Featured IF Water baptism requirement for salvation, another Gospel?

Absolutely not!!
There is no evidence that the pope is even a saved man. He is a depraved sinner just like any other man.
The Catechism is a document full of heresy and doctrine, which, if believed, will send people to hell.
The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. It alone is the inspired word of God.

 

In fact you are mistaken on Catholic theology. However, James does not contradict Paul for Paul says

and again

and again

 

You misunderstood the statement. Read it again. The Pope and the Catachism are good authorities for what the RCC teaches. How can you disagree with that?

 

For what the RCC teaches? I suppose.
It would be better for them if they turned to the Word of God though.

 

Faith in Jesus is the only requirement for spiritual rebirth and salvation, not faith plus an outward ritual, not faith plus following the opinions of the RCC or any other denomination.

The will of the Father and Jesus's teaching and example were that no violence be done to another, especially not in His name. Guess that means that the Catholics and Magisterial Reformers and their followers are all going to hell for murdering Anabaptists and other Dissenters in the name of Jesus. They certainly weren't following Jesus when doing so.

 

You're absolutely misunderstanding the text, that's a given fact.

There are (at least) two types of faith: 1) A faith that is genuine showing conversion (at least in appearance); 2) A faith that isn't genuine, showing no evidence of salvation.

What do you have if there is no fruit at all?

 

Its one thing to accuse me of misunderstanding a text and another to show how I have done so. I think the text is clear in plain english. I haven't added to the text or changed it just said what it said and it said

The word for complete here in the greek is teleioō
which DHK has emphasized means complete or to bring to a finish. So it seems that to bring "faith" to a finish as this passage indicates that actions do that. So how is that misunderstanding the text?

What do you mean by "showing conversion". Is that a fancy way of saying deeds? And if so how is that any different from what I've said? What do you mean by "no evidence of salvation" in either statement you leave it vague whether salvation is granted or not. You can take your statements 1 and 2 and suggest that in both cases some one is saved its just that in one case it doesn't show and the other case "coversion" is evident. But then you don't say how.

Exactly my point to you. My belief is no fruit, no faith.

 

You said a lot of things but haven't answered the question. In other words you Pontificated but didn't answer the question.

 

Your taking a text and taking it too literal, making his work salvific which shows how you err from interpreting it Biblically and correctly. Defining a Greek word isn't interpretation, as one must use Scripture to interpret Scripture which is where you fall short and err, using a passage as a proof text.

No, 'showing conversion' isn't fancy.

I'm leaving it vague because in both cases one may still be lost, or one may be saved while showing little to no evidence at a point in time.

Why do I have to say 'how' conversion is evident when it's apparent in Scripture? By the way, some had evidence of salvation, yet were not saved, Matthew 7:21ff.

You come up with this after my post as if my not answering a new question in a previous post is wrong? So I don't answer questions you supply after I post, and somehow I'm to magically answer you, and retro it back to my former post, and my not doing so is supposed to be some kind of valid argument or 'proof' of something? :laugh: :laugh:

The intent of my post was not to be exhaustive, nor meant to magically answer future questions one comes up with.

See how I told you (by implication) that you start adding things to what others say, and make up pretend arguments that are baseless? You've done it several times in this thread.

Your argument is this: Do something good and it seals the deal.

Wrong.

The Biblical argument is this: One who has faith will show evidence of true conversion by works.

 

LOL! Do you believe literally that God made the world in 7 days? Or do you believe it is a type of Mishnah? If you do take it literally then how do you determine which parts of the bible to take literally and which ones not to. In the passage I quoted there is nothing in the text to suggest that James means anything other than he said. So how do you differentiate the books of James (which you don't take literally) and the creation account? How do you determine how to interpret the bible as you say "bibically and literally"?

Uh... by definition it is.

How do you determine which scripture to use to interpret which other texts? I don't know if you know this but the bible isn't a single work. It is a library of (in protestant bibles) 66 books writen by different authors in different time periods in different cultures. Since there was no collusion between authors in the writing of the scriptures. This is important for you to answer because I have a strong feeling that you approach scriptures from an already set view (or rose colored glasses) and read into them your already developed theology rather than let them speak for themselves.

Ok then tell me what you mean by it.

in otherwords you don't know.

because you have a partular meaning by that statement and in order to understand what you mean in the context of our discussion I need to know what you mean when you say that phrase.

Lets look at that verse

It is clear from this passage that only people doingThe fathers will is saved. Not just having a belief. So, in my mind you mean "evidence of salvation" is the deeds you do such as being baptised. But if deeds aren't done like not being baptized then you aren't saved. If this is what you mean then say so if not then say so.

I don't know what you are talking about.

I understand but the questions are natural.

Not at all this thread is about whether water baptism saves or if its heretical. So my question are certainly in line with the subject of the thread.

No its actually do what God says for you to do and it seals the deal. Doing good deeds is evidence of your faith likewize not doing good deeds is also evidence of you not having faith. Which is Biblical as James says

In this I totally agree. However, the opposite is true as well. One who has no faith will show evidence of no conversion by doing evil works.

 

I take James book literally. Your misinterpretation? It's erroneous.

Uh... not really. Defining a word doesn't interpret a passage. :wavey:

Take a course in hermeneutics.

I mean just what I said. It's not hard.

Neither do you. Only the King of Kings knows. And the Father, also the angels that are ministering Spirits.

Take what I said at face value. I said it's apparent in Scripture.

There you go again pretending my usage to be exhaustive.

It's not. I used it as a point.

Apparently these folks were performing good works, something you say by implication seals the deal, (something you confirm yet again in this post I am replying to near the end) when in fact it is not proof of conversion. See?

Read it until you do. It's not hard either.

