Question to protestants about Faith Alone

[KevinT]

As a Catholic, I take joy in my faith. I offer prayers to God, seek intercession from the saints, and request prayers from God's angels for myself and my loved ones. I appreciate Christian art, icons, bas-reliefs, and statues, and I find that praying before these artworks, which teach me about Jesus, enhances my worship. To me, there is nothing idolatrous in this practice; the icons and statues are not objects of worship but visual aids that assist me in focusing on God, similar to how the Bible supports my devotion. I wonder, if someone is offended by these practices, why would they go out of their way to criticize them? What benefit does such criticism bring?

I am a Protestant, and I have had little opportunity to discuss theology with Catholics. I agree that criticism is often counterproductive. But what would you recommend my approach to be if I think a particular theology is in error? I can avoid a conflict, or I can try in as kind a way as possible to show why it seems wrong to me.

As an aside, as I have been experiencing this ChristianForums site, I notice the widely varying beliefs people hold. Many are quite passionate that their beliefs are the "ultimate truth" and discussion leads to defensiveness. But aren't we all supposed to watch out for each other and say something when it seems one is headed in the wrong direction? Perhaps I am wrong, but I will never know if I don't put my beliefs to the test.

Proverbs 27:17 -- As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Water, when referred to as part of one's salvation, is primarily about baptism. It's not a metaphor or a code for the "Holy Spirit." It is the common term for the waters of regeneration, which is baptism.

This is correct. There is a strong relationship between baptism and the giving of the Holy Spirit especially in the Book of Acts.

1. The gift of the HS may come immediately before baptism (Cornelius, Acts 10) immediately after baptism (Acts 8 & 19) or during (Acts 2, 9:17).

2. Additionally, Luke uses stylistic formula of three words to describe the relationship between Baptism and Holy Spirit: receive (λαμβάνω) , gift (δωρεὰν), and promise (ἐπαγγελία). Luke will use all three words with the first baptisms in Acts 2, then use one or more words of this formula in other accounts. Luke also uses the word "filled" (πλησθῇς) in Acts 9:17 not apart of this formula to describe the close relationship between the HS and baptism.

The first evidence of this stylistic formula with all three words Act 2:38-9

• Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive (λαμβάνω) the gift (δωρεὰν), of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise ἐπαγγελία is for you and your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

The relationship of the HS and Baptism using receive (λαμβάνω):

• 8:14-17 Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they would receive the Holy Spirit. 16 (For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
• 10:47 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?
• 19:2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “On the contrary, we have not even heard if there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The relationship of the HS and Baptism using gift (δωρεὰν):

• 8:13, 18, 20 Now even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was repeatedly amazed. But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire the gift of God with money!
• 10:45 All the Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles.
• 11:17 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

The relationship of the HS and Baptism using promise (ἐπαγγελία).

• 1:4-5 4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
• 2:33 33 Therefore, since He has been exalted at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear.
• Luke 24:49 And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

The relationship of the HS and Baptism using filled (πλησθῇς):

• Acts 9:17 7 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[ARBITER01]

Water does not make you part of a family, blood does.

If you're not blood bought into the family of GOD, you're still in your sins.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am a Protestant, and I have had little opportunity to discuss theology with Catholics. I agree that criticism is often counterproductive. But what would you recommend my approach to be if I think a particular theology is in error? I can avoid a conflict, or I can try in as kind a way as possible to show why it seems wrong to me.

As an aside, as I have been experiencing this ChristianForums site, I notice the widely varying beliefs people hold. Many are quite passionate that their beliefs are the "ultimate truth" and discussion leads to defensiveness. But aren't we all supposed to watch out for each other and say something when it seems one is headed in the wrong direction? Perhaps I am wrong, but I will never know if I don't put my beliefs to the test.



Best wishes,

KT

When there is a disagreement on a theological matter, it is advisable to acknowledge the disagreement and calmly explain one's own perspective. However, it is not beneficial to assume knowledge of the other person's intentions or to impose one's own opinions about their beliefs. Additionally, hurling accusations of idolatry is likely to be counterproductive.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Matthew 26:28, “For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.”

1 John 1:7. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Hebrews 10:19 ESV​

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,

Living water is a metaphor used in the Bible to depict the spiritual sustenance and salvation that Jesus Christ offers. The phrase draws upon the life-giving properties of water, symbolizing the spiritual refreshment that comes from accepting Jesus Christ and his teachings

Everything in Christ is sufficient ... EVERYTHING is through Him .... EVERYTHING!

