Faith and Works

[guanophore]

So man can help himself to this acceptance ?

No, we believe that God dispenses sufficient grace to every person so that they are drawn to accept him.

Our perceptions are wounded by sin, but we are not totallly unable to perceive the Truths that God has revealed about Himself, and ourselves.

Sometimes they did, and sometimes they did not. Again, some say we are washed by faith, and others adding baptism.

The Apostles never separated baptism from water.

It is not logical at all, given all we know about God and His ways .

All human beings are born into a state of separation from God. We rely upon His mercy and grace to save us. We access this through baptism certainly, but without baptism, we cannot be sure.

 

[rcwitness]

No, we believe that God dispenses sufficient grace to every person so that they are drawn to accept him.

Our perceptions are wounded by sin, but we are not totallly unable to perceive the Truths that God has revealed about Himself, and ourselves.

I agree. And some seem to interpret St Paul as implying that everyone outside of the Old Covenant Law were not able to be saved. I believe the Catholic Faith has interpreted it differently; that all men have been given a sufficient knowledge and ability to turn from themselves and their sin in order to be “lawfull” and “justified” and “forgiven”.

This view should never put aside the necessity of Christ coming in the flesh (in time) to to God’s suffering servant, even to death as His Holy Lamb.

However, man has been given an ancient conscience from his creation to choose right and acknowledge his dependency on his creator being merciful. No one knew the depth, or how it would be accomplished until Jesus made the Father fully.

The Apostles never separated baptism from water

I think there can be a forgiveness of sins without water, but only under the conditions (which the Church has made known) that are because of no fault of one’s ability, or even through invisible ignorrance. Maybe we can say (like Jesus did about the Sabbath) that the New man was not made for Baptism, but Baptism for the New man?

 

[rcwitness]

Sorry for the writing errors in the previous post!

 

[fhansen]

Sorry for the writing errors in the previous post!

You can always rest assured, at the very least, that God forgives you.

 

[Vico]

Cannot God give grace to them before they die? And isn’t grace something that is given totally freely, without us earning it? It seems that if it is on the basis of works, then grace would no longer be grace.

Regarding Catholic belief about infants that die without baptism:

Infants unbaptized have no personal sins, but have the stain of original sin. Merit is granted by God based upon good works done through the gift of actual grace, when in the state of sanctifying grace, during the earthly life. (Actual grace is a transient supernatural help and sanctifying grace is a habitual state of the soul.) The reward or punishment after death is greater or lesser based upon the merit or demerit. Those that die with original sin cannot earn any merit. Infants that die have no cause for demerit because they could not commit actual sin. Some have thought that unbaptized infants go the Hell but have a natural peace.

 

[rcwitness]

You can always rest assured, at the very least, that God forgives you.

… good one

 

[benhur]

No, we believe that God dispenses sufficient grace to every person so that they are drawn to accept him.

Our perceptions are wounded by sin, but we are not totallly unable to perceive the Truths that God has revealed about Himself, and ourselves.

The Apostles never separated baptism from water.

All human beings are born into a state of separation from God. We rely upon His mercy and grace to save us. We access this through baptism certainly, but without baptism, we cannot be sure.

so we are not dead in trespasses and sin, just wounded? Like we desire and see God 25% and grace gives us the other75% or thereabouts? Is that what sufficient means? I thought sufficient means it His doing 100 %.

As far as separating baptism from water, I think they did, in that they spoke of regeneration by faith, or by calling out to Him, before any water. That is why some say the water is symbolic or a sealing or stamp of what already has occurred…I initially meant sometimes faith is worded alone for salvation and a few times faith and baptism are worded together.

Blessings

 

[fhansen]

so we are not dead in trespasses and sin, just wounded? Like we desire and see God 25% and grace gives us the other75% or thereabouts? Is that what sufficient means? I thought sufficient means it His doing 100 %.

As far as separating baptism from water, I think they did, in that they spoke of regeneration by faith, or by calling out to Him, before any water. That is why some say the water is symbolic or a sealing or stamp of what already has occurred…I initially meant sometimes faith is worded alone for salvation and a few times faith and baptism are worded together.

Blessings

It means that grace is 100% necessary. Without it we cannot approach God; we don’t even know Him, let alone desire to cooperate with Him, even as we might carry within us a nascent, dim, concept of and hope for the divine, for “something bigger” at least.

The difference, the place where our free will is involved, is that we can always refuse the gift, fail to respond to or answer the call; we can resist grace. Without a savior throwing the life preserver, we drown, no possibility of salvation. But even with the life preserver in front of us we can still drown because we can refuse to grab hold, or we can let go at any point later between grabbing on and reaching safe ground.

 

[rcwitness]

so we are not dead in trespasses and sin, just wounded?

