Question to protestants about Faith Alone

[eleos1954]

You make a biblical error. We are not saved by faith. We are saved By grace, through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Read Paul’s letter to the Ephesians

Without grace, there is no faith, as faith is one of the theological virtues that come from God alone. We are not saved by faith alone.

A born again soul receives three theological virtues at justification, Faith, Hope and Charity, but the greatest of these is Charity

Charity is defined as divine love. When one has it, he loves God with his whole heart, whole mind and whole soul. We show our love for God by studying and keeping His commandments, not by marching around and saying we have faith, yet do nothing.

1Cor13 says faith by itself without charity is nothing, we are not saved by nothing, we are saved by grace.
Those with charity obey God and get baptized. Baptism took the place of circumcision, so it is not necessary to wait until older. The Eucharist and Confirmation are graces bestowed after the age of reason

It is by the grace of God that we have faith. Faith is a manifestation of the grace of God

We are saved by faith, which is the belief and trust we have in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. Jesus, then, enables us to live in harmony with God's commandments and serve others with love.

If we have faith .... we will have works .... faith first

Baptism is a outward symbol of what has happened inside (saved by faith by the grace of God)

Baptism does not save you because salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ, not from baptism:

Baptism is a public declaration of faith: Baptism is a way to publicly declare our faith in Christ

1. Baptism is a symbol of what has already happened in the heartof someone who has trusted Christ.
   
   
2. Baptism is not a ceremonial act of purification
   
   
3. Baptism follows conversion, not the other way around.
   
   
4. Faith in Christ alone saves: The New Testament says that faith in Christ alone saves.
   
   
5. God's grace saves: God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone saves us.

Romans 10

8But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with your heart you believe and are justified, and with your mouth you confess and are saved.

Circumcision still takes place ... in the heart by Christ.

Colossians 2:11
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ

EVERYTHING IS THROUGH AND BY CHRIST. Not through any ceremonies or rituals performed by us or by any churches or earthly priests.

Christ alone.

1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man. There is no reconciliation except through him. Secondly, it means Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are wholly sufficient to secure our salvation.

If water baptism is required .... then it is not accepting Jesus life, death and resurrection are wholly sufficient to secure our salvation.

 

[eleos1954]

You make a biblical error. We are not saved by faith. We are saved By grace, through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Read Paul’s letter to the Ephesians

Without grace, there is no faith, as faith is one of the theological virtues that come from God alone. We are not saved by faith alone.

A born again soul receives three theological virtues at justification, Faith, Hope and Charity, but the greatest of these is Charity

Charity is defined as divine love. When one has it, he loves God with his whole heart, whole mind and whole soul. We show our love for God by studying and keeping His commandments, not by marching around and saying we have faith, yet do nothing.

1Cor13 says faith by itself without charity is nothing, we are not saved by nothing, we are saved by grace.
Those with charity obey God and get baptized. Baptism took the place of circumcision, so it is not necessary to wait until older. The Eucharist and Confirmation are graces bestowed after the age of reason

Grace is God’s active presence in our lives, which is not dependent on human actions or human response. It is a gift — a gift that is always available, but that can be refused.

Salvation comes through grace—it is a gift from God. It's in the Bible, Ephesians 2:8-9, NIV. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.

 

[BobRyan]

Investigated from scripture as is the case for Heb 8 statement that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father in the heavenly Sanctuary as stated in Heb 8.

There is no evidence in Scripture to support that,

actually it is right there in Heb 8 in the case of Christ as high Priest seated at the right hand of the Father.

Have you read it?

but substantial evidence against it

well that would be a difficult idea to support since Heb 8 already exists.

For example, Scripture attests that God is unchanging, and eternal, and omniscient

ok - but what does that have to do with Heb 8 not being correct or Dan 7 not being correct? Why wouldn't Dan 7 and Heb 8 be just fine with that?

, and these things make the idea of the Investigative Judgement, which requires God to change

There is not one word about "God must change" in Dan 7 or in Heb 8 or in Rom 2:4-16, nor have I made that claim -- it appears that only you bring that up.

Are you reading the posts??

, and exist in linear time, and which seems to contradict His omniscience, in that what is there to investigate?

Clearly you are not yet following the argument.

The courtroom event in Dan 7 - with books opened and reviewed until in vs 22 "judgment is passed in favor of the saints" is not a text claiming "God is learning something as He reads from the books of record". You seem to be making that part up, inferring it or...??? not sure how you get there.

Since God already knows everything, including who will be saved

Yep.

