Saved by faith alone?

[Everlasting-Grace]

It has always been my understanding of all scriptures that salvation is something of a process.... much like being under the old covenant was something of a process... the sign of being under the old covenant was circumcision. But the Jewish people were also expected to follow the laws of God in order to "be saved". They were not "earning" salvation, they were simply doing what was asked of them by God.
The new covenant is similar in many ways.... we don't "earn" salvation, it is freely offered.... we simply accept it. But to fulfil our part of the covenant, we do what we are asked to do.... belief that Jesus died for us, faith that he saves us, and obedience to his commands. Our visible sign that we are in full agreement with the covenant is baptism.... just as circumcision was for the old covenant.

In that sense, it is a requirement.... we don't do it to "earn" salvation, we do it to show that we have willingly accepted the free gift of salvation. If we refuse to do that, how can we say that we have taken part in the covenant? If a Jewish man said, yes, I want to be a part of Abraham's tribe, with all the benefits thereof, but I'm not doing the circumcision thing.... would he have been truly been a participant in the covenant? Of course not....

And if we don't make that clear to someone wanting to be a part of this new covenant, then we are failing them. But, this is why I think that baptism should be done as soon as a person accepts Jesus into their life.... it is their public statement that they are part of the new covenant.... plus, as scripture tells us, it is an appeal to God for a clear conscience through Jesus' death and resurrection, and it is for the forgiveness of sin. And, it is to receive the Holy Spirit, as scripture tells us.

Why would anyone want to leave any of that out? Just for "convenience" ??

one problem with this is that non of the OT law was part of anyone's salvation.

In fact. When Moses was given the law. He was told to make the children of Israel confirm that they would heed and obey every word. Hence it required perfection. cursed is the one who does not meet this standard.

God knew they would (could) not meet this standard. so he instituted the sacrificial system. This was used to show them the evil of their sin, and the cost. that an innocent had to die for them to be forgiven.

They did not have to follow the law in order to be saved. the law condemned them.. They were told to follow the law and be circumcised as a sign between God and them as a nation, and in turn he would bless them as a nation and be their God (He later in Lev 26 showed them what would happen if they did not obey him, including military defeat)

But non of that had anything to do with them being saved..

Abraham believed, and at that moment he was saved.

The bible says that we too would be saved the same way. By believing..not by doing (see romans 4)

again, like them, if we are Gods children, and we obey, we will be blessed. if not. we too will be punished..l but that has nothing to do with our eternal state. Our eternal state and forgiveness is based on the sacrifice.. the cross.

As Jesus said, as moses lifted the serpent, so to must he be lifted. that whoever believes will not perish.

if you look at what Jesus mentioned. Israel was being bitten by snakes. So they were dead. with no Hope.

Only those who in faith looked up were saved. the others suffered their fate and died.

That is salvation in a nutshell.. Look to christ in faith..

he who believes is not condemned, he who does not believe is condemned already.. their death sentence is certain unless they look up.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

It is a process...
I think many people see it as a fairy touching you on the head and saying "poof, you're saved!" I don't see it as a "poof" moment and you're done.
It is a process.... it is a free gift, but as with any covenant you enter, it requires participation from both parties in the covenant.

then it is not free. It costs your participation. And salvation is not a gift. it is something we earn. a wage for meeting our part of the agreement.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I do not believe in "works-based salvation" nor have I ever.

Is this so?

Since you believe that obedience is not necessary for salvation, should I label you as a follower of Hyper-Grace?

I await your reply.

you just contradicted yourself.. Obedience is works. if you believe it is required. you believe in works for salvation.

 

[mailmandan]

"but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Exactly, ONLY unbelief results in damnation. NOT not being baptized.

Amen! John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

You made this up!!!

Jesus shed His blood "because" our sins were already forgiven? Have you no bounds? He shed His blood "so that" our sins would be forgiven.

Do ANY of these verses say "because of" in your Bible?

There is NO version of the Bible, either old or modern that translate ANY of these verses in such a way as to imply "because of".

