Do sacraments save?

Jamdoc said:

you keep saying that, but I literally quoted the 39th Festal Letter of 367 A.D. and showed that not all the currently recognized OT was in it?

like are you just not reading and just recycling the same statement over and over like a mantra?

Click to expand...

As I said, Athanasius is credited with the first list of NEW TESTAMENT(NT) books. Go back and read what I said. The final list of 73 books, which included all of the OT books, was approved by the two councils, Hippos and Carthage, AFTER that, in the late 300s. I have told you that before those councils the lists changed, in other words, the Catholic Church had not settled the matter. I have also said that the process of choosing the books spanned centuries. In the first centuries mass readings did vary from area to area, with a book being accepted in one place and not another. The Catholic Church was well aware that a large number of Jews had rejected the Gospels and rejected some of the OT books. However, the Church recognized that it was under no obligation to follow the Jews who had rejected Jesus. Likewise, as to the NT, Revelation had been in dispute quite late in the process. The matter was settled by those two councils in the late 300s.

The 39th festal letter of our holy father HH Pope St. Athanasius the Apostolic is notable for containing the earliest recognized list that matches the subsequently-accepted-as-standard NT cannon, not the OT. Not that this even really matters, since the Biblical canon has always been varied even within a given communion -- that's one of the major reasons why the debate over the specific number of books that make up the canon really only makes sense or for that matter even occurs among western Christians (Catholics and Protestants). Nobody else cares about this, since we've had our own Biblical canons for many centuries, without a figure equivalent to Martin Luther who could be conceivably accused of messing with the previously-accepted canon.

B Griffin said:

Jesus had better lines of communication with God the Father than anyone in history, past, present or future. By His own admission, He neither did nor said anything that He didn't first see or hear from the Father. He even knew what people were thinking. When He said Abraham saw His day and was glad, He wasn't referencing a document, He was relating His personal experience with Abraham. He is the Creator. He is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person. In Him all the fullness of the Godhead exists. He has within Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He is God. So, Jesus has enough graviatas on His own, with no outside help, to answer their question directly from His own knowledge of the truth.

Besides, Jesus confronted their "not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Mt 22:29) when He said, "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mt 22:31–32)

Click to expand...

but his reasoning for why they were in error with their question was "you don't know the scriptures". If this was all direct revelation novel concepts, that preface makes no sense, and, would that answer be accepted by unbelieving Sadducees? That's the thing. Jesus expanded on existing scripture when talking to the Religious Jewish Elite of His day, He didn't do a lot of direct revelation novel concepts, and when He seemed to, they made moves to kill Him, they didn't accept His answers. Here they just accepted His answer, and to them if it wasn't based in a writing that at least some considered Holy scriptures it'd just be rejected as baseless. Again these people did not believe Jesus was Messiah, much less the Son of God. To them He was a charlatan, a charismatic conman. That's why they kept trying to trip Him up with questions, they didn't believe Him. This Sadducee question was one of those, an attempt to trip Jesus up with a question that they felt was not covered in scripture so He'd have no basis to answer it except making something up that would implicate Him as teaching a sin, in this case adultery or polyandry.

His answer was instead, to point out that marriage was made because men die, after the resurrection, they won't die anymore, so marriage is unnecessary.
But that doctrine is not in the 39 books of Protestant OT canon, maybe a Catholic or Orthodox could answer if that doctrine is introduced in one of the deuterocanonical books?

Valletta said:

As I said, Athanasius is credited with the first list of NEW TESTAMENT(NT) books. Go back and read what I said. The final list of 73 books, which included all of the OT books, was approved by the two councils, Hippos and Carthage, AFTER that, in the late 300s. I have told you that before those councils the lists changed, in other words, the Catholic Church had not settled the matter. I have also said that the process of choosing the books spanned centuries. In the first centuries mass readings did vary from area to area, with a book being accepted in one place and not another. The Catholic Church was well aware that a large number of Jews had rejected the Gospels and rejected some of the OT books. However, the Church recognized that it was under no obligation to follow the Jews who had rejected Jesus. Likewise, as to the NT, Revelation had been in dispute quite late in the process. The matter was settled by those two councils in the late 300s.

