Receiving the Holy Spirit

[slh3016]

Again, works is the “evidence” of one’s belief, not the MEANS of salvation. That’s James point, which compliments Paul’s point that we aren’t SAVED by works, but by grace through faith, & NOT of works, NOR of “yourselves” (Ephesians 2:8-9, cf. Romans 5:1).

Okay, you only answered half my question.

In your own words, define the word “belief.”

The point I’m getting at is that merely believing that Jesus’ is God’s Son (i.e., assent of the mind) DOES NOT bring about salvation BECAUSE even Satan and his demons believe this.

So, belief in this one thing is NOT efficacious of salvation. What is?

If you say, well, you must trust Jesus for your salvation, then what shows you trust Him. I submit that it is the action itself that brings about the salvation, because words and feelings are rather meaningless. It is not enough to say that Jesus is Lord IF your actions don’t show that.

I view baptism as what Christ did for me through the minister of baptism, not something that I did for Him. It is HE that does the baptizing and regenerating of my soul. He imparts His Spirit into me so that I then may continue growing in this relationship.

 

[thetazlord]

So… let’s say a born again evangelical refuses to get baptized because he was baptized as a Catholic infant. Is that person “saved”? Or is he being disobedient?

If a person lies, are they being disobedient to God Who condemns lying - even in the NT? If yes, then do they end up in the lake of fire? Just because a person is a genuinely saved Christian doesn’t mean they won’t sin, & doesn’t mean they’ll end up in Hell, because once they are saved - they CAN’T, because their “life” is “eternal” (John 3:16). Plus, a genuinely saved Christian WILL be obedient to Christ, because they understand they are “slaves of Christ,” Who is their ONLY Master. Therefore, I would question someone who “claims” to be Christian & “refuses” to be baptized. This is what James is saying: “Show me your faith without your works; I’ll show you my faith BY my works.” But this still doesn’t mean works LEADS to salvation, but is the EVIDENCE of salvation.

Because the New Covenant does not make distinctions based on ethnicity or gender. Besides, Scripture makes it clear that both males and females were baptized.

Yeah, but you are the one saying that baptism “replaced” circumcision (see below) So, if it “replaced” circumcision - which was JUST for boys - then “why” does this “replacement” involve girls? In order for something to be a “replacement” it has to “replace” the same specific thing, or specific people. In the case of baptism for circumcision would be boys, not girls.

And Paul tells us that baptism has replaced circumcision.

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism . . .
–Col. 2:11-12

Where does Paul say that baptism “replaced” circumcision? BTW, even “if” baptism “replaced” circumcision, keep in mind circumcision was a “sign” of the covenant between Abraham & his descendants, not a “MEANS” of salvation. So, by saying baptism “replaces” circumcision, then all baptism would be is a “sign” not a “MEANS” of salvation. Plus, all this passage is speaking about it the circumcision made without hands. Water baptism involved the USE of one’s hands. And the “baptism” that Paul is referring to here isn’t WATER baptism, but being “buried” with Christ in baptism. If you are taking this literally, Paul would be talking about LITERALLY being “buried” in water, which would involve drowning. Rather, he is talking figuratively being “buried” in “spiritual” baptism, by “dying” to our old ways & “being reborn” in “the baptism of the Spirit” just like in Romans Ch.6 - not water baptism.

And yet, it also doesn’t say that infants weren’t baptized, does it? And it doesn’t say that toddlers weren’t baptized. What about teenagers? The elderly? (Nope, and nope).

There’s a lot of things the Bible “doesn’t say,” but your making an argument from silence to support a religious belief. So, does that mean that since it doesn’t say dogs can’t be baptized that we can baptize dogs? Every example in the NT of people being baptized - including households - involved people IN those households having the ABILITY to believe, which would include older children, teenagers & the elderly. Therefore, babies would not qualify.

Who in Lydia’s household engaged in “believer’s baptism” and what were their ages?

And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:15

Since you are making the assumption that in Lydia’s household there were underage people, such as babies, then the burden is on you to prove this. I don’t have to prove a negative. Plus, if you continue reading - in the same chapter - Luke uses the exact same word for “household” to refer to those in the jailor’s family who “could” believe (Acts 16:30-34). And, the Greek word for “household” in both passage means “a body of servants forming one family of God.” A baby can’t “serve” since they don’t have that ability. So, unless you can find a example in Scripture of a baby being identified in a “household,” then the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Who in Stephanas’s household engaged in “believer’s baptism” and what were their ages?

Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.
1 Corinthians 1:16

Oh, that’s right - it doesn’t say what their ages were…

If would help if you continued to read 1 Corinthians to the end of the epistle to find your answer:

“Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints), that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors.” (1 Corinthians 16:15)

A baby can’t be “devoted,” not “help in the work & labors” of the ministry of the saints. The fact that “I” had to point this out to you is concerning, because not one Catholic on here corrected you on this point, & I highly doubt that NONE of them knew you were in error here. So, what does that tell you about my objectivity vs. theirs?

Looks like someone might be adding to the Word of God (looking at you thetazlord)…

No, it just means that I don’t “quote-mine” individual passages of Scripture like you did, & out of context. So, unless you can provide me ONE verse in the Bible of babies being baptized, or even households who were baptized that MENTION babies being baptized, I’m afraid “you” are the one “adding” to Scripture. Peace!

 

[TimothyH]

I know you “don’t care about my point,” but my point is significant. If those people Paul didn’t baptized suddenly died without baptism, why would Paul be “glad” he didn’t baptize them. I understand he didn’t baptize them because they were incorrectly identifying themselves with a particular apostle like Cephas (Peter) - in much the same way Catholic “identify” themselves with Peter being the first pope. But that doesn’t change the fact that Paul was still “glad” he didn’t baptize them. So, if Paul was “glad” that he prevented them from the “means” of salvation & they died, how is that a “good” thing?

They were baptized. Everyone was baptized.

Paul was glad that he didn’t do it personally.

-Tim-

 

[slh3016]

I know you “don’t care about my point,” but my point is significant. If those people Paul didn’t baptized suddenly died without baptism, why would Paul be “glad” he didn’t baptize them. I understand he didn’t baptize them because they were incorrectly identifying themselves with a particular apostle like Cephas (Peter) - in much the same way Catholic “identify” themselves with Peter being the first pope. But that doesn’t change the fact that Paul was still “glad” he didn’t baptize them. So, if Paul was “glad” that he prevented them from the “means” of salvation & they died, how is that a “good” thing?

You seem to be assuming something that is not in Scripture.

1 Corintians 1: 10-17 (NASB) says:

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all [e]agree and that there be no [f]divisions among you, but that you be [g]made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 [h]Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized *in the name of Paul? 14 [j]I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized [k]in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in [l]cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

In reading this, there is absolutely NO indication that Paul means that these people weren’t baptized. He is merely saying that he is glad he wasn’t the one who baptized them so that they couldn’t say, “I am of Paul.”

Again, there is no indication, written or otherwise, that Paul left people unbaptized. Slow down and read it again, putting aside your presuppositions regarding this text. You are simply ASSUMING something that IS NOT there. It could merely mean that they were baptized by someone else but that Paul is glad that he wasn’t the one who performed the baptism. He clearly states that his job was to preach the gospel, so he delegated the role of baptizing to someone else.*

 

[pablope]

1. God can do what He wants, but He can’t contradict His Own Word.
   You can’t say something is “required” & then give exceptions to it without contradicting the words of our Lord.

That is right…it is your interpretations that do conflict. The question to you then…is your interpretations correct over that of the Catholic Church?

 

[thetazlord]

Okay, you only answered half my question.

In your own words, define the word “belief.”

The point I’m getting at is that merely believing that Jesus’ is God’s Son (i.e., assent of the mind) DOES NOT bring about salvation BECAUSE even Satan and his demons believe this.

So, belief in this one thing is NOT efficacious of salvation. What is?

If you say, well, you must trust Jesus for your salvation, then what shows you trust Him. I submit that it is the action itself that brings about the salvation, because words and feelings are rather meaningless. It is not enough to say that Jesus is Lord IF your actions don’t show that.

I view baptism as what Christ did for me through the minister of baptism, not something that I did for Him. It is HE that does the baptizing and regenerating of my soul. He imparts His Spirit into me so that I then may continue growing in this relationship.

I’ve addressed this with you - twice. By saying works is the “evidence” of salvation, but not the “means,” I’m defining genuine “belief” as not an “uncommitted, defiant belief,” but rather genuine belief RESULTS in works. For example, if I say I “believe” that Christ is my Savior, but don’t demonstrate that He is by also submitting to Him as my Lord (ie: Master), then my “belief” is no different than the demons, who also “believe” Jesus is the Savior of mankind. A genuine Christian who “believes” in Jesus as His Savior also “believes” & submits to Him as his Lord, as an obedient slave. Otherwise, they don’t truly “believe” in Christ & aren’t saved. That’s what James is talking about. But someone who isn’t already saved, has no desire to either “believe” nor “work” to be saved. IOW, why would someone “believe” in Jesus as their Savior, let alone their Lord, if they were unbelievers? That can only occur with the work of the Holy Spirit, not any “work” on our part.

