Being made holy. The first sanctification takes place at baptism, by which the love of God is infused by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5).
Where in the context of Romans 5:1-11 is anything about baptism?
Piper also wrote in the same sermon you referenced:
"And what is this belief in the truth? It is none other than clinging to the cable of hope for dear life. It is not a pleasant estimation of the cable with a token compliment and stoke every week or so. It is a desperate clinging to the cable as your only hope.
Or to use the words we saw last week in verse 10, it is a love for the truth. Paul said you remember that people will perish because they refused to receive a love for the truth and so be saved. Saving faith in the truth of God includes love for that truth.
This is why sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth are not distinct acts. It is not as though our faith in the truth and the Spirit's sanctifying work run in separate parallel tracks and have nothing to do with each other. No. Saving faith, with all its impulse to love the truth is the power that the Spirit uses to make us holy."
So, those passages that your highlight (like Acts 26:18 and 15:9) are speaking of the initial point of regeneration (a person is both justified and sanctified at that point) Justification is the ground and basis for the process of sanctification. Sanctification begins at that point and continues; justification is a point (punctilliar) event.
And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. Rom 5:5
Does not the reference to "pouring out" bring up the image of baptism?
Impresive explanations, Ken, but once again I respectfully demand of you...why should this Greek illiterate trust your interpretation of scripture over that of our Early Church Fathers? Give evidence that you are sent from God and that He has decreed that I should listen to you ?
Amazing article.
Ken,
The problem is you are severing sanctification and justification into separate events.
Quote:
++So, those passages that your highlight (like Acts 26:18 and 15:9) are speaking of the initial point of regeneration (a person is both justified and sanctified at that point) Justification is the ground and basis for the process of sanctification. Sanctification begins at that point and continues; justification is a point (punctilliar) event.++
The problem here, and Protestants will have to do a lot of gymnastics at this point, is that you are creating an artificial discontinuity in the salvation process. It starts off sanctification, then goes to a purely external "justification" then back to inner sanctification again. It doesnt work. The fact is Reformed Protestants have no way of explaining how on one hand they believe regeneration is infused grace before justification, yet at justification the sinner's soul has nothing good in it despite the fact regeneration infused grace into it.
Also in places like Acts 15 you need to realize that the dispute was whether the gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law, this issue is first and foremost one about justification, not only sanctification. To argue that Peter was only talking about sanctification and left justification out of the equation in his sermon is absurd and twisting of the text according to personal bias.
++Justification is the ground and basis for the process of sanctification. Sanctification begins at that point and continues; justification is a point (punctilliar) event.++
That is a Protestant invention that justification comes first and is purely external. Justification occurs multiple times and is dependent on your growth in sanctification. That is why Abraham could be said to be "justified" at DIFFERENT points in his life.
Even more disastrous for the Protestant claim is the term "saved" because in places like Acts 15:9-11 and 2 Thes 2:13 the term "saved" is used as is "sanctification" yet the term "justification" is not used. However when "saved" is used in places like Eph 2:8 Protestants insist that verse is justification when "justification" is not used. The fact is "justification" "saved" and "sanctification" can be used almost interchangeably because none of them are external/imputed but rather touch the soul and work together. Thus even the Protestant favorite Eph 2:8 doesnt work because parallel passages like 2 Thes 2:13 show this "saved" is one of infused grace (sanctification).
Does not the reference to "pouring out" bring up the image of baptism?
Not necessarily -- Acts 2:33-36 -- the Spirit was poured out without any water baptism. I Cor. 12:13 -- the Spirit was poured out on the disciples at Pentecost, and believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ at the time of conversion (repentance and faith).
Baptism is an external sign and testimony of faith; as Justin martyr and others wrote. They had to go through catechism classes first; then profess faith, then be baptized. In that, we are in unity with the early church.
Ken,
Baptism is not an external sign, but an actual channel for sanctifying grace. The Nicene Creed says plainly "I believe one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Hard to find many Protestants these days in line with the simple teachings of Nicea.
I wasn't saying "pouring out" had to be a reference to baptism just that it was reasonable to say Paul was intending to bring in that image. He talks about baptism more directly in Romans 6. So your point about Rom 5:5 being distant from the context of baptism is just not true.
Baptism is an external sign and testimony of faith; as Justin martyr and others wrote. They had to go through catechism classes first; then profess faith, then be baptized. In that, we are in unity with the early church.
