Do sacraments save?

FireDragon76 said:

Show me in the Bible where it uses such language. Everything in the Bible about the sacraments suggests something quite different, that they are effectual signs of our justification, not merely sanctification.



How do you know they won't be? You see, that's not an argument against the sacraments, it's an argument against a particular view of salvation, that it's all about an individual's choice to accept and internalize a religious ideology or affectation.



If they believe in Jesus as Lord, why not? Do you think we are saved by correct theology? If that's the case, then small children most certainly go to Hell, as do the vast majority of adults.



At best, they are a parachurch ministry.

Click to expand...

the divinity of Christ is actually one of the essential things "Believe in me" doesn't just mean acknowledge He existed. But that He was who He claimed to be, and that He died and was resurrected, as He told His disciples He would.

"Jesus was a good man and a good teacher" just isn't a viable position to take on Christ. Because Jesus claimed to be God. either He really is the Son of God, and God come in the flesh. Or He was a crazy man, or demonic. You really can't sit on the fence here.

Jamdoc said:

the divinity of Christ is actually one of the essential things "Believe in me" doesn't just mean acknowledge He existed. But that He was who He claimed to be, and that He died and was resurrected, as He told His disciples He would.

Click to expand...

Are you aware that some non-Christians (as defined by CF's statement of faith) believe in Jesus divinity, at least as they would recognize it?

Now if you mean in terms of Trinitarianism... alot of Christians in the early church didn't believe in it, because the doctrine wasn't formulated as such, and the earliest manuscripts we have of the New Testament don't explicitly mention it. Justin Martyr seems to have been more like a tritheist, and the Didache makes no mention of the Trinity, only describing Jesus as God's "child", without reference to an explicit high Christology.

I very much doubt anybody has been saved because they get theology right. I don't think that's humanly possible. I also think it's less important than living the kind of life that Jesus lived. I think that's all God cares about.

FireDragon76 said:

Are you aware that some non-Christians (as defined by CF's statement of faith) believe in Jesus divinity, at least as they would recognize it?

Now if you mean in terms of Trinitarianism... alot of Christians in the early church didn't believe in it, because the doctrine wasn't formulated as such, and the earliest manuscripts we have of the New Testament don't explicitly mention it. Justin Martyr seems to have been more like a tritheist, and the Didache makes no mention of the Trinity, only describing Jesus as God's "child", without reference to an explicit high Christology.

I very much doubt anybody has been saved because they get theology right. I don't think that's humanly possible. I also think it's less important than living the kind of life that Jesus lived. I think that's all God cares about.

Click to expand...

Jesus tied eternal life to believing in Him, and that'd include His claims to being God.
Obviously you don't have to have an exact perfect conception of the trinity, I don't think any of us really understand the theology of it. But what is important is that when Jesus claims to be the Lord God and the Son of God, you believe Him.

Living like Him is a process that comes after being saved. You'll never get saved if you just try to live like Jesus while not even believing what He says about Himself.

Most of the sacraments will get you "cool points" with God but none of them will actually "save" you in and of themselves except for baptism. Getting a water baptism in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit pretty much will save you, especially when you add repentance and obedience to the mix.

Jamdoc said:

We'll agree on what a saved person lives like, just our orders of operations are different. You have do those things to get saved, I have do those things because you're saved. Problem is, your way doesn't fit with the scripture, and if you're trusting in sacraments and works, you're not trusting in Christ alone. That's the most dangerous place to be in.

Click to expand...

If what you say is true, how were people saved for 1800 years before some preacher stomping a sawdust floor in a camp meeting tent discovered that accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior was the only way to get to heaven?

FireDragon76 said:

If what you say is true, how were people saved for 1800 years before some preacher stomping a sawdust floor in a camp meeting tent discovered that accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior was the only way to get to heaven?

Click to expand...

by faith, the same way that Hebrews 11 and Romans 4 say those in the Old Testament were, the way the bible says they are.

Bible > man's traditions, even church traditions.
Jesus Himself said He was the only way to get to heaven.

Jamdoc said:

by faith, the same way that Hebrews 11 and Romans 4 say those in the Old Testament were, the way the bible says they are.

Bible > man's traditions, even church traditions.
Jesus Himself said He was the only way to get to heaven.

Click to expand...

If faith is what is important, why do you condemn church traditions? How are church traditions opposed to faith? And what does a traditionless church look like?

Xeno.of.athens said:

And you're sure that they are not "saved"? Really?

Click to expand...

I'm sure they're not saved because they have said "I'm not bothered with church and all that stuff."
If they knew and loved Jesus, were full of his joy, and Spirit, they would want to talk about him - and tell me.