I think sometimes when Catholics hear “faith not works” salvation (sola fide) from a Protestant, they incorrectly assume they mean an uncommitted, phony, “dead” faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hope this clarifies & answers your question.

BTW, water baptism is still a “work” that a person has to agree to participate in. So, it’s still a work, and something is commanded to the Church to do, not someone who isn’t saved yet.

 

[thetazlord]

They were baptized. Everyone was baptized.

Paul was glad that he didn’t do it personally.

-Tim-

Show me in the text where it says “everybody was baptized.” Or are you just “assuming” that they were.

 

[thetazlord]

You seem to be assuming something that is not in Scripture.

1 Corintians 1: 10-17 (NASB) says:

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all [e]agree and that there be no [f]divisions among you, but that you be [g]made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 [h]Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized *in the name of Paul? 14 [j]I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized [k]in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in [l]cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

In reading this, there is absolutely NO indication that Paul means that these people weren’t baptized. He is merely saying that he is glad he wasn’t the one who baptized them so that they couldn’t say, “I am of Paul.”

Again, there is no indication, written or otherwise, that Paul left people unbaptized. Slow down and read it again, putting aside your presuppositions regarding this text. You are simply ASSUMING something that IS NOT there. It could merely mean that they were baptized by someone else but that Paul is glad that he wasn’t the one who performed the baptism. He clearly states that his job was to preach the gospel, so he delegated the role of baptizing to someone else*.

Show me in the text where it says “everybody was baptized.” Or are you just “assuming” that they were.

 

[thetazlord]

That is right…it is your interpretations that do conflict. The question to you then…is your interpretations correct over that of the Catholic Church?

I’m not questioning the authority of the Catholic church. I don’t take issue with the Catholic church. To do so would violate forum rules, which I respect & desire to obey, so please don’t bate me.

When I said God can do what He wants, but He can’t contradict Himself in His Word, I was referring to the fact that if the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, & Jesus says in John 3:7 “you MUST (Greek: “are REQUIRED to”) be born again,” then Jesus is saying that the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God,” & even “SEE the kingdom of God” (John 3:3,5) is to be baptized in water. So, then “how” can God/Jesus contradict Himself & allow UNbaptized people into Heaven, when He previously stated that a person is “REQUIRED” to be baptized in water to “enter” & even “see” the kingdom of God?

 

[thenobes]

I’ve addressed this with you - twice. By saying works is the “evidence” of salvation, but not the “means,” I’m defining genuine “belief” as not an “uncommitted, defiant belief,” but rather genuine belief RESULTS in works. For example, if I say I “believe” that Christ is my Savior, but don’t demonstrate that He is by also submitting to Him as my Lord (ie: Master), then my “belief” is no different than the demons, who also “believe” Jesus is the Savior of mankind. A genuine Christian who “believes” in Jesus as His Savior also “believes” & submits to Him as his Lord, as an obedient slave. Otherwise, they don’t truly “believe” in Christ & aren’t saved. That’s what James is talking about. But someone who isn’t already saved, has no desire to either “believe” nor “work” to be saved. IOW, why would someone “believe” in Jesus as their Savior, let alone their Lord, if they were unbelievers? That can only occur with the work of the Holy Spirit, not any “work” on our part.

I think sometimes when Catholics hear “faith not works” salvation (sola fide) from a Protestant, they incorrectly assume they mean an uncommitted, phony, “dead” faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hope this clarifies & answers your question.

BTW, water baptism is still a “work” that a person has to agree to participate in. So, it’s still a work, and something is commanded to the Church to do, not someone who isn’t saved yet.

The assent of the will to do the works prompted by the Holy Spirit is the means of maintaining oneself in the State of Justification. That is, through works (the specific ones mentioned) salvation is maintained.

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

I’m not questioning the authority of the Catholic church. I don’t take issue with the Catholic church. To do so would violate forum rules, which I respect & desire to obey, so please don’t bate me.

