Salvation by grace alone through faith alone excludes works righteousness

The answer to both questions is F. But I'll bet you knew that already. Why you dodge that is another question altogether. In God's mercy, He accepted the Son's sacrifice on our behalf. Is that all there is to it? (Ak! Another question! But rather than wait for an answer, I'll press on.)

I don't know why you seem to think we owe you an answer to the questions you ask or imagine I don't know what the Bible teaches and you have to educate me. What this whole exercise has been about is what saves us, grace or works. If there had been a law that could make us righteous, then righteousness would have come by Moses' law, says Galatians 3 - and that was considered the epitome of law.

No one here has said "that's all there is" to living as a Christian. But to attain the righteousness required to be in heaven with God, who cannot look upon sin, we can ONLY turn to Christ, whose shed blood makes atonement for all our sins. It is AFTER we have been born again through faith that the Holy Spirit works in us to will to do those works Gods has created for us to do (Eph. 2:10). Are good works important for us to do in God's plan and purpose? Of course, I already said that multiple times. I don't know why you keep reverting to the idea that I've not acknowledged that.

Noah preached for 100 years and could only find 7 people with enough faith to join him on the ark. Did their faith save them? Yes. Did the ark save them? Yes. Did God save them? Yes. Did water save them? Yes. Did their getting in the ark save them? Yes.

Really? GOD saved those who had faith. Water didn't save them, they were saved FROM the water BY God's mercy and grace. Their getting into the ark was how they acted on their faith, it showed they had genuine faith. What makes you think I don't believe that?

The false teacher who wrote the OP's article would eliminate some of the things which saved Noah and his family. If he had been around back then, he wouldn't have gotten into the ark, let alone help build it. He doesn't have enough faith in God. Instead, he'd have spent his time trying to dissuade Noah's family from getting into the ark.

The author isn't teaching anything false, but for those who are counting on all the good works they do for God to save them, they probably HAVE to think he is. If you had been around back then, would you have gotten into the ark? Would you be boasting to your shipmates about how good you were to get on board or would you be thanking God for rescuing you from the judgment raining down? The boarding of the ark was an act of faith, but it was God USING the ark that saved them. Trusting in Jesus Christ is boarding the ark. It is what God requires to save us from the penalty of our sins.

The "false" gospel is coming from those who insist - in the face of ALL the Scripture to the contrary - that it is by their works they are justified. Sure, they slip in a little "faith" so as not to totally deny God's word, but it takes a distant second to their OWN works of righteousness. They have fallen from grace, Paul says, because works nullify grace. They are spewing lies from the pit of hell that deny the redemption which is in Christ alone. If Abraham - or us - are justified by our works, we would have something to boast about - but not before God. Don't be like those who at the judgment come before Christ saying , "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?", because Jesus will tell them, "I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

Our works do not save us. Only Jesus saves us by grace THROUGH faith and not by works, lest anyone should boast.

By your interpretation, you have Peter changing his understanding of the events of Acts 10, when relating the events to the brethern in Jerusalem in Acts 11. I see no doctrinal differences, just a few more words.

Paul’s conversion is in Acts chapters 9, and the retelling of it in chapter 22. The story doesn’t have any doctrinal differences. It’s just told slightly different.

You have Peter, in Acts 10:47, SAYING: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost AS WELL AS WE.”

And you are convinced that Peter didn’t remember that that was the ‘baptism of the Holy Ghost’ until later. Simply because he tells the events with more detail?

Even verse 45 clobbers your theory. Let’s break it down::

“And they of the circumcision which believed (already had received Holy Ghost baptism) were ASTONISHED (why would that be?), as many as came with Peter, BECAUSE that on the Gentiles ALSO (see..they KNEW EXACTLY) was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

I have never seen anyone twist that story up, as much as whoever taught it to you that way.

**Act 1:5 -Luke 3:16 -Note there’s no mention and inclusion of water.**

That’s because Spirit baptism is the Lord’s job. HE required his apostles to perform water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, as his commissions collectively show (you can go back and look at them. I was a Calvinist for 28 yrs, and even they will tell you that Matt 28:19 is water baptism, commanded by the Lord).

**The passage really makes no mention of water.**

That response to Acts 2:38 shows that you don’t think Peter preached water baptism on that first day. So when did he pick up the nasty habit? Philip takes off, and is baptizing in the name of Jesus, in water; who corrupted him?

**Here Peter is actually refuting the need for water for salvation, and the passage read correctly with it’s reference to water is actually showing that it’s NOT water that saves.**

Wow, that’s like looking at a glass of water and saying, “That’s not water in that glass”.

**“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”**

The good conscience is because of being buried with Jesus in baptism for the remission of sins, and BELIEVING it WORKS. You’re NOT taking a bath.

As I said, you would do well to look look these up (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16; Luke 24:47; and John 20:23), and compare them to each other, because they don’t contradict, and they are the Lord’s commands.

**(Titus 3:4-8)**

Paul (born again person), writing to one of his converts, Titus (born again person).

The need to fully detail their Acts 2:38 pattern of conversion is not necessary in Paul’s letter to Titus. They’ve both already been to that rodeo.

**Abraham was NOT justified by faith after working, that is a mischaracterization of what Scripture says and is disproved by the passage cited above, as well as others.**

Then you had better move Genesis 15:6 back in front of 12:4, cuz Abraham was quite a faithful busy body for over three chapters, before God makes that 15:6 commendation.

