My objection is to the to "onlys". Indeed the Scripture is inerrant as written by its human authors. But from nowhere does it follow that it is the only inerrant thing in matters of faith and morals. It is also true that the Magisterium of the Church is "subject" to the scripture in the sense that it may not teach contrary to it. However, the scripture itself poses no objection to the authority of the Church, -- in fact it asserts it; the common sense tells us that Sola Scriptura could not have been the rule of faith at least in the Early Church where the relevant to the Christian scripture was simply not written nor that that was in due course written, canonized. The truth is that the Hoyl Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time. The objections that the Magisterium being an activity of fallible men may, in principle, one day go into apostasy are of the same category as other speculations against faith: that remains of Jesus might be found one day; that natural explanation of the virgin birth and resurrection might be found; that evidence of the scripture being a fictional work of art be discovered, or generally some historical finding might render Christianity a myth.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a proper definition of Sola Scriptura yet if Sola Scriptura were the true rule of faith, it itself would logically have to be in the scripture. The salient fact is that Jesus surely did establish the Church (leaving aside for a moment arguing whether the Church He founded was Catholic in the narrow or some broader sense), -- but He never instructed anyone to write down anything. Christ intended the Church to be the rule of faith, and the Church produced the Christian scripture as part of her mission.
and the majority [of the liberal Catholics are] in the West
Very true. Another reference to Kuraev's book. He says that while in the West the ecumenically-minded Roman Catholics are theological conservatives who long for an injection of Orthodox fundamentalism, in Russia the voices clamoring for speedy reunion with the Western Church are the liberals whose hope is to water down that very fundamentalism. I think he is correct on that.
Or did you mean political liberalism and political conservatism? That, I think is due to the poorly defined political terms in the US. Catholicism is by definition conservative in the sense that it is oriented to the past event of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. We view the intervening time as something that is an obstacle to salvation of the souls, rather than any kind of "progress". But naturally, Catholics are more receptive to the forms of primitive socialism of the Early Church, condmenation of greed as a motivating factor, charity to especially the poor, -- the kind of things that the American Left pretends to have an interest in as well. On the other hand, the cultural liberalism of today: the indifferentism toward sexual norm, moral and philosophical relativism, the notion that a law is valid as soon as it is democratically enacted -- Catholicism would fight to the death, whereas there is no shortage of Protestant denominations falling over to the dark side on that.
Roman Catholics show more concern over a liberal Catholic who becomes a conservative born again evangelical than when he was a nominal Catholic
Of course. The falling off the Mother Church is a consciously taken step toward death. One can sympathize with one who struggles with Catholicism from the outside and fails to find it. Falling off the embrace of the Church once experienced is simply a horrific act of deliberate destruction. The grief is the same grief as over the fall of Adam. Of course, the responsibility for the Reformation and its evil fruit is entirely with the Church, and that adds to the pain.
On the other hand, a shift in political affiliation is not really a big deal, so long as it is not in itself defying the Church. To put it in a few words, it bothers us when one joins the liberal reservation on the Catholic non-negotiables, - abortion, human cloning, gay "marriage", euthanasia and artificial insemination of humans. If one joins the liberals for some other reason, it is his choice.
the overall historic evangelical Protestant position has been that faith and works are separate as far as to what actually procures justification
No. Not separate. Grace and works are separate altogether. Faith and works are either separate or one and the same, depending on the nature of the works. Works done out of love of God and the neighbor (Mattthew 5-7) are works of self-denial and therefore works of faith in Jesus Who did the same works. Those are a direct reason of the individual's salvation (Matthew 25:31-46). Works of the law -- in fact any works done for some purpose rewarded in the temporal life --- are naturally not bearing an eternal rewatd of salvation. If there is anything in the prooftexts that you offer (Rm. 4: 5,6; 9:11; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9 or any other) that contradicts what I just said, please, devote a post to just that and explain textually why. Do not forget to examine the immediate context: for example, Tutus 3:5 is incomplete unless the entire passage is apprehended. The salient points I need addressed:
1. "Works" in general are a badly defined term. Most anything we do other than cogitate are works. It is not enough to see the word "works" somewhere in the Bible and jump to conclusions. One has to determine the context in which that particular type of activity is pronounced upon, and the kind of activity being spoken about.
2. Liturgical "works" are works that God works. Man is merely asking His presence and His will. You did not mention that specifically, but I would like to know if the Eucharist, for example, is something you consider non-salvific works.
3. Certain works, under the general category of works of love (or of charity, or of faith) are singled out in the Gospel as at least conducive or perhaps concurrent to our salvation. So I need a comment specially on Matthew 25:31-46 (it is not the only place where such are commented upon, but that is the clearest, spoken by Christ Himself, and with direct consequence of eternal life in Christ or eternal life of damnation, -- i.e. salvation).
4. James 2 spends several paragraphs to debunking Faith Alone. It places the need for works to cooperate with faith in the context of justification. It does not pass the scriptural test to dismiss that as reference ot what the justified by faith do after they are justified: it says literally that they are justified because -- not by a prior faith but because, -- their works cooperated with their faith and not justified by faith alone.
Further, I am far more lenient toward Luther (if that is your reference to historical Protestantism), and generally to some thought put into the role of works as opposed to latter-day Protestant mindless sloganeering on the subject. Keep that in mind. I think that historical Protestantism really missed an opportunity with the Joint Declaration on Justification. I would like some comment on why, do you think, if "historical" Protestantism really held to some form of Catholicity as regards the "works", did that not result in a movement for the Lutherans to re-unite with the Church in the manner analogous to the Anglicans?