Nor are there ANY versions in other languages that translate ANY of these verses in such a way as to imply "because of".

Regardless of what the ENGLISH word "for" can mean, it is what the GREEK word "eis" means. And it certainly does not mean "because of".

Are you and others so blinded by faith alone regeneration theology that you are willing to go down this absurd road. Did every Bible translation, in every language get it wrong by not using "because of".

If Luke wanted to write "because of" in Acts 2:38 he simply would have used "hoti" which means "because of" in Greek. A word Luke was very familiar with since he used it well over 150 times.

I would like to hear from other faith alone regeneration theology followers about this notion. Do you agree with this?

This is proven to be in error using the word itself.

In matt 12: 41. the people of ninevah repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.

if was on the account of. or because of the preaching of Jonah that the people of Ninevah repented

There are many more examples

even in english, we can prove the same word can be used in different ways

1. I phoned the Doctor for (in order to) some medicine.

2. I phoned the Doctor for (in behalf of) my child.

3. I phoned the Doctor for (on account of) my sickness.

4. I phoned the Doctor for (with respect to) the bill he sent.

so your argument that it ONLY is translated one way is false.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

James 2:24 states that we are justified by works and not by faith alone so was the reformation wrong?

James did not contradict Paul in romans 4. so who and why did James say those words. what were the people claiming?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Baptism is in the bible for a reason but you and others ignor and/or disregard it and claim it doesn't mean what it simply says. Tell the Lord it's meaningless.

Mark 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The above is pretty simple znd clear in Jesus own words. Jesus appears to have been important to the Lord.

belief + baptism = salvation

Belief is inextricably linked to baptism, one being dependent upon the other tied together by a conjunction. It can't get any simpler or clearer than that!

Here is your problem.

It does not say he who believes and is not baptised is damned, it just says he who does not believe is damned

Using this line of reasoning, Whoever believes is baptized, there is no and if. And using this with John 3. where jesus uses the same words. yet does not mention baptism.

it is spiritual baptism in reference in Mark, not water physical baptism.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Amen! John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the name of the only begotten Son of God.

its amazing how they pick and chose verses. yet deny or ignore the verses which prove them wrong.

 

[Cameron143]

Good point.... and it follows that, if hearing and believing were all there is to it, then Peter would have said "what should you do? Nothing! You're done! You have heard, and you have faith, that's all you need! "

What did Peter tell the crowd of new believers?

I'm simply making the distinction between what is necessary to be saved and what will be subsequent to it. Of course there are so many things that will accompany this newfound life in Christ. Old things have passed away and all things have become new. All these things that you and others have written concerning should be expected and so much more.

 

[hornetguy]

"but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Exactly, ONLY unbelief results in damnation. NOT not being baptized.

You are playing word games with the word of God....

 

[hornetguy]

He that jumps in a river and swims will survive.
He that does not swim will not survive. Jumping into the river is understood. Not being able to swim does not kill you, unless you jump in the river.

If you believe and are baptized, you will be saved..... if you don't believe you won't..... it is understood that if you don't believe, you certainly won't be baptized. It doesn't have to be stated. It's understood...

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

You are playing word games with the word of God....

How is this, can you explain?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

He that jumps in a river and swims will survive.
He that does not swim will not survive. Jumping into the river is understood. Not being able to swim does not kill you, unless you jump in the river.

If you believe and are baptized, you will be saved..... if you don't believe you won't..... it is understood that if you don't believe, you certainly won't be baptized. It doesn't have to be stated. It's understood...

Yet in John 3, No mention of baptism.

You are playing word games (using your own argument)

If it is spiritual baptism. it will automatically happen.

john 3 and mark 16 can not contradict.

 

[hornetguy]

I'm simply making the distinction between what is necessary to be saved and what will be subsequent to it. Of course there are so many things that will accompany this newfound life in Christ. Old things have passed away and all things have become new. All these things that you and others have written concerning should be expected and so much more.

