I don’t understand this statement. That is, everybody starts out as unregenerate, so what is it that causes one to become generate, so that they can believe? .By your statement, it seems that one becomes generate, then as a consequence of being generate, they are able believe, since an unregenerate person cannot believe. Is that what you’re saying?
Agreed. Those who do not deny Jesus obviously have “saving faith.”
We are agreed then that faith does not save, nor does water baptism save, Jesus does.
Sure enough, anyone who is saved is also baptized in water. But remember, it is because of the resurrection and the Holy Spirit that baptism in water has been given that power of saving. Think of General Naaman and his washing seven times in the waters of the Jordan as a type of baptism.But I guess anyone who is saved is also baptized in water.
Yes, this sums it up what we’re each saying. Hearing, then faith, then according to Peter, baptism to wash away sins and receive the Holy Spirit.
Let my say what you mean, that when he/she is disobedient there is need of subsequent repentance?
Agreed. It seems to me that a growth in grace is a means of “putting on the armor of God.” For those of us who are not OSAS, means of grace, sanctifying, obedience are important for us to withstand the temptations of the world, in order to stand firm. We need all the help we can get. We certainly can’t boast in ourselves!
Indeed, saying “I believe” is not enough.
Yes, and PR did not include the hardest , like " Be ye Perfect" or "exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees’’…no, it is impossible !!! …so where is the good news ?
If you don’t know when Cornelius was regenerated,(and you say you don’t) then you cannot say whether “an unregenerate man” is able to believe. Actually when did he first believe and believe what ? Never said he believed before regenerated. When did he begin to fear God and give alms ? If you deny that conversion, faith, regeneration then exactly when did he believe during Peter’s discourse ? Was it vs 34 or perhaps 41 ,maybe 43 ? Actually does it say anywhere that Cornelius believed ? No. So my assumption is wrong (walks like a duck , quacks like a duck ) is wrong and yours is right (only at water baptism) ? No contradiction on my part.PRmerger;12065984 [QUOTE said:
Let just suppose faith comes first than baptism . One can still stand in the gap so to speak, as you say in baptism, but stand likewise for the faith of a weaker soul due to one condition or another ? Either way, if one can stand in for your
As you correctly point out about baptists and sub tradition, you can value semantics. We all agree there is saved, and saving. We all believe in conversion, justification, sanctification and glorification . Saved is past, present and future . Yet there is a beginning point to when we first believed hence first time saved, justified, born again . That is what many refer to when they say, " I was saved when…". They do not deny the continual Good Shepherding and walking out of that original new beginning…Yet, all of us have to be careful of what began in the spirit not going to the flesh. Flesh can be both ways . One is to tempt grace and walk in the flesh cause we are "saved’’. The other is to tempt grace and do works to stay in it. Both are wrong. What began in grace is maintained in grace. You were born of grace and you persevere by grace ,"lest any man boast ".
That is funny, but the feeling is mutual . Like, duh, of course anyone hearing the NT was now bound by it and had to leave the old(but as fulfilled). I still say Peter and Paul may have been Monday quarter backing, but they did not mean that before Christ none of what they were now saying was false. No, I take it that the NT shows the weakness of the old, even before the new came . It is like Henry Ford saying the horse and buggy system was inferior and you are saying yes but not before Henry Ford . The covenants are different. They are not relativistic. The old is not inferior because of the new, but it was inferior in and of itself. Peter and Paul were saying no one was saved by keeping the law even in the Old testament. That is not to say the covenants were not or had not saving elements (faith)
Maybe we are confusing law and covenant . The covenants changed yes, gotta be in by the New, yes. But the law saves no one now of course, nor even then (before Christ). Read the scriptures again to see if it ain’t so. The law was not given to keep and therefore be saved, or better yet, no one could or did do keep it. Whew, are we getting there ?
Bingo bingo bingo. So we both agree not everyone was lost or in hell for Jesus gave us the story, not parable, of the rich man and Lazarus. So if not saved by the law how were Abraham and Lazarus and OT saints saved ? What was their good news ? What did they foreshadow, and knowingly ?
Yes, the two covenants are not interchangeable, and am not suggesting that. The Mosaic (containing the “Law” ) is only one of the 3,4 covenants.
OK, I felt the need to revisit this part. I had to dig into the KJV to figure out what you were referring to by the “schoolmaster”. There’s only one place where Paul mentions this. But, taking it out of context, it’s easy to confuse Paul’s intent in using it. The “Law” that Paul is referring to, is the Mosaic Law of the OT that all Jews were subject to, prior to the coming of Jesus. He’s not referring to the Law of Christ (The New Covenant), which is completely different. At the time Paul was writing this, the New Covenant was already in effect. Can we at least agree to that?
No, Paul was just saying that he was glad that he hadn’t baptized them, because they were all fighting over who they thought was the greatest Apostle by picking whichever one Baptized them. And, Paul wanted no part in that kind of foolish argument, because they should all have been saying that they were Baptized in the name of Jesus, not in the name of any Apostle. Apparently, their baptisms were mostly performed by others that were sent to them previously, or by other ministers than Paul, himself, when he was with them.
