Saved by faith alone?

[Everlasting-Grace]

What difference does it make?

You tell me

did paul speak against anyone ever getting circumcized. Or just those tryign to add it as a requirmeent for salvation?

It makes a huge difference

It was set as a ubiquitous example. Circumcision has nothing to do with the new covenant so it can't be used in comparison to water baptism, but water baptism obviously is a part of the new covenant. Circumcision was required under the old covenant.

We have always been saved by grace through faith.. so this logic fails. If baptism is required for us, it would be required from everyone.

I mean think. no work of the law could ever save anyone.

But all of a sudden, after he died and was raised. He now requires works.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

When Paul said works he meant works of the law of Moses. That is all.

No, this is a lie..

Romans 4 is not about works of the law nor is romans 11 nor is 2 timothy

In titus paul tells us specifically. Not by works of righteousness which we have done (like water baptism) but by his mercy he saved us.

A work is what you do to merit a wage or a reward.

Salvation is a gift. paid for by Christ.

 

[studier]

Lets try this

Can you show me what else is required according to Jesus in these words of Christ?

One verse at a time in context. Pick any verse you want from the @mailmandan list or your own. Each has to first stand on it's own.

If you think what I've stated re: Mark16:16 or John1:12 is wrong, tell me why just in the grammar or logic of each one. If you're going to go back to Mark16:16, please read what was stated before responding.

If you'd like to remain with John1:12, which would be good for now to remain focused, what do you think in the verse or close context refutes what I said about the verse? Please note I did not just address baptism, but the "faith-alone" terminology itself. I'm also fine with just going back to the faith + baptism issue we started with in Mark16:16 and dealing with John1:12 about it.

 

[mailmandan]

From here, I'm going to leave your ad hominem comments to @PaulThomson to address if he chooses to.

My concern was the first comment’s ad hominem, not methodology. It would be nice to just be able to focus on what Scripture actually says and doesn't say.

Speaking for myself, I have no agenda re: baptism.

I admittedly do not like the "faith-alone" terminology for several reasons. But my eyes and ears are open to Scriptural arguments based upon grammatical and logical interpretation of Scriptures in context and harmonizing in wider context. Proof-texting a list of Scriptures IMO is meaningless.

As I think is clear, I don't think you proved faith-alone from Mark16:16. I think it stands against faith-alone gramatically & logically and at the time it was written.

Here are a few of the issues with John1:12 just to begin:

• Even assuming equating believing with receiving, "faith-alone" bypasses - and effectively erases - the central, active act of receiving Him, the main verb of the passage.
• Receiving authority to become children of God is not equivalent to being saved; the verse grants potential, not a completed salvific state, and the word “saved” is absent, so faith-alone for salvation is not stated here.
• The verse does not mention baptism or other requirements, but their absence does not prove there are none; it addresses only receiving Christ and believing in His name for the granted authority to become children of God, so faith-alone for salvation is not proven.

This is just a basic beginning.

Ah, the dreaded ad hominem attack. Shame on me, right? That was pretty tame compared to the one"s that I usually hear. Mark 16:16 must be in harmony with the rest of scripture. The second half of Mark 16:16, along with numerous passages of scripture that state we are saved through belief/faith (with no mention of water baptism) settles it for me.

Being a child of God does equate to being saved. I'm shocked that you don't understand that! Now I actually like to stress faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ "alone" for salvation when stating faith alone. (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9) Which is not to be confused with a bare profession of faith/dead faith that remains "alone" barren of works. (James 2:14-24)

 

[mailmandan]

I think you're in denial. Paul clearly says otherwise, yet you've twisted it around to mean he didn't mean what he said..

Its works-salvationists who twist the words of Paul and remain in denial.

 

[mailmandan]

No, this is a lie..

Romans 4 is not about works of the law nor is romans 11 nor is 2 timothy

In titus paul tells us specifically. Not by works of righteousness which we have done (like water baptism) but by his mercy he saved us.

A work is what you do to merit a wage or a reward.

Salvation is a gift. paid for by Christ.

In an effort to "get around" the truth that man is saved by grace through faith and not by works, I often hear works-salvationists say we are saved by "these" works (good works) and just not "those" works (works of the law). Yet when it comes to the moral aspect of the law, you cannot dissect good works from the law.(Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37-40; James 2:15-16)

The apostle Paul does not merely limit "works" only to specific works of the law but includes works in general. In Titus 3:5, we read that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.. and in 2 Timothy 1:9, we read that God saved us and called us with a holy calling not according to our works..

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

One verse at a time in context. Pick any verse you want from the @mailmandan list or your own. Each has to first stand on it's own.

If you think what I've stated re: Mark16:16 or John1:12 is wrong, tell me why just in the grammar or logic of each one. If you're going to go back to Mark16:16, please read what was stated before responding.

If you'd like to remain with John1:12, which would be good for now to remain focused, what do you think in the verse or close context refutes what I said about the verse? Please note I did not just address baptism, but the "faith-alone" terminology itself. I'm also fine with just going back to the faith + baptism issue we started with in Mark16:16 and dealing with John1:12 about it.

ok. john 1, Where is ANYTHING other than faith required in John 1?

John 1: 11: 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12. But AS MANY AS HAVE RECIEVED HIM, to THEM he gave the right to become children, even TO THEM WHO BELIEVE 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (no works)

They were saved (made a child of God) because they recieved the gift (jesus) in faith.

where is the work.