Not so, in fact your questions are laden with strawman arguments and are illogical.

Sure. Just like 7 day creation is in line with it.

'Do'? Absolute false teaching. You have works based 'salvation.' You clearly don't understand what James is saying.

...which shows how utterly confused you are in this whole matter. Actually, the redeemed have done evil works as well.

 

First you tell me not to take the book of James literally but then just now you say to take it literally. I think you are confused.

No. But proper definition of words within the passage does. :BangHead:

I have. You haven't answered the question. I use scripture to interpret scripture all the time. What rules do you use? Or is it as I said. You'e already approached the text from an already established theology no matter what the passage actually says.

So works are evidence of conversion. I agree with that.

Seems like a cop-out.

Ok, so Works complete faith. Its pretty clear. And the scripture you used is that only those who do the Father's will are saved. Ok I'm ok with that as well.

Now you're saying you can't apply your statement to the overall consept? Hmmm. Curious.

Well, the passage is clear or shouldn't I take this passage literally either? What was your point. Faith is evidenced by works? Absolutely, I agree.

Well, thats not what the passage says. Again look at it.

Clearly there is a group saying Lord, Lord but have no evidence of doing the Father's will. And if we read further

They still aren't doing the will of the father. They are prophesying (which isn't necissasrily a good deed) and Miracles but are still called evil doers not evil believers. Note none of them took care of widows, or orphans, etc...

I think you believe I was responding to you instead of Michael Wren.

How so? the question is whether baptism save or better known as baptismal regeneration or if that view is heretical according to the bible. I've made the connection that faith is completed in deeds and we are asked by God himself to be baptized. I've also shown verses where it says baptism washes away our sins. So... Logically... it would follow that... there is scriptural support for baptismal regeneration.

It gets to the heart of the Question of how you determine which passages to take literally or not.

Nope. Catholics believe that they are saved by grace through faith working in love. I can't attone for my sins. Only Jesus can do that by his blood. I can obey him and have faith (which are complete by their works) in him.

Oh so you are basically saying its ok to do what you want in sin after you're saved by Grace. Ie Grace doesn't work to sanctify you just pull you out of the fire and allows you the freedom to sin when ever and however you want. I somehow don't think this is what Paul is getting at in Romans or Galatians.

 

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Which is it? Grace or works? You can't have both.

 

I answered the question. But to reiterate, the only thing necessary for salvation is faith -- faith plus nothing.

And I didn't pontificate because I'm not the pontif -- uh, I mean the "holy father".

 

Greetings savedbymercy and David Lamb,

The simple testimony of Scripture is that after the first century believers believed the preaching of the gospel they were baptised. Many modern so called “Christians” ignore this practise. It is evident also that part of the preaching of the gospel involved the teaching that the believer needed to be baptised to unite in faith with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. No ifs, perhaps, maybes.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Water baptism is a promise of a good conscience to God. See 1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

God says to be baptized, so why would not anyone be baptized?
Christians are to be water baptized, even after having received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:47 Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Picture how baptism looks…the believer comes to make the pledge to God, to die to the sins of the world; so now standing in the water the believer falls back, as if dead; then, the believer goes under the water, buried; then, the believer rises up out of the water, raises up to live a new life.

Romans explain this perfectly.
Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

 

Really? This is what you actually said in post 49

How am I to understand that statement other than you are suggesting that I've taken it too literally? I mean those are your words and then I asked you how you decide what to take literally or not in scriptures and what in James makes you not take it literally and you said in post 51

So it is clear on one hand you are telling me I'm taking it too literally land on the other hand you are saying to take it literally. Those are your words. So which is it?

Because you seem to be contradicting yourself. As in the example above.

Do you really think so? Well, this is what J.I. Packer says regarding the interpretation of scripture.

Which is exactly as I've done. And attempted to get you to see which is why I suggested at the begining of our discourse 1) How would people have understood the passage during Apostolic times (ie historical context) and 2) the natural sense of each passage and the appropriate translated words from the original Greek. And I used the Natural sense of James in his internal context to show what he meant. According to Packer this is the first rule to interpret scripture.

Naturally you didn't answer the basic question I asked. Scripture is volumous. How do you determine outside the context of the book in which a passage is written which other scripture to apply to it? Your only answer is that DHK provide a passage but my question to you is by what rules did he observe to include the chosen passage of his to apply to the passage in James? Here is the basic problem you have

A problem Martin Luther saw as can be seen in his letter to Ulrich Zwigli

It is clear by the problem I've shown you in your hermonutic approach that you actually do. In fact we all do.

By what authority is your interpretation better than anyone elses? You don't agree with all baptist as I've seen on this site alone and you certainly don't agree with all denominations. What Authority makes your sense any greater than anyone elses?

Bringing your words to their logical conclusion is far from "adding to your words". Its just reveals the logical fallacy of what you are saying. And in fact as I've shown above I use your exact words.

On an individual level I don't. However, you claim to have the authoritative teaching down pat and know what is required for salvation thus you can certainly comment on which which type of faith saves. Since you say faith alone saves you must know which kind do you not. And in the example two types were supplied. Which is the saving kind?

I haven't misiterpreted either. As I've shown you above. You contradicted yourself.

Wonderful and Good don't necessarily equate. The anti-christ will seem wonderful as well. Which is my point because Jesus still calls them "evil-doers" and not evil believers. I think that is a key distinction.

Who would know better a Catholic or you a non-Catholic on what a Catholic actually believes. Thats like telling a muslim they don't believe in Allah.

 

Answer to the frist question when one is born again by water and by spirit.

Answer to the second question when the Holy Spirit renews you (fills) in response to your faith by the grace already, before hand, given you in order for you to have faith.