So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[SteveVH]

What verses say “We are not saved by works such as baptism”?

Originally Posted by SteveVH
Please cite the verse that reads “we are not saved by works such as Baptism”…

 

[South_Bound]

Porknpie:

It’s a very interesting thing that if you read the writings of the early Church, prior to the bible canon, no where will you see them saying that all one has to do is believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.

And if I was interested in perusing this, I would point out Acts 16:30-34, which says: 30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Now, naturally, you’re going to point out the baptism in this passage, but the fact remains that Paul and Silas told him to believe to be saved, not be baptized, the baptism followed his belief that saved, and he rejoiced that he believed, not that he was baptized.

I’ve already invited you to come to ChristianForums where I’m free to speak freely on this issue and will be happy to show you numerous examples of the ECFs teaching salvation by faith… If you’re interested, you will, if not, then I will not goad you or mock you like one of your fellow Catholics is doing to me now.

 

[PRmerger]

AI’ve already invited you to come to ChristianForums where I’m free to speak freely on this issue and will be happy to show you numerous examples of the ECFs teaching salvation by faith… If you’re interested, you will, if not, then I will not goad you or mock you like one of your fellow Catholics is doing to me now.

I think, since you are a newbie, you are operating under some sort of weird misapprehension about what you are permitted to post here on the CAFs.

There are numerous posters here, non Catholics, who have used the ECF writings in an attempt to provide apologia for their position.

As long as they remained charitable, they were permitted to cite the ECFs.

You can do that, too, as long as you remain charitable.

Now, can you please cite the Bible verses that state that “We are not saved by works such as baptism”.

True. And we can also find verses that say we’re not saved by works such as baptism.

 

[dronald]

I think, since you are a newbie, you are operating under some sort of weird misapprehension about what you are permitted to post here on the CAFs.

There are numerous posters here, non Catholics, who have used the ECF writings in an attempt to provide apologia for their position.

As long as they remained charitable, they were permitted to cite the ECFs.

You can do that, too, as long as you remain charitable.

Now, can you please cite the Bible verses that state that “We are not saved by works such as baptism”.

I can second that. I’ve never had a warning for anything in terms of theology and Early Church history.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I can’t really tell when it comes to the hearts of each individual and I’m not sure my Church does remarry divorcee’s. I know they make you go through a long interview process before they’ll ever marry you.

Can I get back to this one for you? I’m going through the process now, but I would love to ask what their policy is for divorcees.

Thank you!

A wonderful Church it is. I mean that sincerly too.

Yes, it would seem so.

I love the hard sayings; I feel like if I’m too lax, or making excuses for anything the Bible says then I’m obviously not acting in Christ.

Edit- Perhaps someone who does have a Protestant Church that re-marries devorced people could let you know why they think so. I’m honestly not sure why one would, except for in the case of adultery or if the person recognizes their sin, asked forgiveness and wants to move on.

All the evangelical churches I have been to remarried divorcees. A big one nearby even has a pastor who is divorced and remarried and he talks a lot about it.

Naturally he has found a way to justify it.

Sermon Part 1-http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermon...othy-smith-sermon-on-divorce-70876.asp?Page=1

His wife did leave him in adultery if I remember right, but regardless his teaching on divorce and remarriage is quite open.

 

[mackbrislawn]

yes

Fascinating. This idea is a new one for me. You mean that God picks certain non-believing individuals, regenerates them, and as a consequence of this regeneration, they start believing?

How does God decide which people to regenerate? Obviously they don’t believe beforehand, so that isn’t the criterion.

 

[Telstar]

And if I was interested in perusing this, I would point out Acts 16:30-34, which says: 30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Now, naturally, you’re going to point out the baptism in this passage, but the fact remains that Paul and Silas told him to believe to be saved, not be baptized, the baptism followed his belief that saved, and he rejoiced that he believed, not that he was baptized.

You are correct, sir! I would take the mention of baptism to mean that it’s a very important and necessary thing to do, for all who espoused to become Christians. It is consistently included in the descriptions of most, if not all, conversion stories mentioned in the New Testament. Why would that be if it wasn’t absolutely necessary for salvation?

I’ve already invited you to come to ChristianForums where I’m free to speak freely on this issue and will be happy to show you numerous examples of the ECFs teaching salvation by faith… If you’re interested, you will, if not, then I will not goad you or mock you like one of your fellow Catholics is doing to me now.

If you read through a lot of the threads on this forum, you can see that serious debates happen, all the time. The biggest things that are frowned upon is blatant proselytizing, or making seriously derogatory statements against the Catholic Church. But, there are a lot of intense discussions from both sides of any theological issue, and that’s OK.