Doesn’t this depend on the condition of the person? If you mean all men, outside of faith and repentance, then yes… dead because the Spirit has not been received or followed.

As far as separating baptism from water, I think they did, in that they spoke of regeneration by faith, or by calling out to Him, before any water. That is why some say the water is symbolic or a sealing or stamp of what already has occurred…I initially meant sometimes faith is worded alone for salvation and a few times faith and baptism are worded together.

I believe it is more accurate to accept them all together, even as from one faith.

Acts 22:15-17

15…for you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

 

[JonNC]

It means that grace is 100% necessary. Without it we cannot approach God; we don’t even know Him, let alone desire to cooperate with Him, even as we might carry within us a nascent, dim, concept of and hope for the divine, for “something bigger” at least.

The difference, the place where our free will is involved, is that we can always refuse the gift, fail to respond to or answer the call; we can resist grace. Without a savior throwing the life preserver, we drown, no possibility of salvation. But even with the life preserver in front of us we can still drown because we can refuse to grab hold, or we can let go at any point later between grabbing on and reaching safe ground.

I don’t believe a Lutheran would disagree with this.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

so we are not dead in trespasses and sin, just wounded? Like we desire and see God 25% and grace gives us the other75% or thereabouts?

You are mixing apples, oranges, and bananas, benhur and created a fruit salad that is not consistent with Scripture.

The fact that the image of God in us is wounded by original sin does not change the fact that we are dead in trespasses and sins. Being made in the image and likeness of God cannot save us, since sin has separated us from Him.

Is that what sufficient means? I thought sufficient means it His doing 100 %.

No, benhur. Sufficient means what Scripture says it means:

‘… that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse’. (Rom. 1)

God has revealed himself sufficient to every human being to recognize Him and honor Him as God.

As far as separating baptism from water, I think they did, in that they spoke of regeneration by faith, or by calling out to Him, before any water. That is why some say the water is symbolic or a sealing or stamp of what already has occurred…I initially meant sometimes faith is worded alone for salvation and a few times faith and baptism are worded together.

Blessings

Regeneration is not separated from water either, and the calling upon His name is done in Baptism.

" 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by** the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit**, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3

 

[benhur]

It means that grace is 100% necessary. Without it we cannot approach God; we don’t even know Him, let alone desire to cooperate with Him, even as we might carry within us a nascent, dim, concept of and hope for the divine, for “something bigger” at least.

Amen. especially the "desire’ which I would call “will”

The difference, the place where our free will is involved, is that we can always refuse the gift, fail to respond to or answer the call; we can resist grace. Without a savior throwing the life preserver, we drown, no possibility of salvation. But even with the life preserver in front of us we can still drown because we can refuse to grab hold, or we can let go at any point later between grabbing on and reaching safe ground.

Amen again. Just not sure where a "difference’’ is. Total dependence on Him does not abrogate ‘free’ will, just incorporates the ‘status’ of that will, that it is only free to "refuse’’ , unless it is infused with grace to ‘receive’.

Blessings

 

[fhansen]

Amen. especially the "desire’ which I would call “will”
Amen again. Just not sure where a "difference’’ is. Total dependence on Him does not abrogate ‘free’ will, just incorporates the ‘status’ of that will, that it is only free to "refuse’’ , unless it is infused with grace to ‘receive’.

Blessings

Yes, as long as we’re never forced to receive. God desires *none *to perish-and yet He’ll allow us to perish if we so choose.

 

[benhur]

Doesn’t this depend on the condition of the person? If you mean all men, outside of faith and repentance, then yes… dead because the Spirit has not been received or followed.

yes, of course that what was the context, of the unsaved person,outside the faith and repentance.

I believe it is more accurate to accept them all together, even as from one faith.

Acts 22:15-17

15…for you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

I would agree that in scripture they were usually “together’, but not always in that order. I also think the early church (100AD) folks were also baptized immediately (no catechumen). I think the difference , what I would call the error , is to then think the rite of water baptism then regenerates. One also has to understand when is one regenerated and just what does that mean. To me, it is new life, being born of the spirit , where once you hated not you love , where once you disbelieved but now you believe. I think it is evident this happens before water baptism.It begins with faith and a spiritual calling out to the Lord. This is the washing by the Holy Spirit in regeneration that Paul speaks of, or that Cornelius and family experienced. One does not believe without being first born of the spirit, and one is not water baptized unless they are already believe. In your scripture above, the 3000 gladly, happily were baptized, because they were already ‘changed’, into new creatures, where before they cried, " Crucify Him” , now they say, " Yes, I will profess Him thru water baptism before God and man."

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Yes, as long as we’re never forced to receive. God desires *none *to perish-and yet He’ll allow us to perish if we so choose.

Amen.