SS can result in a transdenominational unity that is manifestly effectual to the salvation of souls
I see how Sola Scriptura furnishes some basis of interdenominational Protestant unity. That is what slogans generally do: they unite diverse factions under some sufficiently vague banner. But that is not the unity Christ prays for in John 17, where the unity of the Christendom is seen as hypostatic unity of the Holy Trinity. Would you imagine Jesus arguing with the Father whether Man is totally depraved or perhaps just falling to sin in absence of grace; or whether the Cup Jesus drunk was for all or for the Elect? These divisions would be intolerable in any community of faith claiming biblical unity.
The Roman Catholic may argue that cults such as the LDS do not have the historical evidence for their claim, but the efficacy of this argument depends upon the interpretation that formal historical descent is a basis for authenticity, which it is not (and never was totally).
I never mentioned LDS, so I don't see how does that fit in our conversation. I also agree that formal historical descent is not a basis for authenticity even when undisputed. I beleive I gave that example already: the Anglicans and some Lutherans DO have a historical descent from the Apostolic Church. That helped for a while, but in order to be an authentic Church one has to hold to the authentic, that is Catholic, doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox do, and so their Church, hostile as it is sometime to the West, is an authentic Church. The Anglicans and the continuing Lutherans do not, and so their apostolic succession is formal yet not efficatious.
The distinction you make is that the believer goes in faith in order to glorify God, assuming this is in conflict with making his calling and election sure, which it is not.
Well, if it is not, then how do you say that justification is by faith alone? If I want to get to point B from A, and if X is something that makes sure my arrival then I would say, X is necessary for my arrival.
yet Rome disallows being confident you are saved
For that very reason. The scripture says that one has to walk a certain way to "make sure his calling and election". So how can we condone one who has not completed the walk to be confident?
At the same time, Rome doesn not promote the idea that we have no reason for hope. Indeed, we do: one who follows the things the Church has proposed for our salvation is assured of that very salvation.
Rome is the one who is unScriptural here, as it has the convert being made actually righteous in heart by “infused righteousness” via baptism [...] so he is formally justified by his own personal righteousness and holiness (causa formalis). This is in contrast to righteousness being imputed to him
I bleeped out the reference to the manner of Baptism (infant or not, sprinkled or immersed) as irrelevsant to this thought.
There is no "so". A baptised child (or a man of any age) is not instantaneously becoming righteous. The difference that the sacraments furnishes is that Christ is asked by another believer to protect the child. Yet, it is not imputed righteousness because the child is for the time being actually infused with grace. It would be in fact ridiculous to ask God to "cover up" the sin of a eight days old baby. The baptismal prayer asks God to protect the child from future sin and accept him if he dies before commiting any sin. Truly, now that he is baptised, he "shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), as his belief is his naturally sinless, believing state.
The manner of baptism would only matter in two cases. First, it would matter if actual washing were taking place. In that case not really immersion would make a difference, but use of soap. However, we are told by St Peter that washing of dirt is not the purpose (1 Peter 3:21). Second, that would matter if it were directly commanded in the gospel, such as the certain interpretation of the Eucharist is fixed in John 6 and 1 Cor 11. But there is no such scriptural fix. St. John baptized in a river but St. Peter once asked is water for baptism could be denied (Acts 10:47), suggesting a water held around a house in a bucket. Palestine is an arid place, -- surely a river or pool nearby was a rare occurence. This all being said, the Church does recommend that a full immersion be made wherever practicable.
It is sure strange to see an insistence on full immersion made by people who ordinarily do not believe in any sacraments or, as they call them, rituals, to be ordained by Christ.
I agree 100%. It is equally, if not more, true with the Greeks and the Arabs.
Sorry for the delay, but let me say first that this has been educational and edifying, but it is taking up a lot of time, and despite simplistic and superficial characterizations of the conflict, which i myself know are easy to make, there is a reason why the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification took 30 years, and within a coherent conclusion on the main issues was a long time coming. Below is my latest additions to this addition to this, and due to time and energy constrains, and before the snow hits, i am sending it without all the editing it should have, nor will i likely continue to engaged in this almost month-long thread much longer. While you must accept what Rome says, I am attempting to let the truth lead where it may, while i see the issue being more than precise definitions, but how they translate into Biblical conversions, which is my larger burden. Souls need to come to God as per Ps. 34:18, with “in my hands no price i bring, simply to Thy cross i cling,” resting in Christ as Savior, becoming born again, and responding to Him as Lord, to the glory of God. And i find what Rome and certain institutionalized Protestant churches officially and or effectually teach as working against that.
Sola (not “solo”) Scriptura, or the supremacy of Scripture, in which the Scriptures are the only supreme and assuredly infallible objective authority on earth for spiritual truth and morals, normally formally sufficient to save, and materially providing for the church and its magisterium, but it and all other mortals and teachings are subject to the Scripture. This is set in contrast to “Sola Ecclesia,” in which the Roman Catholic assuredly infallible magisterium (being infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallible defined criteria) is the only supreme, assuredly infallible authority on earth.
My objection is to the to "onlys". Indeed the Scripture is inerrant as written by its human authors. But from nowhere does it follow that it is the only inerrant thing in matters of faith and morals.
One sentence here can be “inerrant” and Rome can teach something that is, but the issue is assured infallibility, and as Scripture is the only objective source that is wholly God-breathed and thus it is uniquely assuredly infallible, while nowhere is there a promise that whatever the church magisterium ever teaches in accordance with its criteria will be infallible truth. If thre was, it could infallibly claim it was that church based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition. The faith of Israel was preserved apart from an AIM, and God know hows to raise up men whose authority is attested to by their works and Scriptural conformity to reprove those who ought to ensure such but officially fail. See also replies below.