Click to expand...

I never debated the 27 New Testament books, why'd you keep using the 39th Festal Letter then if the OT changed after that? That didn't help your argument.

are they counting Nehemiah as a book of Ezra?
are they counting 1 and 2 Samuel as part of the 4 books of Kings?
because those 3 books still aren't explicitly in the lists of either of those 2 Synods

Jamdoc said:

I never debated the 27 New Testament books, why'd you keep using the 39th Festal Letter then if the OT changed after that? That didn't help your argument.

Click to expand...

It's not an argument, it's part of history. It's important that those religions that accept the New Testament books know that the number and order that is part of their tradition came from the Catholic Church. Don't you think a comprehensive version of history is warranted for someone who is misinformed about over a thousand years of history?

Jamdoc said:

Okay, but a person still has to make effort to go out and be baptized or take communion, it's still an act they are doing. They can't just wake up one day being baptized while they didn't lift a finger to get baptized (and no, infants don't count. Acts 8) and just accept it.

Click to expand...

By the same token a person has to "make effort" to pay attention when someone preaches the Gospel. And infants do count (Acts 10).

But no, hearing the Gospel is not a work, God works through the Gospel to create faith (Romans 10:17), and it is that faith--as pure grace--which saves because that faith receives what God gives--passively.

In the same way, the baptized passively--not actively--receive what God gives in baptism.
In the same way, the one who receives the Lord's Supper passively receives what is given, that the broken body and shed blood of Christ which was broken and shed for their forgiveness gives that forgiveness (1 Corinthians 10:18).

The faith which God works in us by His work--preaching the word, baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc--receives what He gives. We don't do that. The will is passive in the reception of God's gifts.

Hence in the Lutheran Confessions,

"God’s Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man’s will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion.
...
Therefore, before conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it." Source: The Formula of Concord ~ Epitome

The baptized no more does anything in their baptism than the person who hears the Word does something in hearing the Word. It is always and only by the grace of God alone. It is not the work of paying attention when hearing the Word, nor is it the work of going to the baptismal font that saves. It is the grace alone, the power and work of God alone in God's Means of Grace which works faith, gives us the gifts, saving us.

-CryptoLutheran

This whole "That's a work!" paranoia is so weird and off-putting. Like, gee, sorry we're expected to actually do things.

In my own Church's tradition, when the celebrating priest holds aloft the paten on which the holy Body is present and proclaims "The Holy Body of Jesus Christ our God!", we respond in one voice while in full prostration "Amen!" What else is there to do? Should we instead be seated quietly and simply think about and give our mental/intellectual assent to what has been presented, so as to not be seen as potentially engaging in a 'work' by prostrating ourselves, or saying a set reply, as it is established as part of the text and rubrics of our liturgy? If so, why? We are not afraid of physicality in worship. We are not afraid of the body. God has not given us or anyone a spirit of fear, and so, barring the holy fear of the Lord which is the beginning (not the end!) of wisdom, we have no fear, and worship as a people who see the things that our holy fathers have given us to do when they composed our liturgies by the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who is the Lord and the life-giver, as the cooperation with God that is essential to our partaking in the divine nature (St. Paul the Apostle)/becoming like God. (St. Athanasius the Apostolic).

How can anyone let fear of work close them off to that which is offered to everyone? How does that not amount to an at least implicit denial of Christ Who is Himself our means to and destination in the the struggle of Theosis -- the eternal journey of becoming more and more like God by our cooperation with Him, through Him, and in Him? Exactly Whose body do the people who think this way imagine they would receive should they perform the 'work' of participation in the holy sacraments?

ViaCrucis said:

By the same token a person has to "make effort" to pay attention when someone preaches the Gospel. And infants do count (Acts 10).

But no, hearing the Gospel is not a work, God works through the Gospel to create faith (Romans 10:17), and it is that faith--as pure grace--which saves because that faith receives what God gives--passively.

