Does water baptism save us

[Butch5]

So according to you, what Robertson says is opinion yet what the church fathers say is inspired? Not so. Their writings are not infallible. Once again, the word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing, Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration." The word "regeneration" is from the Greek word palingenesia, which is taken from two root words "born" and "again." Notice that Ephesians 5:26 says washing of water by the word. Jesus equates living water with everlasting life (John 4:10,14; 7:37-39). Jesus said drink of the water that He shall give us, Paul said drink into one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). So plain ordinary H20 has no power to regenerate man. So Paul is not teaching the Roman Catholic heresy of baptismal regeneration in Titus 3:5 but is referring to spiritual washing/living water/purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (John 3:5; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 1:23). You continue to confuse the picture with the reality. A symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.

I see you’ve begun your presentation with a straw man. I never claimed the ECF’s were inspired. There are in fact history. You presented the opinions of someone living almost 2000 years after the fact. I presented historical evidence of those who were there.
There’s nothing in the text that requires a metaphorical interpretation. Therefore to do so imo is eisegesis. If you look at Ephesians 5:26 you’ll see that your interpretation doesn’t fit the text. The “word” in that passage is the Greek word “rhema” is means a spoken word or command. It’s not talking about the “word of God”, it’s talking about a command that was given. What command was given that pertains to the “Bath of water”?
[SUP]19[/SUP] "Go therefore[SUP]1 [/SUP]and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mat 28:19 NKJ)


It was Paul who wrote the letter to Titus and we can see from Paul's letter to the Philippians that he considered "works of righteousness" as keeping the law.

So baptism is not a work of righteousness but a work of unrighteousness? Matthew 3:13 - Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?" 15 But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him. Water baptism was a part of Jesus fulfilling all righteousness, so it is clearly a work of righteousness. Works of righteousness are not limited to specific works that are detached from the moral aspect of the Law.

This is another straw man. We are looking at what Paul means by the term works of righteousness. I’ve pointed out the Acts 15 and Gal 1-3 deal with this issue. However, Paul addresses it in Titus also.

[SUP]7[/SUP] For a bishop[SUP]1 [/SUP]must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,
[SUP]8[/SUP] but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled,
[SUP]9[/SUP] holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
[SUP]10[/SUP] For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,
[SUP]11[/SUP] whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.
[SUP]12[/SUP] One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
[SUP]13[/SUP] This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, [SUP]14[/SUP] not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth. (Tit 1:7-14 NKJ)

Note Paul’s words they subvert whole households. Look at Luke’s statement in Acts 15.

[SUP]NKJ [/SUP]Acts 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Act 15:1 NKJ)

[SUP]5[/SUP] But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." (Act 15:5 NKJ)

James acknowledges that these people were causing problems among the Gentiles

[SUP]23[/SUP] They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.
[SUP]24[/SUP] Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law[SUP]1 [/SUP]"-- to whom we gave no such commandment--
[SUP]25[/SUP] it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
(Act 15:23-25 NKJ)

This is the issue that Paul is addressing when speaking of works that don’t save.

We could establish our own righteousness if we perfectly kept the Law but this is impossible because we have all broken the Law. So the alternative is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, not through water baptism or any other works of righteousness.

Water baptism is part of faith in Christ.

Where does Paul say that we are "saved by works" of any kind? Did Paul say saved through faith and works in Ephesians 2:8,9 or saved through faith, not works? In 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul said that He saved us and called us, not according to our works.. I'm not seeing a specific category distinction for works that save and works that don't save. Good works in general which follow faith in Christ do not save. [/quopte]

No one is arguing that anyone is saved by works. The works argument is a false dichotomy. The law was given to the Jews, not the Gentiles. However, the Jews believed that the inheritance came through the Law and some suggested that the Gentiles would need to keep the Law in order to partake of the inheritance. Paul argues against this idea. When he says it’s by faith and not by works he is arguing that it isn’t necessary for the Gentiles to keep the Law.

In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To give a brother or sister these things needed for the body would certainly be a "good work/work of righteousness" yet to neglect such a brother or sister and not give them the things needed for the body is to break the second great commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18).

In Matthew 22:37-40, we read: Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Please tell me, which good works could a Christian accomplish that are completely detached from these two great commandments which are found in the Law of Moses? (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). Are there any genuine good works that Christians do which fall outside of loving God and our neighbor as ourself?

I’m not sure what your point is here.