It is also true that the Magisterium of the Church is "subject" to the scripture in the sense that it may not teach contrary to it.
No, it can claim it is, and thus it is, according to itself. It is even doubtful that in defining something that its reasoning behind its conclusion is considered assuredly infallible. Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible.
However, the scripture itself poses no objection to the authority of the Church, -- in fact it asserts it; the common sense tells us that Sola Scriptura could not have been the rule of faith at least in the Early Church where the relevant to the Christian scripture was simply not written nor that that was in due course written, canonized.
The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine then it becomes the authority by which continued revelation or influence must be judged by. (Many SS churches regularly hope that God “speaks” to believers hearts, especially during the offering!) The authority of Moses, Jesus and the apostles was established by their character, works and Scripture substantiation.
The truth is that the Hoyl Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.
What magisterium? Most of the Bible was from the Jews, writings being established as Divine apart from an AIM, and even then a large portion came through prophets who reproved the official magisterium, and whose authority did not essentially rest upon hereditary formal conference as with the Levites, but by Divine attestation, and were subject to death for abusing their authority. There was a reason why Jesus referred to the baptism of John and His own works and Scripture as proof of His authority, and as said, such is the basis for authority now, in due proportion to their claims. And essentially writings themselves came to be established as Divine due to their heavenly qualities. And while official decrees help by ratifying what has been manifest as from God, that does not confer assured infallibly to that body.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a proper definition of Sola Scriptura yet if Sola Scriptura were the true rule of faith, it itself would logically have to be in the scripture.
The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a “proper definition” of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc., but most Roman Catholics apologists have no reticence about insistenting they are Scriptural (and the 1st 2 are). And like as the Deity of Christ is established due to His coming forth from the Father and attribution of attributes unique to God, so Scripture alone is said to be God-breathed, being given through holy men “moved by the Holy Ghost,” and able to make men perfect unto every good work, (2Cor., 3:16,17) materially providing for the church.
The salient fact is that Jesus surely did establish the Church (leaving aside for a moment arguing whether the Church He founded was Catholic in the narrow or some broader sense), -- but He never instructed anyone to write down anything. Christ intended the Church to be the rule of faith, and the Church produced the Christian scripture as part of her mission.
The “Jesus only” hermeneutic is a fallacious, as there are other things we can disallow by it (homosexuals try). The fact is that God commanded His words to be written numerous times, as that was the norm for revelation, and referenced them for authority. And they have a power all their own, even apart from the body God uses to express them. That God uses men to express His word (and writing Scripture was not a formal work of the magisterium) and compile it does not render them the infallible interpreters of it, even though conditional obedience to Scriptural authority may be required. And the authenticity of the church is dependent upon Scriptures and its attestation.
Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) and only the Scriptures assuredly are, and by faith the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and endures by faith in the Christ (1Jn. 5:5) of the Scriptural gospel of God. (Romans 1:1-2; cf. Rm. 16:25,26)
and the majority [of the liberal Catholics are] in the West
Very true. Another reference to Kuraev's book. He says that while in the West the ecumenically-minded Roman Catholics are theological conservatives who long for an injection of Orthodox fundamentalism, in Russia the voices clamoring for speedy reunion with the Western Church are the liberals whose hope is to water down that very fundamentalism. I think he is correct on that.
The issue is who needs to move.
Or did you mean political liberalism and political conservatism? That, I think is due to the poorly defined political terms in the US. Catholicism is by definition conservative in the sense that it is oriented to the past event of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. We view the intervening time as something that is an obstacle to salvation of the souls, rather than any kind of "progress". But naturally, Catholics are more receptive to the forms of primitive socialism of the Early Church, condmenation of greed as a motivating factor, charity to especially the poor, -- the kind of things that the American Left pretends to have an interest in as well. On the other hand, the cultural liberalism of today: the indifferentism toward sexual norm, moral and philosophical relativism, the notion that a law is valid as soon as it is democratically enacted -- Catholicism would fight to the death, whereas there is no shortage of Protestant denominations falling over to the dark side on that.
No, and no; had you looked at the stats you should have seen that it was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values, and in which your adversaries fare much better, though as in both cases, less each year. An RCA here once argued that such declension by Catholics was proof that Rome was the OTC, as the Bible foretells great apostasy. As for liberal Protestant denominations, they are typically closer to Rome in being institutionalized, treating all as Christians based upon birth or membership and nominal morality, with rote professions and lack of strong preaching, including the need for conversion. Rome has nothing to fear from them.
Roman Catholics show more concern over a liberal Catholic who becomes a conservative born again evangelical than when he was a nominal Catholic
Of course. The falling off the Mother Church is a consciously taken step toward death. One can sympathize with one who struggles with Catholicism from the outside and fails to find it. Falling off the embrace of the Church once experienced is simply a horrific act of deliberate destruction. The grief is the same grief as over the fall of Adam. Of course, the responsibility for the Reformation and its evil fruit is entirely with the Church, and that adds to the pain.
So if a John Kerry an multitudes like him could become a Bible believing born again Baptist then he would be taking a step toward death, and is like the fall of Adam?! Tis enough to make you a sedevacantist wishing for the days when Rome could imprison her enemies (do you?)
On the other hand, a shift in political affiliation is not really a big deal, so long as it is not in itself defying the Church. To put it in a few words, it bothers us when one joins the liberal reservation on the Catholic non-negotiables, - abortion, human cloning, gay "marriage", euthanasia and artificial insemination of humans. If one joins the liberals for some other reason, it is his choice.