Is it ok to have faith and breath, and breathing not be a ‘work’? (think about the hairsplitting that you are trying to do. Deal with something concrete: Acts 2:38, is it from heaven, or of men?)

Peace, and God bless

The Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth of Jesus lied when He said that.

Don’t you believe the words of Jesus?

Funny, the Presbyterian in my example will claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. as will the Baptist. the Mormons, Methodists, Jehovah Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Lutherans, Anglicans, 7th Day Adventists and the Nazarenes also all claim to be led into truth by the Holy Spirit.

the truth is a person, Jesus Christ. the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion, nor can He lead someone to believe something in the 1st century and then lead someone to believe the opposite in the 16th century. so unless you claim infallibility, you have no assurance you personally will be led to truth by the Holy Spirit.

so how does the Holy Spirit lead us to truth? the answer to that is the same now as it was in the year 50ad....thru The Church.
it is the Holy Spirit that raises up leaders in the Church, it is the Holy Spirit that guides and protects the Church.
it is the Church that Jesus gave authority to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and TEACHING them.

no one in the Scriptures was ever instructed to read the Scriptures and decide for themselves what they mean.
in fact, quite the opposite. The Holy Spirit sent the Church to instruct the eunuch in Acts 8.

the basis for the truth the Church proclaims also is the same today as it was in 50ad, namely the teaching of the Apostles. this Apostolic teaching was not limited to only the written word, but also included the oral teaching of ALL the Apostles.

so when we look at the doctrine of infant baptism, we look to follow the practice of the Apostles. the Scriptures are not clear when they say whole families were baptized, if those families included infants or not. but we are 100% sure the Apostles baptized infants from the Apostolic Tradition followed by the Universal Church for 2,000 years.

if one is truly going to believe the words of Jesus, one would have to believe the Church would not/could not/did not go apostate in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century and would never need to be re-established in the 16th century.

so if one reads the Scriptures and finds a doctrine that opposes what the Church teaches, you can be sure the Holy Spirit is not the one who led you into that belief. Again, not the author of confusion.
the Holy Spirit leads true believers into unity in the faith and though we are many and cover 2,000 years, Christians are one because we all share the same Eucharist.

as further proof the continuity of the true Church, I will leave you to ponder Ephesians 3:20-21

Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all we ask or think, to him be GLORY IN THE CHURCH AND IN CHRIST JESUS TO ALL GENERATIONS, for ever and ever. Amen.

“all generations” includes the years 95ad thru the 16th century.

What makes you think people are not going in the water.

They say it's a "work", and they don't do "works" for forgiveness. You don't have to read far on FR to find that.

Even many of those who've been baptized say they were baptized AFTER the forgiveness of their sins. (Maybe they think Naaman dipped in the water AFTER his leprosy was cured? Maybe Noah was saved by water AFTER the flood was over?)

Doesn't it seem strange that even though the Bible says baptism is for forgiveness of sins, people don't believe it? It's as much for forgiveness of sins as the blood of Christ is.

Well, maybe it's not so strange. After all, Jesus said the preaching of the gospel would sort people into two categories: (1) those who would believe and be baptized, and (2) those who would not believe.

So the disciple's job is to preach the gospel to those who haven't heard it, and let the hearers decide whether they want to be saved or damned.

What Catholics demand means nothing.

Please read John 17 and see what the heart of Jesus demands, this I would think counts for something. The peace of the Church is important so the world ( unbelievers ) will know Jesus was sent from the Father.

Paul emphasizes the importance of this unity in Faith and the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians.

What prevents unity? The heart of man is desperately wicked and pride. Man wants to believe what seems right to them, and after they determine that, they use the Holy Spirit when in reality it was their own sinful mind.

The Scriptures tell us in latter days some will leave the faith ...........

Sounds like the water, a creation, is a miraculous element for you.

Perhaps getting in the water the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Frankly IMO we should not be separating the works of Christ’s righteousness into some formula.

We know we are justified by faith and saved by God’s Grace. That the Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sins.

We know whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

We also know that those in the NT and ages which followed who had faith/trust in the aforementioned got in the water to share in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If a person administering water saves another person, then we should head to the prisons and saloons with fire hoses and get them wet.

No, water is not a miraculous element - no more for us than for Naaman. Just as water was the means God chose for cleansing Naaman's leprosy, it is the means He chose for cleansing our iniquities.

Why did He choose water instead of something else? Or why did He choose baptism instead of a shower or a splashing from a fire hose? He didn't tell us. (Though He does explain to us some aspects of baptism - as in Romans 6, for instance.) Rather, He simply commands, and we either believe and obey, or disbelieve (Mark 16:16).

Does this mean we're concocting some sort of "formula", as you put it? Well, was Elisha concocting some formula for Naaman? Let's look at that story again, and see if perhaps there are some similarities between our attitude and Naaman's:

Then Naaman went with his horses and chariot, and he stood at the door of Elisha’s house. And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean.”
But Naaman became furious, and went away and said, “Indeed, I said to myself, ‘He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.’ Are not the Abanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.
And his servants came near and spoke to him, and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” - II Kings 5:9-13

What if Naaman had gone to Damascus and dipped seven times in the Abanah or the Pharpar? Would his leprosy have been cured?

What if he had dipped four times in the Jordan instead of seven?

What if he'd had his servants splash him seven times with buckets of water from the Jordan?

And finally, what if a leper today dips seven times in the Jordan?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.