I guess that settles the question for Roman Catholics, who are amazed that Evangelical Christians have the audacity to disagree with the fathers on this matter. It may come as a surprise that Catholics too do not follow the practice of the early church in the administration of this sacrament. For example it was common practice that the candidate was immersed three times, whereas the modern Catholic rite consists of pouring water on the head. Before baptism, the candidate was anointed with "oil of exorcism" while the presbyter prayed, "Let all spirits flee far away from you." Apart from the fact that there is no scriptural warrant for this anointing, they were also mistaken in their belief that this oil served for the remission of sins even before baptism:

Now this is blessed by the high priest for the remission of sins, and the first preparation for baptism. For he calls thus upon the unbegotten God, the Father of Christ, the King of all sensible and intelligible natures, that He would sanctify the oil in the name of the Lord Jesus, and impart to it spiritual grace and efficacious strength, the remission of sins, and the first preparation for the confession of baptism, that so the candidate for baptism, when he is anointed may be freed from all ungodliness, and may become worthy of initiation, according to the command of the Only-begotten (Apostolic Constitutions, XLII)

During baptism, the candidates had to remove their clothing and stand naked in the water. The newly baptized was not allowed to take a bath for a whole week. We do not feel obliged to follow the fathers in their unscriptural inventions, changing the simple ordinance of Christ into a superstition, not to mention their disregard for public decency. (See Tertullian, The Crown; St Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition). These are the same people who insisted on baptismal regeneration.

The church fathers were not infallible and at times contradicted each another, so we must look for a surer foundation for our faith. The ultimate criterion is the Word of God. Even in apostolic times, errors quickly spread among churches. Let's see if the church fathers said anything about salvation through faith in Christ alone.

Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."

Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."

Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."

Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not."

Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, not by works...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."

Chrysostom: "Again, they said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to faith alone, is blessed."

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."

Augustine: "Now, having duly considered and weighed all these circumstances and testimonies, we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ,--in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace."

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God."

That does not sound like baptismal regeneration to me. I'm not hearing saved by works either.

I find it interesting that you dismiss the ECF’s on baptismal regeneration yet post them in an attempt to prove faith alone. Once again the argument is a straw man, no one is claiming that anyone is saved by works. And none of the passages you posted said that Baptism isn’t required. It’s the same argument from silence, pick a few verses of Scripture that speak of salvation but don’t mention baptism and say see, nothing about baptism so that means baptism isn’t necessary only this time it’s the ECF’s The bottom line that it’s an argument from silence which is a logical fallacy.
The Scriptures are the ultimate authority however, many don’t understand them because they try to impose a 21 century American mindset on a 1 century eastern book. Then there are who don’t use proper methods of reasoning and wind up in error.

We can go to the Scriptures.

[SUP]5[/SUP] So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You[SUP]1[/SUP]."
[SUP]6[/SUP] As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek[SUP]1[/SUP]";
[SUP]7[/SUP] who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,
[SUP]8[/SUP] though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
[SUP]9[/SUP] And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,
[SUP]10[/SUP] called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek,"
(Heb 5:5-10 NKJ)
Here the Scriptures refute the faith alone doctrine as it’s understood in modern American. Obedience requires action, action is something one does thus it is work.

 

[notuptome]

Then if one is baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment one believes then why were even water baptized at all if it's just a dead ritual? If it's just a ritual then why did Jesus tell the disciples to baptize in water? (Peter must have thought that is what Jesus really meant because he baptized Cornelius and his family in water) Then Peter and Paul both got it wrong because they both water baptized and yet Paul never said anything about NOT doing water baptism even AFTER he wrote about Gentiles not being circumcised in the flesh? So why didn't write anything along those lines if it's nothing more then a ritual?

Water baptism does not save. Holy Spirit baptism saves. So why baptize in water? Why partake of communion? Why engage in foot washing? Why indeed?

The problem here is that we have imputed virtue to water baptism that is not imputed by God. Water baptism is symbolic.

Through my water baptism I identify with Christianity. I say to the world that I identify with Christ Who is my Savior. Admittedly this would have more meaning if I were an orthodox Jew but it is what it is.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Alligator]

Then if one is baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment one believes then why were even water baptized at all if it's just a dead ritual? If it's just a ritual then why did Jesus tell the disciples to baptize in water? (Peter must have thought that is what Jesus really meant because he baptized Cornelius and his family in water) Then Peter and Paul both got it wrong because they both water baptized and yet Paul never said anything about NOT doing water baptism even AFTER he wrote about Gentiles not being circumcised in the flesh? So why didn't write anything along those lines if it's nothing more then a ritual?

Water baptism does not save. Holy Spirit baptism saves. So why baptize in water? Why partake of communion? Why engage in foot washing? Why indeed?