“If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.” “Let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17). “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14).

Water represents the Holy Spirit's ability to refresh us, quench our spiritual thirst, cleanse us, and bring forth life wherever He flows. He is the rain of Heaven, and He is the living river that flows from within. Water is symbolic for the Holy Spirit.

I don’t understand why your are arguing. Jesus commanded us to be Baptized. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel, teaching them to obey all I have commanded you, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is an act of obedience. God says I desire obedience rather than sacrifice. To argue that baptism is of no effect but only symbolic is to ignore a command of Our Lord. We cannot say that we believe Jesus and then proceed to disobey Him. That is oxymoronic and absurd.
What if Abraham ignored God’s command and said I know that it is you that saves me, I get it, so I don’t have to go and sacrifice Isaac. Scripture does not tell us that Abraham believed in God, rather he BELIEVED God. We show that we believe God by doing what He says.

Abraham’s actions showed that he believed, just as our act of Baptism shows our belief. We cannot say we believe Jesus and His Blood saves us then proceed to ignore His direct command. Until a person is Baptized, he has not shown that he really believes. The Gospel of John says that he who believes not is condemned already because he has not believed the only Son of God

You cannot separate Baptism and belief. To do so, is to act in defiance of God and not in humility. We humble ourselves and accept Him as little children. You want us baptized? Yes Lord by all means

 

[KevinT]

When there is a disagreement on a theological matter, it is advisable to acknowledge the disagreement and calmly explain one's own perspective. However, it is not beneficial to assume knowledge of the other person's intentions or to impose one's own opinions about their beliefs. Additionally, hurling accusations of idolatry is likely to be counterproductive.

OK. First of all, let me say that I don't have a particular beef on this issue. But it is different from my perspective, so it might be interesting to explore. You said:

I appreciate Christian art, icons, bas-reliefs, and statues, and I find that praying before these artworks, which teach me about Jesus, enhances my worship. To me, there is nothing idolatrous in this practice; the icons and statues are not objects of worship but visual aids that assist me in focusing on God, similar to how the Bible supports my devotion.

In the OT, God made is very clear that His followers were not to try to make something with physical form to worship him with. There have been figures of bulls, or humanoid shapes that served as idols that have been recovered from ancient history. It is not clear to me WHY God didn't want figures to be used, but it is stated repeatedly. I initially was thinking that this is because God doesn't have humanoid shape. For example, on the mount of transfiguration, the Father appeared as a mist. But there were examples of God appearing in human form, such as to the parents of Samson. So He must have had His own reasons of prohibiting the use of idols. It is unclear to me if the idols at that time were thought to be the god itself, or just a representation of it. There is a passage (I'm too lazy to look it up right now), where God points out how silly it was for people to take a stick of wood, and use part of it to burn in the cook stove, and the other part to make a god to be bowed down to. I.e. how could a stick of wood help them out? So that passage seems to indicate that people thought the figure was the god itself.

In the NT, the situation is different because now we have Jesus, who is both God and man, and He had physical form. So is it now OK to make physical representation of the Deity (Jesus) and use that in worship? God repeats the prohibitions of idols again in Revelation:

Rev 9:20 The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk.

The key point here is what is meant by "idol"? I wonder if the meaning of idols should be expanded in our modern time. Perhaps our reliance on computers could be a metal-based idol? Probably not, but interesting to consider.

You stated that because you are not worshiping the image, but are just using it in your worship, that it is different from an idol. Ultimately this is an issue between you and God, so I will reserve judgement.

Questions: if you had been raised in a different religious environment, do you still think you would use the images for worship? In other words, do you see this as a principle of truth? Or just a cultural familiarity?

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[eleos1954]

Jesus saves by the water and the blood.

This is the One who came by water and blood: Jesus Christ. Not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies that the Christ is the Truth. For there are Three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these Three are One. And there are three who give testimony on earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And these three are one. If we accept the testimony of men, then the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, which is greater: that he has testified about his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God, holds the testimony of God within himself. Whoever does not believe in the Son, makes him a liar, because he does not believe in the testimony which God has testified about his Son. And this is the testimony which God has given to us: Eternal Life. And this Life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son, has Life. Whoever does not have the Son, does not have Life.​

(1 John 5:6-12)

While we remember both "water and blood" at Christ's death as recorded by John, a further significant meaning of these symbols is in the context in which John is writing now. He was particularly concemed to counter the argument that Jesus was only a human being until His baptism, at which time Christ came down upon Him and remained until shortly before His death. This theory was popular among those who believed that things physical were evil-for how could God be part of this evil world? In particular, how could God become a human being? This is why John so explicitly states that "He did not come by water only, but by water and blood" (1 John 5:6, NIV).

