If we are not justified in Baptism...Then Christ died in vain

[po18guy]

Baptism does not justify. Christ justifies. Baptism is a sign. What we must believe to be saved is told to us in Romans 10:9-13,

You are expressing opinion. It would really help if you labelled it as such.

Since God judges the heart, is it not silly for Him to require a symbolic work, such as you appear to claim that Baptism is, to achieve justification? Are you teaching works justification or salvation?

Baptism, in the 2,000 year old Orthodox and Catholic Churches, has always justified man - through the Holy Spirit.

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism:34

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.35

2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.

2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.

2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.

34 Rom 3:22; cf. 6:3-4.
35 Rom 6:8-11.

It’s all in the interpretation, and the authority behind that interpretation.

 

[ltwin]

You are expressing opinion. It would really help if you labelled it as such.

Yes, it is my opinion, and no, I don’t think I need to explicitly say “this is my opinion.” Most of what people say is their opinion, unless they note that it is not their’s or that they are expressing the opinions of another. The OP expressed an opinion that Protestants who deny sacramental theology are blaspheming God. I expressed my opinion that the OP was wrong. I make no apologies for that.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, it is my opinion, and no, I don’t think I need to explicitly say “this is my opinion.” Most of what people say is their opinion, unless they note that it is not their’s or that they are expressing the opinions of another. The OP expressed an opinion that Protestants who deny sacramental theology are blaspheming God. I expressed my opinion that the OP was wrong. I make no apologies for that.

You did note that the Catechism’s teaching on baptismal justification comes from Romans?

 

[po18guy]

We are justified by faith alone. We are not justified by what we do. We can’t do anything, no matter how awesome, to remove the stain of sin. It is faith that justifies. And it is faith that produces a change in us so that we bear fruit and are motivated to do good works. I agree that a dead faith (i.e. a faith not accompanied by action) will not justify. But it is faith that justifies. A faith that is real and living will be accompanied by action, but it is not the action that justifies. It is the faith.

Are you claiming that baptism is not needed?

 

[ltwin]

Are you claiming that baptism is not needed?

Not to be saved. Baptism is an act of obedience to Jesus’ command. However, if someone has put their faith in Christ, even without being baptized, that person can be saved.

 

[po18guy]

Not to be saved. Baptism is an act of obedience to Jesus’ command. However, if someone has put their faith in Christ, even without being baptized, that person can be saved.

Even by disobeying the very commands of Christ? Are we not His friends unless we keep His commands?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Having survived three hurricanes, I can somewhat identify. Although, we suffered from heat more than cold.

All of us in the Catholic Church are praying for you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thank you. The utility company is this area said they expect power to be restored hopefully in a week from today. The damage is so widespread from fallen trees and power lines that we’ll be lucky to have power by Election Day.

 

[ltwin]

Even by disobeying the very commands of Christ? Are we not His friends unless we keep His commands?

We do have to obey Christ. I’m not aware of any Christian who refuses to be baptized on principle; if there are any then they would be wrong and going against God’s word. At the same time, it is not the act of being baptized that justifies us. Baptism is very important, but it is not what justifies us.

 

[po18guy]

We do have to obey Christ. I’m not aware of any Christian who refuses to be baptized on principle; if there are any then they would be wrong and going against God’s word. At the same time, it is not the act of being baptized that justifies us. Baptism is very important, but it is not what justifies us.

CARM clearly teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is no longer necessary - in direct defiance of Christ Himself. How will they avoid a severe punishment?

In all charity, I must point out that your views absolutely, 100%, do not trace back to the practices of the early Apostolic Church. Neither are they in accord with the consistent interpretation of scripture. IMO, they are very new and very man-made, being based on private interpretation (twisting, wresting) of the scriptures.

Paul, extremely clearly, said that Baptism washes away your sins (Acts 22:17). Peter teaches that Baptism now saves us (1 Peter 3:21). Peter also said that scripture is twisted (2 Peter 3:16), and that no matter of scriptural prophecy is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). A prophet he was, well chosen and well named by Christ. (Matthew 16:18)

Are you perchance a Oneness Pentecostal?