I actually went to that other forum and signed up, but I couldn’t get my username, because it said someone else already had it. :banghead:

I read a couple of threads while I was there. They were incredibly uncharitable towards Catholicism, one of which was about the Pope, and another about the CC being a ‘cult’. I wish I could have posted, but it might have been better that I hadn’t gotten approval to post, yet.

 

[Jon_S_1]

And if I was interested in perusing this, I would point out Acts 16:30-34, which says: 30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Now, naturally, you’re going to point out the baptism in this passage, but the fact remains that Paul and Silas told him to believe to be saved, not be baptized, the baptism followed his belief that saved, and he rejoiced that he believed, not that he was baptized.

I’ve already invited you to come to ChristianForums where I’m free to speak freely on this issue and will be happy to show you numerous examples of the ECFs teaching salvation by faith… If you’re interested, you will, if not, then I will not goad you or mock you like one of your fellow Catholics is doing to me now.

1 Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you– not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

James 2

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

Ephesians 2:8-10

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

1 Corinthians 13:13

But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the [f]greatest of these is love.

Why is faith not the greatest?? Because Love is the root of faith and faith is an action, faith is life transformation, faith is subjected obedience, faith is participation in the diving reality. FAITH IS NOT JUST SAYING YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING OR PRAYING A PRAYER ONCE

Galatians 5:6

. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

FAITH WORKING THROUGH LOVE…EXACTLY WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES

 

[Porknpie]

Why did you choose to omit so much from that passage?

Here is how it should be rendered:

1 Peter 3:18-22 - 18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20becausee they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, **eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, **not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Changes the meaning quite a bit when somebody quote it in context for you, doesn’t

South Bound, quoting the entire passage does well to support the Catholic view that Baptism is salvific. Eight persons were saved through and by water. The OT flood prefigures something much greater in the New Testament: Baptism. That’s why St. Peter uses this as an analogy to in saying (just like the flood saved), Baptism now saves you.

St Peter repeats the words that Jesus himself said in Mark 16
16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Catholics have no problem with the second half of this verse. It is of course a Catholic book and I believe every word of scripture understood in the right context. If I do not believe, I would not be baptized. If I believe, I would be baptized for scripture is explicitly clear that “And” applies here. Jesus says it. St. Peter says it. The two go hand in hand so closely, that the writer did not need to say explicitly, “the one who is not baptized will be condemned”.

As I pointed out earlier, I also read the early Church writings a there is consistency in the Catholic position for the Tradition passed on also reflects the AND…believe and baptism is the normative means for salvation.

Of course not all Protestants discount the AND. Many protestants believe in the AND. It’s a difficult thing to take a literal interpretation of the second half of the verse (not found in the Tradition of the Church, nor found in the Latin Church, Catholic East, Oriental Catholic, nor Orthodox Churches) but when scripture explicitly says AND…one takes a non-literal view.

Do you know when in history that this first occurred? When in history did someone take the word -]and/-], and effectively put a strike through it?

Curious thing it is.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

And if I was interested in perusing this, I would point out Acts 16:30-34, which says: 30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Catholics take all of scripture into account South Bound. They believed and were baptized. The two go together and are necessary for salvation just as Jesus himself says. That’s exactly what they did. And they rejoiced. For sure. Scripture can not contradict itself. It does not contradict itself.

So you can’t have two verses in conflict:
a) believe in The Lord Jesus and you will be saved
b) believe in The Lord Jesus and be baptized and you will be saved.

You can not take verse b) and do this
b) believe in The Lord Jesus -]and be baptized/-] and you will be saved.

Now, naturally, you’re going to point out the baptism in this passage, but the fact remains that Paul and Silas told him to believe to be saved, not be baptized, the baptism followed his belief that saved, and he rejoiced that he believed, **not that he was baptized. **

Scripture does not say this. It does not explicitly say “he rejoiced that he believed, not that he was baptized.” You are inserting your preconceived view into the text.

PnP

 

[South_Bound]

1 Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you– not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Post the entire passage and not just half an out of context verse and I’ll talk to you.

James 2

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

“Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness”, not “Abraham was baptized and it was credited to him as righteousness”.

Ephesians 2:8-10

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

“…and not by works, lest any man may boast”.

1 Corinthians 13:13

But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the [f]greatest of these is love.

Why is faith not the greatest??

Why don’t you try posting the whole thing, and not just half an out of context verse, and you might find out.

Because Love is the root of faith and faith is an action

Funny, my Bible doesn’t say it’s an action. My Bible says faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2For by it the people of old received their commendation.