That is the starting point.

you need to start reading the texts, the posts.

On the other hand, there is actual physical evidence which supports the Holy Tradition of the early church, in the form of relics

You must be reading another thread altogether.

 

[BobRyan]

You make a biblical error. We are not saved by faith.

"Saved by grace through faith" Eph 2:8-10

We are saved By grace, through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.

yep

Read Paul’s letter to the Ephesians

Without grace, there is no faith, as faith is one of the theological virtues that come from God alone. We are not saved by faith alone.

Rom 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we also have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we celebrate in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only this, but we also celebrate in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint,

Rom 3: 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

A born again soul receives three theological virtues at justification, Faith, Hope and Charity, but the greatest of these is Charity

Charity is defined as divine love. When one has it, he loves God with his whole heart, whole mind and whole soul. We show our love for God by studying and keeping His commandments, not by marching around and saying we have faith, yet do nothing.

1Cor13 says faith by itself without charity is nothing, we are not saved by nothing, we are saved by grace.

ok

Those with charity obey God and get baptized.

born again , under the New Covenant - they make public confession in Baptism

Baptism took the place of circumcision

no it did not.

circumcision was never the choice of the infant.
circumcision did not apply to females

"he who BELIEVES AND is baptized will be saved"

Mark 16:16 The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Grace is God’s active presence in our lives, which is not dependent on human actions or human response. It is a gift — a gift that is always available, but that can be refused.

Salvation comes through grace—it is a gift from God. It's in the Bible, Ephesians 2:8-9, NIV. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.

You are correct that justification comes from grace alone. It is BY grace THROUGH faith. That begs the question. What is faith?
Is it mere intellectual belief?

Grace is God’s active presence in our lives, which is not dependent on human actions or human response. It is a gift — a gift that is always available, but that can be refused.

Salvation comes through grace—it is a gift from God. It's in the Bible, Ephesians 2:8-9, NIV. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.

You are correct that it is by grace alone that we are saved. The natural man can only determine three things by reason alone. Human reason cannot come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ on its own.
Why? Because saving faith is unreasonable. Natural man can reason that there is a God, God is intelligent, and I am not God. That is it.
Saving faith is unreasonable because there is no earthly benefit to it. Jesus says in order to follow Him, we must deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. No one would do that unless he is called by God. That is grace. We have to die to the world and the lusts thereof. If we have difficulty with sin, then we need cry out to God for deliverance, and He says He will help us.

We cannot say that God’s commands are too burdensome for me now, but I believe in Him, so I will wait until Heaven to be cleansed. That is not faith but mere lip service to God. Our Lord says many will say to me Lord, Lord and He will turn them away because they did not do what He said
James 2:18-20 talks about faith without works is dead and says even demons have that kind of faith but tremble at the thought of God.


If we believe Jesus, we will do what He says, that is faith. He told us to be baptized, not if we purposely decline, then we are not acting in faith and have no claim to the kingdom of God. It is still possible to be saved without being baptized, but those are special circumstances to be left to the judgement of God alone. I am talking about people that deliberately decline baptism and claim God will save them anyway. Do you not know that the Bible also says, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God?

Jesus says if you love me, keep my commandments, baptism is one of them. I do not recommend that it be taught to ignore the Lord’s commands

 

[boughtwithaprice]

"Saved by grace through faith" Eph 2:8-10

yep

Rom 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we also have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we celebrate in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only this, but we also celebrate in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint,

Rom 3: 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

ok

born again , under the New Covenant - they make public confession in Baptism

no it did not.

circumcision was never the choice of the infant.
circumcision did not apply to females

"he who BELIEVES AND is baptized will be saved"

Mark 16:16 The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.

Your last statement is true. We need to believe and be baptized, but it does not necessarily place the two actions in sequential order.

Colossians 2:11-12 clearly states that baptism is the circumcision without hands. Circumcision was done to eight day old infants to make them members of the Old Covenant. They had no way to believe or consent to the covenant, their father did that for them. Some Hebrew children rebelled and did not keep the faith, but it was still the father’s responsibility to have his sons circumcised. The father is the head of the household and is responsible to teach the faith to his family. It is simple for him to begin by having the members of his household baptized. Some may later rebel, but that does not remove the father’s responsibility.
In Acts 16 we read of new converts that then have their households baptized. The Bible nowhere specifically states that baptism is restricted to those that make a confession of faith or reach the age of reason

 

[HarleyER]

So i was watching a random video on youtube featuring a guy named Jeff Durbin, who I eventually researched and found out he is a sidekick to James White's (i think he is at least). Anyway, i found him to be the typical arrogant protestant who just dictates, accuses, and insists what Catholics believe him no matter what is being told to him. I was listening closely as to what he thinks about the whole faith by works, and how he eventually tries to brag and praise himself about how he is the one truly saved because being a christian. So he speaks about the 7 sacraments, purgatory, and just how faith alone is just biblically true and tries to bully random catholics about it.