 

[ltwin]

CARM clearly teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is no longer necessary - in direct defiance of Christ Himself. How will they avoid a severe punishment?

I don’t think they advocate not getting baptized. But I agree with them when it comes to baptism, it is not necessary for salvation.

In all charity, I must point out that your views absolutely, 100%, do not trace back to the practices of the early Apostolic Church. Neither are they in accord with the consistent interpretation of scripture. IMO, they are very new and very man-made, being based on private interpretation (twisting, wresting) of the scriptures.

OK.

Paul, extremely clearly, said that Baptism washes away your sins (Acts 22:17). Peter teaches that Baptism now saves us (1 Peter 3:21). Peter also said that scripture is twisted (2 Peter 3:16), and that no matter of scriptural prophecy is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). A prophet he was, well chosen and well named by Christ. (Matthew 16:18)

What does Acts 22:17 have to do with baptism? Concerning 1 Peter 3:21, at first glance it does look like strong evidence for your case. If you look at the entire passage though, it is clear that what saves is more than simply being baptized, “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Something is happening within the person undergoing baptism, which is quite independent of the sign that signifies it.

Are you perchance a Oneness Pentecostal?

No. On this issue, Catholics and Oneness Pentecostals are in agreement. Baptism is essential to salvation for OPs. Of course, they also consider conversion experience and Spirit baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues essential for salvation as well, so they disagree with you the Catholic Church there. But on the question of water baptism, for Oneness Pentecostals, it is necessary to be saved. Of course, they reject use of the Trinitarian formula, so its doubted whether their baptisms are even valid.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t think they advocate not getting baptized. But I agree with them when it comes to baptism, it is not necessary for salvation.

(with quizzical expression) I am wondering why Jesus would say “He who believes and is baptized, will be saved” in Mark 16:16, as well as why He would command the baptism of disciples in Matthew 28:19.

Indeed, if baptism has no value, I wonder:

1. Why Jesus commanded that we submit to it
2. What else Jesus said that also was either a joke, a flippant remark or otherwise meaningless, and so, can also be disregarded.
3. If we do not need baptism, why then do we even need faith?

What does Acts 22:17 have to do with baptism?

It follows Acts 22:16, which actually does pertain to baptism. My bad.

Concerning 1 Peter 3:21, at first glance it does look like strong evidence for your case. If you look at the entire passage though, it is clear that what saves is more than simply being baptized, “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Something is happening within the person undergoing baptism, which is quite independent of the sign that signifies it.

Are you not compartmentalizing this? How can you separate God from the action He commands, as well as from the created matter that He uses to accomplish His will? The passage through water as a means of salvation runs consistently throughout the bible. We err when we laser in in single passages to the exclusion of the big picture.

No. On this issue, Catholics and Oneness Pentecostals are in agreement. Baptism is essential to salvation for OPs. Of course, they also consider conversion experience and Spirit baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues essential for salvation as well, so they disagree with you the Catholic Church there. But on the question of water baptism, for Oneness Pentecostals, it is necessary to be saved. Of course, they reject use of the Trinitarian formula, so its doubted whether their baptisms are even valid.

It occurs to me that there may be more Paulists than true Christians in some circles - even though Paul condemned this thinking in 1 Corinthians 1:11-13.

 

[De_Maria]

And at least 50% of evangelicals agree with me. However, if you look at the numbers I cite below you will see that its significantly more. …
We’re not free to believe whatever we want. There are teachings that we must subscribe to when we join a church.

1. I’m glad you said that. I’d like to get something cleared up since I didn’t see a clear cut answer to my question.

Can you tell me point blank that a man who claims faith in Christ can be condemned because of his lack of works? (Matt 25:31-46).

1. Back to this thing that you subscribe to certain teachings of your church to which you must subscribe. How do you see this verse and do you accept it?

Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

I had a good laugh reading these choices. Number 1 is redundant. Once Saved Always Saved means that one is permanently saved. Don’t you think number 3 is oxymoronic?

You sound as though you truly believe in conditional justification. So, let’s see how you feel about Matt 25:31-46. Were the sheep saved because their faith produced good works? The Catholic view.

