Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Spockrates]

...

Jesus Christ!

There is no doubt in my mind that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ!

Through faith in only who Jesus is and what he did for us?

I don't put my faith in baptism. I put my faith in Jesus Christ and in His teachings. BChristian baptism was instituted and commanded by Jesus. For me, that makes it necessary.

Or through faith in what Jesus commanded us to do for him? Or both? I believe most Calvinists would say the former, not the latter nor both. (I'm not saying they are against obedience to Christ--far from it! But having been a Calvinist myself, I believe most of them would say such obedience has nothing to do with saving you.)

It's the purpose of baptism Arthur and I disagree on. My understanding of the Scriptures is that baptism is the time GOD has chosen to forgive and save me. It's not the how. I base that understanding on several verses. First, Jesus clearly said that if we are not born of water and of the Spirit, we can't enter the kingdom of heaven. Peter stated that repentance and baptism are for the forgiveness of sins. Paul called baptism a circumcision made without hands. He said we were made alive with Him having our sins forgiven. Baptism is the WHEN we are forgiven, not the HOW.

Regarding Calvinists, are you thinking an infant less than a year old who cannot speak and has no idea who Jesus is, what he did and what he commanded us to do is saved? (Remember: Calvinists baptize infants and most are not baptized again as adults. My youngest son was baptized by a Calvinist reverend. So if it is true that baptism is the only time one is saved, then the only time many Calvinists might be saved is when they are too young to know what the word saved means. Faith would be impossible for them at that age, I believe.)

 

[Spockrates]

No, you are wrong! I believe exactly what the Bible says. We are saved by grace through faith.

What I don't believe, nor can I find anywhere in Scripture, is that we are saved by faith alone.

The question becomes what does THROUGH FAITH mean. Imho, repentance, confession, baptism, loving one another, and obedience is what "through faith" is. All of the above are our responses to faith, and that's what saving faith is.

Salvation is by grace, but we must reach out and accept the gift. We do that through faith.

But keep in mind, we can do nothing without HIM. It is because of His grace that we can do the things He has asked us to do.

What I believe and what Arthur believes the Scriptures teach is irrelevant. I don't think we will be judged according to what we believe. We will be judged according to our deeds.

But is that what Calvinists believe? Calvin said we are saved through faith alone, and Atpollard explained that he meant we are saved through faith and repentance, but through nothing else.

Hey, I like Atpollard. I'd consider him a friend if he'd have me. He has been nothing but friendly to me, and he has a great sense of humor.

I would not be surprised in the least if he considers you a friend, and I think you agree with me that he knows a lot about the Bible. But ask him if he thinks you are a Christian, yet. I suspect he would say no, he does not believe you are, based on what you told him you believe. But I don't doubt he'd add that he hopes God has chosen you and you are getting close to believing the truth. However don't take my word for it. Please ask him yourself.

 

[e.r.m.]

Unfortunately, in my experience, most men choose to reject Him and many of the people that I knew growing up would have laughed in your face at the suggestion that God gave a rats *** about them ... that we could be forgiven after what we did ... almost daily ... was virtually unimaginable.

I think that a lot of people seriously need to hear that God cares and hope is within reach.
I am called to dumpster dive back into the darkness to follow the advice of General Booth to "go for sinners and go for the worst". (While I have no particular luck or skill at evangelism, I have received the privilege and grace to help those willing to struggle to find a little firmer footing on the narrow path).

I see what you mean.

 

[e.r.m.]

...


Through faith in only who Jesus is and what he did for us?

Or through faith in what Jesus commanded us to do for him? Or both? I believe most Calvinists would say the former, not the latter nor both. (I'm not saying they are against obedience to Christ--far from it! But having been a Calvinist myself, I believe most of them would say such obedience has nothing to do with saving you.)

Regarding Calvinists, are you thinking an infant less than a year old who cannot speak and has no idea who Jesus is, what he did and what he commanded us to do is saved? (Remember: Calvinists baptize infants and most are not baptized again as adults. My youngest son was baptized by a Calvinist reverend. So if baptism is the only time one is saved, then the only time many Calvinists might be saved is when they are too young to know what the word saved means.)

A person is saved when baptism is combined with faith Mark 16:16, not by baptism alone, and not by faith alone. Getting baptized at an age too young for faith and repentance is just getting wet.

