Saved by faith alone?

[LouisBooth]

"Now we have here: The requirement to repent, and the requirement to be baptised. "

No verse makes these a requirement. If you want to be techincal about it he says, 'what SHOULD' we do, not what do we have to do or we will loss our salvation. As for the Acts passage you can't say for sure it is not the baptism Jesus spoke of which is of the Holy Spirit, and not the water ritual. In Acts 19 we see that these people were baptised "with John's baptism" ie water and repentance, but then they were then baptised with the true baptism, ie the Holy spirit which is the one refered to in Acts 23 also

 

[Thunderchild]

Baptism into Christ Jesus is NOT baptism into the Holy Spirit, LouisBooth - as declared by Acts 8.

Act 8:14 - 16 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

And as shown by the record of Acts 2, baptism into the name of Christ Jesus is baptism for the remission of sins - John's baptism being a baptism of repentance.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Act 11:11-14 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Act 10:47-48 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

The record of Acts 11 expands on those events described in Acts 10. And in Acts 10, it is stated that forbidding water would have prevented the people concerned from being baptised - even they who had already been baptised into the Holy Spirit. Peter COMMANDED them to be baptised into the name of the Lord. So much for baptism is nice but it isn't really necessary.

Now as to your objection regarding "should" - If a thing should be done, there are alternative actions which may be undertaken, but only that which should be done is rightful.

If you want to be techincal about it he says, 'what SHOULD' we do

Well yes, I do "want" to be technical....just how technical are you willing to try to withstand? With regard to the word "should" or "shall" as provided in various translations - this is a matter of the translators' opinions. The word does not appear in the Greek texts - which most accurately are rendered "What is to be done." However, "should" directly relates to "shall" as its past inflected form.

Main Entry: shall

Inflected Form(s): past should present singular & plural shall
verbal auxiliary
1 archaic a : will have to : MUST b : will be able to : CAN
2 a -- used to express a command or exhortation <you shall go> b -- used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory <it shall be unlawful to carry firearms>
3 a -- used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future <we shall have to be ready> <we shall see> b -- used to express simple futurity <when shall we expect you>
4 -- used to express determination <they shall not pass>

 

[LouisBooth]

"Baptism into Christ Jesus is NOT baptism into the Holy Spirit, LouisBooth - as declared by Acts 8."

it is accoring to the passage I quoted you. Look it up for yourself. In chapter 19 they say we have just been done by John's baptism, IE of repentance and WATER. See the difference? Chapter 8 also talks about this..they were of water baptism, but not TRUELY baptised. The ONLY baptism that you must have is of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said it himself in John 3. Two births, one of water and one of the Spirit.

Umm..Your defination of the english language is good, but the bible isn't in english, its a translation.

 

[Thunderchild]

Act 8:12 - 17&nbsp; But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were <B>baptized</B>, both men and women. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:1-6 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" And they said unto him, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." And he said unto them, "Unto what then were ye baptised? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with other tongues and prophesied.

&nbsp;

But it is of course, possible to make the record of Acts 19 look as though Paul laying hands on these people was the means by which they were baptised - it is necessary though to ignore the stated fact in the Bible (and perish the thought that anyone should actually believe the Biblical record) that Baptism into the name of Christ Jesus is not the same thing as baptism into the Holy Spirit.

(Oh yes - Ephesus was a maritime city of Asia Minor, capital of Ionia and under the Romans, of proconsular Asia, situated on the Icarian Sea between Smyrna and Miletus - not within coo-ee of Samaria.)

&nbsp;

 

[LouisBooth]

"that Baptism into the name of Christ Jesus is not the same thing as baptism into the Holy Spirit."

That's not something you can assume because 1. you're alive today and not then so you can't make a purely judgement call and 2. the passage does allow for that interpretation.

 

[Thunderchild]

Acts 8:12-17 explicitly states that the people had been previously baptised into the name of Jesus Christ. It further explicitly states that the people had not been baptised into the Holy Spirit - that they had not even heard of the possibility.

Acts 8:12-17 eliminates any possibility that Paul baptised people into the name of Christ by laying hands on them (Acts 19:1-6) Not that it should be necessary to call on Acts 8 as evidence - the fact that "they were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus and when Paul laid hands on them the Holy Spirit came upon them," is all the evidence that should have been necessary. The word translated as and in that passage is [font="BSTGreek,Symbol,Greek"] kai,[/font] not [font="BSTGreek,Symbol,Greek"] te.[/font] Even if it had been "[font="BSTGreek,Symbol,Greek"] te,[/font]" it would give rise only to an ambiguity - it would not show with certainty that laying on of hands was the means by which they were baptised into the name of the Lord. And of course, the other relevant passages would definitely then be needed to show the interpretation (that it was through the laying on of hands) to be in error.

 

[Thunderchild]

quoting LouisBooth:If you want to be techincal about it he says, 'what SHOULD' we do, not what do we have to do or we will loss our salvation.

quoting self: With regard to the word "should" or "shall" as provided in various translations - this is a matter of the translators' opinions. The word does not appear in the Greek texts - which most accurately are rendered "What is to be done."
Now as to your objection regarding "should" - If a thing should be done, there are alternative actions which may be undertaken, but only that which should be done is rightful.

quoting LouisBooth: Umm..Your defination of the english language is good, but the bible isn't in english, its a translation.

