Saved by faith alone?

[mailmandan]

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

Fear and bondage to IN-security is no way to live the victorious, Christian life.

 

[studier]

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.

John1:12–13 does not teach faith-alone for salvation. The verses presents a lexical sequence: humans receive Christ (aorist) while continuing to believe (present participle); then, at an unspecified time, Christ grants authority to become children of God (aorist + infinitive); and finally, at an unspecified time, God accomplishes the new birth (aorist passive). This is the language and structure of these verses. The combination of receiving and believing in itself negates the idea of ‘faith-alone.’ This is a simplified answer and does not address each logical error you have raised.

 

[GWH]

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.

And as you begin just realize that there are over a hundred other ways to state GRFS which all harmonize or are logically equivalent.

 

[PaulThomson]

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

No. I need someone to transport me to India. I can't swim or walk there on my own, no matter how hard I try. But my point stands. Having authority to become something is not the same as me having already become that thing. We need to read what the bible says, not read into it what our favourite ear-tickler says.

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

When you sin do you come under conviction? Or do you reject the shame as unreal, because you believe you are already forgiven for all your past, present and future sins?

 

[studier]

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

Firstly, you've demonstrated no actual contradiction with John 3, and that issue is unrelated to the logical fallacies in claiming faith-alone. Secondly, questioning textual originality does not address the argument about faith + baptism vs. faith-alone. Thirdly, whether baptism refers to water or Spirit, it remains a required element alongside belief, so faith-alone is still invalid. Would you be willing to say Spirit baptism is not a requirement of salvation? None of these points engage the fallacy errors I identified.

 

[mailmandan]

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.

Mark 16:16 is composed of two basic statements. 1. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2. He who does not believe will be condemned. While this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they will be saved), it says nothing about believers who have not been baptized and in order for this verse to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary, such as, “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.

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.

Those who use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation commit a mistake called the negative inference fallacy. This is the rule to follow: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true." Now he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption.

Despite the continued rhetoric that doesn't prove faith-alone, John 1:12 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.

You are making this out to be much more complicated than it really is. John 1:12 clearly connects believe in His name with received Him, gave the right to become children of God. No mention of water baptism.

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

In context, we see a contrast between those who rejected Jesus, who is the true light, and the Word who became flesh and made his dwelling among us, with those who receive Him by believing in His name. These believers are granted the authority or right to become children of God. This is not rocket science.

 

[Cameron143]

When you sin do you come under conviction? Or do you reject the shame as unreal, because you believe you are already forgiven for all your past, present and future sins?

Conviction isn't the same as condemnation. Of course I'm convicted due to my sin. This doesn't change the fact that my sin no longer condemns me. I have passed from death unto life and possess the righteousness of Christ. Even were I to doubt my salvation, I would still possess the righteousness of Christ.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

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

Its still wrong math and it does not work for james 2 either

James 2 says what if someone claims to have faith but has no works. can that CLAIMED faith save them?

No..

Paul said no also.

But we are not saved by works. Faith produces works. Works do not produce faith

we are saved by grace through faith not of works lest anyone should boast.

You don't replace licentious faith with legalistic faith. both lead to hell

Look at romans 4

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

John1:12–13 does not teach faith-alone for salvation. The verses presents a lexical sequence: humans receive Christ (aorist) while continuing to believe (present participle); then, at an unspecified time, Christ grants authority to become children of God (aorist + infinitive); and finally, at an unspecified time, God accomplishes the new birth (aorist passive). This is the language and structure of these verses. The combination of receiving and believing in itself negates the idea of ‘faith-alone.’ This is a simplified answer and does not address each logical error you have raised.

again,

please show me works in John 1,, Then we can move to John 3.

Who was given the right to become children of God/.

Those who recieve him

or those who recieve him and get baptized and do all these works?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

No. I need someone to transport me to India. I can't swim or walk there on my own, no matter how hard I try.

You still have to get to the airport, Or get to the taxi, You have to buy the tickets. you have to do whatever you have to do.. No one will just take you.

But my point stands. Having authority to become something is not the same as me having already become that thing. We need to read what the bible says, not read into it what our favourite ear-tickler says.

Your point falls on its face. because you can not make yourself alive no matter what you do.

1 You cant buy a ticket
2. You can not drive to the place where you are going to be transported (the bus dept, the airport)
3. You can not drive yourself there

You have no power to do anythign to make yourself alive

again, you have to do some work to get to india..

A jew did not circumcize themself. They had to be circumcized. Yet paul called it a work and if they tried to do it to be saved, he called it a false gospel.

so even your getting on a plane and having someone fly you there is still a work

either way you look at it. Again, your example fails

 

[mailmandan]

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

One should not twist James 2:17 and Matthew 25:25 to teach salvation by works. Faith that remains by itself (James 2:17) is not genuine faith but a bare profession of faith. Notice "says/claims" to have faith but has no works in James 2:14. Notice also in Romans 4:5-6 that faith is accounted for righteousness and that God imputes righteousness apart from works. Faith in Christ alone saves us apart from the merit of works yet genuine faith does not remain alone/apart from the presence of works.