And yet Catholics overall much support such, except abortion, but they still get more of them. I do know there is a line between tolerance and comprise, and do not want to judge, and all have different degrees of light and discernment, but I would dare to say that if one who voted for men like Ted Kennedy — and there are multitudes like him - are either not believers or who are much need of enlightenment. And that goes for the many churches who vote as if race and radical leftist ideology trumps Christian faith.
the overall historic evangelical Protestant position has been that faith and works are separate as far as to what actually procures justification
No. Not separate. Grace and works are separate altogether. Faith and works are either separate or one and the same, depending on the nature of the works.
Grace and works are not separate as grace enables works, but in reality grace works through faith producing works.
Works of the law -- in fact any works done for some purpose rewarded in the temporal life --- are naturally not bearing an eternal rewatd of salvation. If there is anything in the prooftexts that you offer (Rm. 4: 5,6; 9:11; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9 or any other) that contradicts what I just said, please, devote a post to just that and explain textually why. Do not forget to examine the immediate context: for example, Tutus 3:5 is incomplete unless the entire passage is apprehended.
I will further.
Paul's argument in Rm. 4 begins earlier, in which he places all under “the law:”
"{19} Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. {20} Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. " (Romans 3:19-20)
As if anyone could be justified on the basis of merit, by a system of works-righteousness, it would be by the law, and yet the law condemns those who presume such, thus both Jews and Gentiles need salvation. Paul thus goes on to establish how:
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: {25} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; {26} To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. {27} Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. {28} Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. {29} Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: {30} Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. {31} Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
We see then that it is through faith in Jesus (of the Scriptures) blood, in His death and resurrection, that one is justified, this being called “the law of faith” in contrast with the system of works-merit under which man may boast. But if we have done works which save us then we could boast. Yet this does not separate faith from works, as the former births the latter, but it excludes works as a means of meriting justification, or acquiring it by merit of works, which Paul on to explicitly disallow, in contrast to faith.
"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? {2} For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. {4} Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. {5} But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. {6} Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, " (Romans 4:1-6)
Here it is plainly stated that faiyh justifies the unGodly, not the Godly who do works in order to be merit justification. And despite attempts to disallow imputed righteousness, of faith being counted for righteousness, that is precisely what it says. It also must be understood that the works he rejects are not works of the law, but works done before the law, as these fall under the system of law in disallowing justification by merit, as opposed to faith:
"How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. " (Romans 4:10)
Next Paul speaks about the result of Abraham's justification and its implication for lost humanity:
"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: " (Romans 4:11)
The texts is not contrasting works of the law versus works of faith, but makes faith the appropitative means of justification, and Abraham having been justified, is then circumcised, which is allegorical to baptism.
But what of the texts which follow:
"{12} And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. " (Romans 4:12)
One can assert that this means one do the works of Abraham to be saved, but we have just seen that he was justified by faith, not works, and then was circumcised, and in the next 2 chapters justification is not something they are seeking by being sanctified, but a present reality. However, as we also recognized, salvation means we are saved, and are being saved as in practically becoming what we positionally are, citizens of heaven, and will be saved, this being the full realization when faith becomes sight, if such faith is salvific.
Paul proceeds to reinforced his thesis that under the law and thus any such system which justifies one on the basis of merit and damns one for falling short, one cannot be justified, but that by recognizing his destitute, helpless condition, being unable to gain justification — just as Abraham was to birth multitudes of descendants — and placing his faith in the power and willingness of God, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rather than promising man that by God's grace he could do works which would justify him in God's sight, in which case God would be justifying the Godly, he states that "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, " (Romans 4:16)
"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: {20} He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; {21} And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. {22} And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. " (Romans 4:19-22)
"{23} Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; {24} But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; {25} Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. " (Romans 4:23-25) “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” (Rm. 5:1)
Here again it is Abraham's faith which is counted for righteousness, not his works, though the two are so intertwined that one presumes the other, yet it is believing that is set forth as the means of being justified. Thus it was not by works of a reformed life that one appropriated justification by, but by faith in Christ to justify one who could not justify himself.
Paul goes on to show that “the gift of righteousness” which is by faith is how “grace did much more abound:” (Romans 5:17-20)
In chapter 6, rather than such being persons who had done works of faith such as Abraham in Gn., 22 in procuring justified, Paul appeals to them as souls that believed in the Lord Jesus with all their heart, this being a contrite heart of faith wrought by God, manifested in baptism, and positionally were crucified and risen with Christ to “walk in newness of life.