The problem here is that we have imputed virtue to water baptism that is not imputed by God. Water baptism is symbolic.

Through my water baptism I identify with Christianity. I say to the world that I identify with Christ Who is my Savior. Admittedly this would have more meaning if I were an orthodox Jew but it is what it is.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

you ask why baptize in water? How about because Jesus Himself commanded it.Matt:28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: And please don't tell me this is Spirit baptism.
Of course, there is nothing magical in the water itself. To submit to baptism is simply obeying His command. This is where we come in contact with his blood.

 

[notuptome]

you ask why baptize in water? How about because Jesus Himself commanded it.Matt:28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: And please don't tell me this is Spirit baptism.
Of course, there is nothing magical in the water itself. To submit to baptism is simply obeying His command. This is where we come in contact with his blood.

This is a classic misunderstanding of water baptism. Since you are not ready to leave behind the elementary things such as baptism there is nothing to add.

Your understanding of Mathew 28 is woefully inadequate.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Alligator]

Then if one is baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment one believes then why were even water baptized at all if it's just a dead ritual? If it's just a ritual then why did Jesus tell the disciples to baptize in water? (Peter must have thought that is what Jesus really meant because he baptized Cornelius and his family in water) Then Peter and Paul both got it wrong because they both water baptized and yet Paul never said anything about NOT doing water baptism even AFTER he wrote about Gentiles not being circumcised in the flesh? So why didn't write anything along those lines if it's nothing more then a ritual?

This is a classic misunderstanding of water baptism. Since you are not ready to leave behind the elementary things such as baptism there is nothing to add.

Your understanding of Mathew 28 is woefully inadequate.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

you know it's rather easy to make a condescending accusation , but not quite so easy to back it up is it? Sorry, but just to tell me that my understanding is inadequate will not get it. Back up your claims by Scripture.

 

[notuptome]

you know it's rather easy to make a condescending accusation , but not quite so easy to back it up is it? Sorry, but just to tell me that my understanding is inadequate will not get it. Back up your claims by Scripture.

Are you really ready to think on the scriptures? I doubt it but think on this. Mathew 28 speaks of teaching. Teaching doctrine regarding the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The baptizing is not water but doctrine. The apostles were going to the entire world declaring Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of Jehovah God. They would be required to teach pagans baptized in idolatry about the True and Living God. Look into the contextual evidences of what was written and to whom it is written and you may be able to glimpse what is really being said.

To make water baptism important to evangelism is to be very intellectually shallow. Evangelism is all about Jesus and His blood saving all men who will believe from their sin. This can only source from Holy Spirit filled preaching of Gods word.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Alligator]

Are you really ready to think on the scriptures? I doubt it but think on this. Mathew 28 speaks of teaching. Teaching doctrine regarding the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The baptizing is not water but doctrine. The apostles were going to the entire world declaring Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of Jehovah God. They would be required to teach pagans baptized in idolatry about the True and Living God. Look into the contextual evidences of what was written and to whom it is written and you may be able to glimpse what is really being said.

To make water baptism important to evangelism is to be very intellectually shallow. Evangelism is all about Jesus and His blood saving all men who will believe from their sin. This can only source from Holy Spirit filled preaching of Gods word.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

And just like before, all of this is nothing but your far fetched opinion and speculation. It appears to me that you are the one who needs to think on the Scriptures. But you won't because you can't back up one thing you said with evidence that will stick.
By the way, name-calling is against the rules.

 

[Butch5]

Water baptism does not save. Holy Spirit baptism saves. So why baptize in water? Why partake of communion? Why engage in foot washing? Why indeed?

The problem here is that we have imputed virtue to water baptism that is not imputed by God. Water baptism is symbolic.

Through my water baptism I identify with Christianity. I say to the world that I identify with Christ Who is my Savior. Admittedly this would have more meaning if I were an orthodox Jew but it is what it is.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

It seems Peter anticipated this and answers it.

18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: [SUP]19[/SUP] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; [SUP]20[/SUP] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. [SUP]21[/SUP] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: [SUP]22[/SUP] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. (1Pe 3:1 KJV)

Peter acknowledges that it's not the water that does anything, but rather it's the appeal that is made to God.

 

[Butch5]

Are you really ready to think on the scriptures? I doubt it but think on this. Mathew 28 speaks of teaching. Teaching doctrine regarding the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The baptizing is not water but doctrine. The apostles were going to the entire world declaring Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of Jehovah God. They would be required to teach pagans baptized in idolatry about the True and Living God. Look into the contextual evidences of what was written and to whom it is written and you may be able to glimpse what is really being said.