My aunt, who was baptised, is a humanist. She actually refused to do voluntary work in a church because - although greatly admiring all the work that they did - she did not want anyone talking to her about God. She would have been offended.

FireDragon76 said:

Show me in the Bible where it uses such language.

Click to expand...

Maybe you have a different understanding of the word "Salvation".
To me, it means being saved from death, which means eternal separation from God, Romans 6:23.

When Adam was told that he would die if he ate the fruit from the tree, that was correct, and he did - spiritually. His relationship with God was changed; he hid from God and was ashamed of his nakedness. He was cursed by God and driven from the garden. From that day onwards, people had to offer sacrifices to approach God - Cain and Abel, Job, Noah. In the OT God spoke to people through the prophets. The relationship between man and God was broken because of sin.

Jesus offered his perfect life as a sacrifice to reconcile us to God, Romans 5:10-11, 2 Corinthians 5:18, Colossians 1:21-22.
He offered his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45.
His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28.
We have been justified by Christ's blood and his sacrifice, Romans 5:1, Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Galatians 3:11, Galatians 3:24.
Jesus is the only Way to the Father, John 14:6, and the only name through which we are saved, Acts 4:12.
We have eternal life through Jesus, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 4:14, John 5:24, John 6:29, John 6:40, John 8:24, John 8:51, John 10:10, John 11:25, 1 John 5:12.

Baptism and celebrating the Lord's Supper do not reconcile man and God, Jesus does.

FireDragon76 said:

How do you know they won't be?

Click to expand...

They will be saved only if they confess that Jesus, who was both man and God, died to save them.
I was not arguing against the sacraments, but was saying that mindlessly taking communion, or having been baptised as a child, is not enough to save. Otherwise, Jesus needn't have died. If saying sorry to God, wanting a new life and going underneath the water/having water sprinkled on you was enough to save, then people who denied God and lived as they wished without him, would be in heaven.
Yes, they may still be if they make a last minute confession/repentance; I don't know if that might happen. But being baptised, alone, is not the way to the Father. Baptism is not the name which saves us, only the name of Jesus.

FireDragon76 said:

If they believe in Jesus as Lord, why not? Do you think we are saved by correct theology?

Click to expand...

In a sense, yes.
If we believe that Jesus was a good man, but not God - as JWs do - then it was a good, but still sinful, man who died on the cross. The book of Hebrews says that a regular high priest offered sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people, Hebrews 5:3, Hebrews 7:27.
Jesus was without sin so could offer his own life as a sacrifice, 1 Peter 1:19-20.

Can someone confess that Jesus is LORD and yet not believe what he said?
JWs say that Jesus was only A god, and do not accept the Trinity.

FireDragon76 said:

At best, they are a parachurch ministry.

Click to expand...

In your opinion.
They are God's children, evangelists and have no doubt been responsible for many coming to faith.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Eating and drinking the body and blood of the Lord gives life and nourishment, baptism washes away sins. These are means by which the Lord accomplishes his purpose, which is the save his people from their sins.

Click to expand...

Baptism doesn't wash away sin, the blood of Jesus does that, 1 John 1:7, Ephesians 2:13, Hebrews 10:19.
Yes, Jesus is present in the Eucharist, but the act of eating bread and wine does not give life. Knowing Jesus, coming to him, receiving forgiveness and reconciliation with God - THAT gives eternal life.
A person can take communion because it is a church ritual and it makes them feel they belong - without knowing Jesus, and understanding that he died for them.
I used to.

Xeno.of.athens said:

I'd point you to scripture but what's the point; your posts already contradict 1 Peter 3.21, so Acts 22:16 will be ignored too. Your posts run cavalier style over holy scripture in their service of doctrine.

Click to expand...

You have quoted 2 verses, out of context, to "prove" your point; ignored all the words that Jesus said, and which I quoted, about eternal life, forgiveness and salvation, the words that Paul wrote about reconciliation and the words that Peter himself said about Jesus being the only name which saves.
And you say that I run cavalier over Scripture!

Xeno.of.athens said:

I've shown you where scripture says baptism saves and washes away sins, how about you pony up with the passages that say baptism doesn't save anybody and that baptism never washes away sins? Or is that too much to ask?

Click to expand...

I've shown you many verses where Jesus says that he saves and gives eternal life, and others, including Peter, say that salvation is inly through him.
How about you show some verses which say that Jesus is not enough, and needs some help to save us? Or is that too much to ask?

FireDragon76 said:

If faith is what is important, why do you condemn church traditions? How are church traditions opposed to faith? And what does a traditionless church look like?

