KNOW You are saved.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

As a good SS lutheran why don't you share what scripture your recieving this information from?

Phew, for a second there, I thought you were making a Nazi joke about Lutherans and their German heritage...

Anyway, I'm 'receiving' this information from the same passages of Scripture I have consistently quoted. For everyone's benefit, I will post them in full.

Mark 16:16: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Obviously, this verse leaves ambiguity for those that 1. only believe by confession of mouth, and 2. have been baptized but cannot confess their belief.

Again, I'm not suggesting that baptism is necessary for salvation. But those who merely believe have no assurance, for their belief rests upon an invisible act of grace (if you're Lutheran or Reformed) or an invisible act of will (if you're Arminian, Catholic, or Orthodox). But this verse shows that baptism actually adds something to the person; a person who both believes and is baptized can be assured of their salvation?

Why? Let us turn to the other passages.

Romans 6:3-4: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

This is not the 'inward sign of an outward faith' that Baptistic Christians so often talk about. The baptism of which Paul speaks in not an act accomplished by the recipient of baptism, but an act of Christ in the church that renews and transforms the believer.

Look at the actual words, instead of assigning your own meaning to them based on your already-held belief on baptism. Paul writes as through baptism actually does something- baptism is what actually unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection.

I'm not saying that grace alone does not justify us, nor that justification does not occur solely through faith. But the passage clearly speaks of baptism as actually performed the unitive act between the recipient as Christ.

What am I to conclude, then, as a firm believer in sola fide, but that baptism is a visible means by which God exercises his divine grace?

Galatians 3:27-29: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

This, of course, is not about regeneration. But it is about baptismal adoption. This verse speaks in beautiful prose about how, through baptism, the believer because a child of Abraham through Christ (by being united to Christ as per Rom 6:4, above), and thus a child of God.

Is this not grace? Does this not show that baptism is a means through which God pours out his grace on his children?

Now here's a tricky one:

Acts 2:38-39: And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Everybody on each side of the divide loves this verse. On the one hand, it seems a sure place to cling onto the doctrine of infant baptism. On the other hand, it also seems to be a great way to show that baptism should come after repentance, and that it, like repentance, is an act of the person in question.

Yet first of all, I don't think the biblical view of repentance paints penitance as an act of a person's will. Rather, it is a (quite natural) passive reaction to the fear and guilt generated by the Law's (or conscience's) conviction in our lives.

Second, nothing in the passage seems to indicate that however we view repentance, we must view baptism in a similar light. Is it inconceivable that one be an act of human will, where the other be an act of God's?

Third, however we view either baptism or repentance, it remains nevertheless the case that baptism is instrumental in the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Whether one thinks that the gift of the Holy Spirit is salvation or the gift is the Holy Spirit himself (I've seen both interpretations in serious Bible commentaries); in either case, it certainly teaches that baptism, when combined with repentance, brings the believer into a renewed and transformed state.

1 Peter 3:20-21: ...in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

Like the passage in Acts 2, this seems like it could go both ways. This is the most express statement that baptism saves us, for it actually says that, but the text goes on to talk about the difference between the removal of dirt from the body vs. the appeal of a good conscience before God.

So really, it comes down to whether this passage speaks of water baptism or not.

I submit, first of all, that there is no other baptism besides water baptism, and that the 'spiritual baptism' of which Baptistic folks sometimes speak is a construction pulled out of the text unknown to the early church.

Of course, John the Baptism spoke of the later baptism of people with the Spirit, but A. nothing in the texts suggest that the Spirit arrives in the person without corresponding physical sign of water and B. Ephesians 4:5 explicitly states that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

Perhaps the Spirit may come upon a person in power to effect salvation in their lives at a time other than their water baptism; but, and this is the important point I'm trying to make, without the water baptism, neither the person in question nor the church as a whole has any visible, objective sign that assures of the work of the Spirit.

Moreover, in order to accept the Baptistic interpretation of 1 Peter, we have to believe that the apostle was reacting against some form of belief in baptismal regeneration; but it is much more reasonable to conclude that he was speaking against other kinds of washing that were merely of a material nature, like the mikvah rituals of the Jewish people or the baptism of John. Peter is not saying the baptism that saves us is merely of the Spirit, but precisely the opposite- he is saying that the water baptism that saves us is not merely of water, but of the Spirit, too.

seeing as how salvation is a supernatural work i fail to see how baptism saves you. so i can have no change in my heart and just go under the water and i'm saved? you say you gave me scripture. i've yet to see anything backing this up.

See above.

 

[ryanb6]

three times in one verse he says how we are justified

16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Galations 2:16

 

[ryanb6]

again salvation is a supernatural work of transforming the heart of the believer and is only done through faith

 

[Trento]

by john macarthur

First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).
If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.
Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture.
With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis--"because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32.
It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

A third possibility exists, as Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:

It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas--the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit..." (10:47). ​

The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.​

Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13).
So Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. Again, it is not the outward act that saves, but the internal reality of the Spirit's regenerating work (cf. Titus 3:4-8).
I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the transcripts my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6.
In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.
Water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

No one will come to the same conclusion when they use scripture to satisfy their individual purpose. That's why when a false teaching by misinterpreting the scripture came up like the Trinity the Church reverted back to when the New testament was put together to see what was passed on by the Apostles to the first Bishops like Timothy and Titus.Then to others who knew the Apostles like Ignatius who was instructed by Apostles also.
United for 15 centuries, Christianity taught unanimously that baptism regenerates. It is not merely 'Para-Church' organizations but Christianity for 2000 years has thought when it said 'Baptism saves you' (1 Pet. 3:21), it meant 'baptism saves you.' When it says in Scripture 'repent and be baptized for the remission of sins' (Acts 2:38), it meant repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Somehow, these Scriptures don't seem to take up the 'Berean' test. Instead, he focuses on what only can be seen as 'exceptions' and sees those 'exceptions' as the standard for his analysis on baptism.