When I said God can do what He wants, but He can’t contradict Himself in His Word, I was referring to the fact that if the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, & Jesus says in John 3:7 “you MUST (Greek: “are REQUIRED to”) be born again,” then Jesus is saying that the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God,” & even “SEE the kingdom of God” (John 3:3,5) is to be baptized in water. So, then “how” can God/Jesus contradict Himself & allow UNbaptized people into Heaven, when He previously stated that a person is “REQUIRED” to be baptized in water to “enter” & even “see” the kingdom of God?

TAZL,

Absent the express granting of baptismal grace by Our Lord, and knowledge of this by special revelation, the Church has held that the norm of being born again is attained by water baptism by the Church.

peace
steve

 

[thetazlord]

The assent of the will to do the works prompted by the Holy Spirit is the means of maintaining oneself in the State of Justification. That is, through works (the specific ones mentioned) salvation is maintained.

peace
steve

You’re confusing justification which happens at the moment of salvation, with sanctification which is the life-long process where we strive to be like Christ, until death, when we are finally glorified. But works doesn’t “maintain” one’s salvation, because it can’t be lost because it’s “eternal” (John 3:16; 10:27-29; Romans 8:38-39).

 

[thetazlord]

TAZL,

Absent the express granting of baptismal grace by Our Lord, and knowledge of this by special revelation, the Church has held that the norm of being born again is attained by water baptism by the Church.

peace
steve

As a former Catholic, I understand what is taught. My point is that in John 3:3-7, Jesus isn’t speaking “normatively,” but exclusively.

 

[slh3016]

Show me in the text where it says “everybody was baptized.” Or are you just “assuming” that they were.

Show me in the text where it says “nobody was baptized” or are you just assuming they weren’t?

Show me in the Bible where there is a significant delay in one believing/trusting Christ and baptism? You are not reading the text in context and there is ABSOLUTELY nothing there to support your “theory” that Paul just left these people unbaptized. Actually, he didn’t even mention specific people that he didn’t baptize. He was addressing a much broader problem which was that people who HAD BEEN baptized were identifying themselves with the person who baptized them. He was saying that this was in error and that baptism identifies them with Christ. He simply states that **he ** is glad that he had not perpetuated that problem by having baptized many people.

If you read his words in context, it appears that he is saying (paraphrasing):

“Hey guys, I’ve heard of this problem that your’re having there in Corinth. There seems to be some people going around claiming that their baptism was more “special” than other people’s baptism because they were baptized by me, Cephus, or Apollos while others are rightly claiming they were baptized by Christ. Let me assure you, that Christ cannot be divided. You weren’t baptized in the name of Paul, Cephus or Apollos, were you? No, you baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because Christ was crucified for you. Therefore, you are all equal. I am so glad, now, that I didn’t baptized many people except Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus, because I don’t want my name associated with this silly quarrel. My time is best spent preaching the gospel…”

It amazes me that you refuse to read this passage with any other lens on than that of your own authoritativeness.

 

[slh3016]

You’re confusing justification which happens at the moment of salvation, with sanctification which is the life-long process where we strive to be like Christ, until death, when we are finally glorified. But works doesn’t “maintain” one’s salvation, because it can’t be lost because it’s “eternal” (John 3:16; 10:27-29; Romans 8:38-39).

John 3:16 “For whosoever **believes **in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

**What does belief mean? Again, it can’t merely mean assenting with the intellect that Jesus is God’s Son. Belief requires more than this or otherwise, Satan and his demons will be with us in heaven. **

Romans 8:38-39 states that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

** No nothing can pluck us from His hand but we sure can jump out of it! Notice, the verse does not say that we cannot choose for ourselves to be separated from Him. **

 

[TimothyH]

Show me in the text where it says “everybody was baptized.” Or are you just “assuming” that they were.

I don’t think you actually read the Bible or know much history of the early Church. Everyone was baptized in the early Church.

Acts 2:38
Acts 2:41
Acts 8:12
Acts 9:18
Acts 10:48
Acts 18:8
Romans 6:3
1 Corinthians 12:13
Galatians 3:27

Paul himself was baptized (Acts 9:18) and says that he was sent by Jesus not to baptize but to preach the Gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17).

-Tim-

 

[slh3016]

I’ve addressed this with you - twice.

Actually, no you hadn’t addressed it. You addressed a side issue of “evidence”. But, let’s keep moving…

By saying works is the “evidence” of salvation, but not the “means,” I’m defining]genuine “belief” as not an “uncommitted, defiant belief,” but rather genuine belief RESULTS in works. For example, if I say I “believe” that Christ is my Savior, but don’t demonstrate that He is by also submitting to Him as my Lord (ie: Master), then my “belief” is no different than the demons, who also “believe” Jesus is the Savior of mankind. A genuine Christian who “believes” in Jesus as His Savior also**“believes” & submits** to Him as his Lord, as an obedient slave. Otherwise, they don’t truly “believe” in Christ & aren’t saved. That’s what James is talking about.