 

[Spockrates]

A person is saved when baptism is combined with faith Mark 16:16, not by baptism alone, and not by faith alone. Getting baptized at an age too young for faith and repentance is just getting wet.

Guess I'm all wet!

 

[atpollard]

A change of subject here: I'm wondering how you might interpret this verse?
"Many are called but few are chosen."

What comes to mind is the mental image of

Luke 14:
15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”
16 Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’
18 “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’
19 “Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’
20 “Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’
21 “The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’
22 “ ‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’
23 “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’ ”
​

My best judgement: the Gospel is heard by many, salvation is obtained by few.

 

[e.r.m.]

No, you are wrong! I believe exactly what the Bible says. We are saved by grace through faith.

What I don't believe, nor can I find anywhere in Scripture, is that we are saved by faith alone.

The question becomes what does THROUGH FAITH mean. Imho, repentance, confession, baptism, loving one another, and obedience is what "through faith" is. All of the above are our responses to faith, and that's what saving faith is.

Salvation is by grace, but we must reach out and accept the gift. We do that through faith.

But keep in mind, we can do nothing without HIM. It is because of His grace that we can do the things He has asked us to do.

What I believe and what Arthur believes the Scriptures teach is irrelevant. I don't think we will be judged according to what we believe. We will be judged according to our deeds.

I agree, but we are judged by both John 3:18.

 

[atpollard]

What is the irresistable call by God based on? IOW, what would be the criteria for one person getting the call and another not? And what happens to those who don't get the irresistable call? I'd like your thoughts on this, not because I want to debate, but because I'd like to know what you think.

This is the absolute hardest part of my beliefs to accept.

How could God slay all those babies in Egypt ... all of the first born?
How could God order all of the women and children killed in Jerrico?

I can see the attraction of Universalism (everyone will be saved).
I can see the attraction of Arminianism (everyone has an equal chance to be saved).
I can see the attraction of pergatory (everyone eventually gets saved).

My problem is that God DID kill those first-born babies, He did order the death of those women and children in Jerrico.
It therefore seems reasonable that scripture may indeed say what I read it to say ... all men know right from wrong, all men choose wrong, all men are without excuse having earned their destruction as the wages of their sin.
It is therefore only GRACE by which God chooses to save some (in spite of ourselves).

How does God choose?
I have no idea.
I can only testify that it is NOT a merit based system (because in no way do I deserve to be chosen over others who die unsaved).

 

[e.r.m.]

Guess I'm all wet!

Lol.

 

[atpollard]

Regarding Calvinists, are you thinking an infant less than a year old who cannot speak and has no idea who Jesus is, what he did and what he commanded us to do is saved? (Remember: Calvinists baptize infants and most are not baptized again as adults. My youngest son was baptized by a Calvinist reverend. So if it is true that baptism is the only time one is saved, then the only time many Calvinists might be saved is when they are too young to know what the word saved means. Faith would be impossible for them at that age, I believe.)

I can't speak for all Calvinists, but none of the Reformed churches that I have attended believe in infant baptism ... Baptism is an outward public demonstration affirming the inner change ... which as you point out is impossible for an infant.

Infant baptism usually points to a more general covenant view on salvation ... God saves all who are faithful to the church (like Catholics and I think also Lutherans), who also have a second ceremony to serve the same function as Baptism does in a Reformed Church (Confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church if I remember correctly).

So I don't think that anyone believes that sprinkling an infant is all it takes to be saved.

 

[katiemygirl]

...
Through faith only in who Jesus is and what he did?

Or through faith in what Jesus said and what he commands us to do? Or both? I believe most Calvinists would say the former, not the latter nor both.

>So an infant who cannot speak and has no idea who Jesus is, what he did and what he command us to do is saved? (Remember: Calvinists baptize infants.)

Yes, my understanding from Scriptures is that all infants/children are saved. Why wouldn't they be? Far as I can tell, the thing that separates us from God is sin, and infants/children can't sin if they don't know right from wrong.

I don't know that calvinists baptize infants. I've not heard that before. The Greek word for the English transliteration "baptism" is baptizo which means immerse. Do they immerse babies? And what would be the purpose if they do? Or do they pour water on their heads? If so, why?

