: “no qualifier to that faith, just faith … alone.” That isn’t what the Bible says. I believe what the Bible says, not your interpretation of it.

sandusky:

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.

You haven’t “shown” any such thing. Your denial that 1 Peter 3:21 refers to baptism isn’t the same as “showing” anything. Of course you deny it: if the Bible means what it says, then Catholicism is true and Protestantism is in error.

 

[SyCarl]

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.

Was Abraham saved by circumcision?

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

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.

**Romans 4:10-12

How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? NOT while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;

and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, SO THAT he might be the father of all who believe WITHOUT being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but **[the father of those] **who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.**Not while circumcised, but uncircumcised—the believer receives the promise of the Spirit through faith [alone] (Gal 3:14).

 

[sandusky]

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.”

So do those mentioned in Lk 8, but only for a while, and Simon could not have belonged to Christ, because those who belong to Christ will never perish, and He will raise them up on the last day.

 

[sandusky]

Gamera:

Yes, I do know that one of Luther’s errors was his intentional alteration of the text of Scripture by adding the word “alone” to his German translation. It’s no better than the way the Jehovah’s Witnesses change John 1:1 in their Bible translation by adding “a” to make it say: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was ‘a’ God”, in accordance with their erroneous christology. You see, we can’t change the text of Scripture.

Yes, he did, and he explains why here.

Gamera:

You paraphrase Paul: “no qualifier to that faith, just faith … alone.” That isn’t what the Bible says. I believe what the Bible says, not your interpretation of it.

More than once Paul uses the phrase, “by faith,” without any qualification.

In Rom 1:17, he’s quoting from the OT.

Gamera:

You haven’t “shown” any such thing. Your denial that 1 Peter 3:21 refers to baptism isn’t the same as “showing” anything. Of course you deny it: if the Bible means what it says, then Catholicism is true and Protestantism is in error.

Believe what you will, Gamera. If you believe baptism saves you, what’s that to me? I believe otherwise.

 

[Pax]

You state that John Chrysostom says that we are saved by faith alone. This claim is ripped completely out of the context of what John Chrysostom taught. He was speaking of our initial justification. That is when God gives us his unmerited grace to believe and repent. Please read the following quotes from John Chrysostom to get better acquainted with what he actually taught.

John Chrysostom, St [347-407 AD]
Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew
Homily 69 on the Gospel of Matthew
And yet the calling was of grace; wherefore then doth He take a strict account? **Because although to be called and to be cleansed was of grace, yet, when called and clothed in clean garments, to continue keeping them so, this is of the diligence of them that are called. **

John Chrysostom, St [347-407 AD]
Homilies on Ephesians
Homily 1 on Ephesians
But wherefore hath He chosen us? “That we should be holy and without a blemish before Him.”** That you may not then, when you hear that “He hath chosen us,” imagine that faith alone is sufficient, he proceeds to add life and conduct. To this end, saith he, hath He chosen us, and on this condition, “that we should be holy and without blemish.” And so formerly he chose the Jews. On what terms? nations." (Deut. xiv: 2.) Now if men in their choices choose what is best, much more doth God. And indeed the fact of their being chosen is at once a token of the loving kindness of God, and of their moral goodness. For by all means would he have chosen those who were approved. He hath Himself rendered us holy, but then we must continue holy**. A holy man is he who is a partaker of faith; a blameless man is he who leads an irreproachable life. It is not however simply holiness and irreproachableness that He requires, but that we should appear such “before Him.” For there are holy and blameless characters, who yet are esteemed as such only by men those who are like whited sepulchres, and like such as wear sheep’s clothing. It is not such, however, He requires, but such as the Prophet speaks of; “And according to the cleanness of my hands.” He requires that holiness on which the eye of God may look.

John Chrysostom, St [347-407 AD]
Homilies on the Gospel of John
Homily 31 on the Gospel of John
“Is it then enough,” saith one," to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?" By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. vii. 21); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He saith, “This is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God” (c. xvii. 3), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life,” and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him” yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, “This by itself is eternal life,” nor, “He that doth but believe on the Son hath eternal life,” but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing doth contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. And he did not say, “awaiteth him,” but, “abideth on him,” that is, “shall never remove from him.” For that thou mayest not think that the “shall not see life,” is a temporary death, but mayest believe that the punishment is continual, he hath put this expression to show that it rests upon him continually."

P.S. I can dismantle the rest of the contentions made about the rest of the people on your list in the same fashion as I did with John Chrysostom.

 

[Pax]

So do those mentioned in Lk 8, but only for a while, and Simon could not have belonged to Christ, because those who belong to Christ will never perish, and He will raise them up on the last day.