"{1} What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? {2} God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? {3} Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? {4} Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. " (Romans 6:1-4)
Paul will go one to qualify salvation by grace as concerns election being strictly not because of anything man did, as "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;.." (Romans 9:11) "{16} So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. " (Romans 9:16) "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. {6} And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. " (Romans 11:5-6)
|
To be sure, justifying faith is one that is expressed in works, as by the Spirit the justified work to fulfill the righteousness of the law, (Rm. 8:4) but one is saved through God-gifted faith, “not of works” as if eternal life was gained by them, though God does bless obedience. Upholding that justification is by faith, not of works, while also stressing that is not a faith that would not work, is not unique to the Reformation, as writings from some some early church leaders show them doing so, while other quotes stressing works more may be found from the same class. Clement of Rome: And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. — ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32. Clement of Rome: “We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith." Epistle to the Corinthians. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.” — Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101 Augustine (354-430): Now the apostle could not mean to contradict himself in saying, "the doers of the law shall be justified," as if their justification came through the law, and not through grace, when he declares that a man is justified freely by his grace without the works of the law, intending by the term "freely" nothing more than that works do not precede justification. For in another passage, he expressly says "if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace." But the statement that "the doers of the law shall be justified" must be so understood, that we may know how unable men are to become doers of the law unless they be justified, so that justification does not subsequently accrue to them as doers of the law, but precedes them in that character. For what else does the phrase "being justified" signify than "being made righteous, " - by Him, of course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly man instead? "On the Spirit and the letter," Page 201,02 The works of Aurelius Augustine: A new translation, Volume 4 By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.) Augustine: “But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” — John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, ¡±7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 370. Andreas (c. 7th century), engaging in the difficult task of reconciling Rm. 4 and with Ja. 2, states, “Now someone might object to this and say: “Did Paul not use Abraham as an example of someone who was justified by faith, without works. And here James is using the very same Abraham as an example of someone who was justified not by faith alone, but also by works which confirm that faith?” How can we answer this? And how can Abraham be an example of faith without works, as well as of faith with works, at the same time? But the solution is ready to hand from the Scriptures. For the same Abraham is at different times an example of both kinds of faith. The first is prebaptismal faith, which does not require works but only confession and the word of salvation, by which those who believe in Christ are justified. The second is postbaptismal faith, which is combined with works. Understood in this way, the two apostles do not contradict one another, but one and the same Spirit is speaking through both of them.” Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 32. See J. A. Cramer, ed., Catena in Epistolas Catholicas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1840), 16, where he is commenting on James 2:21. More The well know Reformed theologian A. A. Hodge responds to the question of whether good works are necessary to salvation by saying, Good works] are necessary to the attainment of salvation, not in any sense as a prerequisite to justification, nor in any stage of the believer’s progress meriting the divine favor, but as essential elements of that salvation, the consubstantial fruits and means of sanctification and glorification. A saved soul is a holy soul, and a holy soul is one whose faculties are all engaged in works of loving obedience. Grace in the heart cannot exist without good works as their consequent. Good works cannot exist without the increase of the graces which are exercised in them. Heaven could not exist except as a society of holy souls mutually obeying the law of love in all the good works that law requires. Eph. v. 25 — 27; 1 Thess. iv. 6, 7; Rev. xxi. 27. [from his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 16, "of good works" Scottish Presbyterian (1795 – 1863) and Westminster commentator Robert Shaw states, Good works are essentially prerequisite to an admission into heaven. Though they do not merit everlasting life, yet they are indispensably necessary in all who are “heirs of the grace of life.” Believers, “being made free from sin, have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”-Rom. vi. 22 [from his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 16, "of good works"]
While such exclude works “as a prerequisite to justification,” as seen before historic Protestant recognized that arriving at the place of faith required conviction of one's deep need for salvation, with fear and love of God, which conviction preaching works to produce, directly or indirectly, and without this work of grace there will be no real conversion. And this conviction can result in formal evidences of repentance before conversion, while conversion itself signifies a basic turning in heart from darkness to light. (Jn. 3:19-21) Present day evangelical Calvinist Oxford theologian Alister McGrath points out, “It can be shown that a distinction came to be drawn between the concepts of merit and congruity; while man cannot be said to merit justification by any of his actions, his preparation for justification could be said to make his subsequent justification 'congruous' or 'appropriate.'” Speaking of such preparation, the English Presbyterian clergyman John Flavel (1627–1691) stated, “The foolish child would pluck the apple while it is green; but when it is ripe it drops of its own accord and is more pleasant and wholesome” (The Mystery of Providence p. 139). The famous Anglican preacher George Whitefield recounted, "I did then preach much upon original sin, repentance, the nature and necessity of conversion, in a close, examinatory and distinguished way; laboring in the meantime to sound the trumpet of God's judgments, and alarm the secure by the terrors of the Lord, as well as to affect them by other topics of persuasion: which method was sealed by the Holy Spirit in the conviction and conversion of a considerable number of persons, at various times and in different places in that part of the county." - George Whitefield by Arnold Dallimore, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth), Volume L 417. Noted Protestant Reformed preacher J.I. Packer states that “God converts no adult without preparing him; but “God breaketh not all men’s hearts alike” (Baxter). Some conversions, as Goodwin said, are sudden; the preparation is done in a moment. Some are long-drawn-out affairs; years may pass before the seeker finds Christ and peace, as in Bunyan’s case. Sometimes great sinners experience “great meltings” (Giles Firmin) at the outset of the work of grace, while upright persons spend long periods in agonies of guilt and terror. No rule can be given as to how long, or how intensely, God will flay each sinner with the lash of conviction. Thus the work of effectual calling proceeds as fast, or as slow, as God wills; and the minister’s part is that of the midwife, whose task it is to see what is happening and give appropriate help at each stage, but who cannot foretell, let alone fix, how rapid the process of birth will be.” However, the emphasis upon the Sovereignty of God did and has led some Calvinists to marginalize the work of preaching designed to awaken the sinner of his plight, which the famous sermon mentioned before by Edwards did. And rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account of Purtians during the early American period that notes, “as soon as one attempts to present in any detail a normative sequence of experience or even a normative set of ingredients to true conversion there is a strong temptation to go beyond the scriptural data and prescribe rules by which the grace of God is bound.” “My own impression, however, is that differences have been rather exaggerated and that the essential unanimity of the New England preachers about the experience of true conversion is much more impressive than their disagreement over related