There’s a whole lot of significance in that & you used above. You are saying it yourself. One is saved by belief & (AND) submission. Submission to what?

I think sometimes when Catholics hear “faith not works” salvation (sola fide) from a Protestant, they incorrectly assume they mean an uncommitted, phony, “dead” faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hope this clarifies & answers your question.

I also think that 99% of all Protestants think that Catholics think they are going to work their way to Heaven. I know I sure did until I began studying the Catholic faith.

BTW, water baptism is still a “work” that a person has to agree to participate in. So, it’s still a work, and something is commanded to the Church to do, not someone who isn’t saved yet.

Why do they have to agree to it then? If it makes no difference because they are already saved, then baptism seems rather meaningless. Why should they care if they breaking God’s commandment?

Plus, a genuinely saved Christian WILL be obedient to Christ, because they understand they are “slaves of Christ,” Who is their ONLY Master. Therefore, I would question someone who “claims” to be Christian & “refuses” to be baptized. This is what James is saying: “Show me your faith without your works; I’ll show you my faith BY my works.” But this still doesn’t mean works LEADS to salvation, but is the EVIDENCE of salvation.

Now this comment REALLY irks me. If your premise is correct, should there be an “ALWAYS” inserted between the “be” and “obedient” in the first sentence?

Okay, so you would question someone who is declaring that yes, they BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and that they want Him to be their Master. They say and truly mean these things, so they must be saved, right? Because no one wants to follow Jesus if they aren’t already saved, right? So if they don’t want to be baptized, (a) they truly aren’t saved because they lack something (i.e., their baptism) (so their baptism really would be efficacious of something) or (b) baptism isn’t necessary and therefore they have every right to refuse it.

I’ve heard this circular reasoning from MANY OSAS Protestant pastors over the years and all it does is leave everyone (especially me) in a perpetual state of anxiety because every time one sins, they have to constantly wonder if indeed, they have truly been saved, because according to your words and those pastors’ words, “a truly saved person will be obedient to Christ.” I know of one person who has been baptized THREE times because he fell into a sinful situation that convinced him that he had never truly been saved to begin with so he thought that every time he sinned, he must have been unsaved and therefore, he needed to get “saved” again and be baptized AGAIN!! It was/is insane!

The beauty of the Catholic Church is that yes, it realizes that people can and will sin, often mortally by falling into some temptation such as adultery, etc. However, instead of sitting back trying to diagnose whether the sinner was ever actually saved to begin with, they dispense the medication through the sacrament of Confession that Jesus prescribed. He is the Great Physician and the Church is the Pharmacy.

 

[God_I_Love]

John 3:16 “For whosoever **believes **in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

**What does belief mean? Again, it can’t merely mean assenting with the intellect that Jesus is God’s Son. Belief requires more than this or otherwise, Satan and his demons will be with us in heaven. **

Romans 8:38-39 states that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

** No nothing can pluck us from His hand but we sure can jump out of it! Notice, the verse does not** say that we cannot choose for ourselves to be separated from Him.

Is heaven the kingdom of God?

Secondly "any created thing’’ includes ourselves; unless you deny you are a created thing

 

[slh3016]

Is heaven the kingdom of God?

Not sure I understand the question

Secondly "any created thing’’ includes ourselves; unless you deny you are a created thing

So, are you saying that even Hitler would still go to heaven if, as a young chap, he’d “given his life to Christ” or “asked Christ into his heart” because he’d been “saved” at that moment and therefore, NOTHING could take that away.

But that is a topic for another thread entirely and this thread has been derailed way too much as it is. Poor OP

 

[God_I_Love]

Not sure I understand the question

So, are you saying that even Hitler would still go to heaven if, as a young chap, he’d “given his life to Christ” or “asked Christ into his heart” because he’d been “saved” at that moment and therefore, NOTHING could take that away.

But that is a topic for another thread entirely and this thread has been derailed way too much as it is. Poor OP

Basically I see Catholics will confuse the kingdom of God with heaven. The kingdom of God is a physical kingdom. And would you be horrified if Jesus saved Hitler? Using extreme examples like that is also not the most helpful for discussion as it uses extreme evil to derail a point. My point still stands though: you are a created thing therefore you cannot separate yourself from the love of God.