Saved by faith alone?

[Burn1986]

Does the phrase, "saved by faith" equivalent to the term, "saved by faith alone"?

Why do you ask? Or what brought about this question? I assume you mean “saved out of a trial” since you’ve most likely prayed a prayer of salvation. Or maybe you were witnessing to someone and it came up?

 

[TrustandObey]

Repentance is tied to the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 and elsewhere. (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31) Baptism is parenthetical.

Baptism is parenthetical???

In what Bible version is baptism in Acts 2:38 written in the parenthetical?

Let me save you some time...not one.

I also noticed you claim that the second clause of Mark 16:16 makes void the first clause in the same verse! (Post# 1905)

Are you just making this stuff up as you are going along?

 

[PaulThomson]

• • To end this, 1Pet3:21 I think is telling us that this corresponding baptism of believers is an urgent appeal – an urgent request/prayer – made toward God in undeserved suffering (at the hands of the disobedient ungodly) made from [and in effect also for] a good conscience [toward God].
  • I also think the genitive “appeal [] good conscience” is purposefully ambiguous making us think and I think the appeal is made from a righteous believer – a believer with a good conscience toward God – for saving him through suffering, and in effect also for a good conscience in the sense of maintaining a good conscience doing God’s will through experiential suffering.

This was getting too long so I’m leaving some things out and am open to discussing any of it and more. Apologies for being a bit cryptic but there's a lot in this letter and I got a bit caught up in it.

I found it interesting that Peter mentions a good conscience earlier, and seems to define or describe it as knowing that your works are pleasing to God, even though others are interpreting your deeds negatively. This happens in India, where Christians do mercy toward the poor, and Hindu nationalists will accuse them of proselytising, buying converts with bribes.

1Pe 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
1Pe 3:13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
1Pe 3:14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake (for doing righteousness/good), happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

And this echoes a previous statement -
1Pe 2:12 Having your behaviour honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Peter seems to be concerned that Christians not shy away from behaving in a way that they truly believe in all good conscience is Christ-like, and has God's approval, regardless of how others might misinterpret or mischaracterise the Christian's works.

Noah was the only one who was doing this before the flood, and God saved him and the only seven others who were willing to enter the ark with him, before the rains began to fall and the springs opened up.

Peter seems to characterising water baptism as an appeal to God from a good conscience to receive overcoming divine life through a resurrection like Christ's. This power is received through identifying/joining with Jesus in His death and resurrection., as Noah's family joined him in the ark.

The person who believes in Jesus death and resurrection and sets his mind on God intending to submit to God and the One God has appointed forgiver of sins, judge and Lord, that person is given a clean conscience. They know that they no longer have any sins on their record and know that they are pleasing God by being turned to Him in faith. That person, aware of their own flesh's weakness, appeals earnestly to God to partake of the life of Jesus in order overcome in the present sin, the flesh, the world and the devil. Understanding that he needs to be intimately united with Christ, He joins with Jesus in His death as sin-bearing Saviour: rejecting and sloughing off corruption he has accrued because of obeying sin, the world, the flesh and the devil. And he joins Jesus in His resurrection as Lord: inheriting His resurrection power to overcome sin, the flesh, the world and the devils.

If there is a person who believes that Jesus died for him and rose again, and that person begins to set his mind on God intending to submit to God and the One God has appointed Saviour/forgiver of sins, and Lord, that person will receive a clean conscience by knowing their sins are forgiven, and will keep it clean by obeying Jesus and submitting to baptism in His name.

Someone who believes in Jesus death and resurrection for them in order to merely escape the consequences of their sins, but will not submit to the baptism Jesus commanded, is he really committed to having Jesus as his Lord? Can a person half-hearted about Jesus' Lordship, who is evading the baptism He commanded, expect to live in victory over sin, the flesh, the world and devils? He has not united with Jesus as Lord in His resurrection through baptism, in order to receive the resurrection power. Can someone avoiding the Lord's commanded baptism be making an earnest request from a good conscience for salvation from the coming destruction of the ungodly who reject God's lordship? and for divine life through a resurrection like Jesus Christs?

1Pe 3:21 ... which flood account is also an antitype. Baptism is now saving you (from the coming destruction of the ungodly: Just as being in the ark as the waters rose and covered and all, even the ark at times, saved Noah and family, so being in Christ while the waters of baptism cover you, saves you from the coming destruction) - not a removal of dirt from flesh, but rather a good conscience's earnest plea for what is characteristic of God through a resurrection that is characteristic of Jesus Christ.

 

[PaulThomson]

1. You're missing the point. It's a divine righteousness. It's source is God.
2. A person's own righteousness need not be imputed. The person already possesses it.