issues. They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’” Rome also recognizes preparatory priority but largely promotes perfunctory professions which it misrepresents historic Protestantism as believing in. In Rome's soteriology justifying faith is made alive by works of charity, so that rather than living faith justifying one and producing works, “faith receives life only from and through [works of] charity,” so that “over and above faith other acts are necessary for justification,” such as formal acts of penance as alms giving. But it also allows that “if the contrition be perfect (contritio caritate perfecta), then active justification results, that is, the soul is immediately placed in the state of grace even before the reception of the sacrament of baptism or penance, though not without the desire for the sacrament (votum sacramenti). If, on the other hand, the contrition be only an imperfect one (attritio), then the sanctifying grace can only be imparted by the actual reception of the sacrament.” (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cc. iv and xiv) By such statements she judges all those who were born again before baptism as having perfect contrition, while others who did not are regenerated in baptism. This actually somewhat similar to what i have expressed, that one is justified by the kind of faith which baptism both expresses and demands, which faith can be alive and justifying before any formal expression of faith, but for others an act of obedience is a catalyst to bring forth faith, in which the heart is opened and saving faith is realized in obedience. How Rome differs from this will be seen further on, but i wish to consider physical healing as being somewhat analogous to spiritual salvation. In the gospels many were healed by simply believing, with one being a seeker who was made whole by asking and believing, and who then followed Jesus in the way. (Mk. 10:51,52) Some other seekers of mercy were healed as they went on their way to fulfill the Masters command, and the full healing of one who returned in praise and worship was confirmed by Jesus, saying, “Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.” (Lk. 17:11-19) In another case, Jesus encountered a blind man whose eyes he anointed with mud, without identifying Himself or necessarily requiring faith in His power, and who then required the man to wash, and who thus came back seeing. (Jn. 9:5-7) In response the man later defended Jesus and reproved the Jews, and then Jesus revealed who He was and the man believed, being saved without a further work being then required of Him. (Jn. 9:15,24-39) A somewhat similar case is that of a man who was looking for healing — not necessary by Jesus — and Jesus healed him, but again, without identifying Himself or necessarily requiring faith in His power. Jesus later found him and revealed that He was Jesus, and told him to “sin no more lest a worse things come upon” him. The works-response of this man was to report Jesus to the Jewish authorities. (Jn. 5:1-15) Thus in one case a seeking soul was made whole the moment he believed and so followed Christ, while another seeker was healed as he went to fulfill a command and came back and worshiped, his full healing then being confirmed, while one not actively seeking required more ministering and a response in order to see, and another was simply healed but not converted. Since regeneration always is revealed as requiring personal repentant faith, and healing could be had simply by looking for mercy and believing, or not even seeking the Lord by simply by a non-costly act obedience, healing does not fully correspond to regeneration. But they illustrate that a seeker could be made whole by believing, but that such saved sheep follow the Shepherd, (Mk. 10:46-52; Jn. 10:27,28) and that those of whole faith are those who respond to grace, worshiping Jesus, (Lk. 17:11-19) while simply being healed does not necessarily mean salvation, but that one who is touched by God's mercy and obeys light that he has will find revelation of Christ and be saved just by placing faith in Him, (Jn. 9:5-7; 15,24-39; cf. Acts 10) while the ad-hoc recipient of manifest grace from God who hears the call to obey basic moral truth, but who chooses the culture, even that of religion, is more damnable than if he had never received grace. (Jn. 5:1-15; cf. Heb. 6:1-8) So far it is evident that Historic Protestant largely agrees in a preparatory work preceding justification, and in which a soul may have to do formal works of repentance, and that no soul comes to Christ without an honest repentance heart, but that it is not such works that makes a faith living, but that the God-given faith of the elect is alive on arrival, and pregnant with good works which God has foreordained them to do. And so such a faith is one that justifies, even before baptism (though that ought to be the norm at the time of conversion, and can take place any place), and thus it shows forth works. God can call a person to do things which bring forth real faith, and baptism as the demand of a good conscience requires such, as may an altar call. I have no doubt that on the day of Pentecost forward, the occasion of coming to faith and being born again was in their baptism, while for others it was on the way, but the preaching which convicts souls of their destitute condition and desperate need for salvation is what is critical, and increasingly missing today. But i oppose infant baptism (versus dedication) as there is no need, and find calling and treating souls as believers in lieu of it to be most damnable, who have not had a definite day of salvation (they need not precisely which day) as a result of being convicted So both Rome and sola fide churches understand the need for preparatory work, as well as the inseparable union of faith and works as regards the former expressing the latter. And in allowing for baptism of desire, Rome comes close to sola fide. But what divides them is not simply that sola fide holds that it is precisely the faith part that procures justification, and that it is by imputed versus infused righteousness, but that of Rome making baptism something which works ex opere operato, so that that “the sacramental grace is not conferred by reason of the subjective activity of the recipient,” but that “the sacramental grace is caused by the validly operated sacramental sign.” (Ott) And is effectual to regeneration in infants in recognition on the faith of another. And what follows is a highly systematized process of doing works meritorious for salvation, with a strong focus being on ritual and the power and primacy of the church to make one a Christian and gain one eternal life through them. In contrast, in Protestantism personal repentant faith in the gospel is a prerequisite to baptism, with the focus being on an transformative conversion encounter with Christ, and the resultant direct relationship with Christ through a faith which transcends churches, and Scripture-based obedience living out practically what they are positionally. Ritual has its place, more on baptism and the Lord's supper, but preaching emphasizes blessing as a result of day-to-day Scripture-centered obedience to God more in general, with conveyance of grace via ritual being more seen in Pentecostalism which came later. It is not that i completely differ with Rome's soteriology, but most fully with its result. On one hand it states that that “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification, For 'if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise,' as the apostle says, 'grace is no more grace." (Trent, Decree on Justification 8). ” though this is not in the sense that Rom. 11:6 refers, while she turns salvation by God-given faith into a bureaucratic system which promotes confidence in one's works for salvation, rather than the destitute sinner resting upon the finished work of Christ and thus responding to Him as Lord, striving to be practically pleasing to Him, to be practically the citizen of heaven that he positionally already is. (Phil. 3:21) Even if it were possible to reconcile all the bare bones of Romes soteriology with the Bible, and i can do so more now, its application becomes the major issue, and the effectual result of which is a system which promotes a mere form of Biblical faith profession, with confidence in ritual and the power of the church and ones own merits for eternal life, versus the very type of preparatory conviction and repentant faith which characterizes Biblical conversions. To a lesser degree this is seen in Protestantism, usually where infant baptism is practiced and strong evangelistic preaching is absent, and or where faith in the promise of the Lord Jesus for eternal life to them that believe is illogically disassociated with who and what the promise giver fully represents. |
The salient points I need addressed:
1. "Works" in general are a badly defined term. Most anything we do other than cogitate are works. It is not enough to see the word "works" somewhere in the Bible and jump to conclusions. One has to determine the context in which that particular type of activity is pronounced upon, and the kind of activity being spoken about.