Here is the video for your reference:

So my question is this. If protestants believe that strongly about faith alone, then why do they care so much to the point that they feel the need to throw out condemnation, judgment, and demonizing at us for how we practice and worship God? Us doing the wrong thing like the sacraments, praying to saints, and whatever wouldn't mean much anyway since it's all about faith alone, right?

There are arrogant people on both sides of the aisle. I've come across people who have left the Protestant faith to become rabid Catholics. It works both ways.

The reason (Reformed) Protestants believe so strongly about faith alone, is that we believe that is the true gospel handed down by the fathers. Consequently, deviation from this truth, from our perspective, is not only heresy but will not save a soul. We see it as a false gospel being perpetrated either knowingly or unknowingly by Catholics and Protestants alike. Think of it like someone coming into the church and saying that you must not only believe in Christ but you must be circumcised. Same thing. We all know how Paul would have reacted to that.

Please keep in mind that many Protestants today do not understand what I would consider correct doctrinal teaching. Thus, you will find many Protestants who are very harmonious with the Catholic Church simply because they believe similar things. Those few true Reformed Protestants are then looked upon both by Catholics and non-Reformed Protestants as troublemakers.

Yes, there are some very extreme Protestants who, without a doubt, could present the gospel message with a little more love and tenderness. But if I stated that the Catholic Church is not following Scriptural teaching, you most likely be repulse at such a statement, think I was some crazy arrogant Protestant, and simply reject what I had to say. You would not think that I'm very loving. But you would be wrong.

 

[Hazelelponi]

-

​

Never heard of Jeff Durbin, but if he is talking about elect, more than likely he is a Calvinist and Calvinist are not faith alone.

He states people are to repent and believe. that is not a faith alone person.

Faith alone is common to all Protestants. I am Calvinist and Faith alone as a monkier just means salvation is through faith in Christ (alone), while faith has works, only faith in Christ saves... Our works add nothing to Christs work of salvation.

That's all it means.

I don't know who these people are, they are probably not very famous.

 

[The Liturgist]

actually it is right there in Heb 8 in the case of Christ as high Priest seated at the right hand of the Father.

No its not. You see, I looked at Hebrew 8, and it says nothing about an investigative judgement beginning in the 1840s.

On the other hand, there is plenty of Scripture proving that God is omnipotent, unchanging, and eternal.

Also there is the important fact that no one in the early church said anything about an investigative judgement, either in canonical scripture or in the many very important Patristic commentaries we have on Hebrews.

Indeed, the fourth century bishops most directly responsible for Hebrews being included in the BIble said nothing about an investigative judgement.

There is not even any record of an esoteric interpretation along these lines. It simply does not say what you assert it does.

 

[The Liturgist]

In Acts 16 we read of new converts that then have their households baptized. The Bible nowhere specifically states that baptism is restricted to those that make a confession of faith or reach the age of reason

I have seen some people actually argue, in response to this very reasonable objection that you have raised, that children aren’t people and so don’t count as members of a household. This is of course despite the command given by our Lord “suffer the little ones to come to me.” @Ain't Zwinglian has addressed this subject on several occasions and might also have something to say, although he has probably already said it, and regrettably people haven’t paid attention, despite the validity of his arguments concerning many issues of sacramental theology.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Investigated from scripture as is the case for Heb 8 statement that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father in the heavenly Sanctuary as stated in Heb 8.

Well Hebrews 8 is comparing the Old and New Covenant. Christ is there as mediator aka high priest.

It mentions nothing of 1843 or this priesthood coming to an end or cleansing transformation.

That is your interpretation of the scripture and not scripture itself. Since interpretation comes from the imaginations of men and not God, I would ask you again if you have evidence that proves what you say is true?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I have seen some people actually argue, in response to this very reasonable objection that you have raised, that children aren’t people and so don’t count as members of a household. This is of course despite the command given by our Lord “suffer the little ones to come to me.” @Ain't Zwinglian has addressed this subject on several occasions and might also have something to say, although he has probably already said it, and regrettably people haven’t paid attention, despite the validity of his arguments concerning many issues of sacramental theology.