I already said that.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Acts 8:12-17 explicitly states that the people had been previously baptised into the name of Jesus Christ. It further explicitly states that the people had not been baptised into the Holy Spirit - that they had not even heard of the possibility. "

Exactly, baptism by the Holy Spirit, not a water ritual.

"eliminates any possibility that Paul baptised people into the name of Christ by laying hands on them "

Agreed. I don't advocate laying on hands baptism. The first passage shows that something else is going on besides them just getting dunked. Thus we must conclude it has NOTHING to do with the water, and we are confirmed by Christ's words in John 3. It is a baptism of the Holy Spirit. The water ritual is something we should do, but don't have to.


"which most accurately are rendered "What is to be done.""

And I believe in the past I showed you how that the word "should" is implied by other passages sharing the same emphasis.

Final conclusion: Faith alone

 

[Thunderchild]

If water is not necessary to baptism, how does one explain Peter's statement "who can refuse water , that these be not baptised."

Refusing water would have prevented baptism.

 

[eldermike]

1PE 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Water = Symbolic
Baptisim = "Alive by Spirit"
Christ died - Once
We are made alive - Once

 

[LouisBooth]

Great explaination Elder

 

[Thunderchild]

Indeed - Noah and family's salvation through the flood is the anti-type of baptism. Baptism is effective in salvation only because of the resurrection of Christ Jesus, not because it washes dirt from the flesh. To make it seem as though baptism is representative of anything demands a wholly invalid interpretation of the text. "represents the baptism which now saves us" is the correct wording for the clause: "baptism represents that which now saves us" is not.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Is there a definition in the scriptures that clearly explains the true doctrine of faith only? The words faith and only come together only once in the bible. (James 2:14-26)

No, faith alone is never stated, and on the contrary, it is condemned by James, which is why Luther inserted "alone" into his German translation and which is why Luther called James an "epistle of straw" and tried to throw it out all together.

 

[eldermike]

The word faith is used in several senses, for the most part, in the NT. (pistis) means: Intellectual belief or belief formed by charity or belief not formed by charity and also assurance or hope. There are others, but not necessary to list them all here.
(pardon my simple explanation, this is a huge issue of doctrine)

The issue with forming doctrines dealing with faith was actually one of deciding a sense for the word in each passage where it occurs attempting to make the sense uniform to our understanding of God's nature in slavation.

Without this knowledge we can't even begin to understand one another's position on the issue of faith. Was Paul saying: that intellectual knowledge with no work is proof positive that you are not saved? Or was he saying that God formed a faith in you and it died because you didn't keep it correctly? Or was Paul saying that attempting to form a faith in your power leads to death? It's not actually a simple answer.

Because we are not experts in NT Greek and especially because we are biased we must agree to disagree or put forth a real intellectual or formed argument supporting our issues.

Formed belief - means we disagree on what James said for good reasons, that being, one of us is wrong.
Intellectual belief - means we agree and don't know it, it's just that one of us is using the wrong sense.

I will leave it to a higher power.
Who was it that said: "it's not what we know that causes trouble, it's what we know that ain't so"

Blessings

 

[Ben johnson]

Indeed - Noah and family's salvation through the flood is the anti-type of baptism. Baptism is effective in salvation only because of the resurrection of Christ Jesus, not because it washes dirt from the flesh. To make it seem as though baptism is representative of anything demands a wholly invalid interpretation of the text. "represents the baptism which now saves us" is the correct wording for the clause: "baptism represents that which now saves us" is not.

"BAPTISM" means "immerse". It can be in WATER, it can be in FIRE; it can be in the Holy Spirit, it can be in Christ. I just gave you four separate and distinct baptisms, and only one of them refers to water. Eph4 says "one BAPTISM"---which is that? Water? Fire? Holy Spirit? Christ?

That's right---Christ; THE baptism, Romans 6---"immersed, buried, UNITED". All three terms (Rom6:3-5) mean IN CHRIST, and none of them mean water.

Salvation is IN CHRIST. Salvation is BELIEVING. Not "mere belief", but belief that RECEIVES CHRIST. Belief that surrenders to His Lordship, that HE becomes MASTER of us; a mastery of love. "I have been CRUCIFIED with Christ, it is NO LONGER I WHO LIVE but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by FAITH in the One who loved me and died for me." Gal2:20

THAT is why salvation is by FAITH ALONE. "For by grace have you been saved through faith"; not "through faith AND this AND that", but "by grace through faith". Not just any faith---faith, slash-belief, that receives Christ..

Either Christ is IN a person's heart, or He is NOT. Black and white, cut and dried. Christ is IN our hearts because of our OWN FAITH. "For with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

James does NOT say "justified by faith + works", he says "justified by faith AND works"---which is to say, if Christ is IN YOU, then you will HAVE SAVED FAITH.

James COMPLIMENTS Jesus' words in Matt7 (no good tree produces bad fruit, no bad tree produces good fruit---you will know them by their fruit/works). Faith, that PRODUCES no good works, is USELESS, is NOT SAVED.

Is it clearer now?