Your doctrine says that we are saved by faith alone. Your doctrine says that all those that believe are once and for all saved. Your doctrine says that those that believe are the elect. This is inconsistent with the examples of Simon and others that scripture describes as “believers.”

Your doctrine is not consistent with scripture.

Not all believers persevere. Some fall away. The elect do not fall away, but not all believers are members of the elect. Obviously, there is something more going on here than simply faith alone.

 

[guanophore]

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.

God is not bound by the commandments He gives to man. Salvation is by faith (that works) and Abraham was justified by this faith (that works). Salvation has ALWAYS been by faith (that works).

Great quote you cite. It is through faith in Jesus Christ that we are freed from sin, and reborn as sons of God. Those who have received the Apostolic Teachings know that this birth is that spoken of in Jn., “water and spirit”. When Jesus entered the waters of Baptism, He sanctified those waters, so that all who entered them might have the HS descend upon them as the HS did upon Him.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Your doctrine says that we are saved by faith alone. Your doctrine says that all those that believe are once and for all saved. Your doctrine says that those that believe are the elect. This is inconsistent with the examples of Simon and others that scripture describes as “believers.”

Your doctrine is not consistent with scripture.

The “blued” phrase is what you believe, Pax; it’s not what I believe.**John 2:23-25

Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.

But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,

and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.**many believed in His name… But Jesus did not commit Himself.

This verse subtly reveals the true nature of belief from a biblical standpoint. Many came to believe in Jesus because of what they knew of Him from His miraculous signs.

But, Jesus pointedly did not “entrust” or “commit” Himself to them wholeheartedly because He knew what was in their hearts. V24 indicates that He sought genuine conversion, and not simply wonder at the signs He performed. Much more is needed than intellectual assent, and a “belief in His name.”

What’s called for is a whole-hearted commitment as His disciple (cf. Matt. 10:37; 16:24–26).

Pax:

Not all believers persevere. Some fall away. The elect do not fall away, but not all believers are members of the elect.

Correct; only the elect believer is foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree with you. :bigyikes:

Christ saves us “through” the burial of the old man that occurs in baptism. It is not the water that saves, but Christ. His blood, poured out for us, saves. In baptism, we join with Him in His death, and are “buried” as we are immersed.

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.

Evangelicals commonly dispense with the teaching on baptism by calling it an “ordinance”. I am not sure what this means, but I gather that it is following Jesus’ commandments because He gave them, and not because they have any supernatural power in themselves. The Lord’s Supper is also called an “ordinance” (something Jesus’ commanded?) and should therefore be done, though it has no eternal value.

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.

Is Jesus in the habit of ordering meaningless activity? Jesus was clear that He was not concerned about what other men thought - only what His Father thought. Yet Reformists teach that people are to be baptized as a “testimony to men”, which is nowhere in the NT. This notion is not in Apostolic Teaching.

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.

I am glad that we can agree about SOMETHING!

 

[SyCarl]

You state that John Chrysostom says that we are saved by faith alone. This claim is ripped completely out of the context of what John Chrysostom taught. He was speaking of our initial justification. That is when God gives us his unmerited grace to believe and repent. Please read the following quotes from John Chrysostom to get better acquainted with what he actually taught.

John Chrysostom said quite a bit about faith alone.

But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.-John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Romans, Homily 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. “For all,” it says, “have sinned:” but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified.-John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Romans, Homily 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

For as men, upon receiving some great good, ask themselves if it is not a dream, as not believing it; so it is with respect to the gifts of God. What then was it that was thought incredible? That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor…Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.”-John Chrysostom. (Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 4)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.v.html

They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. **Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed **-John Chrysostom (Homilies on Galatians, Homily 3, Verse 8)
newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm

Ver. 12. “And the Law is not of faith; but He that does them shall live in them.”…For the Law requires not only Faith but works also, but grace saves and justifies by Faith.-John Chrysostom (Homilies on Galatians, Homily 3, Verse 12)
newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm

For he makes a wide distinction between “commandments” and “ordinances.” He either then means “faith,” calling that an “ordinance,” (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means "precept," such as Christ gave, when He said, “But I say unto you, that you are not to be angry at all.”-John Chrysostom (Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/230105.htm

Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. “And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith.” From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision.-John Chrysostom, (Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 32)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxii.html

Did Chrysostom also say we should do good works? Of course he did; what Christian says we shouldn’t. You have given several quotes. I will give another.

But since after this grace, whereby we were justified, there is need also of a life suited to it, let us show an earnestness worthy the gift. And show it we shall, if we keep with earnestness charity, the mother of good deeds.-John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Romans, Homily 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

The worthy life is a result of faith.