Or do you believe they were saved by their faith alone and therefore produced good works? The Protestant view. Or should I say, one of the Protestant views. And, which is also known as OSAS.

If there is another view, please enlighten me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ltwin]

1. I’m glad you said that. I’d like to get something cleared up since I didn’t see a clear cut answer to my question.

Can you tell me point blank that a man who claims faith in Christ can be condemned because of his lack of works? (Matt 25:31-46).

1. Back to this thing that you subscribe to certain teachings of your church to which you must subscribe. How do you see this verse and do you accept it?

Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I accept this verse.

 

[ltwin]

You sound as though you truly believe in conditional justification. So, let’s see how you feel about Matt 25:31-46. Were the sheep saved because their faith produced good works? The Catholic view.

Or do you believe they were saved by their faith alone and therefore produced good works? The Protestant view. Or should I say, one of the Protestant views. And, which is also known as OSAS.

If there is another view, please enlighten me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I already explained what I think. True Christians will not merely mentally assent to faith in Christ but will have a faith that they will stake their lives on. Faith without works is dead. So, if there are no works faith is dead. If you do not have faith, then you are condemned.

I am astounded by your definitions. You can’t make OSAS mean whatever you want. If someone believes that if faith in Christ is lost then salvation is lost, they can’t believe in OSAS, even if you want them to. Put simply, OSAS does not mean “saved by their faith alone and therefore produced good works.” Under Once Saved Always Saved, a person doesn’t have to produce anything. They simply put their faith in Christ and they are eternally secure. How you can extend OSAS to cover basically any Protestant position astounds me.

 

[De_Maria]

I accept this verse.

How about question #1.

And how do you accept that verse? Whom do you consider to be in charge of your soul? Is there someone to whom you confess your sins?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ltwin]

How about question #1.

And how do you accept that verse? Whom do you consider to be in charge of your soul? Is there someone to whom you confess your sins?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I’ve already answered question 1. My pastor and other spiritual leaders will be held accountable for how they have lead me and what they have taught me. Therefore, I should respect, honor, and obey their godly counsel.There is nothing about confession in this verse.

 

[De_Maria]

I’ve already answered question 1.

Actually, you haven’t addressed my point. Feel free to drop it if you feel badgered.

But this is the point I’m making. The Pentecostal or Evangelical supposed denial of OSAS is simply a different version of the same doctrine. Why?

1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that you were saved by your faith ALONE… Because you said, “To have true faith is to be saved.” Is that correct?
2. Now, if a person has true faith, according to you, can that person fall away?
3. Also, you know the day you were saved and the hour you were saved and you do not believe that you, personally, can ever fall away. Am I correct?

I believe I know the answer to those questions. But correct me if I’m wrong.

You believe you have true faith.
Therefore, you believe you are saved.
Therefore, you believe you will not fall away.

If that’s what you believe, then you believe in OSAS.

If you do not believe that, then I have to admit that I have been wrong in this discussion. And I am remain baffled by your statement that the parable of the sheep and goats can be viewed through the lens of faith alone. Because the only lens ever presented to me by a Protestant, Evangelical or otherwise, has been, OSAS. The sheep were saved because they were always saved. The goats were condemned because they didn’t have true faith.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

this My pastor and other spiritual leaders will be held accountable for how they have lead me and what they have taught me. Therefore, I should respect, honor, and obey their godly counsel.

Wow! That is a first. The response is virtually the same as that I would receive from a Catholic.

There is nothing about confession in this verse.

Except for this part. The verse in question, Heb 13:7, is a description of what occurs in the Sacrament of Confession.

1. We submit to our Priest.
2. We confess to them our sins because we acknowledge that they watch over our souls.
3. They give an account of our sins to God when they pray for God to forgive our sins.
4. We obey their command when they give us the penance which we must do in order to make satisfaction for our sins.

Its all there in a very concise manner. Protestants don’t recognize it because they have dumped the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are the basis of the New Testament.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ltwin]

Actually, you haven’t addressed my point. Feel free to drop it if you feel badgered.

But this is the point I’m making. The Pentecostal or Evangelical supposed denial of OSAS is simply a different version of the same doctrine. Why?

