If one believes that baptisim is essential for salvation, is he damned

Jesus saves and Jesus can save folks mistaken about 'baptism saving'.

 

Wow...just wow.

I'm profoundly shocked by that statement.

 

Ah, now we're getting somewhere, away from the ad hominems. Good for you for doing that. So, let's define what we mean by 'saving faith' then...

 

So am I damned for believing that baptism is essential for salvation? Yes or NO?

THen I would like to hear the passage that proves that it is not essential. Ephesians 2:8, 9 does not teach that baptism is not essential, I just assume that someone will bring that passage up.

Someone has said in one of the posts that obedience is not work. If obedience is essential to living a Christian life then how can it not be a work?

Philippians 2:12-16
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
14 Do all things without complaining and disputing, 15 that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.

 

That is a non-answer because you don't want to admit that there is action involved. In other words the saving faith is one that is acted upon.

 

What's so shocking? That Jesus can save you without any help from you? That you need to do nothing to work for salvation?

 

I never used any ad hominems. So I can't get "away" from it.

Saving faith is faith that saves. It is contrasted with faith that doesn't save.

No, it's an answer. There is no action involved in it. Saving faith is total trust in Christ that recognizes and lives under his lordship. Of course saving faith results in actions. That is undeniable in Scripture.

 

So then theoretically. I can trust in Jesus then get tired of avoiding sin and live in it until the judgement day and I'm ok because I've intially trusted Jesus. Is that what you're saying?

 

Pastor Larry, your definition of saving faith does involve action: trusting in Jesus Christ and living under His Lordship.

That you think you can be saved without repentance. That is truly shocking.

 

"It wouldn't be his bad works of blasphemy that would send him to Hell but his unbelief or rejection of Christ."

Then why does scripture state over and over again that Jesus will judge the evil works of men and cast them into everlasting fire? According to you all He will do is see who has believed or not.

 

No. If you trust in Jesus, then will you persevere. It's what people who are alive do.

Only the most obtuse and prejudicial reading could come up with anything remotely close to this conclusion. You (as I recall) seem to pride yourself on areas like historical theology, particular Continental theology, but comments like this one reveal that you have little to no understanding of the historical doctrine of faith alone. You confuse the nature of faith with the fruit of faith. Perhaps some here will let you get by with such bald misrepresentation of the issue, but I won't.

 

Pastor Larry, I am sick and tired of your insults and your failure to engage with the points for debate on this thread. Now either answer the question or I - and doubtless others - will be forced to conclude that you have nothing better to do that be patronising to your fellow BB-members.

 

You need to go back and read more closely, Matt. I have not been insulting in the least. And I have engaged the points of this thread.

I haven't been patronizing, and I have answered every question put forth to me (that I can recall). If there are questions I haven't answered then please point me to them so I can take a shot.

Your last post to me wasn't even a question, Matt. It was a statement that was a bad misinterpretation of what I said as well as of historical theology.

You may not like that, but that's the truth. Matt, I have been kind and gracious to you. I have taken the time to point out that your posts here show evidence that you do not understand the historical doctrine of faith alone and what is meant by it. I am not the bad guy for knowing that or for pointing that out.

So if you want to engage the point, then do so. But do so from a place of humility and learning, as I have done. Do not misrepresent what others have said.

 

Then please explain on which planet remarks such as "obtuse and prejudicial reading... little to no understanding ....bald misrepresentation..
a woefully inadequate and a historically and theologically uninformed position ....Please don't mislead people with such statements..... I think you simply either didn't think through your statement, or don't understand the historic doctrines, or perhaps both. ....In our interaction over the years, you seem disconnected from historical theology and orthodoxy on some issues so I don't know which it was. ...That's a better approach ... to ask rather than make false statements. But again, you contrast faith with right doctrine which is an extremely fallacious way to argue...." are not insulting?

 

This one.

To come up with what you did out of my statement means you read it with obtuseness and prejudice. It showed that you don't understand the historical doctrine I was addressing, and as a result, you misrepresented what I said and believe.

I have no interest in this type of posting with you, Matt. If you want to address what I said, please do so. But please address what I said, and address it from the background of understanding the historical doctrine. If all you want to do is attack me, then I have no interest in that. I have not done that to you, and I will not start now. Please don't do it to me.

Please stay on topic.

Edit: Obviously I posted prior to your revision, but the point stands. Seriously Matt, if you had thought about what I said from a fair perspective (not even agreeing), I don't see any way you could have posted what you did. And again, I am not the bad guy for point that out. You didn't read it fairly, and you tried to make it say something it didn't say, and something I was very clear about previously.

 

You have not shown yourself kind in how you do it.

Matt Black is not alone in perceiving that you give an `air' of nastiness when you are not agreed with.

Maybe it is not intentional, but the perception is there. You might have noticed that I rarely engage you with a disagreement.

I do not care if someone tells me s/he thinks I am wrong. I do care if s/he throws in some things that did not need to be said, or said it in an unpleasant way when there were less-unpleasant options. I think a lot of us here feel the same way.

 

Pastor Larry, I've set it out for you as clearly as I can. If you can't or won't see your posting style as insulting, well I guess there's not much more I can do about that. Unless I get an apology from you, I will in future ignore posts by you since there is little point in trying to engage with someone who resorts to this sort of posting behaviour.

 

Thanks for your comments Darren. I agree with the last part of your statement. Obviously, this medium is a difficult one, particularly when emotions run high as they do for some here, when addressing ideas or approaches is taken as a personal attacks. It is unfortunate that some stoop to that level. I stay out of here mostly because of it.

I wish that we could have a better discussion about issues. But when people misrepresent what someone else says like Matt did, it hinders the discussion. And as I have said, the person who points that out should not be the bad guy.

Matt's understanding of my comments was completely unjustified and makes intelligible conversation impossible. That's my objection. Matt didn't need to say that.

 

Matt, As the author of my words, I can assure you that they were not insulting in the least. I know what I intended and it was not to insult you. As the author of my words, I get to determine what they mean. I did not intend to insult you.

I pointed out where you were factually in error with my comments, and surmised as to why you came up with what you did. If anyone here owes an apology, it is you for what you did to my words and my position. I am not asking for one however. This is a conversation and it is not helped by "powering up" and demanding apologies.

Again, I will not stoop to this level. If you want to discuss ideas, I will be glad to do so, as I have shown repeatedly (when I participate here).

 

Are you catholic? I mean Pastor Larry is trying to support salvation from faith alone. Matt Black has been insistent that there is a "works" element to faith and thus faith alone does not exist. Pastor Larry is contrary to this holding the opinion that faith a total free gift of God does not require anything on our part to be "done" in order for it to be in effect. Because God has already sufficiently completed anything required for salvation. We just need to trust and accept God's gift. By implying Pastor Larry is mean you find yourself unable to diligently persuade him to your point of view which sounds very Jesuit of you. Simply put God's gift of salvation is that he gives us faith which a natural responce is an obedient life style. But that life style doesn't earn your salvation.