 

[guanophore]

Amen. especially the "desire’ which I would call “will”
Amen again. Just not sure where a "difference’’ is. Total dependence on Him does not abrogate ‘free’ will, just incorporates the ‘status’ of that will, that it is only free to "refuse’’ , unless it is infused with grace to ‘receive’.

Blessings

This is a Calvanist position.

 

[guanophore]

In your scripture above, the 3000 gladly, happily were baptized, because they were already ‘changed’, into new creatures, where before they cried, " Crucify Him" , now they say, " Yes, I will profess Him thru water baptism before God and man."

It is an innovation that baptism has anything to do with testimony “before man”. This does not come from the Apostolic teaching.

Peter instructed them to enter the waters of baptism to wash away their sins. Scripture is clear that baptism is not for cleansing the body, but the soul. No “ritual water bath” can wash away sins. Only the HS can do that.

" 20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this,** now saves you**, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.1 Peter 3:20-22

Baptism…now saves you. It is clear from the context that the Apostle is speaking in the context of water. We are not saved “by” water, but “through” the water.

Did you ever wonder why Christ put mud on the man’s eyes? Did you think the mud healed his sight?

Calvanism is even more antisacramental than Calvin was!

 

[rcwitness]

yes, of course that what was the context, of the unsaved person,outside the faith and repentance.

I would agree that in scripture they were usually "together’, but not always in that order.

Right. The order does not have to be one way.

I also think the early church (100AD) folks were also baptized immediately (no catechumen). I think the difference , what I would call the error , is to then think the rite of water baptism then regenerates.

It’s not so much “the Rite” as simply “Baptism” and what is given through Baptism.

One also has to understand when is one regenerated and just what does that mean. To me, it is new life, being born of the spirit , where once you hated not you love , where once you disbelieved but now you believe.

Sure. Baptism does not guarantee conversion unto these changes. It’s not magic. Neither is is empty of God’s promise.

I think it is evident this happens before water baptism.It begins with faith and a spiritual calling out to the Lord. This is the washing by the Holy Spirit in regeneration that Paul speaks of, or that Cornelius and family experienced. One does not believe without being first born of the spirit, and one is not water baptized unless they are already believe.

A person would not come to Baptism who does not “believe”, but nothing assures a Baptized person of having a “sufficient” belief to endure in the faith and so remain justified before Him. A Biblical example would be Simon the Magician. Though we don’t know his end, only that he believed, was Baptized, fell into deadly heresy and then asked for Peter’s prayers.

In your scripture above, the 3000 gladly, happily were baptized, because they were already ‘changed’, into new creatures, where before they cried, " Crucify Him" , now they say, " Yes, I will profess Him thru water baptism before God and man."

Actually, my Scripture was from St Paul’s Baptism, where he was revealed Truth and commanded to go to a devout Jew to be healed and Baptized. It was not from a change which occurred in Paul before hand.

 

[zz912]

I would agree that in scripture they were usually “together’, but not always in that order. I also think the early church (100AD) folks were also baptized immediately (no catechumen). I think the difference , what I would call the error , is to then think the rite of water baptism then regenerates. One also has to understand when is one regenerated and just what does that mean. To me, it is new life, being born of the spirit , where once you hated not you love , where once you disbelieved but now you believe. I think it is evident this happens before water baptism.It begins with faith and a spiritual calling out to the Lord. This is the washing by the Holy Spirit in regeneration that Paul speaks of, or that Cornelius and family experienced. One does not believe without being first born of the spirit, and one is not water baptized unless they are already believe. In your scripture above, the 3000 gladly, happily were baptized, because they were already ‘changed’, into new creatures, where before they cried, " Crucify Him” , now they say, " Yes, I will profess Him thru water baptism before God and man."

When does a covenant come into force? When we agree to the covenant, or when we perform the necessary actions of the covenant?

 

[KjetilK]

It means that grace is 100% necessary. Without it we cannot approach God; we don’t even know Him, let alone desire to cooperate with Him, even as we might carry within us a nascent, dim, concept of and hope for the divine, for “something bigger” at least.

The difference, the place where our free will is involved, is that we can always refuse the gift, fail to respond to or answer the call; we can resist grace. Without a savior throwing the life preserver, we drown, no possibility of salvation. But even with the life preserver in front of us we can still drown because we can refuse to grab hold, or we can let go at any point later between grabbing on and reaching safe ground.

I don’t believe a Lutheran would disagree with this.

Yes, it is pretty much exactly the point I made in posts #383 and #385, where I point out that the Lutheran position is that we always need grace, and that this is not primarily due to sin.

Contrary to the Calvinist position, where the man could achieve glory without grace in prelapsarian state, but needs grace in the postlapsarian state, due to sin, Lutheranism holds that we always need grace (and that man also needed grace in the prelapsarian state to achieve glory) due not primarily to sin, but due to the essential difference between the Creator (who gives) and the creatures (who receive).