I think that someone like Chrysostom, and many of the other fathers, did not dissect doctrine the way we try to today. They painted with broad brushes, assuming that faith and works naturally go together but not analyzing exactly how. I think that they were very much like most Christians today who believe and do works without caring what causes what or how they are related. That is what apologists do. I really think that much of the argument is just semantics. Catholics say faith and works, Protestants say faith alone but not faith that is alone. I think these are very close.

 

[Pax]

John Chrysostom said quite a bit about faith alone.

Did Chrysostom also say we should do good works? Of course he did; what Christian says we shouldn’t. You have given several quotes. I will give another.

The worthy life is a result of faith.

I think that someone like Chrysostom, and many of the other fathers, did not dissect doctrine the way we try to today. They painted with broad brushes, assuming that faith and works naturally go together but not analyzing exactly how. I think that they were very much like most Christians today who believe and do works without caring what causes what or how they are related. That is what apologists do. I really think that much of the argument is just semantics. Catholics say faith and works, Protestants say faith alone but not faith that is alone. I think these are very close.

I will stand by my explanation of Chrysostom and the quotes I gave. I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that the difference between Catholics and most Protestants is a matter of symantics. Some non-Catholic Christians and Catholics are very close on justification and the relationship of faith and works, but this is generally not the case in my experience.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your comments. We need to build on the things that we do share.

 

[SyCarl]

Is Jesus in the habit of ordering meaningless activity? Jesus was clear that He was not concerned about what other men thought - only what His Father thought. Yet Reformists teach that people are to be baptized as a “testimony to men”, which is nowhere in the NT. This notion is not in Apostolic Teaching.

It is not meaningless. It is a sacrament; an external sign and seal of an inward reality. It is claiming the covenant promises, just as circumcision did. The external and internal do not have to coincide temporaly. Did the physical circumcision save anyone? As Paul says, circumcision of the flesh did not make a Jew. Circumcision of the heart did. Just as the two circumcisions did not have to happen at the same time, neither do water baptism and baptism of the spirit. Could it be said that Cornelius was not saved before water baptism when he had already recived the Spirit?

It seems to me that in reality the Church recognizes the distinction. While saying that baptism saves they make exceptions, baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Is this not really recognizing that one can receive the spirit through faith without water baptism? And what happens in an adult baptism if the person doesn’t believe? The water baptism doesn’t save that person. He has to believe before that happens. This is a clear case of the two baptisms not coinciding. And when he believes, he is not rebaptized. So it is the faith that realizes the promise of the sign and seal.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Indeed not, sandy. The Church of Christ has always accepted the Word of God in Scripture equally with the Word of God within the Magesterium.

How generous of you.

Are you conceeding that you cannot?

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.

God is not bound by the sacraments. He gives to us the normative means of salvation, but He can save whoever He wants, however He wants. If He commands us to believe and be baptized for the remission of sins, then we believe Him.

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).

Indeed. And what did they do? How did they demonstrate their faith? Did they make a profession that they “accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior”?

“Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” Acts 10:46-48

Jesus did this to show Peter that the HS was not only for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles.

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.

The idea of saying something is not true because it is not “mentioned” is ridiculous. Paul baptized, and all his converts were baptized. He himself was baptized:

"Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here-has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. " Acts 9:17-19

The Apostolic Teaching is that baptism fills us with the HS.

Baptism is the normative means by which one enters into the Kingdom:

“As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.”

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).

Immersion in water cannot be salvific, in itself. Any of us that have gone swimming know that!

The fact that people entered the Kingdom (through baptism) then were declared perishing because their heart is not right with God, as you state, is the whole basis behind the Apostolic Teaching that those who are sanctified fall from grace.

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

I agree with you on this point. HOwever, the Scripture teaches that saving faith is faith that works, and if the person who claims to have saving faith does not demonstrate his faith by His deeds, he is not saved. God has entered humanity, and has chosen that humanity should have a place in salvation history. To that end, He has ordained that His grace will save only those who choose to cooperate with Him.

 

[guanophore]

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

Again, I agree. Faith that works. And one of those very first works is baptism.

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.

No, sandy, baptism is not an 'agent", I don’t think (not really sure what you mean by that). Christ only can save. He chose to transmit His saving power to us in baptism. This is the manner in which we are joined to Him in His death. His blood, shed from the cross, is what saves.

“For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For whoever has died is freed from sin. 8 But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Rom 6:5-11

The Apostles teach us that we are united with Christ in His death through baptism, and that we are thereby (through this death =buried in water) raised with HIm in resurection.

Was Abraham saved by circumcision?

No. Salvation has been, and always will be, by grace, through faith. Abraham was saved by his faith. It is faith that works. Abraham obeyed the commandements of God, and thereby, demonstrated and was justified by his faith.