We agree with this. Baptism is an external sign and more. We do catechism classes before we baptize. That does not mean the sacrament does nothing. Quite the opposite. If it was just a sign it would not matter as much if we did it to those who didn't really understand the faith.
Ken
Heb 11:8
By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.
This was many years before Gen 15:6. This verse is talking about Gen 12. Look at the context of Heb 11,,,,these are people of great faith "
Nick,
Difficult to know what exactly the Nicean Creed actually means specifically as to baptism. Certainty it points to the forgiveness and is a symbol of cleansing and repentance. An answer or appeal to God for a good conscience. I Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38 -- the emphasis is on repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as in Luke 24:46-47 and Acts 3:19 ff. the baptism is an outward and sign and seal of the inward grace, but it does not actually put grace on people. The Ncean Creed statement can be understood exactly how we deal with Acts 2:28 and I Peter 3:21; it signifies forgiveness. It can be a "causal eis" as in Luke 11:32 "they repented at (because of) the preaching of Jonah". So it is probably, "I believe in one baptism because of the forgiveness of sins" or "symbolizing" or "representing" the forgiveness of sins". If they did not mean that, and they mean that water baptism actually causes and gives forgiveness of sins; then that is one of the areas where the Early church started to go off and then later it developed into ex opere operato priestly powers and baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.
Randy,
Romans 6 clearly emphasizes identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Does you RCC immerse in order to picture this reality and truth?
Jerry,
That is a very good point from Hebrews 11:8 and Genesis 12; at least it shows that faith was the foundation and Abraham's obedience was based on and resulted from his trust in the Lord.
Still, Abraham is still justified before his circumcision, which is the point that Paul makes in Romans 4:1-16. Abraham had some kind of Old covenant trust and faith in the promised Messiah who would bless all nations, but the details were not revealed fully until Genesis 15:1-6, where Abraham trusts in the Lord and His promise of the seed coming from his own body. Paul, in both Romans and Galatians uses that verse and point to teach on the NT doctrine of justification by faith alone, apart from works or ceremonies, apart from circumcision. If baptism is related to or similar to circumcision; then this proves that justification is by faith apart from baptism. Baptism is obedience and result and fruit of one who is already justified, since Genesis 17 comes after Gen. 15 and that is the main point Paul is making, both in Romans and Galatians and the same teaching in Acts 15:1-9.
We do catechism classes before we baptize.
Does your Catechism classes require one to confess Mary as Immaculately conceived, sinless, and bodily assumed and the Pope to be infallible before they will baptize them?
If so, that is false doctrine and a false gospel.
As many as received his word were baptized -- Acts 2:41
Nothing in Acts 2:16-40 about doctrines about Mary or the Pope in order to be saved or justified or baptized. It is adding and corrupting the gospel if you do.
Ken,
Your theological gymnastics regarding the Nicene Creed in your response to Nick were quite entertaining to say the least. However, I have a question for you. If we are saved by faith...alone, then if I refuse to forgive my brother for insulting my wife, but I have complete "saving" faith in Christ will I still be saved? Why or why not?
In Truth,
Matthew
Romans 6 clearly emphasizes identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Does you RCC immerse in order to picture this reality and truth?
I believe the RCC allows for immersion, sprinkling, or effusion. Our parish does immersion but sometimes people don't want to go under so they pour the water on them. What is your point?
Nick,
Difficult to know what exactly the Nicean Creed actually means specifically as to baptism
Is it difficult because you are not Catholic, and interpret neither scripture nor church councils with the mind of the Church? This fact brings me to repeat for the third time this question:
"but once again I respectfully demand of you...why should this Greek illiterate trust your interpretation of scripture over that of our Early Church Fathers? Give evidence that you are sent from God and that He has decreed that I should listen to you?"
Does your Catechism classes require one to confess Mary as Immaculately conceived, sinless, and bodily assumed and the Pope to be infallible before they will baptize them?
If so, that is false doctrine and a false gospel.
As many as received his word were baptized -- Acts 2:41
Nothing in Acts 2:16-40 about doctrines about Mary or the Pope in order to be saved or justified or baptized. It is adding and corrupting the gospel if you do.
But what does it mean to receive the word? In Acts 2 they received what the apostles were teaching. There was never a question of a certain subset of the teaching you could reject. You accepted it all or you didn't. That has not changed. We are still expected to accept the apostolic teaching. It is adding to the gospel in terms of legitimate development of doctrine.