It is you who jump to conclusions when you see “works” after a distinction is made between faith and works as basis for justification, and reading into them works of faith gaining eternal life versus a faith that works. And it is not activity that is being targeted, but the basis for justification, any system merit by works-righteousness versus faith. Abraham's works were not of the law, yet they did not save them, but a type of faith that would follow the Lord found was counted for righteousness.
2. Liturgical "works" are works that God works. Man is merely asking His presence and His will. You did not mention that specifically, but I would like to know if the Eucharist, for example, is something you consider non-salvific works.
No, God can work through them as He can with any act of obedience, and in such things as laying on of hands the instruments of conveyance must be right with God and gifted, while as for the Lord's supper, that does not make one born again and a recipient of the gift of eternal life, but obedience to it as prescribed works “life” and blessing, as does other acts of obedience.
3. Certain works, under the general category of works of love (or of charity, or of faith) are singled out in the Gospel as at least conducive or perhaps concurrent to our salvation. So I need a comment specially on Matthew 25:31-46 (it is not the only place where such are commented upon, but that is the clearest, spoken by Christ Himself, and with direct consequence of eternal life in Christ or eternal life of damnation, -- i.e. salvation).
You are ignoring what i have said as regards hermeneutics. You either have such texts as “not by works of righteousness which we have done” — written to an originally uncircumcised Greek — referring only to works of a certain motive, or works in general, while Mt. 25 either refers to eternal life because of such evidential faith, with works attesting to saving faith, or good works gaining eternal life by their merit. It cannot be the latter, but which system is what Rome promotes.
4. James 2 spends several paragraphs to debunking Faith Alone. It places the need for works to cooperate with faith in the context of justification. It does not pass the scriptural test to dismiss that as reference ot what the justified by faith do after they are justified: it says literally that they are justified because -- not by a prior faith but because, -- their works cooperated with their faith and not justified by faith alone.
Either we have a contradiction with Moses and Paul versus James, or the latter is referring to how a man is justified by a type of faith that works, in contrast to mere intellectual faith which has none, not as regards what component actually appropriates justification. “Thru faith,...not by works” and “To him that worketh not but believeth” — referring to both works apart from the law as well as them by it — is saying it is the component of faith that is counted for righteousness, but such faith is not separate from works in nature, and so the doers of the law are those who have such a faith.
Further, I am far more lenient toward Luther (if that is your reference to historical Protestantism), and generally to some thought put into the role of works as opposed to latter-day Protestant mindless sloganeering on the subject. Keep that in mind. I think that historical Protestantism really missed an opportunity with the Joint Declaration on Justification. I would like some comment on why, do you think, if "historical" Protestantism really held to some form of Catholicity as regards the "works", did that not result in a movement for the Lutherans to re-unite with the Church in the manner analogous to the Anglicans?
Rome was not lenient toward Luther, and today would not have dealt with him as it did, yet he would not had the same exact protest. He might have been on FR though. But i am speaking about the period from the 1600's through the early 1900's. As for Lutheranism (i am not), if the East finds the papacy an insurmountable barrier, Lutheranism certainly would, as well as with tradition being equal with Scripture and things like praying to the departed, etc.. while Anglicanism is far looser in its doctrines and has much departed from historic Protestantism.
SS can result in a transdenominational unity that is manifestly effectual to the salvation of souls
I see how Sola Scriptura furnishes some basis of interdenominational Protestant unity. That is what slogans generally do: they unite diverse factions under some sufficiently vague banner. But that is not the unity Christ prays for in John 17, where the unity of the Christendom is seen as hypostatic unity of the Holy Trinity. Would you imagine Jesus arguing with the Father whether Man is totally depraved or perhaps just falling to sin in absence of grace; or whether the Cup Jesus drunk was for all or for the Elect? These divisions would be intolerable in any community of faith claiming biblical unity.
It is not simply SS that works its interdenominational communion, but as said, the unity of the Spirit resulting from a shared common conversion by repentance and faith in Christ. As for Jn. 17, we cannot see the Son being in discussion about ascertaining any truth, and if this is referring to comprehensive doctrinal unity than Rome is also left out, and is no better than any one Protestant church could be, while on the lay level she comes short of cults who share the same basis as Rome for official unity. But the basis of the unity in Jn. 17 is a supernatural one due to shared nature with the indwelling Spirit, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. " (John 17:21; Eph. 4:3)
The Roman Catholic may argue that cults such as the LDS do not have the historical evidence for their claim, but the efficacy of this argument depends upon the interpretation that formal historical descent is a basis for authenticity, which it is not (and never was totally).
I never mentioned LDS, so I don't see how does that fit in our conversation.