I agree..... personally, I think that being saved happens when you accept Jesus... BUT all the other "parts" of the process are necessary.
If you have accepted Jesus, and then drop dead of a heart attack, I would assume your salvation is secure.... God knows your heart.
If you accept Jesus and say "I'm definitely NOT going to be baptized, because that would be a WORK...." .... not so much. You are refusing to participate in fulfilling YOUR part of the covenant.

Like the old joke.... if you're sitting on the roof of your flooded house, and God sends a guy in a boat that says, all you have to do to be saved is get in the boat, and you say, NOPE.... that would be a WORK, and I'm not doing any WORKS at all to be saved... you die.
The guy in the boat was a free gift from God, all you have to do is get in...

 

[hornetguy]

How is this, can you explain?

Read post 611

 

[hornetguy]

Yet in John 3, No mention of baptism.

You are playing word games (using your own argument)

If it is spiritual baptism. it will automatically happen.

john 3 and mark 16 can not contradict.

And in 1 Peter 3, there is no mention of belief, faith, grace.... just baptism.... you want to keep playing word games?

"If it is spiritual baptism. it will automatically happen."

If it was only spiritual baptism, why did the apostles and the church practice water baptism for a couple of thousand years?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

And in 1 Peter 3, there is no mention of belief, faith, grace.... just baptism.... you want to keep playing word games?

"If it is spiritual baptism. it will automatically happen."

If it was only spiritual baptism, why did the apostles and the church practice water baptism for a couple of thousand years?

if it is water baptism. Why did Jesus not mention this in John 3, 4 5 and 6?

You keep saying I am playing word games. You need to check your own word games.

You can't practice spirit baptism. it happens to you automatically, so it is of no doubt that the early church did not practice this. they could not do it. No man can baptize us with the spirit baptism required.

it was foretold by John the baptist (he will baptize with the HS and fire)

It is spoken of by paul in multiple places (romans 6, 1 cor 12 and gal 3 to name a few)

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Boy, you really showed him.

Some Pontifications aren't worth bothering with. You can play if you like.

 

[hornetguy]

if it is water baptism. Why did Jesus not mention this in John 3, 4 5 and 6?

again..... if it is mentioned anywhere, it is a part of the process.
The fact that all the parts of the process are not mentioned in EVERY scripture is not evidence they are not needed. Otherwise, nothing would be required except baptism, per 1 Peter 3....
Read again my example of jumping in the river and swimming.

it was foretold by John the baptist (he will baptize with the HS and fire)

and, scripturally, we receive the Holy Spirit when we are water baptized....
incidentally, how many people do you know that were baptized with fire?

It is spoken of by paul in multiple places (romans 6, 1 cor 12 and gal 3 to name a few)

And Paul still participated in, and taught, baptism with water and the Spirit... because that is what Jesus told us to do.

 

[Mem]

and, scripturally, we receive the Holy Spirit when we are water baptized....
incidentally, how many people do you know that were baptized with fire?

I was baptized at 14 following a sermon about baptism and an end of service call to be baptized (in water by Rev. Dr. Dennis) from which I emerged from feeling self-conscious about, having on a wet white shirt and walked away soaking wet, notwithstanding the many congratulations and happy fellows. However, I was not baptized in fire until ten years later by the Lord Jesus Himself (who baptizes with fire), from which I spring up from dancing and skipping like a newborn calf with no earthly witnesses apart from He Himself and the hosts of heaven.

@Cameron143 posed a question on a thread asking something like, 'are everyone in hell's sins forgiven?' and I have been trying to process the answer to that question since because it seems to me that would require a 'yes' answer. And here is why, I think so:
In the OC, everyone was condemned to hell (or death), with exceptions of those who had faith, because all sinned according to the law but David was a man after God's own heart, so he was an exception, and he was recognizant (?is that the right word?) of God's favor even while he pleaded for it.
In the NC, everyone's sins are forgiven, with exception of those without faith, because according to grace Christ died for the sins of the world but Judas was a man of perdition, so he was an exception, and he did not recognize (acknowledge?) God's favor (He called him 'friend') even while he repented of his sin.

I think that sufficiently answers that question, although I'm not so sure how well.