In regard to the parable of the talents in Matthew 25, the talents represent monetary value and are distributed according to ability (Matthew 25:15). The requirement is to invest in Christ. The first two servants deposited their money with the bankers (Matthew 25:27) but the third servant buried his money in the ground (Matthew 25:25). The third servant had been given a talent according to his ability and the opportunity to believe and bear fruit in accordance but chose to reject it.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Firstly, you've demonstrated no actual contradiction with John 3, and that issue is unrelated to the logical fallacies in claiming faith-alone. Secondly, questioning textual originality does not address the argument about faith + baptism vs. faith-alone. Thirdly, whether baptism refers to water or Spirit, it remains a required element alongside belief, so faith-alone is still invalid. Would you be willing to say Spirit baptism is not a requirement of salvation? None of these points engage the fallacy errors I identified.

Actually it is

John 3:
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Mark 16: 16 - 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

these two do not say the same. One appears to contradict the other so must be translated in a way they agree, or rejected.

 

[PaulThomson]

Conviction isn't the same as condemnation. Of course I'm convicted due to my sin. This doesn't change the fact that my sin no longer condemns me. I have passed from death unto life and possess the righteousness of Christ. Even were I to doubt my salvation, I would still possess the righteousness of Christ.

You seem to have a religious system that uses words and language in a way that is different from the way ordinary people use the same words and language, in order to make the Bible say what you want it to say.
You asked -

Why aren't believers under condemnation?

You did not ask, "Why are believers not condemned?" Words and phrases have specific meanings that are understood in the real world. Applying your own private meanings to words and phrases doesn't help direct and clear communication.

 

[PaulThomson]

2. You can not drive to the place where you are going to be transported (the bus dept, the airport)

You also have to come to Jesus to be saved.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

You also have to come to Jesus to be saved.

No

Jesus came to me, I was saved where i was sitting, the moment i became like the tax collector and cried out to him for salvation.

 

[Cameron143]

You seem to have a religious system that uses words and language in a way that is different from the way ordinary people use the same words and language, in order to make the Bible say what you want it to say.
You asked -



You did not ask, "Why are believers not condemned?" Words and phrases have specific meanings that are understood in the real world. Applying your own private meanings to words and phrases doesn't help direct and clear communication.

All this is simply word salad for I can't give an answer for the hope that is within me. Bonus points for maligning other posters and ascribing false motives.

 

[studier]

Mark 16:16 is composed of two basic statements. 1. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2. He who does not believe will be condemned. While this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they will be saved), it says nothing about believers who have not been baptized and in order for this verse to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary, such as, “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.

Those who use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation commit a mistake called the negative inference fallacy. This is the rule to follow: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true." Now he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption.

You are making this out to be much more complicated than it really is. John 1:12 clearly connects believe in His name with received Him, gave the right to become children of God. No mention of water baptism.

In context, we see a contrast between those who rejected Jesus, who is the true light, and the Word who became flesh and made his dwelling among us, with those who receive Him by believing in His name. These believers are granted the authority or right to become children of God. This is not rocket science.

This is what’s not rocket science:

Mark16:16 establishes the condition belief + baptism > salvation. For those who do not believe (-B), baptism is immaterial and only results in condemnation, but this does not negate the original condition. Absence of an explicit statement about unbaptized believers does not prove faith alone suffices.

Similarly, John1:12–13 shows salvation depends on a lexical sequence of receiving & believing, the granting of authority, and God’s completed act of new birth; the verse does not mention baptism, but its omission does not prove it is unnecessary.

In both passages, ‘faith alone’ is inaccurate. This is how the grammar & logic of these verses work.

 

[studier]

Actually it is

John 3:
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Mark 16: 16 - 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

these two do not say the same. One appears to contradict the other so must be translated in a way they agree, or rejected.

Are you done with Mark16 or are you circling back to it for another attempt? One at a time as I said. The grammar and logic of it are not difficult, nor is the translation.

 

[mailmandan]

This is what’s not rocket science:

Mark16:16 establishes the condition belief + baptism > salvation. For those who do not believe (-B), baptism is immaterial and only results in condemnation, but this does not negate the original condition. Absence of an explicit statement about unbaptized believers does not prove faith alone suffices.

Similarly, John1:12–13 shows salvation depends on a lexical sequence of receiving & believing, the granting of authority, and God’s completed act of new birth; the verse does not mention baptism, but its omission does not prove it is unnecessary.

In both passages, ‘faith alone’ is inaccurate. This is how the grammar & logic of these verses work.

What you have is neither grammar nor logic. If he who believes shall be saved then he who believes and is baptized shall be saved as well, yet it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation, and not the lack of baptism. If water baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation then, God would not make so many statements and which He promises eternal life to those who simply BELIEVE. (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:20-26; 4:5-6; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 John 5:13 etc..). Faith alone still stands..