In the same way, the baptized passively--not actively--receive what God gives in baptism.
In the same way, the one who receives the Lord's Supper passively receives what is given, that the broken body and shed blood of Christ which was broken and shed for their forgiveness gives that forgiveness (1 Corinthians 10:18).

The faith which God works in us by His work--preaching the word, baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc--receives what He gives. We don't do that. The will is passive in the reception of God's gifts.

Hence in the Lutheran Confessions,

"God’s Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man’s will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion.
...
Therefore, before conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it." Source: The Formula of Concord ~ Epitome

The baptized no more does anything in their baptism than the person who hears the Word does something in hearing the Word. It is always and only by the grace of God alone. It is not the work of paying attention when hearing the Word, nor is it the work of going to the baptismal font that saves. It is the grace alone, the power and work of God alone in God's Means of Grace which works faith, gives us the gifts, saving us.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

1. Faith without Works Is Dead​

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?[a] 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. James 2:14-26 RSVCE

Valletta said:

It's not an argument, it's part of history. It's important that those religions that accept the New Testament books know that the number and order that is part of their tradition came from the Catholic Church. Don't you think a comprehensive version of history is warranted for someone who is misinformed about over a thousand years of history?

Click to expand...

Not when the specific subject matter at hand was the Old Testament. I never once debated about New Testament books. It was purely Old Testament that they weren't consistent on.

ViaCrucis said:

By the same token a person has to "make effort" to pay attention when someone preaches the Gospel. And infants do count (Acts 10).

Click to expand...

Acts 10 does not suggest anything about infant baptism in fact let's look at the passage regarding baptism

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Click to expand...

First let's be clear, what causes the remission of sins, baptism? No. whosoever believeth in Him.. in Jesus.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit indwelt the people as they believed, before any water baptism. They heard the Word of God regarding Jesus, they believed, and were saved.
bam.
no sacraments, no good works, they were saved by faith alone at that moment.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Click to expand...

The condition for them being baptized was them receiving the Holy Ghost, them being saved.
wow, it sounds like it supports Believer's Baptism, not infant baptism.

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Click to expand...

They got baptized AFTER they got saved.

If that is not the passage of Acts 10 you were referring to, I pray tell me what was, because I see in it support for Believer's Baptism, and being baptized after salvation not before or as a means of salvation.

ViaCrucis said:

But no, hearing the Gospel is not a work, God works through the Gospel to create faith (Romans 10:17), and it is that faith--as pure grace--which saves because that faith receives what God gives--passively.

In the same way, the baptized passively--not actively--receive what God gives in baptism.

Click to expand...

There is a distinct difference. Someone will approach me with the gospel. I was approached with the gospel multiple times before I believed it (to be fair the first few times I was too young to understand it, and was actually presented the Catholic version of the gospel, by works. I knew pretty much right off the bat once I understood the concept of sin that there was no way you were working your way in. So I rejected that. But anyway, that's passive. I was minding my own business, and people I knew approached me to witness to me, my neighbors kept planting seeds in me until they took root. True, it took an invitation to VBS to actually get a better gospel presentation that made sense to me and Jesus seemed so amazing that I wanted to meet Him finally. The Catholic presentation of it had Jesus as the Son of God but I was supposed to save myself through my own works, and why Jesus was important didn't make sense if I was doing the work. God seemed impossible to please and so I wasn't pleased with God. However, learning that I could not please God, and I was surely condemned, yeah, I resonated with that, even the most righteous claiming people, that Catholic daycare I went to, were wicked sinners, I could see that in people, and myself.
To learn that not only was Jesus the Son of God but He actually DID something for me, I deserved to go to hell, and He died to take my place?
Made way more sense, and made all the difference from being indifferent to the Son of God to loving Him. From that point on, I may have struggled with other hard questions of theology, and had doubts in infallibility of the bible, etc... but what I did trust, what I did know, was Jesus. That was all I had to take hold on, so I did.
The rest has been a process of trusting the Word of God over time, and frankly, the teachings of men have made that harder, and not just the teachings of men in the world, but teachings of men within the church, "church traditions" etc.

