The following quotations are from The Book of Romans, by Jim McGuiggan, Montex Publishing Company, Lubbock TX, 1982.
page 129: [begin quote]
But even though one doesn't earn righteousness and even though that righetousness is grounded on the once-for-all, non-repeatable work of Christ FOR us and INDEPENDENT of us, yet this righteousness cannot be laid hold on except by a living and abiding faith. The righteousness is "by faith"! Faith lays hold on it. This righteousness is conditional in the respect that the one who is to be declared righteous must come to Christ in faith. It is unconditional from the standpoint that it wasn't our love for God or our obedience to God which led Christ to the cross. [end quote]
Does this mean that our obedience is unnecessary? Absolutely not!
page 310 continued from same source as above. The author is commenting on Romans 10: 9-10. [begin quote]
What is required for justification is submission to Christ as Lord. (I need hardly emphasize that mere mouth confession is not what Paul has in view ---Matthew 7:21-22.)
This passage is stressing that justification comes to the believer rather than to the earner (or would be earner). It isn't sensible to use the verse as though it were denying one's need to obey Christ in order to salvation. I mean, I hear people quote these two verses to prove that people don't need to be trustingly immersed into union with Christ (see Romans 6:3ff). These verses don't stress faith over against obedience (Paul doesn't contrast these); they stress faith over against earning, law. [end quote]
Many people have continually used the salvation by faith theme to promote their views towards baptism and once saved always saved. This is a an idea that was not heard of before Martin Luther. For the first 1500 years of the church, it was unconditionally believed that baptism (though diluted by Catholicism in sprinkling) was required for salvation, and that apostasy was possible, as preached by Paul.
Now I certainly believe that we are indeed saved by grace alone, and not by anything that we do, but does that mean that this concept can be used as a tool to promote traditions and practices of men as doctrines of God? Is an act of faith, such as baptism a work? Does anyone who is baptised actually believe that they are saving themselves? That's quite a stretch, isn't it?
We live by an obedience of faith. We are obedient as we are able, though being imperfect, we sometimes stumble. We believe and have faith that Jesus, our High Priest will propitiate those sins before the Father.
As such, for a person who becomes a believer, who is unable to be baptized, that may not be held against them. But for someone who claims to be a believer, and delays baptism, when he is able to do so, then what kind of faith is that? Will that person be saved for his lack of faith? Is baptism not then neccessary for those who are able to do so?
page 129: [begin quote]
But even though one doesn't earn righteousness and even though that righetousness is grounded on the once-for-all, non-repeatable work of Christ FOR us and INDEPENDENT of us, yet this righteousness cannot be laid hold on except by a living and abiding faith. The righteousness is "by faith"! Faith lays hold on it. This righteousness is conditional in the respect that the one who is to be declared righteous must come to Christ in faith. It is unconditional from the standpoint that it wasn't our love for God or our obedience to God which led Christ to the cross. [end quote]
Does this mean that our obedience is unnecessary? Absolutely not!
page 310 continued from same source as above. The author is commenting on Romans 10: 9-10. [begin quote]
What is required for justification is submission to Christ as Lord. (I need hardly emphasize that mere mouth confession is not what Paul has in view ---Matthew 7:21-22.)
This passage is stressing that justification comes to the believer rather than to the earner (or would be earner). It isn't sensible to use the verse as though it were denying one's need to obey Christ in order to salvation. I mean, I hear people quote these two verses to prove that people don't need to be trustingly immersed into union with Christ (see Romans 6:3ff). These verses don't stress faith over against obedience (Paul doesn't contrast these); they stress faith over against earning, law. [end quote]
Many people have continually used the salvation by faith theme to promote their views towards baptism and once saved always saved. This is a an idea that was not heard of before Martin Luther. For the first 1500 years of the church, it was unconditionally believed that baptism (though diluted by Catholicism in sprinkling) was required for salvation, and that apostasy was possible, as preached by Paul.
Now I certainly believe that we are indeed saved by grace alone, and not by anything that we do, but does that mean that this concept can be used as a tool to promote traditions and practices of men as doctrines of God? Is an act of faith, such as baptism a work? Does anyone who is baptised actually believe that they are saving themselves? That's quite a stretch, isn't it?
We live by an obedience of faith. We are obedient as we are able, though being imperfect, we sometimes stumble. We believe and have faith that Jesus, our High Priest will propitiate those sins before the Father.
As such, for a person who becomes a believer, who is unable to be baptized, that may not be held against them. But for someone who claims to be a believer, and delays baptism, when he is able to do so, then what kind of faith is that? Will that person be saved for his lack of faith? Is baptism not then neccessary for those who are able to do so?