It was relevant as to the basis for claiming to be the OTC. You both have a AIM, by which Scripture and history are infallibly interpreted.
I also agree that formal historical descent is not a basis for authenticity even when undisputed. I beleive I gave that example already: the Anglicans and some Lutherans DO have a historical descent from the Apostolic Church. That helped for a while, but in order to be an authentic Church one has to hold to the authentic, that is Catholic, doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox do, and so their Church, hostile as it is sometime to the West, is an authentic Church. The Anglicans and the continuing Lutherans do not, and so their apostolic succession is formal yet not efficatious.
And by what means is it established who is the OTC is? Formal ecclesiastical descent is no surety either, while as much as the EO is considered valid, the elephant in the room has not been moving. It also differs in aspects of soteriology with both sides.
The distinction you make is that the believer goes in faith in order to glorify God, assuming this is in conflict with making his calling and election sure, which it is not.
Well, if it is not, then how do you say that justification is by faith alone? If I want to get to point B from A, and if X is something that makes sure my arrival then I would say, X is necessary for my arrival.
The P in Calvinism's TULIP stands for Perseverance of the saints, in which those who are elected have faith that follows Christ, and will finally preserver, dying in such faith. Yet even in a probationary soteriology, the souls is drawn by God and granted repentance (and i would say persuaded) and given faith and justified thereby, with again, it being a type of faith that works, but man is given choice so that he may choose to recant, and he realizes his need for grace and faith to continue. But in both camps the believer is still saved by trusting in the mercy of God in Christ, not supposing that by God's grace he has done works of faith which merit or make him worthy of eternal life, though they testify of his faith. .
yet Rome disallows being confident you are saved
For that very reason. The scripture says that one has to walk a certain way to "make sure his calling and election". So how can we condone one who has not completed the walk to be confident?
So why does Scripture provide for assurance that one is saved? (1Jn. 5:13) Appealing to PI no less. But the issue then would be that this does not assure one will continue the faith, and for that Calvinists see texts such as Rm. 8:28-39 and life verses.
Rome is the one who is unScriptural here, as it has the convert being made actually righteous in heart by “infused righteousness” via baptism [...] so he is formally justified by his own personal righteousness and holiness (causa formalis). This is in contrast to righteousness being imputed to him
There is no "so". A baptised child (or a man of any age) is not instantaneously becoming righteous. The difference that the sacraments furnishes is that Christ is asked by another believer to protect the child. Yet, it is not imputed righteousness because the child is for the time being actually infused with grace. It would be in fact ridiculous to ask God to "cover up" the sin of a eight days old baby. The baptismal prayer asks God to protect the child from future sin and accept him if he dies before commiting any sin. Truly, now that he is baptised, he "shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), as his belief is his naturally sinless, believing state.
This is a yes. They are made instantaneously righteousness according to Rome, though as i said, it is not by IR. And of course such must grow in grace, if they ever were saved. “The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis)”
The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. vii) defined that the inherent justice is not only the formal cause of justification, but as well the only formal cause (unica formalis causa);
“..grace imparted to children in baptism does not differ essentially from the sanctifying grace imparted to adults,..”
The sanctity of the soul, as its first formal operation, is contained in the idea itself of sanctifying grace, inasmuch as the infusion of it makes the subject holy and inaugurates the state or condition of sanctity. So far it is, as to its nature, a physical adornment of the soul; it is also a moral form of sanctification, which of itself makes baptized children just and holy in the sight of God.
The two moments of actual justification, namely the remission of sin and the sanctification, are at the same time moments of habitual justification, and become the formal operations of grace. The mere infusion of the grace effects at once the remission of original and mortal sin, and inaugurates the condition or state of holiness.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
And Protestants do hold that imputed righteousness and regeneration are all part of one event, being washed, sanctified and justified, so that the convert is given power to live out his new identity.
The manner of baptism would only matter in two cases. First, it would matter if actual washing were taking place. In that case not really immersion would make a difference, but use of soap. However, we are told by St Peter that washing of dirt is not the purpose (1 Peter 3:21).
I am sure you could have thought of the real reason it is used, which is that it corresponds to the term “baptismo” and description. (Acts 8:38,39)
Second, that would matter if it were directly commanded in the gospel, such as the certain interpretation of the Eucharist is fixed in John 6 and 1 Cor 11.
Pure delusion. The Lord's supper is not being referred to in Jn. 6 and i have dealt with it much, as well as the “not discerning the body” in 1Cor. 11 which contextually refers to hypocritically not recognizing the hungry members as being part of the body of Christ - the interdependence of which he further elaborates in the next chapter – contrary to the import of their commemoration, not transubstantiation.
But there is no such scriptural fix. St. John baptized in a river but St. Peter once asked is water for baptism could be denied (Acts 10:47), suggesting a water held around a house in a bucket. Palestine is an arid place, -- surely a river or pool nearby was a rare occurence. This all being said, the Church does recommend that a full immersion be made wherever practicable.
No, availability of water was not an issue in Act 10, as Simon's house was by the seaside. (For good reason as he was a tanner.)
It is sure strange to see an insistence on full immersion made by people who ordinarily do not believe in any sacraments or, as they call them, rituals, to be ordained by Christ.
That idea again is much a straw man. Reformed type churches do call them sacraments, and most all Protestant churches recognize at least baptism and the Lord's supper as mandated regularly practiced ordinances, while also validating ordination and anointing of the sick and marriage, if not more, but not calling them all sacraments or ordinances (over reaction i think). Nor is emphasis upon mode surprising, as it is a result of emphasis upon Scripture, but what is surprising is some SS churches hold to paedo baptism and sprinkling. Yet mode is not a salvific issue.