You, on the other hand, have no clue what the apostles taught. If the Catholic church has it wrong there is just not chance the protestant church has it right. Protestantism is simply a corruption of Catholicism. So if it is a corruption of something bad it just makes it worse then if it was a corruption of something good.
Are you saying you don't require new beleivers to accept any doctrines that are no explicitly mentioned in Acts 2:16-40? Is that a serious position you want to take?
You, on the other hand, have no clue what the apostles taught.
Man oh man I remember Dave A. holding James White's hand to the fire on this topic. I was utterly amazed to see James squirm, twist and turn to avoid answering this question. The very fact that this doesn't seem to have given Mr White pause to reconsider his unscriptural and ahistorical Reformed Baptist position, amazes me even more.
One of James' truly pathetic performances, for sure. At least in those days (1996) he was talking to me. Now, he thinks the path of totally ignoring all my refutations of his nonsense is best!:
Dialogue on the Alleged "Perspicuous Apostolic Message" as a Proof of the Quasi-Protestantism of the Early Church (vs. Eric Svendsen and James White)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...erspicuous.html
Svendsen did an equally lousy job, almost needless to add.
The Nicene Creed was meant to be as clear as it could in getting key truths across. On top of that it didnt teach anything that was non-essential and getting Baptized to symbolize you already repented is surely non-essential.
It had the opportunity and theological terms to clarify this Baptism was only symbolic but it gives no such indication. In fact by that time most of the Christians who were Baptized were infants, and in fact the mass majority in history have been infants. Thus the idea it was symbolic of those who had already heard the Gospel and repented is not even a probable argument.
If we are saved by faith...alone, then if I refuse to forgive my brother for insulting my wife, but I have complete "saving" faith in Christ will I still be saved? Why or why not?
If a person refuses to forgive someone else, when known and confronted, (Matthew 18:15-20; 613-14, Mark 11:22-24); then the Bible says that there must be a process of steps of talking to that person. If they continue to refuse to repent; then it may be that they were not really a believer; the pressure of the process and loving confrontation will either bring about repentance and reconciliation or ex-communication, which could also force the person to repent, later. Sometimes it takes time. We don't know for sure when a person claims to be a believer but lives in deliberate sin. But when there is confession and repentance, it shows the fruits that faith is there.
Are you saying you don't require new beleivers to accept any doctrines that are no explicitly mentioned in Acts 2:16-40? Is that a serious position you want to take?
Randy
I see what you are getting at; but the Marian dogmas and Papal dogmas are not in any of the canonical scriptures, so by extension, the apostles taught what is in the 27 books of the NT, no where else. All proper development is derived from good exegesis of canonical Scripture, not the way the Marian dogmas and Papal dogmas were added in over time.
Amazing that you think I have no clue as to what the apostles taught. It is all right there in canonical Scripture.
And I responded to Dave's link at that time in the comboxes then.
Seems sufficient.
What is your point? (about baptism)
Paul seems to move from justification by faith alone apart from works in Romans 4-5 to sanctification in Romans 6 and uses their baptism as a reminder of the commitment of faith in Christ they made at baptism. It symbolizes new life, therefore they cannot just think, "I can live like the devil now". No. God forbid. You have died to sin. You are a new creature. You confessed your faith and learned things, you know things. "Do you not know ?" (several times) Cannot be to infants of course. They don't experience the blessing of baptism because they don't know, cannot learn, cannot repent or believe. they cannot recall those days of hearing the gospel, repenting, believing, trusting, learning, studying, asking questions, wresting, etc.
"but thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed." Romans 6:17
clearly there were classes, teaching, learning, and a commitment before baptism.
Amazing that you think I have no clue as to what the apostles taught. It is all right there in canonical Scripture.
All of it? You know this how? Catholics accept the same scripture so you distinctives have nothing to do with scripture but rather how to interprete it. Why would you assume protestants can do that better? Then you have the question of the scriptures themselves. A corrupt church means a corrupt scripture. So if the Catholic church has it wrong there is no reason to think protestants have it right.
As for baptism you seem stuck in an either/or kind of thinking. Yes, there is teaching and commitment before baptism. That does not imply baptism is merely symbolic.
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Is that symbolic? That would not make sense. He is trying to explain why we should avoid sin in practice. How can a symbol be the center of a practical explanation?