Sorry, Cameron. But if you are not interested in drilling down into all verses, but only in tossing in the few textual scraps that you feel sound compatible with your calcified systematic, I'm not interested in that game. Have fun.

 

[PaulThomson]

The internal washing and having a good conscience before God is signified but not procured in baptism. What saves a person from sin and a guilty conscience is not some external rite, but to get into the ark of safety, the Lord Jesus Christ by faith in His death, burial and resurrection.

In regard to Jesus getting water baptized in Matthew 3:13-15 and fulfilling all righteousness, this was a necessary part of the righteousness He secured for sinners. Water baptism is a work of righteousness and it's not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which refers to spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. Water baptism is the picture of the reality. The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration."

Nobody said anything about refusing to be water baptized. Baptism put it in its proper place, subsequent to salvation through faith in Christ as all good works must be. This does not remove good works (including water baptism) from the Christian life, it just puts them in their proper place, subsequent to regeneration and salvation. (Acts 10:43-47; Ephesians 2:10)

There is a degree of salvation that happens at the beginning of one's trust in Christ, but salvation is not completed until the resurrection. We are being saved in many ways from the time of our first trusting in Christ. So when you talk about works that are "subsequent to regeneration and salvation" you are equivocating in your use of "salvation'. There are many works that are after what you are calling salvation, that are before what the Bible calls being saved.


Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

We are washed by the word when we submit to the word to obey it. Merely agreeing that something in the Bible is true does not clean you in the area to which that word speaks.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

There is a degree of salvation that happens at the beginning of one's trust in Christ, but salvation is not completed until the resurrection. We are being saved in many ways from the time of our first trusting in Christ. So when you talk about works that are "subsequent to regeneration and salvation" you are equivocating in your use of "salvation'. There are many works that are after what you are calling salvation, that are before what the Bible calls being saved.


Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

We are washed by the word when we submit to the word to obey it. Merely agreeing that something in the Bible is true does not clean you in the area to which that word speaks.

The Greek word for born doesn't necessarily convey the idea of emerging from the womb, but rather of having been conceived. We have been conceived by God, but our full birth doesn't happen until the adoption, ie the redemption of our bodies at the resurrection. Some people don't seem to understand that and don't consider that a spiritual "fetus" can be stillborn.

 

[GWH]

Saved by God alone whose grace avails when opened via faith/repentance or acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and the Lord incarnate.

 

[studier]

All of Mark 16:16 is in harmony with John 3:18.

It's just not in harmony with Faith Alone Regeneration Theology.

Good comments. Agreed.

 

[mailmandan]

All of Mark 16:16 is in harmony with John 3:18.

It's just not in harmony with Faith Alone Regeneration Theology.

All of Mark 16:16 is in harmony with John 3:18 because "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" is (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So, all of Mark 16:16 is in harmony with Faith Alone Theology. (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 4:4; 10:4; 10:43; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6, 9: 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 15:1-4; Galatians 2:16; 3:6 14, 26; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:4, 13 etc..)

 

[GWH]

Have no idea

I shared verses that undermined your conclusion.

Every biblical passage is to be understood as a part of a greater narrative. Isolating passages from the whole can lead to error. I gave you a greater context to show that your understanding didn't match the greater narrative.

Yes, it is logically obvious that only the righteousness of God as Christ qualifies to atone for the sins of humanity.

 

[mailmandan]

There is a degree of salvation that happens at the beginning of one's trust in Christ, but salvation is not completed until the resurrection. We are being saved in many ways from the time of our first trusting in Christ. So when you talk about works that are "subsequent to regeneration and salvation" you are equivocating in your use of "salvation'. There are many works that are after what you are calling salvation, that are before what the Bible calls being saved.

Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

We are washed by the word when we submit to the word to obey it. Merely agreeing that something in the Bible is true does not clean you in the area to which that word speaks.

Enduring to the end is not about us pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps in our own strength and keeping ourselves saved by works. Enduring to the end is the identifier of those who are saved. Genuine believers depend on the Holy Spirit who will give them the appropriate and effective words to say in defense of their faith in Jesus Christ when arrested, persecuted and put to death. (Mark 13:11-13) Endurance is proof of genuine conversion. That's why the same shall be saved.

There are 3 tenses to salvation that often get mixed up by those who promote salvation by works.

1. We have been saved from the PENALTY of sin (justification)
2. We are being saved from the POWER of sin (ongoing sanctification)
3. We will be saved from the PRESENCE of sin (glorification)

 

[mailmandan]

Baptism is parenthetical???

In what Bible version is baptism in Acts 2:38 written in the parenthetical?