So do those mentioned in Lk 8, but only for a while, and Simon could not have belonged to Christ, because those who belong to Christ will never perish, and He will raise them up on the last day.

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15-16

Yes. Those that belong to Christ will never perish. They are those that keep His commandments.

Faith that saves is faith that obeys.

 

[moondweller]

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.

Pax, the context of Rom. 8:24 is verse 18: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us."Paul states that even all creation earnestly waits in expectation for the unveiling (or, revealing) of the sons of God. It was made subject to futility (death), not of its own will, but God’s, IN HOPE that it too will be delivered from the bondage of corruption (death) into the freedom of the children of God (the redeemed).

Creation itself waits (in hope) along with us who have the “first fruit of the Spirit” (spiritual regeneration) for “the adoption,” to wit, “the redemption of our body.”

It is in this hope that we have been saved. Our bodies are yet subject to death and decay, but we wait eagerly, with expectation, for our glorification (Rom. 8:24; cf. 1 Jn. 3:2, Col. 3:4).

The true believer is already saved, Pax. That’s not Paul’s issue here,Rom 8:24-25 “For in hope we have been saved…” The “hope” is the expectation of what we don’t yet see: the redemption of our physical body unto His glory,“but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he {already} sees? But if we hope for what we do not see (our glorified state), with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”

 

[Pax]

Was Abraham saved by circumcision?

No he was not, but that was not the question that was asked. Abraham was saved the same way that all of us are saved. Abraham was saved by grace via the redemptive work of Christ; this was done in anticipatory fashion of Christ’s work on the cross. He was saved by grace, by faith and works, but not by faith alone.

We know that Abraham was saved by faith and works because scripture tells us so. In fact, scripture gives us three examples of Abraham having saving faith. The following should be helpful:

In Genesis 15:6 Abraham believed God concerning his descendants being as numerous as the stars, and his belief was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Please note that Abraham did in fact have the promised descendents, but he had to wait a very long time for God to fulfill this promise. The apostle Paul says " He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb."[Rom 4:19]

So what do we learn from this?

1. Abraham waited patiently
2. Abraham followed up by having relations with Sarah even though he was 100 years old, his body was as good as dead, and Sarah was barren.
3. Without Abraham’s works described in 1 and 2 he would not have had the promised descendents. This would have negated the promise and his justification.

Hebrews 11:8 makes reference to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-4, and says, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.” We know this is a reference to saving faith because in Hebrews 11:1-2 it says, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval.” Divine approval is given for a person’s faith only when it is a saving faith.

Once again, Abraham did something…he “obeyed” God and went out even though he didn’t know where he was going. If he had not done so, he would not have received the inheritance and his justification would have been void.

James 2:21-23 makes reference to Abraham having faith when he was to sacrifice his son Isaac upon the altar and James says that the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as rightousness; and he was called the friend of God.”

Again, Abraham had faith and was justified, but he followed up on God’s commands and was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac. All of these examples are of faith and works. This is the living, saving faith required of us all in order to receive the free gift of salvation. If it were not for the work of Christ and the grace of God in Abraham, all of what Abraham had done would be for not. All of the power, grace, and glory go to God.

 

[Pax]

So do those mentioned in Lk 8, but only for a while, and Simon could not have belonged to Christ, because those who belong to Christ will never perish, and He will raise them up on the last day.

You are using circular logic. Scripture said Simon believed. You are not accepting the implications of this for your doctrines. Either you are saved by faith alone which Simon had, or you are not. You can have faith and lose your salvation like Simon did. Something else is going on here. You simply are not saved by faith alone.

 

[Pax]

Pax, the context of Rom. 8:24 is verse 18: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us."Paul states that even all creation earnestly waits in expectation for the unveiling (or, revealing) of the sons of God. It was made subject to futility (death), not of its own will, but God’s, IN HOPE that it too will be delivered from the bondage of corruption (death) into the freedom of the children of God (the redeemed).

Creation itself waits (in hope) along with us who have the “first fruit of the Spirit” (spiritual regeneration) for “the adoption,” to wit, “the redemption of our body.”

It is in this hope that we have been saved. Our bodies are yet subject to death and decay, but we wait eagerly, with expectation, for our glorification (Rom. 8:24; cf. 1 Jn. 3:2, Col. 3:4).

The true believer is already saved, Pax. That’s not Paul’s issue here,Rom 8:24-25 “For in hope we have been saved…” The “hope” is the expectation of what we don’t yet see: the redemption of our physical body unto His glory,“but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he {already} sees? But if we hope for what we do not see (our glorified state), with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”

This does not answer what I said in my post.