Baptism is the means whereby we receive God’s Grace. After our hearts are converted to begin to believe in Jesus, our Baptism washes away the blindness of sin from our soul, and fully opens our heart to God, so our soul is made capable of receiving His Grace. Without Baptism, our first signs of faith (our conversion of heart) will whither and die.
Our conversion of heart leads us to be saved, but it’s only through Baptism that we receive the actual Grace from God to accomplish it. You are misrepresenting what Paul actually taught, because he never taught any such thing. He always preached the necessity of all who proclaimed to be Christians, to be Baptized into the Body of Christ (His Church).
LOL!
As someone who holds to the Biblical doctrine of eternal security, I have no idea where you got the idea that the two are connected.
Well, it may not be your paradigm, but it is the paradigm of some Bible believing Christians to connect the two.
Only when taken in isolation of the Word of God in its entirety.
Indeed.
As there is no central authority to speak for Reformed Christians, I don’t believe that what you are proposing here could be taken as anything except your own personal beliefs.
No, I’m not mixed up. While I understand that you only see the word ‘repentance’ used in the KJV, in the DR that word only appears 6 times in the NT. The rest of the time, penance is always used (45 times). In the OT, penance is used most of the time, but repentance is also used about 1/3 of the time.
They were washed clean of their sin by the sacrifice offered on the altar, yes. But, they still had to make restitution for those sins.
I was never a big fan of Ebert, so Siskel it is.
Sorry, but there is no way I could ever agree to that. IMHO, the so-called ‘reformation’ tore a gigantic hole in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, that had already been wounded enough by the sins of all mankind. It also dismembered from His Body (the Church), a huge portion of those souls that He had already suffered so much to save. I love Him way too much to ever see any of that as a being ‘good thing’.
I find it curious that “bible christians” discount the Bible.
And if you do not obey?
See the double-conditional there? It says that there are TWO conditions to be saved.
There is no supposing benhur. God has spoken, God has revealed no can enter the Kingdom of God, nor can no one ever see the Kingdom of God without being born of Water and Spirit which is baptism. Jesus never teaches or reveals faith alone saves you.
We don’t discount it. We just don’t agree with you guys on what it means.
I’m glad you’ve read Acts 2:38. I’m still not exactly sure how infant baptism conforms to the command to “repent”, which comes before and alongside the command to be baptized. As for 1 Peter 3:21, that verse has been discussed and debated a lot already on this thread.
As I’ve said before, “the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” are parallel statements. The Holy Spirit does not need to be renewed, but rather the Holy Spirit renews us. Likewise, regeneration is what washes us from the filth of our sinful lives. We are washed by regeneration (the new birth) and renewed by the Holy Spirit.
OK. You can argue that “washed” refers to baptism, but it doesn’t have to refer to baptism. It can refer to the “washing of regeneration”, the new birth itself.
Yes, we were buried with Him in baptism. And we are “also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12). It is by faith and the glory of the Father, as both these verses make clear, that we are raised with Christ to life. This is revealed when we are baptized, but it is still by faith in Christ. Without faith, baptism means nothing.
But apparently only one condition to be condemned.
There are scriptures that say faith saves you, without any added works of righteousness lest, any man boast. Plenty. There are also some that say works shall follow (James) and some that say or appear to be needed such as eating Him or being baptized. Why do you insist on eliminating the first scenario (faith quoted by itself that saves) ? I am admitting your scenario of faith with an apparent work. So does the bible contradict ? Or are we to discern assume that when we see faith by itself we must remember the other scriptures that have attachments ? And are those attachments conditional or cause the effect of salvation or a fruit of it…that is what Christendom is split on. It is not just a Catholic/Protestant dialogue. It is my opinion they are not effectual but covenant signs, and not effectual saving works , lest any boast and not go against the scriptures that say we are not saved by works of righteousness. They are effectual only in the obedience, a sign of sealing to the covenant, and still very important…but I understand how one might think they are necessary for actuating salvation…why can’t you see how some think they are signs of an already existing new life brought by faith by itself ?
And there’s the rub, isn’t it?
Sure.
And every time that I as a Catholic read a verse that says faith saves you I say AMEN! I believe that. But there is only one verse in the entire bible where the words “faith alone” are together. Can you imagine what protestants would say if Catholics believed something in direct opposition to the words of scripture? :nunchuk:Yet many protestant denominations believe the exact opposite of scripture, beliefs that only emerged from the time of the reformation until today.
uch:? James says that Abraham’s faith was made complete by works. Or in other words, his faith was incomplete without works. Can an incomplete faith save you? It’s not either or, it’s both: Faith and Works.:hug1:
I clarified the comment above. It’s not just “Some” that say…but Christ himself who says. No where will you find the early Church writing about a symbolic Eucharistic meal. St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John. I have great confidence that St. John passed on the faith accurately to St. Ignatius.
Again, that “some” you are referring to are the words of Christ himself. The words of St. Augustine are in consistent with scripture and Catholic teaching for 2,000 years.