To make water baptism important to evangelism is to be very intellectually shallow. Evangelism is all about Jesus and His blood saving all men who will believe from their sin. This can only source from Holy Spirit filled preaching of Gods word.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

What basis is there in Scripture to claim that the baptism is doctrine?

 

[notuptome]

And just like before, all of this is nothing but your far fetched opinion and speculation. It appears to me that you are the one who needs to think on the Scriptures. But you won't because you can't back up one thing you said with evidence that will stick.
By the way, name-calling is against the rules.

There is no response but the response already given many times.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

What basis is there in Scripture to claim that the baptism is doctrine?

Context.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Butch5]

Context.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

What context? I'm not aware of anything in Scripture that suggests people being baptize in doctrine.

 

[Alligator]

Context.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

What context? I'm not aware of anything in Scripture that suggests people being baptize in doctrine.

aren't you glad we got all of that cleared up? LOL

 

[Cassian]

This is a classic misunderstanding of water baptism. Since you are not ready to leave behind the elementary things such as baptism there is nothing to add.

Your understanding of Mathew 28 is woefully inadequate.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Yours is even worse. Which is why sola scripturist will never agree on anything. It is one man's opinion pitted against another's opinion. And the chaos continues, what is new!

 

[Jabberjaw]

Are you really ready to think on the scriptures? I doubt it but think on this. Mathew 28 speaks of teaching. Teaching doctrine regarding the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The baptizing is not water but doctrine. The apostles were going to the entire world declaring Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of Jehovah God. They would be required to teach pagans baptized in idolatry about the True and Living God. Look into the contextual evidences of what was written and to whom it is written and you may be able to glimpse what is really being said.

To make water baptism important to evangelism is to be very intellectually shallow. Evangelism is all about Jesus and His blood saving all men who will believe from their sin. This can only source from Holy Spirit filled preaching of Gods word.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The disciples were commissioned to baptize people in doctrine...

You're bag of tricks never ends, you just make things up as you go along...

 

[Kerry]

Question. What would baptism do if there was no cross?

 

[SarahM777]

This is a classic misunderstanding of water baptism. Since you are not ready to leave behind the elementary things such as baptism there is nothing to add.

Your understanding of Mathew 28 is woefully inadequate.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Roger,

You're the one that does NOT understand. Water baptism is the first act and STEP OF FAITH,(Act of obedience,they are one and the same) Over and over and over again in the scriptures,God tells people something and with it goes a RESPONSE to what He told us,look at the snake on the pole,march around Jericho,go wash in the pool,etc etc. God acted ONCE a person RESPONDED to what He told them and NOT UNTIL they did. And again it is NOT baptism itself that saves but it is a FAITH that ACTS that saves,a faith that acts shows that one believes,a faith that does NOT act shows it does not believe nor does it LOVE the Lord. It is so simple a CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND IT.

What has been done is that now is that people only WANT to do mental gymnastics without having to do something in OBEDIENCE or stepping out in FAITH on what Jesus TOLD us to do.

 

[mailmandan]

I find it mystifing that a man in the 21st century thinks he knows what a text might mean who was never taught the Gospel in the first place dismiss a person actually taught by the Apostles.

So because I wasn't alive in the 1st century to actually be taught by the Apostles personally, I can't possibly be right about the Gospel and because someone was taught by the Apostles personally means they must correctly believe everything the Apostles taught them? I find it mystifying how easily you have bought into this flawed human logic.

Whether the 1st century or the 21st century, the Gospel has not changed. It is and always has been the "good news" of the "death, burial and resurrection of Christ" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.. (Romans 1:16). The Gospel is not salvation through water and works. That is a "different" gospel.

Then compares modern RCC which has changed a lot, as his reason to dismiss the early Fathers.

Not according to RCC apologists. They believe that the RCC church has not changed and that the early Fathers historically believed as they believe. Should I believe the RCC? I was reading an article in "The Ex-Catholic Journal" that says some of the writings attributed to the church Fathers have been found to be forgeries, while others have been taken out of context. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the papacy, purgatory and transubstantiation are alleged to be supported in these early writings. I hear Roman Catholics quote the Church Fathers a lot to support their doctrines. The article went on to say that most of the copies of copies of copies of the church Fathers that we possess today were copied during the time that the Roman Catholic church controlled the flow of literature in Europe. We do not have any original copies of their writings, only copies of copies of copies. God promised to preserve His Word, but not the writings of fallible men. Should I believe the Ex-Catholic Journal? "He said, they said" does not settle the issue. The truth rests in "thus saith the Lord" not thus saith the writings of fallible men.