Let me save you some time...not one.

I also noticed you claim that the second clause of Mark 16:16 makes void the first clause in the same verse! (Post# 1905)

Are you just making this stuff up as you are going along?

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit -Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So, the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

As Greek scholar AT Robertson stated: Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson authored Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he said, - “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So, I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

I never said the second clause of Mark 16:16 "makes void" the first clause. I have said multiple times that it clarifies the first clause.

See post #814 - Saved by faith alone? - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
See post #1,819 - Saved by faith alone? - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
See post #1,899 - Saved by faith alone? - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums

Now show me where I used the words, "makes void" in post #1905.

 

[Cameron143]

Sorry, Cameron. But if you are not interested in drilling down into all verses, but only in tossing in the few textual scraps that you feel sound compatible with your calcified systematic, I'm not interested in that game. Have fun.

I get it. You want faith to equal righteousness, rather than understand that righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and this juxtaposed with righteousness by the law. Romans 3 comes before Romans 4. What is taught in Romans 3 is exemplified in Romans 4 in Abraham.

 

[studier]

I found it interesting that Peter mentions a good conscience earlier, and seems to define or describe it as knowing that your works are pleasing to God, even though others are interpreting your deeds negatively. This happens in India, where Christians do mercy toward the poor, and Hindu nationalists will accuse them of proselytising, buying converts with bribes.

1Pe 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
1Pe 3:13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
1Pe 3:14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake (for doing righteousness/good), happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

And this echoes a previous statement -
1Pe 2:12 Having your behaviour honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Peter seems to be concerned that Christians not shy away from behaving in a way that they truly believe in all good conscience is Christ-like, and has God's approval, regardless of how others might misinterpret or mischaracterise the Christian's works.

Noah was the only one who was doing this before the flood, and God saved him and the only seven others who were willing to enter the ark with him, before the rains began to fall and the springs opened up.

Peter seems to characterising water baptism as an appeal to God from a good conscience to receive overcoming divine life through a resurrection like Christ's. This power is received through identifying/joining with Jesus in His death and resurrection., as Noah's family joined him in the ark.

The person who believes in Jesus death and resurrection and sets his mind on God intending to submit to God and the One God has appointed forgiver of sins, judge and Lord, that person is given a clean conscience. They know that they no longer have any sins on their record and know that they are pleasing God by being turned to Him in faith. That person, aware of their own flesh's weakness, appeals earnestly to God to partake of the life of Jesus in order overcome in the present sin, the flesh, the world and the devil. Understanding that he needs to be intimately united with Christ, He joins with Jesus in His death as sin-bearing Saviour: rejecting and sloughing off corruption he has accrued because of obeying sin, the world, the flesh and the devil. And he joins Jesus in His resurrection as Lord: inheriting His resurrection power to overcome sin, the flesh, the world and the devils.

If there is a person who believes that Jesus died for him and rose again, and that person begins to set his mind on God intending to submit to God and the One God has appointed Saviour/forgiver of sins, and Lord, that person will receive a clean conscience by knowing their sins are forgiven, and will keep it clean by obeying Jesus and submitting to baptism in His name.

Someone who believes in Jesus death and resurrection for them in order to merely escape the consequences of their sins, but will not submit to the baptism Jesus commanded, is he really committed to having Jesus as his Lord? Can a person half-hearted about Jesus' Lordship, who is evading the baptism He commanded, expect to live in victory over sin, the flesh, the world and devils? He has not united with Jesus as Lord in His resurrection through baptism, in order to receive the resurrection power. Can someone avoiding the Lord's commanded baptism be making an earnest request from a good conscience for salvation from the coming destruction of the ungodly who reject God's lordship? and for divine life through a resurrection like Jesus Christs?

1Pe 3:21 ... which flood account is also an antitype. Baptism is now saving you (from the coming destruction of the ungodly: Just as being in the ark as the waters rose and covered and all, even the ark at times, saved Noah and family, so being in Christ while the waters of baptism cover you, saves you from the coming destruction) - not a removal of dirt from flesh, but rather a good conscience's earnest plea for what is characteristic of God through a resurrection that is characteristic of Jesus Christ.

Good stuff!

Question: For clarity, you're seeing baptism as initial or also in suffering in line with what Jesus said Mark10:38-39?

I mentioned studies I did on this a decade+ ago. One of the things I had in mind re: the conscience was the instruction from Hebrews re: the perfecting of the conscience that could not be done under Law and the old Priesthood that is now being done under the NC and Great High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Part of the appeal FOR the good conscience I saw to be in line with that truth.