To have faith in Jesus Christ is to believe He is who He said He is, and to trust and obey Him. I believe John 3:36 supports this. Believe and obey are used interchangably in this verse.

36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

You misrepresent what I said when citing John 3:18. Of course we must believe in Jesus. I was referring to the way we interpret Scripture. I thought I was pretty clear in that. I don't believe God will condemn either Arthur or me for our belief about baptism, or TULIP, but if either of us didn't believe in Him, that would be a different story. As I said before, we are all at a different level of learning. We all come from different backgrounds and teachings. Remember, I came out of Roman Catholicism. I've spent the past four decades relearning. I don't believe for a second that I have 100% accurate understanding. God knows my heart. He knows I search the Scriptures daily and pray for guidance. I don't believe I will be judged according to how I interpret the Scriptures. I will be judged by my deeds.

 

[katiemygirl]

But is that what Calvinists believe? Calvin said we are saved through faith alone, and Atpollard explained that he meant we are saved through faith and repentance, but through nothing else.

Hey, I like Atpollard. I'd consider him a friend if he'd have me. He has been nothing but friendly to me, and he has a great sense of humor.

I would not be surprised in the least if he considers you a friend, and I think you agree with me that he knows a lot about the Bible. But ask him if he thinks you are a Christian, yet. I suspect he would say no, he does not believe you are, based on what you told him you believe. But I don't doubt he'd add that he hopes God has chosen you and you are getting close to believing the truth. However don't take my word for it. Please ask him yourself.

Nope, I don't think atp would say I was not a christian any more than I would say he is not. I think he would say that it wasn't his call, and it is above his pay grade to make such pronouncements.

Methinks you are having difficulty accepting that two people can see a Scripture differently yet still be unified and in fellowship with one another.

But for you, my friend, I will ask Arthur.

 

[atpollard]

But ask him if he thinks you are a Christian, yet. I suspect he would say no, he does not believe you are, based on what you told him you believe. But I don't doubt he'd add that he hopes God has chosen you and you are getting close to believing the truth. However don't take my word for it. Please ask him yourself.

I consider you both friends.
I have no idea who is saved (even among those attending the same church body that I do) ... it comes down to an issue of whether you know Jesus, Jesus knows you, and where you are placing the trust for your salvation (on the Person and Work of Jesus).
I have found nothing in any of your comments (or the comments of many JW if the truth be told) to disqualify you from salvation. We disagree on some things and, clearly one or both of us are wrong, but Jesus never mentions any Theology Tests for admission ... the criteria seems to be "Jesus knows you" or "Jesus does not know you".

 

[katiemygirl]

This is the absolute hardest part of my beliefs to accept.

How could God slay all those babies in Egypt ... all of the first born?
How could God order all of the women and children killed in Jerrico?

I can see the attraction of Universalism (everyone will be saved).
I can see the attraction of Arminianism (everyone has an equal chance to be saved).
I can see the attraction of pergatory (everyone eventually gets saved).

My problem is that God DID kill those first-born babies, He did order the death of those women and children in Jerrico.
It therefore seems reasonable that scripture may indeed say what I read it to say ... all men know right from wrong, all men choose wrong, all men are without excuse having earned their destruction as the wages of their sin.
It is therefore only GRACE by which God chooses to save some (in spite of ourselves).

How does God choose?
I have no idea.
I can only testify that it is NOT a merit based system (because in no way do I deserve to be chosen over others who die unsaved).

First, those babies were killed physically. Nothing is mentioned about their spiritual destinies.

It is beyond all reason that God, who is love, would condemn an infant's soul to eternal torment. That goes against everything the Bible teaches us about the nature of God....just, fair, etc.

But I don't know the answers. Who among us knows the mind of God?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[katiemygirl]

I consider you both friends.
I have no idea who is saved (even among those attending the same church body that I do) ... it comes down to an issue of whether you know Jesus, Jesus knows you, and where you are placing the trust for your salvation (on the Person and Work of Jesus).
I have found nothing in any of your comments (or the comments of many JW if the truth be told) to disqualify you from salvation. We disagree on some things and, clearly one or both of us are wrong, but Jesus never mentions any Theology Tests for admission ... the criteria seems to be "Jesus knows you" or "Jesus does not know you".