Catholics take all of scripture into account South Bound.

Is that why you always post 2 Peter 3:21 out of context?

Scripture does not say this. It does not explicitly say “he rejoiced that he believed, not that he was baptized.” You are inserting your preconceived view into the text

So, just to clarify, if I were to say they were saved by baptism, even though the text says they were saved by faith, that’s OK. But to point out that the text doesn’t say they were saved by baptism is inserting a preconceived view into the text?

 

[PRmerger]

So, just to clarify, if I were to say they were saved by baptism, even though the text says they were saved by faith, that’s OK. But to point out that the text doesn’t say they were saved by baptism is inserting a preconceived view into the text?

No one is denying that they were saved by faith, South Bound.

It’s when someone posits that it’s by faith alone that they were saved that we declare: you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition.

Of course we are all saved by faith. Just like we’re saved by feeding the poor. And saved by baptism. And saved by the Eucharist. And saved by repentance. And saved by confessing with our mouths…

We take the Word of God in its entirety, SB. Not little snippets in which a fallible pastor has interpreted to the exclusion of all other revelation.

 

[South_Bound]

No one is denying that they were saved by faith, South Bound.

It’s when someone posits that it’s by faith alone that they were saved that we declare: you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition.

Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to defend my beliefs, but please feel free to join me on ChristianForums where I’m permitted to speak freely and I’ll lay out the Biblical and historical basis for the Biblical doctrine of sola fide.

We take the Word of God in its entirety, SB. Not little snippets

Is that why you guys are constantly quoting portions of verses out of context?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to defend my beliefs, but please feel free to join me on ChristianForums where I’m permitted to speak freely and I’ll lay out the Biblical and historical basis for the Biblical doctrine of sola fide.

Is that why you guys are constantly quoting portions of verses out of context?

The only one here Southbound putting things out of context is you. That’s why I included vs 10 on Ephesians 2:8,9 that fundamentalists always leave off.

No one is saying you don’t believe first. Of course you do, you have to make an educated decision to become a Christian. We don’t walk around drinking unsuspecting people!

The unbaptized in my RCIA class were believing for a year before they were baptized!

The error we are all pointing our is that you cannot divorce baptism from becoming a Christian.

Doing so is unbiblical and the result of erroneous theology.

Faith is an action. James 2 clearly says so, Jesus clearly says so , despite what some baptist pastor might say.

Read your Bible !

When was the last time you read through the entire gospels?

I suggest you do and look for the passages where Jesus says their is nothing but assent of the mind required to follow him.

 

[South_Bound]

The only one here Southbound putting things out of context is you.

I understand you’re emabarrased at getting caught posting 2 Peter 3:21 and other verses out of context, but if you go back and look at my posts, you’ll see that I included the context with each verse.

Also, could you please explain why you weren’t That’s why I included vs] 10 on Ephesians 2:8,9 that fundamentalists always leave off.

I disagree. I discuss that verse with fundamentalists all the time and they have no problem including it.

No one is saying you don’t believe first. Of course you do, you have to make an educated decision to become a Christian. We don’t walk around drinking unsuspecting people!

You baptize infants. How does an infant make an “educated decision to become a Christian”?

The unbaptized in my RCIA class were believing for a year before they were baptized!

How long were the babies you baptized believing for and how do you know?

The error we are all pointing our is that you cannot divorce baptism from becoming a Christian.

So, anyone who is not baptized is not a Christian?

Faith is an action. James 2 clearly says so, Jesus clearly says so , despite what some baptist pastor might say.

Actually, the verse I cited was from Paul, not a “Baptist pastor”.

Second, you still haven’t shown any verses to contradict the verse I posted.

Read your Bible !

…this, of course, coming from the same guy who thought a Bible verse was just “something a Baptist pastor said”.

When was the last time you read through the entire gospels?

Read them and study them all the time.

I suggest you do and look for the passages where Jesus says their is nothing but assent of the mind required to follow him.

I can tell you right now, based on twenty-five years of study, that Jesus never says this.

So, perhaps you should take your own advice and read the Bible, yourself.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Post the entire passage and not just half an out of context verse and I’ll talk to you.

You’ve twice been offered an explanation of why the entire passage supports the Catholic view. First, in post #465 when I directed you to my explanation in post #204 (quoted below):

Let’s look at what St. Peter says in this passage:

For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

(1 Peter 3:18-22)

How can you say that St. Peter is not talking about water baptism when he expressly connects “baptism, which saves you now” to the story of Noah’s ark, in which eight people “were saved through water”? He explicitly states that this event, where eight people “were saved through water” prefigured baptism. If he is not talking about water baptism as you claim, he sure picked the most misleading and confusing way possible to “not talk about water baptism” by referencing an event in which people were saved through water–actual water that flooded the earth for 40 days, not water in the sense of a spiritual metaphor.