Maybe I am misunderstanding the Protestant view point of justification but I thought Protestant belive in the one time imputation, not a process, as Catholic Church teaches. As I read from R.C Sproul thatl the one time imputation happen in Abraham was Gen 15:6. Now Heb 11:8 is talking about Gen 12 which is about 20 or more years before Gen 15:6. That means Abraham had faith way before Gen 15:6 and was justified in Gen 12. The whole context in Heb 11 is people of great fatih. I think Heb 11:8 shows the Catholic view of justification which is a ongoing process with God grace. I think if you read the life of Abraham from Gen 12 to Gen 15 he did a lot of amazing things full of faith. I don't believe Abraham was unregenerate man in Gen 12.
Ken,
You replied to my question: If we are saved by faith...alone, then if I refuse to forgive my brother for insulting my wife, but I have complete "saving" faith in Christ will I still be saved? Why or why not?
"If a person refuses to forgive someone else, when known and confronted, (Matthew 18:15-20; 613-14, Mark 11:22-24); then the Bible says that there must be a process of steps of talking to that person. If they continue to refuse to repent; then it may be that they were not really a believer; the pressure of the process and loving confrontation will either bring about repentance and reconciliation or ex-communication, which could also force the person to repent, later. Sometimes it takes time. We don't know for sure when a person claims to be a believer but lives in deliberate sin. But when there is confession and repentance, it shows the fruits that faith is there."
This isn't what I'm asking you. I am simply asking can one still go to heaven based on having "faith alone" if he/she has not forgiven another for a trespass?
In Truth,
Matthew
Matthew,
A person who is truly converted by faith in Christ alone, will forgive someone -- sooner or later; eventually through struggle or quicker depending on the person and God's grace to them; if they don't they were not really saved.
Your question is like the question, "when did you stop beating your wife?"
You misunderstand what Protestant theology teaches regarding "faith alone". We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone; but that kind of faith does not stay or remain alone; it moves, loves, changes, grows, bears fruit. If a person claims to have faith and has no works or hatred for sin or ability to forgive; then they are just claiming to have faith and probably are not truly saved or converted. This is what James 2:14-26 is saying. You cannot claim 'faith alone" and hold on to a sinful unforgiving heart.
Ken, the Bible is clear you can be saved and not bear good fruit thus putting your soul in jeopardy (eg 2 Pt 1:9; Eze 18:24; 1 Tim 5:8; etc).
Ken, the Bible is clear you can be saved and not bear good fruit thus putting your soul in jeopardy (eg 2 Pt 1:9; Eze 18:24; 1 Tim 5:8; etc).
Nick
I am not saying that it is easy to put all the verses together in the bible and seek to harmonize the Calvinistic verses with the Arminian verses. But once is all worked through; the Calvinist position comes out on top; as the way to explain the apparent contradiction.
Matthew 7:21-23 "I never knew you"
I John 2:19 "they left us because they never were really of us"
Ken,
I think I know why you said you cant harmonize Scripture...the ONLY options you put forward on the table is "Calvinism" and "Arminianism". Until you realize that Catholicism is neither, for key doctrinal reasons, you wont be able to take verses head on and instead must make it a "my verses against your verses".
The R. Catholic position is the same as Arminianism as far as free will and loosing one's salvation goes; yes I know it is different and has other things with it like mortal and venial sins; indulgences, treasury of merit, Mary's intercession, purgatory, penance, etc.
But those verses you quoted are typically used on the Arminian side of the argument.
Ken,
You are still missing the real issue. Arminians are not Catholics and Catholics are not Arminian. Arminians are Protestants who hold to protestant ideas like justification by imputation and penal substitution, Catholics reject these and are in a whole different playing field by definition.
You are rejecting such verse because from your perspective you are still looking at justification as a Calvinist and Arminian would, NOT as a Catholic would.
but on the issue of loosing one's salvation, Arminians agree with you. And on the moral freedom of the will and ability to choose moral good over evil before faith, they also agree (Erasmus vs. Luther, Freedom of the will vs. Bondage of the Will.)
They believe in loosing salvation for the wrong reasons though. On one hand arminians teach imputatation on the other they teach salvation can be lost, that doesnt make sense and the Calvinists are right to object to this. Catholics teach salvation can be lost precisely because justification is not by imputation, but infusion. Through grave sin you lose the grace in your soul and have lost salvation by definition (eg Gal 5:4). As for the ability to do moral (but not supernatural good) apart from grace even Calvinists admit that. In fact it is the Calvinists who have a hard time explaining this in light of their teaching on Total Depravity.
Commenting by HaloScan