The fact remains that there are no explicit instructions in scripture that restrict baptism from all members of one’s family. There is no scriptural teaching on age of consent either.
It’s amazing to me that Apostolic faith teaches grace through baptism without works by the recipient. They are washed with water and justified and cleansed by grace alone in the Apostolic tradition.

But here comes the faith no works Protestants that say oh no, you can’t do that. A person has to do the WORK of reason before they can ask for baptism, you can just hand it out by grace like it’s a free gift of something, but wait a minute, doesn’t scripture say it is a free gift and not of yourselves? So what is the problem with baptizing infants of believers?

It’s simple and straight forward in the Apostolic tradition and makes logical sense when we accept it in faith. Protestant logic says grace is free, but you have to work to get it, but it’s free, but you have to be able to work but it’s free
We go round and round and round in the circle game.

Then they call our faith a works based religion.

Can we begin to see the absurdity?

I love the Protestants in their desire to serve God, but it looks like you are being tricked into believing a circular argument that leads nowhere.
Narrow is the way, straight is the gate that leads to life. It does not go in a circle

I am not trying to insult you, but following your logic. If salvation is free, which it is, then there is no problem with baptizing my baby. If we had to work for it then we could boast. I am old enough for baptism and you are not, nah nah na nah nah.
Absurd, there is no boasting in salvation, it’s free. Baptize your babies, for the love of God

 

[The Liturgist]

But here comes the faith no works Protestants that say oh no, you can’t do that

Well if its any consolation, only a minority of Protestant churches take the anti-sacramental, Memorialist or Zwinglian approach and reject the baptism of infants. The greater number of Protestant churches do baptize infants, including but not limited to the three largest groupings, the Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians, as well as most Methodists and Congregationalists, and I think some Pentecostals, and presumably some of the non-denominational evangelicals, do baptize infants. And indeed the most robust defender of infant baptism on the forum is my dear friend @Ain't Zwinglian

 

[The Liturgist]

I am not trying to insult you, but following your logic. If salvation is free, which it is, then there is no problem with baptizing my baby. If we had to work for it then we could boast. I am old enough for baptism and you are not, nah nah na nah nah.
Absurd, there is no boasting in salvation, it’s free. Baptize your babies, for the love of God

I agree with you. I don’t see why you’d think that would insult me - you realize I’m Orthodox, right? I agree with the Roman Catholic Church on a wide swathe of doctrine including such issues as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, liturgical worship, the intercession of the saints, prayer for the dead, the veneration of the Theotokos, the veneration of the Saints, and their relics, and the holy Icons, and also those ecumenical councils held in common between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, either through joint participation in the case of the Eastern Orthodox, or doctrinal alignment, in the case of the Oriental Orthodox (whose theology rejects Monothelitism and Iconoclasm, which were the subject of the sixth and seventh ecumenical synods). Additionally I greatly admired Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, and had he remained Pope I might well have joined the RCC, and I love the beauty of the traditional Tridentine, Mozarabic and Ambrosian masses and other traditional liturgies in use in the RCC.

My prayer is for an ecumenical reconciliation between traditional Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, the Continuing Anglo Catholics, the Confessional Lutherans, and the traditional liturgical Methodists who have followed the liturgical instructions of St. John Wesley (who stressed the importance of weekly communion during a period of time when this had unfortunately become extremely uncommon in England and Wales, and also attempted to revive the Patristic practice, which is preserved in the Eastern churches, including the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, of fasting not just on Friday, but on Wednesday as well.

 

[BobRyan]

Well Hebrews 8 is comparing the Old and New Covenant.

Heb 8 says this -
Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain..

So then
1. A real sanctuary in heaven
2. Made by God
3. The PATTERN from which Moses took to make a miniature basic model for the sanctuary in the wilderness.
4. Christ ministers as High Priest in that sanctuary in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
5. If He were on Earth He would not be a priest at all.

None of those details in heaven - seen/reported by any other NT writer. We know it from scripture.

Christ is there as mediator aka high priest.

yep

It mentions nothing of 1843

nor of 31 AD or 34 AD or whenever you might want to say the date was for Christ's ascension to heaven to take up that role as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary -- yet there it is in Heb 8.

or this priesthood coming to an end or cleansing transformation.

Heb 9:

8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,



11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things having come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all time, having obtained eternal redemption. ...

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, ...

18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And almost all things are cleansed with blood, according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these things, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

Heavenly things , in the heavenly sanctuary - cleansed with "Better sacrifices" - ie the blood of Christ.