Justin Martyr (c 145 AD)


Justin the Martyr is explicit about Baptism and regeneration as he explains to the Roman Emperor what the first Christians do.

To the Emperor Titus Aelius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those Christians of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

St. Justin Martyr First Apology, 61[-]As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

​

 

[ryanb6]

so you are saying the scriptures were twisted? you want to back that statement up?

 

[Trento]

so you are saying the scriptures were twisted? you want to back that statement up?

Interpretations are twisted.A cursory look at SDA, JW, Baptists, Lutherans,Quakers, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Christedelphians, Plymoth Brethen, Methodists, Pentecostals, A.O.G. Revival Centres, and all those that come and go etc; of beliefs - all claiming to strictly adhere to what "Scripture Preaches" renders it all of little credibility - and a rejection of God's Word.

 

[ryanb6]

that is the same view of those who say since they are under grace then they can live any life they want to live. they say that you can't have absolute truth even in the bible, and it's just way for them to live worldly lives, but anyway i'll drop it now.

 

[Trento]

so you are saying the scriptures were twisted? you want to back that statement up?

that is the same view of those who say since they are under grace then they can live any life they want to live. they say that you can't have absolute truth even in the bible, and it's just way for them to live worldly lives, but anyway i'll drop it now.

There is a way to know truth as these Protestant Church Historic scholars quote.

Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church --

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

 

[ryanb6]

k

 

[Melethiel]

Argumentation by wall of text is not cool. Would you care to take the time to actually respond to GCC's post?

 

[ryanb6]

who are you talking to? it seems everybody is using a wall of text so who is this directed at?

 

[Melethiel]

You. You're the one who's posted a number of copy/paste articles instead of making an argument.

 

[MarkEvan]

You might want to ask Saint Paul that question.

Why does Paul say:
•1 Cor. 4:4-5 - I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes , for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts.

You make judgement and Paul says not to you are judging that you are saved.


2 Corinthians 13


•1 Cor. 9:27 - I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

Paul is working hard driving his body but but still fears he might not make it.

4For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.
5Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! 6I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test.

Matthew 6

21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

If we cannot draw the conclusio that Christ is in us, why does Paul tell us to do so...........would he tell us to do something that is sin?
And the Lord, would He tell us about the minds eye being single and the consequences of it not being single if He did not intend for us to test whether it were truely single?


I am not advocating once saved always saved, i am however saying that we can at any time know if we are still in the faith.

Mark

 

[Catholic Christian]

I am not advocating once saved always saved, i am however saying that we can at any time know if we are still in the faith.

I, who am known as a by-the-book Catholic, will say that this is a fair statement.

I will just add that the "assurance of salvation", as it is expressed by most evangelicals, is not only un-Biblical, it is dangerous to those who accept it.

 

[Catholic Christian]

You are right I do not know what I will do in the future, non of my post was in reference to the future, it was in reference to now. I know that while I am being obediant "loving the LORD my God with all my heart all my soul, all my mind and all my strength" that I am saved, "he who endures to the end shall be saved," so long as I am enduring in Him I am saved, if we are exorted to testing ourselves by Paul, Peter even Christ himself is it wrong to come to the conclusion that we are saved?



Mark

This is how the old Catholic Encyclopedia defines the sin of presumption:

It may be defined as the condition of a soul that, because of a badly regulated reliance on God’s mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them.​

One wonders how sincere a person’s love for God is when he is so readily willing to sin simply because God is forgiving. God cannot be fooled. He reads hearts and knows our sincerity. To decide to sin is to offend God. To decide to sin because one knows that he can be forgiven is to sin twice. It is to use God, reducing him to a utility at the service of our whim. It is to laugh at his passion and death.

I suggest adapting this prayer from the Divine Mercy Chaplet: "Eternal Father, I offer you the body and blood, soul and divinity of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and for protection against this temptation. For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on me and on the whole world."

 

[ryanb6]

You. You're the one who's posted a number of copy/paste articles instead of making an argument.

haha it was my argument. nice try though. i attacked your argument and you attacked me. i guess you won. congratulations.

 

[ryanb6]

I, who am known as a by-the-book Catholic, will say that this is a fair statement.

I will just add that the "assurance of salvation", as it is expressed by most evangelicals, is not only un-Biblical, it is dangerous to those who accept it.

well then the question becomes how do you make sure you are going to heaven?

 

[Melethiel]

haha it was my argument. nice try though. i attacked your argument and you attacked me. i guess you won. congratulations.

Seriously. I'm not interested in picking apart several pages of MacArthur's work. I'm interested in your position, and if you're capable of defending it yourself. You can take that as a personal attack if you wish, although I'm simply more interested in having a good discussion instead of having blocks of text thrown at me.

 

[ryanb6]

Seriously. I'm not interested in picking apart several pages of MacArthur's work. I'm interested in your position, and if you're capable of defending it yourself. You can take that as a personal attack if you wish, although I'm simply more interested in having a good discussion instead of having blocks of text thrown at me.

ha i showed you my belief. if you can't take that i agree with another man, then don't read it. i'm sorry if you disagree with his view and mine but don't take it out on me.

 

[ryanb6]

you're right blocks of text(or scripture) is wrong and we shouldn't follow it.