Then uses citations that are dealing with justification by faith as some sort of rationale for addressing baptism.

Justification by faith is not justification by baptism. Faith is not baptism. The writings of the Fathers that I quoted are not in harmony with salvation by baptism. So which set of fallible writings should I believe?

Does any of that make sense?

Your arguments make about as much sense as the arguments that the RCC makes in an effort to use the early Fathers to validate their doctrines and support their works based false gospel.

 

[SarahM777]

So because I wasn't alive in the 1st century to actually be taught by the Apostles personally, I can't possibly be right about the Gospel and because someone was taught by the Apostles personally means they must correctly believe everything the Apostles taught them? I find it mystifying how easily you have bought into this flawed human logic.

Can one say they love the Lord without obedience? Can one say they are saved without obedience? Or does lack of obedience actually show one does not love the Lord and they are NOT SAVED? Didn't Jesus very plainly say that If we love Him we will keep and OBEY His commands? Didn't Jesus command water baptism?

 

[mailmandan]

It is not the CoC that has repentance and faith reversed, you have no room for repentance, you have yourself saved the the moment of belief, so if you are saved the moment you believe then where is there room for repentance, to claim it is after your saved/belief, you have unrepentant men saved, if you have it before saved/belief, you cannot have any idea what to repent of, you see how backwards your plan of salvation is? is it not better to use the plan God made rather than design your own?

The church of Christ gospel “plan” is to hear, believe, repent, confess, and be “water” baptized then you are saved. Here it is reasoned that if one will simply perform these “5 steps,” the believer will thereby be saved after the 5th step is completed.

Notice that this plan places faith before repentance.

To those in the churches of Christ, this is “common sense” because it is believed that ‘one must believe before he can repent.’ This view arises from their understanding of both “faith” and “repentance.”

“Faith” in the churches of Christ is understood as nothing more than ‘intellectual assent” or accepting the facts of the Christian faith. To them it is believing God’s historical testimony about Himself, Jesus Christ, and that of the rest of the Bible.

Repentance on the other hand is understood as moral “self-reformation.”

In regards to faith, those in the churches of Christ often fail to understand that there is a deeper, more substantive aspect of faith which is believing on Jesus Christ for eternal life, and most cannot distinguish between mere intellectual belief or assent from a personal faith that is trusting exclusively in Jesus Christ for salvation. This also explains why they have so much faith in water and works.

The COC will cite that “even the devils believe” (from James 2:19) in their sermons and will contend that even the "faith of devils" is the same as any other faith except that the faith of devils lacks any moral or religious good works.

Thus, their understanding gives rise to their reversal of the scriptural order of repentance and faith. To the contrary, when we consider this in light of Scripture, we find repentance actually preceding Faith:

“…you did not repent and believe him.” Matt. 21:32

“Repent, and believe the gospel.” Mark 1:15

“…repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 20:21

So repentance is a change of mind about our sinful position and need for Christ to save us and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation. If you don't repent then you won't believe the gospel. If you believe the gospel then you already repented in the process of changing your mind and choosing to believe the gospel. The Bible says we are saved when we believe (Luke 8:12; John 3:18; Acts 10:43; 13;39; 16:31; Romans 1:16 etc..) yet according to your plan of salvation, when one believes they are still lost until they complete three more steps after they believe.

No ridicule here, I am simply being straight forward with you, please take some time to consider what I have shared with you. This is a critical topic in which salvation is at stake.

No ridicule taken. Being straight forward is good.

PS: maybe you could explain Romans 10:9-10 to me?

Sure. Confessing with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in our heart that God raised Him from the dead is not two separate steps to salvation but chronologically together. Romans 10:8 - But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart" (together) that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, (notice the reverse order from verse 9 to verse 10) - that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Confess/believe; believe/confess.

1 Corinthians 12:3 - Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except BY the Holy Spirit. There is divine influence or direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a person when confessing Jesus as Lord. This confession is not just a simple acknowledgment that Jesus is the Lord (even the demons believe that), but is a deep personal conviction, without reservation, that Jesus is that person's Lord and Savior. So simply believing in our head (and not in our heart) that God raised Him from the dead does not result in righteousness and simply reciting the words "Jesus is Lord" not by the Holy Spirit from a check list of steps as if they are magic words is not unto salvation. Also, how can confession be made unto salvation in your 5-6 step plan of salvation when you have salvation coming after baptism? That would not be confession is made unto salvation, but confession is made but still no salvation.

Any questions?