Click to expand...

because church traditions deviate from the scripture. People just accept them over time and for a good period of time a lot of people couldn't even read the bible because it was in Latin. Part of the power play the RCC used. That's why the printing press was so important to the reformation, it got people reading their bibles on their own rather than some priest telling them what it says with their own heavily Greek Philosophy tarnished interpretations (thanks school of Alexandria for poisoning the well like that)
Scripture says nothing about purgatory, indulgences, infant baptism (in fact the scripture supports believers baptism), falling on your face before statues (in fact scripture says DON'T do that), etc.
The Pharisees operated on tradition rather than scripture and Jesus tore their doctrines apart.

Jamdoc said:

because church traditions deviate from the scripture. People just accept them over time and for a good period of time a lot of people couldn't even read the bible because it was in Latin. Part of the power play the RCC used. That's why the printing press was so important to the reformation, it got people reading their bibles on their own rather than some priest telling them what it says with their own heavily Greek Philosophy tarnished interpretations (thanks school of Alexandria for poisoning the well like that)
Scripture says nothing about purgatory, indulgences, infant baptism (in fact the scripture supports believers baptism), falling on your face before statues (in fact scripture says DON'T do that), etc.
The Pharisees operated on tradition rather than scripture and Jesus tore their doctrines apart.

Click to expand...

The notion that infant baptism isn't acceptable isn't found in the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are silent on this issue. Therefore, believer's baptism, as you call it, is a tradition.

Xeno.of.athens said:

I'd point you to scripture but what's the point; your posts already contradict 1 Peter 3.21, so Acts 22:16 will be ignored too. Your posts run cavalier style over holy scripture in their service of doctrine.

Click to expand...

Baptismal regerneration is not a real thing. In all instances in the NT, physical baptism is merely symbolic of 1) the real thing that happened to Jesus Christ when He died for our sins and rose from the dead, and 2) the real thing that happened to us when we died with Christ to sin and rose from the dead to new life in Christ.

This passage in 1 Peter is no exception. Notice verse 18 lays the predicate: He died for our sins and rose again (that is the real thing Jesus did that baptism points to). Verse 20 talks about Noah being saved from drowning by floating above the water in the ark. Verse 21's statement that baptism is an "antitype" is simply a reference to the fact that Jesus' "baptism" was not floating "above the water" to avoid death but he actually "suffered death and rose to life again". We know verse 21's reference to the baptism which saves us is a reference to the real thing that happened to us when we died with Him to sin and rose again to new life in Christ because the verse ends with the phrase, "through [because of] the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Our salvation is not because of water baptism, but "because of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead" (the real thing).

B Griffin said:

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him. (1 Pe 3:18–22)​

Baptismal regerneration is not a real thing. In all instances in the NT, physical baptism is merely symbolic of 1) the real thing that happened to Jesus Christ when He died for our sins and rose from the dead, and 2) the real thing that happened to us when we died with Christ to sin and rose from the dead to new life in Christ.

This passage in 1 Peter is no exception. Notice verse 18 lays the predicate: He died for our sins and rose again (that is the real thing Jesus did that baptism points to). Verse 20 talks about Noah being saved from drowning by floating above the water in the ark. Verse 21's statement that baptism is an "antitype" is simply a reference to the fact that Jesus' "baptism" was not floating "above the water" to avoid death but he actually "suffered death and rose to life again". We know verse 21's reference to the baptism which saves us is a reference to the real thing that happened to us when we died with Him to sin and rose again to new life in Christ because the verse ends with the phrase, "through [because of] the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Our salvation is not because of water baptism, but "because of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead" (the real thing).

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what antitype means in the 1st century Judeo-Hellenic mind of the author. It means that baptism participates in what it is foreshadowed by. It is not "unreal".

FireDragon76 said:

But tracts and street preachers save?

And it's not wine and bread. It's the body and blood of Christ. Bread and wine are merely the outward symbols. We receive both in the sacrament.

Frankly I have no interest in a religion that's just about listening to a Bible lecture by a preacher and singing a few poorly-written songs and calling it "religion". I know far more about religion than most pastors. So unless you do something "religious", I see no reason to be involved in a church. I could as easily sleep in on Sunday mornings or do alot of other more edifying things, besides wasting my time in such a manner.

So sacraments and communal rituals are involved somehow in salvation, or Christianity, as an organized religion, is just a waste of time in an age saturated with lots of other equally compelling images or stories about the world.

Click to expand...

You are the Church, so what you are doing is what the church is doing.
God saves, we either accept or reject His Love in the form of forgiveness (salvation).
When was Christ our example not involved in worship?
When as a modern priest are you not offering yourself up on the altar?