I see faith alone here.. because it is faith plus nothing.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

In an effort to "get around" the truth that man is saved by grace through faith and not by works, I often hear works-salvationists say we are saved by "these" works (good works) and just not "those" works (works of the law). Yet when it comes to the moral aspect of the law, you cannot dissect good works from the law.(Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37-40; James 2:15-16)

The apostle Paul does not merely limit "works" only to specific works of the law but includes works in general. In Titus 3:5, we read that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.. and in 2 Timothy 1:9, we read that God saved us and called us with a holy calling not according to our works..

I call this watering down the law..

 

[PaulThomson]

Actually it states a fact.

But as many as have recieved him (no water baptism involved) to them he gave the right to become children of God (born again)

AS many as receive a visa into India have a the right or authority to enter India. But I am not necessarily in India just because I have a visa. Logic 101.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I see faith alone here.. because it is faith plus nothing.

Faith + nothing = nothing

 

[PaulThomson]

Why aren't believers under condemnation?

Believers know their sins are forgiven are not under condemnation. But I have known many who at one time believed their sins were forgiven, who later on lost that confidence and began living under condemnation, until they were able to trust again in Jesus and His death and resurrection for them.

 

[PaulThomson]

With respect, trying to "shoehorn" baptism into multiple verses that say we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" (John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-26; 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..) is not taking Scripture precisely for what it says both grammatically and logically. The bottom line for me is SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE or else we have contradictions and there are no contradictions in God's Word. Prior to my conversion, I was born and raised in a church that taught salvation by water baptism, so none of these pro-salvation by water baptism arguments are anything new or enlightening for me.

Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.

If I had said that John 1:12-13 actually supports salvation by baptism, I would be shoe-horning baptism into the text. What I said is that the text is silent on whether baptism is or is not required. You, on the other hand are shoehorning "without baptism" into that text, and possibly all the others you listed. Perhaps the plank you see in my eye is only a reflection of an entire tree stuck in yours.

 

[Cameron143]

Believers know their sins are forgiven are not under condemnation. But I have known many who at one time believed their sins were forgiven, who later on lost that confidence and began living under condemnation, until they were able to trust again in Jesus and His death and resurrection for them.

Believers aren't condemned because their sins are paid for. Whether they live as this is so or not has nothing to do with them not being under condemnation.

 

[mailmandan]

If I had said that John 1:12-13 actually supports salvation by baptism, I would be shoe-horning baptism into the text. What I said is that the text is silent on whether baptism is or is not required. You, on the other hand are shoehorning "without baptism" into that text, and possibly all the others you listed. Perhaps the plank you see in my eye is only a reflection of an entire tree stuck in yours.

If John meant to say "with baptism" in John 1:12 then he would have plainly said it, just as Jesus would have plainly said it in (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) but silence speaks for itself. So, BELIEVES "apart from additions or modifications" is clear.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

AS many as receive a visa into India have a the right or authority to enter India. But I am not necessarily in India just because I have a visa. Logic 101.

We are not talking about India.

we are talking about passing from death to life..

You can travel to India if you work hard enough. You can not make yourself alive no matter how hard you work..

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Faith + nothing = nothing

where did you learn math?

If we use multiplication you would be correct.

Faith times zero (works) = 0 (nothing)

But in addition, your math fails

Faith plus zero (works) = faith.

Nice try,

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Believers know their sins are forgiven are not under condemnation. But I have known many who at one time believed their sins were forgiven, who later on lost that confidence and began living under condemnation, until they were able to trust again in Jesus and His death and resurrection for them.

probably because they listened to people like you who took away their confidence

 

[studier]

The second half of Mark 16:16, along with numerous passages of scripture that state we are saved through belief/faith (with no mention of water baptism)

As I likely mentioned before, Mark16:16b does not state what you're stating here. Consider the negative inference and false equivalence fallacies and in relation to the first clause, the selective evidence and category error fallacies.

These Scriptures take grammar and logic to deal with. They were written at a time when there was great understanding of Greek logic. They had to make sense in this respect. They still do.

Being a child of God does equate to being saved. I'm shocked that you don't understand that! Now I actually like to stress faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ "alone" for salvation when stating faith alone. (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9) Which is not to be confused with a bare profession of faith/dead faith that remains "alone" barren of works. (James 2:14-24)

Despite the continued rhetoric that doesn't prove faith-alone, John1:12 grants authority to become children of God, not salvation; equating them at this stage is begging the question, redirecting to other texts is a red herring, and redefining ‘faith-alone’ to include works is equivocation—the verse itself does not teach faith-alone. Using other Scriptures at this juncture to validate error with other possible or probable error only compounds the logical problem.

Would you like to deal with the actual language of John 1:12 in close context?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

As I likely mentioned before, Mark16:16b does not state what you're stating here. Consider the negative inference and false equivalence fallacies and in relation to the first clause, the selective evidence and category error fallacies.

1. Mark 16: 16 is contradictory to John 3,
2, Mark 16:16 is questionable as even being part of origional; scripture
3. Mark 16: 16 says and is baptised. by Who? it does not say water. so even if it is origional scripture. it does not prove it is water baptism.

3 strikes your out

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

where did you learn math?

If we use multiplication you would be correct.

Faith times zero (works) = 0 (nothing)

But in addition, your math fails

Faith plus zero (works) = faith.

Nice try,

I learned it from James 2:17 and Matthew 25:25