So sure, I did accept the invitation to go to VBS, and went there, but I'd been passively receiving seeds the whole time, some good, some bad seeds to be fair. The bad seeds made the good seeds harder to take root.

Now on the otherhand... nobody's ever tried to baptize me while I'm just minding my own business, unlike witnessing and sharing their faith, I have to go and find a church, I have to find a church that even has a baptismal, I have to go enough to become a member of the church, I gotta have clothes I don't mind getting wet, similarly communion, the church in question doesn't just give that to anyone who walks in the door.

It's a far cry from just hearing the Word of God about Jesus and believing it.

ViaCrucis said:

In the same way, the one who receives the Lord's Supper passively receives what is given, that the broken body and shed blood of Christ which was broken and shed for their forgiveness gives that forgiveness (1 Corinthians 10:18).

The faith which God works in us by His work--preaching the word, baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc--receives what He gives. We don't do that. The will is passive in the reception of God's gifts.

Click to expand...

But are people just walking up to you on the streets and offering you communion and baptism? No. You have to actively seek those things out, and be a part of a church, and it won't be on the first day you go in there. Baptisms in particular may need to be scheduled if they do them outdoors in natural bodies of water.

It's a significant difference between hearing and believing, vs seeking out a church to get baptized and take communion.

ViaCrucis said:

Hence in the Lutheran Confessions,

"God’s Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man’s will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion.
...
Therefore, before conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it." Source: The Formula of Concord ~ Epitome

The baptized no more does anything in their baptism than the person who hears the Word does something in hearing the Word. It is always and only by the grace of God alone. It is not the work of paying attention when hearing the Word, nor is it the work of going to the baptismal font that saves. It is the grace alone, the power and work of God alone in God's Means of Grace which works faith, gives us the gifts, saving us.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

except they sought out a church to have it performed on them, vs Christian acquaintances actively seeking them out as a part of the great commission.

Jamdoc said:

The condition for them being baptized was them receiving the Holy Ghost, them being saved.
wow, it sounds like it supports Believer's Baptism, not infant baptism.

Click to expand...

Whole households were baptized. Baptism saves us and God continues to save us.

Valletta said:

Whole households were baptized. Baptism saves us and God continues to save us.

Click to expand...

I just showed how they were saved prior to baptism, that they had the Holy Ghost and that was the PREREQUISITE to being baptized with water, as for whole households, let's go into that

Acts 16

27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Click to expand...

#1, the condition is not baptism it's believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, single step, not multiple sacraments to save.

Now I can see how you'd infer from that verse that the guard being saved would also save his entire house, but, in the next verses:

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Click to expand...

Okay, so we see, that the "and thy house" was the invitation to believe on Christ, because they didn't just save and baptize the guard and consider all his household saved because of that, and baptize them all, but they went and preached to his household, they believed, then they got baptized and rejoiced.
But the pattern remains the same, they were preached the Gospel, they believed, they were saved, and then they got baptized.
Baptism only has significance if they believe first.

Show me scripture for infant baptism and baptism of unbelievers (which infants are capable of believing so..)

Jamdoc said:

I just showed how they were saved prior to baptism, that they had the Holy Ghost and that was the PREREQUISITE to being baptized with water, as for whole households, let's go into that

Acts 16

#1, the condition is not baptism it's believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, single step, not multiple sacraments to save.

Now I can see how you'd infer from that verse that the guard being saved would also save his entire house, but, in the next verses:

Okay, so we see, that the "and thy house" was the invitation to believe on Christ, because they didn't just save and baptize the guard and consider all his household saved because of that, and baptize them all, but they went and preached to his household, they believed, then they got baptized and rejoiced.
But the pattern remains the same, they were preached the Gospel, they believed, they were saved, and then they got baptized.
Baptism only has significance if they believe first.

Show me scripture for infant baptism and baptism of unbelievers (which infants are capable of believing so..)

Click to expand...