IOW, I saw the developing maturity of the Christian Heb5 to be language that is parallel to the perfecting of conscience of the believer Heb9. We learn more and more of the divine standards God has for His Children, our maturity is increasing, our conscience is being perfected (completed/matured).

A Pastor-Teacher aware of this can instruct the new believer to be baptized that the Christian Life is one of commitment (part of what Faith-Obedience actually is Rom1:5; Rom16:26; Heb3-4 ), make him or her ("him") aware of this and that the Christian Life is not some game we're playing, it will have many ups and downs and hardships as our Father & Lord determine for each one of us for His purposes and for our growth, service and ultimate blessing for us and the Body, it is a life-long commitment, project and allegiance no matter what (enduring Faith-Obedience) Luke14:25-33, and the one to be baptized thus enters what Christianity actually is with informed consent professing his identity with and allegiance to the Christ-King knowing there is a life-long project ahead. Thus, in the descriptive sense of the good conscience, it would be an appeal to God of/with a good conscience. And, in the words of Hebrews, it would be the commitment and appeal FOR the good (aka perfecting of the) conscience - aka maintenance & growth & service until the telos - including any suffering our Father may have us do for His purposes, for which He will bless us.

 

[studier]

I hope you all don't mind me jumping in. I've been reading all remarks over the past few pages and am addressing several of them. Here's my take at the moment:

Mark 16:16:

Gramatically, it does contain two independent clauses, but they remain connected in meaning. The first explicitly conditions salvation on belief and baptism, while the second highlights unbelief as the cause of condemnation. Because the “believe without baptism” case is left unspecified, this verse does not support faith alone theology.

Logically, the whole verse affirms salvation through belief and baptism, while condemnation comes through unbelief. The final clause cannot be inverted to claim “faith alone saves,” since it only specifies the basis of condemnation, not the full requirements for salvation.

Summary: Mark 16:16 cannot be used to support faith alone theology. The verse explicitly ties salvation to both belief and baptism in the first clause, while condemnation is tied solely to unbelief in the second. The text leaves the case of someone who believes but is not baptized unspecified. Logic does not affirm or deny salvation in that scenario, so while this verse does not teach faith alone, it also does not completely rule out the possibility that salvation could occur by faith apart from baptism in other contexts. Any claim for faith-alone theology must therefore be grounded in other passages that explicitly support salvation through belief independent of baptism.

 

[GWH]

No. God confers the righteousness of Christ upon believers.
Go back to the beginning of chapter 3. Paul asks a series of questions that he anticipates his Jewish audience would ask given that he has espoused salvation by grace through faith rather than by the law. And he works through the argument in the chapter. In chapter 4, he uses Abraham as an example that his audience would be familiar with.

The righteousness of God is what is conferred. It is conferred through grace, and not through the law. This is what is being taught.

And continue through Romans 5:1.

 

[mailmandan]

Gramatically, Mark 16:16 cannot be used to support faith alone theology. The verse explicitly ties salvation to both belief and baptism in the first clause, while condemnation is tied solely to unbelief in the second. The text leaves the case of someone who believes but is not baptized unspecified. Logic does not affirm or deny salvation in that scenario, so while this verse does not teach faith alone, it also does not completely rule out the possibility that salvation could occur by faith apart from baptism in other contexts. Any claim for faith-alone theology must therefore be grounded in other passages that explicitly support salvation through belief independent of baptism.

In numerous passages of scripture we see that salvation is through belief/faith "apart from baptism" and there are no contradictions in God's Word. (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8.9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..). Mark 16:16 cannot and does not negate these passages of scripture.

 

[studier]

In numerous passages of scripture we see that salvation is through belief/faith "apart from baptism" and there are no contradictions in God's Word. (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8.9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..). Mark 16:16 cannot and does not negate these passages of scripture.

As I said, Mark16:16 links salvation to belief and baptism, so while it doesn’t contradict the potential of faith-alone theology, it cannot itself be used to prove it. Any argument for faith-alone would need to come from other passages; it simply cannot be established from Mark16:16 on its own. A long list of verses, apart from careful analysis of each and their combined witness, is not the solution - but only a starting point.

 

[mailmandan]

As I said, Mark16:16 links salvation to belief and baptism, so while it doesn’t contradict the potential of faith-alone theology, it cannot itself be used to prove it. Any argument for faith-alone would need to come from other passages; it simply cannot be established from Mark16:16 on its own. A long list of verses, apart from careful analysis of each and their combined witness, is not the solution - but only a starting point.

This is why it's critical that we properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine.

 

[studier]

This is why it's critical that we properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine.

To qualify my "Agree" checkmark: Agreed - harmonization is key. But it must begin with what each text actually says, not what we want it to say.