I have come to the conclusion on many of these issues that semantics play a huge role in dividing people.

I find myself more and more trying to find middle ground, looking at both sides of an issue and then getting to the heart of it all.

I know that probably doesn't make sense, and when I find a better way to explain it, I'll let you know.

Thanks for all the great discussions. You are the nicest and most reasonable calvinist I've come across on the forums.

 

[katiemygirl]

I agree, but we are judged by both John 3:18.

I'm saying we are not judged by how we interpret the Scripture, but by our deeds. That was the point I was trying to make to Sockrates. Of course we must believe. Without faith in Christ, we are lost.

 

[katiemygirl]

What comes to mind is is the mental image of

Luke 14:
15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”
16 Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’
18 “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’
19 “Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’
20 “Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’
21 “The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’
22 “ ‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’
23 “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’ ”
​

My best judgement: the Gospel is heard by many, salvation is obtained by few.

Agree!

 

[atpollard]

First, those babies were killed physically. Nothing is mentioned about their spiritual destinies.

It is beyond all reason that God, who is love, would condemn an infant's soul to eternal torment. That goes against everything the Bible teaches us about the nature of God....just, fair, etc.

But I don't know the answers. Who among us knows the mind of God?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I agree about the physical death of the babies vs spiritual destiny ... I was just pointing out that God does things that are hard to accept (from a human mind). God can appear cruel and harsh, even monstrous ... it is dishonest to deny feeling that way at times ... Some things, you just have to say "God, I don't understand. How can this be right?"
If God can be like that in the physical decisions, why is it impossible to accept that some spiritual decisions by God are like that too.

Eternal torment ... where is the love in that?
I get the emotional "turn off" that people have ... heck, I feel that way at times.
That's when I have what I like to think of as "the Gift of Job" ... a rare opportunity to say, 'God, none of this seems right, but I will choose to trust you in spite of the evidence.' How many opportunities does a fallen man get to demonstrate faithfulness to a Holy God in spite of all the evidence? It is usually God who demonstrates that He is faithful in spite of our evidence to the contrary.

 

[e.r.m.]

I can't speak for all Calvinists, but none of the Reformed churches that I have attended believe in infant baptism ... Baptism is an outward public demonstration affirming the inner change ...

Here is where Reformed Theology departs from scripture.
The outward public demonstration affirming the inner change purpose for baptism in Jesus's name is never written in scripture.

People cite scripture like Romans 6:3-4 and then comment on it to support this theory, but it's always only the comments that support the theory. The written scripture never actually describes baptism in Jesus's name that way.

which as you point out is impossible for an infant.

Right.

Infant baptism usually points to a more general covenant view on salvation ... God saves all who are faithful to the church (like Catholics and I think also Lutherans), who also have a second ceremony to serve the same function as Baptism does in a Reformed Church (Confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church if I remember correctly).

So I don't think that anyone believes that sprinkling an infant is all it takes to be saved.

The RC actually does.

 

[katiemygirl]

I agree about the physical death of the babies vs spiritual destiny ... I was just pointing out that God does things that are hard to accept (from a human mind). God can appear cruel and harsh, even monstrous ... it is dishonest to deny feeling that way at times ... Some things, you just have to say "God, I don't understand. How can this be right?"
If God can be like that in the physical decisions, why is it impossible to accept that some spiritual decisions by God are like that too.

Eternal torment ... where is the love in that?
I get the emotional "turn off" that people have ... heck, I feel that way at times.
That's when I have what I like to think of as "the Gift of Job" ... a rare opportunity to say, 'God, none of this seems right, but I will choose to trust you in spite of the evidence.' How many opportunities does a fallen man get to demonstrate faithfulness to a Holy God in spite of all the evidence? It is usually God who demonstrates that He is faithful in spite of our evidence to the contrary.

It's best to put it in His hands.

But in my tiny little pea brain I don't see the ending of physical life coming anywhere close to eternal spiritual torment. Who knows? God ending the physical lives of those babies may in the end have saved them spiritually. That is, if you believe in the innocence of babies like I do. Maybe they were able to avoid many bad choices as adults, and no doubt would have had no chance to be saved growing up in pagan homes. Just speculating here. Bear with me.

Again, we'll leave it to God. I am just so thankful that Jesus is my Lord and Savior. I am so richly blessed!