The parents spoke for the faith of the infants, that's the way it has been for God's people. Infants were circumcised in OT times, Baptism replaced circumcision. The faith of the parents is enough, realize that Jesus wants the children to come to him. Jesus would not deny infants to be saved.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Why do you oppose infant baptism in churches in which you have no interest because you are not a member? It cannot be because failure to be baptised according to the form you prefer will endanger the soul because you deny that baptism saves. It cannot be that failure to baptise according to the form you prefer will mean failure to do works that God requires for salvation because you deny that works play any role in salvation. And since your posts have indicated that baptism is "a public profession of faith" it cannot be that not being baptised according to the form you like is to lack a public profession of faith since Catholics and others who baptise infants make public open profession of faith in confirmation and at communion. So what difference does it make, objectively speaking, for people to baptise by pouring water over the head rather than submersion and to administer it in infancy rather than in 'adulthood'? It looks as though your theology on baptism amounts to a it being a symbolic gesture that is easily replaced by any number of alternatives that make one's faith a public matter.

Click to expand...

Because the doctrine is unbiblical. as I said what is being done is not biblical baptism but just getting babies wet. One should not consider one saved by an infant baptism. Now confirmation? Okay that sounds salvific, as they have to believe on Jesus Christ for salvation right? So there you go. That's better than saying 'well they're saved because they got baptized as a newborn"
I suppose the question comes then, if you have someone who was baptized in the Catholic church as a newborn, but then does not go to confirmation and communion, are they saved?

Valletta said:

The parents spoke for the faith of the infants, that's the way it has been for God's people. Infants were circumcised in OT times, Baptism replaced circumcision. The faith of the parents is enough, realize that Jesus wants the children to come to him. Jesus would not deny infants to be saved.

Click to expand...

There's an age of accountability and to be fair, the closest thing to a biblical example of it is extremely generous of God. In Numbers 32 the age is 20 where God holds the Israelites accountable for their sins and forbids anyone over 20 at the time aside from Joshua and Caleb from setting foot in the promised land.
But I ask you as I asked Xeno, newborn child is baptized in a Catholic church, but then grows up and does not go through confirmation and communion, are they saved?

Jamdoc said:

There's an age of accountability and to be fair, the closest thing to a biblical example of it is extremely generous of God. In Numbers 32 the age is 20 where God holds the Israelites accountable for their sins and forbids anyone over 20 at the time aside from Joshua and Caleb from setting foot in the promised land.
But I ask you as I asked Xeno, newborn child is baptized in a Catholic church, but then grows up and does not go through confirmation and communion, are they saved?

Click to expand...

There's no age of accountability for Baptism in the Bible. What age do you think that is and why? Being saved is not a one time event. Certainly opening our hearts to the graces God gives us through the sacraments of confirmation and communion can only help, and we have hope we will be saved. The Bible tells us we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Valletta said:

There's no age of accountability for Baptism in the Bible. What age do you think that is and why? Being saved is not a one time event. Certainly opening our hearts to the graces God gives us through the sacraments of confirmation and communion can only help, and we have hope we will be saved. The Bible tells us we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Click to expand...

there's scripture evidence (2 Samuel 12, Matthew 18 and 19) of children being saved but it wasn't by baptism in unbelief.as an infant.

as I said the closest thing to an actual age, is 20, and I get that from Numbers 32 where the Israelites under the age of 20 would be allowed to see the promised land, as well as Caleb and Joshua who were obedient to the Lord. all the rest over the age of 20 were held accountable for sin and disbelief that God would deliver the Canaanites into their hands so God forbid them enter the promised land and had them wander the wilderness for 40 years until they all died.
It is admittedly a stretch, but the closest thing to a numerical age where people are held accountable for sin.

as a tangent to this question, what do you believe is the destiny of a stillbirth or abortion victim? They are never born alive and thus not baptized, nor could receive the gospel and believe it, so by the ways that each of us would say is salvific, they wouldn't have those. I believe they are still taken to Jesus and saved, because thy are unable to be accountable for any sin.

But anyway, if the baptism does not save them why are you considering it salvific? If they fail to do confirmation and communion and are thus not saved, then baptism didn't save them, right? I would point to confirmation as being closer to salvific.
Because would confirmation satisfy Romans 10:9?