The heavenly holy place rather than an earthly one.

That is your interpretation of the scripture and not scripture itself.

We just read it. Just when you say "no cleansing" mentioned - we see in chapter 9 "the cleansing" in heaven.

 

[BobRyan]

The fact remains that there are no explicit instructions in scripture that restrict baptism from all members of one’s family. There is no scriptural teaching on age of consent either.

It says that the one who HEARS and is baptized -- it does not say "the one that does NOT hear but is baptized shall be saved".

R.C. Sproul had a debate with John MacArthur a few years ago and freely admitted that there is not one example of infant baptism in scripture. And that is interesting since Sproul practices infant baptism.

It’s amazing to me that Apostolic faith teaches grace through baptism without works by the recipient.

IT does not teach baptism for one that does not hear the gospel.
This is irrefutable. It just isn't there.

Mark 16:16 The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.

 

[d taylor]

Faith alone is common to all Protestants. I am Calvinist and Faith alone as a monkier just means salvation is through faith in Christ (alone), while faith has works, only faith in Christ saves... Our works add nothing to Christs work of salvation.

That's all it means.

I don't know who these people are, they are probably not very famous.

-
​

But, there is a big but to many who profess faith alone and they add it is faith alone, but you must repent of sins, be obedient, produce fruit, etc.. if not that just shows you were never a true believer or if you fall away then you were never a true believer.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I agree with you. I don’t see why you’d think that would insult me - you realize I’m Orthodox, right? I agree with the Roman Catholic Church on a wide swathe of doctrine including such issues as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, liturgical worship, the intercession of the saints, prayer for the dead, the veneration of the Theotokos, the veneration of the Saints, and their relics, and the holy Icons, and also those ecumenical councils held in common between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, either through joint participation in the case of the Eastern Orthodox, or doctrinal alignment, in the case of the Oriental Orthodox (whose theology rejects Monothelitism and Iconoclasm, which were the subject of the sixth and seventh ecumenical synods). Additionally I greatly admired Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, and had he remained Pope I might well have joined the RCC, and I love the beauty of the traditional Tridentine, Mozarabic and Ambrosian masses and other traditional liturgies in use in the RCC.

My prayer is for an ecumenical reconciliation between traditional Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, the Continuing Anglo Catholics, the Confessional Lutherans, and the traditional liturgical Methodists who have followed the liturgical instructions of St. John Wesley (who stressed the importance of weekly communion during a period of time when this had unfortunately become extremely uncommon in England and Wales, and also attempted to revive the Patristic practice, which is preserved in the Eastern churches, including the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, of fasting not just on Friday, but on Wednesday as well.

Sorry for misunderstanding I was trying to follow the logic of a Protestant that refuses infant baptism yet claims salvation is free. I know you are Orthodox, sorry again for ambiguity

I was not addressing all Protestants, only those that restrict infant baptism

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Heb 8 says this -
Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain..

So then
1. A real sanctuary in heaven
2. Made by God
3. The PATTERN from which Moses took to make a miniature basic model for the sanctuary in the wilderness.
4. Christ ministers as High Priest in that sanctuary in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
5. If He were on Earth He would not be a priest at all.

None of those details in heaven - seen/reported by any other NT writer. We know it from scripture.

yep

nor of 31 AD or 34 AD or whenever you might want to say the date was for Christ's ascension to heaven to take up that role as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary -- yet there it is in Heb 8.

Heb 9:

8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,



11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things having come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all time, having obtained eternal redemption. ...

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, ...

18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And almost all things are cleansed with blood, according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these things, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

Heavenly things , in the heavenly sanctuary - cleansed with "Better sacrifices" - ie the blood of Christ.

The heavenly holy place rather than an earthly one.

We just read it. Just when you say "no cleansing" mentioned - we see in chapter 9 "the cleansing" in heaven.

What you read were the effects of Our Lord’s death and resurrection. The benefits of which were immediately available to all believers.
It says nothing of waiting until 1843 for it to happen.
It contrasts Old and New Covenant, not a third covenant of 1843

Do you have evidence things are as you say?

 

[The Liturgist]

Sorry for misunderstanding I was trying to follow the logic of a Protestant that refuses infant baptism yet claims salvation is free. I know you are Orthodox, sorry again for ambiguity

I was not addressing all Protestants, only those that restrict infant baptism

Indeed, I was baptized as an infant and I strongly support the practice. Children should be baptized as soon as they are born or their parents are received into the Church.