Wasn't referring to act of baptism.

"the blood of Jesus" 1 John 1:7 (compare Matt. 26:28; Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:14; 1 Peter 1: 18,19).

Because Christ suffered the ultimate penalty for our sins, He is now able to purify us from all sin. The gift of redemption through Christ is always associated with the gift of holiness. The blood represents the way God has chosen to save us-through Christ's death and cleansing power and baptism is a symbol of that (dying with Him, resurrected with Him). It is the blood of Christ that saves not water baptism.

The symbolism of the Old Testamental sacrificial system, blood was seen as the means of taking away the guilt and consequences of sin. But, of course, this is not literally true. It was not the blood of bulls and goats that actually cleansed from sin. It was God who did this. What God wanted then and wants now is that we understand the seriousness of sin and its consequences, that we seek to be forgiven and healed, and that we come to Him so that all this might be accomplished.

Whoever has the Son, has Life. Whoever does not have the Son, does not have Life.

Whoever has the Son ... not whoever is baptized.

The scripture says that Jesus is sufficient. If you accept Him as your Lord and Saviour, you are baptized in the Holy Spirit. That's what you need, not water.

Matthew 3:11 NIVJesus said that we would be baptised: with the Holy Spirit and with Fire. John the Baptist said: I baptise you with water. Now you see: Water baptism is from the outside to the inside but fire baptism is from the inside out. Water washes, the fire purifies.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Whoever has the Son ... not whoever is baptized.

I will not dwell on the point or continue the argument, as there is neither a need nor an advantage in doing so. I acknowledge that baptism is the method through which the Lord imparts baptismal grace and by which Christians ordinarily receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This understanding is adequate for me.

 

[eleos1954]

Water, when referred to as part of one's salvation, is primarily about baptism. It's not a metaphor or a code for the "Holy Spirit." It is the common term for the waters of regeneration, which is baptism.

Matthew 3:11 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV)“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

 

[eleos1954]

I don’t understand why your are arguing. Jesus commanded us to be Baptized. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel, teaching them to obey all I have commanded you, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is an act of obedience. God says I desire obedience rather than sacrifice. To argue that baptism is of no effect but only symbolic is to ignore a command of Our Lord. We cannot say that we believe Jesus and then proceed to disobey Him. That is oxymoronic and absurd.
What if Abraham ignored God’s command and said I know that it is you that saves me, I get it, so I don’t have to go and sacrifice Isaac. Scripture does not tell us that Abraham believed in God, rather he BELIEVED God. We show that we believe God by doing what He says.

Abraham’s actions showed that he believed, just as our act of Baptism shows our belief. We cannot say we believe Jesus and His Blood saves us then proceed to ignore His direct command. Until a person is Baptized, he has not shown that he really believes. The Gospel of John says that he who believes not is condemned already because he has not believed the only Son of God

You cannot separate Baptism and belief. To do so, is to act in defiance of God and not in humility. We humble ourselves and accept Him as little children. You want us baptized? Yes Lord by all means

Matthew 3:11 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV)“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Was the thief on the cross water baptized?

Water baptism cannot be essential/required for salvation because “Jesus never baptized anyone (John 4:2). If baptism is essential for salvation, why didn't Jesus baptize anyone? Since he did not baptize anyone, how did he save anyone?”

Salvation is a free gift of God. We are saved by grace through faith. The Bible is very clear about how we are saved. Baptism symbolizes salvation but is not a way to earn salvation.

We can't earn salvation by doing anything ... salvation is a gift from God (through faith)

Abraham was not baptized by water ... is he saved? Yes ... by faith through the grace of God. He had faith in God and because of his faith he did offer his son

Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified/symbolized by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.

1 Corinthians 1 (the apostle Paul)

16Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that I do not remember if I baptized anyone else. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with words of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Was Paul being disobedient to a commandment by Jesus? No, or course not.

I will argue it in as far as water baptizing being a requirement to be saved as some might teach ... because it is just not so.

 

[Sunflower39]

Good works is the result of having true faith.

 

[Sunflower39]

God bless your soul for respecting the other denominations such as Catholicism. Hey, both Catholics and Protestants are Christian, so I am glad that you have friends that are Catholic. I am Catholic myself, and respect Protestantism (by the way, the Pope has too much power). I take some Catholic things with a nuanced approach, such as faith and works. I believe faith is precedent to works, though works helps us solidify our faith.