1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that you were saved by your faith ALONE… Because you said, “To have true faith is to be saved.” Is that correct?
2. Now, if a person has true faith, according to you, can that person fall away?
3. Also, you know the day you were saved and the hour you were saved and you do not believe that you, personally, can ever fall away. Am I correct?

I believe I know the answer to those questions. But correct me if I’m wrong.

Yeah, you sort of have it all wrong.

You believe you have true faith.

Yes.

Therefore, you believe you are saved.

Yes, I put my trust in God that what he says in his word respecting those that put their trust in him is true. What he promises, I believe he is able to perform.

Therefore, you believe you will not fall away.

I cannot know that. I put my hope in Christ that He will preserve me and keep me, but there is an element of free will in all of this. God is not in the business of keeping us against our will. If I choose in some future time and place to reject his love and his grace–if I lose faith in Him, the kind of faith that I’m willing to stake my life on that what He says is true–then I will be accountable for that rejection, and if I die unrepentant, then I will be condemned by my sin. This is why it is so important for Christians to continually rely upon the Spirit of God. None of us on our own can do what is needed to be saved. It requires continued submission to Christ and continued faith and trust in him. Faith is the key and the starting point.

If that’s what you believe, then you believe in OSAS.

No. I do not.

If you do not believe that, then I have to admit that I have been wrong in this discussion. And I am remain baffled by your statement that the parable of the sheep and goats can be viewed through the lens of faith alone. Because the only lens ever presented to me by a Protestant, Evangelical or otherwise, has been, OSAS.

Well, AbideWithMe and I were trying to tell you as gently as possible that you were wrong about “all” evangelicals and “all” Protestants. I don’t know if its that some Catholics just come into contact with OSAS Christians and this influences how they see things or if it is some kind of communication problem, since OSAS and non-OSAS evangelicals often use the same language but give that language different definitions. In any case, you are not the only Catholic I’ve talked to on CAF that presumes that OSAS is somehow the Protestant or evangelical default position. It is not, but I’ve already explained that in enough detail.

The sheep were saved because they were always saved. The goats were condemned because they didn’t have true faith.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t see OSAS in this passage. I see the sheep externalizing their faith in Christ. They believed in Christ, and they obeyed him and lived out his teachings because they believed he was who he said he was. The goats on the other hand may have mentally believed in who Christ was, they heard him speak and they were convinced enough to identify with him, but they didn’t believe in him enough to give a thirsty person something to drink or a hungry person some food. They really didn’t know Jesus because if they had known him–if they had trusted in him–they would have had his compassion and his love. Even more, they would have expressed his compassion and his love. If they had been “Spirit filled” (to use Pentecostal language), they would not have been able to contain the love of Christ. His love would be overflowing.

Wow! That is a first. The response is virtually the same as that I would receive from a Catholic.

Except for this part. The verse in question, Heb 13:7, is a description of what occurs in the Sacrament of Confession.

1. We submit to our Priest.
2. We confess to them our sins because we acknowledge that they watch over our souls.
3. They give an account of our sins to God when they pray for God to forgive our sins.
4. We obey their command when they give us the penance which we must do in order to make satisfaction for our sins.

Its all there in a very concise manner. Protestants don’t recognize it because they have dumped the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are the basis of the New Testament.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I think you’re reading a lot of stuff in this verse that isn’t there. However, I think you’ll find that Catholic conceptions of pastoral authority and Protestant conceptions of pastoral authority are not that different. The Bible does say, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11). Protestants generally recognize that there are evangelists, shepherds, and teachers in the Church today (apostles and prophets is a lot more complicated and would take a whole thread on its own to discuss adequately). Other places in scripture talks about people gifted with leadership and administrative skills. They have authority to lead, administer, pastor, and discipline.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Baptism saves. It is the seal of faith.

Faith is a CONTINUING process not a branding like that of cattle.

My opinion is that we are Grace Fully saved by that faith which continues through God willed works until death.

Baptism is one of those God willed works.

The complete flow of faith is what saves–not only the initial reality of that faith.

Peter in scripture says that we are saved by baptism.

You can’t throw that out of the bible.