Replies

>The usual Protestant error is that we are saved by faith alone. That is counterscriptural nonsense:<

No, that salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone is most precisely true, but not by a faith that is alone, and thus the Reformationists taught. Faith without works is in-deed not saving faith, but a faith that overall follows Jesus is, (Jn. 10:27) with practicing righteousness being the defining characteristic of a true Christian. (1 Jn., all) However, in our present day, what is often seen in evangelical Protestantism,, is a lowering of the standard of what constitutes saving faith, but which is even more evident in Catholicism and mainline Protestantism if the truth be told.

When the N.T. deals purely with what exactly does justify a person, it is clearly taught that a man is “not justified by the works of the law...” (Acts 13:39; Gal. 2:16) and broadly that it is “Not by works of righteousness which we have done...” (Titus 3:5; 2 Tim. 1:19) but that “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” (Rom 4:5,6) “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1)

What the N.T. shows is that the moment a person truly believes, he/she is washed, sanctified and justified, (1Cor. 6:11), havng been forgiven all trespasses (Col. 2:13) and indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13; Acts 15:7-9; cf. 10:43-47), and declared righteous in God’s sight. (Gn. 15:6; Rm. 4:9) And are also “translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” and baptized into one general body of Christ. (1 Cor. 12:13) These things are purely of grace, and cannot be done by man, even with Divine help.

Moreover, John constantly declares the he that believes on Christ has eternal life, and that believers can (and should) know this. (Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 5:13).

Abraham is the example Paul used in his soteriology in Rm. 4, as “he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” (Gn. 15:6) Abraham had no power to achieve what God had promised, that of many decedents (and which is this being analogous to our gaining justification), they being being beyond child bearing age, but in humbly acknowledging this, he was “fully persuaded that, what He [God] had promised, He was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. (Rom 4:22)

Yet texts such as Heb. 5:9 teach that Jesus is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him”, and James (2:21) seemingly contradicts both Genesis and Paul in stating that Abraham was justified by works when he offered up Issac in Gn. 22, which came after the imputation of righteousness in Gn. 15:6.

However, there is no real contradiction, as while the Bible upholds that salvation is by faith, it also clearly reveals that such saving faith is of a certain general quality, this being one which will effectually confesses Jesus is Lord: (Mt. 10:32)

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Rm. 10:9-11)

Contextually, for this audience to confess Jesus as Lord was to deny Caesar as one who was to be worshiped, thereby greatly reducing their life expectancy, and thus the believing of Rm. 10:9 conveys more depth than in the post-Christian west, and may be more akin to a Muslim confessing Christ in Pakistan.

As regards confessing, while true faith speaks, for “as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken”, (2 Cor. 4:13), yet the confession in v. 10 cannot be restricted to those who can speak, but in essence shows that faith in the heart will be expressed, and baptism is commanded as the initial outward deceleration of ones faith in Christ, that indeed He died and rose again, which is what baptism pictures in the life of the believer. (Rm. 6)

However, this cannot restrict justification to only taking place at the time of baptism, as the aforereferenced case of Cornelius attests, who received the gift of the Holy Spirit like as the apostles, before baptism, or even the laying on of hands.

On the other hand, while much effort is spent by those who contend against baptismal regeneration, as it is seen as adding works to justification, yet baptism is no more a work that merits salvation than thinking is in forming silent prayer (pray is labor in Col. 4:12), or moving one’s lips in confessing Christ out loud, and which baptism does in body language. Thus Peter in Acts 2:38 may be said to have called the 3,000+ souls to publicly say a “sinner’s prayer”. The key distinction is that while salvific faith is of a confessional quality, in words and deeds, it is not by the merit of any works that one is justified, but by the God-given faith that is behind works, the exercise of which repentant faith God enables, (Acts 11:18) and has ways of making you willing to.

While Calvinists go further in seeking to take any hint of works out of justification, by teaching that a soul is born again before he/she responds, i find less warrant for holding that the grace that enables repentance is the new birth itself, if f Acts 2:29; Eph. 1:13 etc. is a chronological sequence.