A little word on faith:
Martin Luther said himself: "Good works are the seals and proof of faith, for even as a letter must have a seal to strengthen the same, even so, faith must have good works".

As a Catholic myself, even Luther (a Protestant) goes to show that we must do good with our works, and our lives to help others, so eventually, I will join a volunteer organization at my local Catholic church to help the food bank. So, let us live our lives out glorifying Christ by helping his people, whether that be helping out the poor, holding the door open for someone, helping an elderly neighbor bring in groceries, making art that glorifies God, or making music that has clean and wholesome lyrics. Without good works, our faith will die (James 2:26).

I completely agree with you.

 

[Offline4Better.]

I completely agree with you.

Thank you. Also, Anglicans and Catholics are very similar in many areas, as you are Anglican, if I am not mistaken. I love my Anglican and Lutheran brethren, and Protestants in general. We as Christians all believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, regardless of denomination (except for some fringe groups, sadly) .

 

[Sunflower39]

Thank you. Also, Anglicans and Catholics are very similar in many areas, as you are Anglican, if I am not mistaken. I love my Anglican and Lutheran brethren, and Protestants in general. We as Christians all believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, regardless of denomination (except for some fringe groups, sadly) .

Yes, I'm a High-Church Anglican, and I see many theological and doctrinal similarities with Catholicism. So, while I'm a Protestant, my views and beliefs often align more closely with Catholics than with, say, Baptists. But as you mentioned, we're all Christians, and it's important to focus on showing love and compassion to one another rather than getting caught up in disagreements.

 

[Offline4Better.]

Yes, I'm a High-Church Anglican, and I see many theological and doctrinal similarities with Catholicism. So, while I'm a Protestant, my views and beliefs often align more closely with Catholics than with, say, Baptists. But as you mentioned, we're all Christians, and it's important to focus on showing love and compassion to one another rather than getting caught up in disagreements.

It is good that we are so similar. However, even the Baptists align better with the core teachings of Christ compared to the UCC. The UCC has gone off the deep end, same with the Unitarian Universalist church. Seems that Protestantism and Catholicism are on a spectrum. I am a Catholic myself, but do not say the "Hail Mary", unless a priest tells me to for penance.

But yes, we are all Christian, and must forgive others and show love and peace to everyone instead of quarrel.

 

[Sunflower39]

It is good that we are so similar. However, even the Baptists align better with the core teachings of Christ compared to the UCC. The UCC has gone off the deep end, same with the Unitarian Universalist church. Seems that Protestantism and Catholicism are on a spectrum. I am a Catholic myself, but do not say the "Hail Mary", unless a priest tells me to for penance.

But yes, we are all Christian, and must forgive others and show love and peace to everyone instead of quarrel.

I'm not very familiar with those denominations because they're not as common here in the UK. Most of the churches here are either Anglican or Catholic, with fewer Baptist, Pentecostal, and other denominations.

Yes, I agree, it does seem to vary. In my Anglo-Catholic church, we venerate Mary and the saints, celebrate the Assumption of Mary, and hold an All Souls' Day service. We refer to our service as Mass or the Eucharist, and we have altar servers (I am one and love doing it). I imagine some Protestant denominations might see these practices as 'too Catholic.'

 

[Offline4Better.]

I'm not very familiar with those denominations because they're not as common here in the UK. Most of the churches here are either Anglican or Catholic, with fewer Baptist, Pentecostal, and other denominations.

Yes, I agree, it does seem to vary. In my Anglo-Catholic church, we venerate Mary and the saints, celebrate the Assumption of Mary, and hold an All Souls' Day service. We refer to our service as Mass or the Eucharist, and we have altar servers (I am one and love doing it). I imagine some Protestant denominations might see these practices as 'too Catholic.'

Good. At least the UCC does not exist in the UK. I like your practices. Thank you for serving at the altar. You Anglican guys are the coolest denomination in my opinion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Water does not make you part of a family, blood does.

If you're not blood bought into the family of GOD, you're still in your sins.

A family that meets around a table and communes together, perhaps?

Where can I find the blood which purchased me?

And how can I gain access to where that blood is found?

Biblically speaking, of course.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ARBITER01]

A family that meets around a table and communes together, perhaps?

Where can I find the blood which purchased me?

And how can I gain access to where that blood is found?

Biblically speaking, of course.

-CryptoLutheran

How old are you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

How old are you?

My age is hardly important to this conversation.

-CryptoLutheran