And second, by Porknpie in post #499:

South Bound, quoting the entire passage does well to support the Catholic view that Baptism is salvific. Eight persons were saved through and by water. The OT flood prefigures something much greater in the New Testament: Baptism. That’s why St. Peter uses this as an analogy to in saying (just like the flood saved), Baptism now saves you.

St Peter repeats the words that Jesus himself said in Mark 16
16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Catholics have no problem with the second half of this verse. It is of course a Catholic book and I believe every word of scripture understood in the right context. If I do not believe, I would not be baptized. If I believe, I would be baptized for scripture is explicitly clear that “And” applies here. Jesus says it. St. Peter says it. The two go hand in hand so closely, that the writer did not need to say explicitly, “the one who is not baptized will be condemned”.

As I pointed out earlier, I also read the early Church writings a there is consistency in the Catholic position for the Tradition passed on also reflects the AND…believe and baptism is the normative means for salvation.

Of course not all Protestants discount the AND. Many protestants believe in the AND. It’s a difficult thing to take a literal interpretation of the second half of the verse (not found in the Tradition of the Church, nor found in the Latin Church, Catholic East, Oriental Catholic, nor Orthodox Churches) but when scripture explicitly says AND…one takes a non-literal view.

Do you know when in history that this first occurred? When in history did someone take the word -]and/-], and effectively put a strike through it?

Curious thing it is.

PnP

However, you have not responded to either of these, but continue to assert the same objection that 1 Peter 3:21 is being taken out of context. I know that I, for one, would be interested in hearing your response, as I’m sure others would too.

Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to defend my beliefs, but please feel free to join me on ChristianForums where I’m permitted to speak freely and I’ll lay out the Biblical and historical basis for the Biblical doctrine of sola fide.

It has been pointed out to you at least three times that you are perfectly free to defend your beliefs as long as you are not derogatory towards Catholocism. Disagreeing with our beliefs is not deragatory so long as it is done charitably. The forum rules for inter-faith dialogue agree with this:

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
*It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith **
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

So I’m not quite sure where you are getting the idea that you are not allowed to defend your beliefs.

 

[South_Bound]

You’ve twice been offered an explanation of why the entire passage supports the Catholic view.

Actually, nobody has been honest enough to post the whole passage. You just keep posting v 21, as though that’s the entire passage.

It has been pointed out to you at least three times that you are perfectly free to defend your beliefs as long as you are not derogatory towards Catholocism.

The problem, I’ve learned from talking to former posters here and lurking long before I started posting, is that virtually any disagreement is deemed “promoting doctrines contrary to Catholicism”.

So I’m not quite sure where you are getting the idea that you are not allowed to defend your beliefs.

From talking to numerous posters who have been banned for doing that.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Actually, nobody has been honest enough to post the whole passage. You just keep posting v 21, as though that’s the entire passage.

Umm . . . I quoted the entire passage (verses 18-22) in the post directly above your response. Did you actually read the whole thing? I’m assuming not since you accused us all of being dishonest.

 

[SteveVH]

Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to defend my beliefs…

Please stop this baloney. I have never seen anyone knocked for defending their position on this forum as along as they are charitable. You have been told this repeatedly and you still return to this self-imposed excuse.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I understand you’re emabarrased at getting caught posting 2 Peter 3:21 and other verses out of context, but if you go back and look at my posts, you’ll see that I included the context with each verse.

I disagree. I discuss that verse with fundamentalists all the time and they have no problem including it.

You baptize infants. How does an infant make an “educated decision to become a Christian”?

How long were the babies you baptized believing for and how do you know?

So, anyone who is not baptized is not a Christian?

Actually, the verse I cited was from Paul, not a “Baptist pastor”.

Second, you still haven’t shown any verses to contradict the verse I posted.

…this, of course, coming from the same guy who thought a Bible verse was just “something a Baptist pastor said”.

Read them and study them all the time.

I can tell you right now, based on twenty-five years of study, that Jesus never says this.

So, perhaps you should take your own advice and read the Bible, yourself.

This is not how catholic answers forums works. We don’t just say “I know you are but what am I” like a bunch of school children. We have lots of theological discussions. I am telling you this because your attitude will get you banned.

I will respond more fully when I have my computer instead of my phone.