James for his part, is not teaching in cp. 2 systematic soteriology, but his particular polemic is that of proving that saving faith must have works. His seeming denial of Gn. 15:6 and Rm. 4:3 must be seen in that light, as while the Scriptures clearly state that salvation is “not by works”, by the merit of them, but by faith, it may be said that we are justified by works which manifest faith, as these justify that we have faith.

Yet I do not think that God has to wait until He sees a soul do a work of faith before He justify him/her, as He can see true faith in a person (so that even a person on a death bed could be saved, as in RC “baptism by desire), but baptism is both a catalyst which can bring forth faith, as well as a commanded expression of it.

On the other hand, Rome states that believers are “accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God,...to have truly merited eternal life.” (Trent, 1547, The Sixth Session Decree on justification, chapter XVI)

While this should have a practical effects in making Catholics as earnest as Watchtower disciples, in making sure their works are up to snuff, yet as stated before, what is effectually conveyed is that quite nominal profession is will do, in lieu of the power of Rome with God.

But doctrinally, the error pf Rome is the idea that what justifies one is an actual righteousness, that of a constitutional change of heart realized in regeneration, and which usually takes place in infant baptism (sprinkling, which some P’s erroneously do also) through proxy faith, and also that works of faith merit eternal life.

This is in contrast to the explicit teaching that righteousness is imputed (logizomai), reckoned, or credited by faith, resulting in regeneration, as the sinner abased themselves as being unrighteous, and exalted God as so righteous that the sinner cannot merit eternal life, but looked to Him for mercy, that being Christ crucified and risen to glory. And contrary to how Roman apologists often construe this position, this holds that such faith results in works wrought by faith, in response to so great salvation, though the works themselves do not merit of it, even though done by faith.

I do not that much discussion has taken place btwn Protestant and RC theologians over what Trent precisely meant, and I am not a man of letters, yet while I contend against traditions of men such as praying to saints, I would find some real joy if Rome forsook teaching that one becomes a born again Christan through infant baptism, and thus stop treating them as Christians, but press upon them the necessity of the new birth, and that they are not going to gain eternal life by resting on their merits or that of their church, and instead convict them of the need for their day of salvation, by calling upon the Lord Jesus for salvation, through faith in His sinless shed blood, out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, which souls God promises to save. (Ps. 34:18) (Rm. 3:25; 1 Pt. 2:14; 3:18) This alone would greatly enliven her church, but would be contrary to the institutionalized bureaucracy of dispensary of grace, which overall promotes perfunctory professions, and confidence in the church for salvation.

One can stress the need for fruit if you claim to be in the vine, but the normal predisposition of man is to avoid the humiliation of a man who is destitute of any merit of salvation, and casting away confidence is himself or church, essentially surrender his sovereignty, and become utterly dependent, in heart not just head, on the mercy of God in Christ. Churches who simply profess doctrine but do not preach as to impress upon its hearers the ramifications of it, afflicting the comfortable, and comforting the afflicted, become institutionalized fossils. But Rome;s error is not simply if lack of conveyance, but its very bureaucratic doctrine.

*Infants cannot fufil the stated requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:28; Acts 8:37) nor is circumcision fully analogous to baptism due to the physical versus spiritual basis, nor, considering its importance, is it reasonable that the Holy Spirit would not to provide at least one example of an infant being baptized (”thy house” hardly do so) if this was to be done, much less be the norm, while damned souls are done so based upon their own works, not Adam’s. (Rev. 20:12-15) As regards proxy faith, no example of salvation by this exists, unless we think the mention of baptizing for the dead infers sanction, and disability of the palsied man (Mt. 9:1-17) was physical, not cognitive, which allowed Jesus to address him. God can and does answers believers prayers of faith (thank God, but help my unbelief), including drawing souls to himself, but as argued before, heart response by them is necessary.