Is there such a thing as partly saved?

[Lamb]

==============================================================================================

Some statements from the Baby-Baptising perspective, with respect to part salvation and baptised babies:





==============================================================================================

Let’s try to cut through what some might consider waffle, by asking some simple questions, one at a time – simple questions to which simple Yes or No answers can be given.

Question 1. Are babies who have been subjected to a baptismal rite, permanently safe from ultimately going to Hell, irrespective of what they might individually do or not do later in life? (Assuming that each has been baptised by an “authorised” person.)

==============================================================================================

Depending on the simple and direct Yes or No answer to that question, the appropriate second question can be raised in my next Post.

Following that path, assuming that the simple and direct Yes or No answers are forthcoming, we will be able to progressively home in on how internally consistent the baby-baptising perspective is, when subjected to a modicum of reasonable questioning.

==============================================================================================

Of course, if the requested, simple and direct Yes or No answers are not forthcoming, could some people see that as a tacit defence of the indefensible?

Loyalty can prove to be a double-edged sword, can it not?

==============================================================================================

God has made promises to all of us through His Word in the waters of baptism. He gives the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism as Acts 2 tells us which means that unless the baby rejects Him, that baby has salvation by grace through faith because of His Word. An adult who hears the Word receives faith to believe. The Word is in the waters of baptism giving faith to a baby. Aren't we saved by grace through faith, Pedrito?

 

[atpollard]

God has made promises to all of us through His Word in the waters of baptism. He gives the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism as Acts 2 tells us which means that unless the baby rejects Him, that baby has salvation by grace through faith because of His Word. An adult who hears the Word receives faith to believe. The Word is in the waters of baptism giving faith to a baby. Aren't we saved by grace through faith, Pedrito?

You say “unless the baby rejects Him”; does that apply to adults too? Are they also saved “unless the adult later rejects Him”?

 

[Lamb]

You say “unless the baby rejects Him”; does that apply to adults too? Are they also saved “unless the adult later rejects Him”?

Mankind CAN reject the Savior. Scriptures speak of that. Anyone at any time can reject Him and thus damn themselves. That doesn't mean that they were partly saved though at any point. It isn't the amount of faith...but the fact of whether you have it or not that pertains to salvation. Of course as believers we want more faith and pray to the Holy Spirit to give us more.

 

[Josiah]

Mankind CAN reject the Savior. Scriptures speak of that. Anyone at any time can reject Him and thus damn themselves. That doesn't mean that they were partly saved though at any point. It isn't the amount of faith...but the fact of whether you have it or not that pertains to salvation. Of course as believers we want more faith and pray to the Holy Spirit to give us more.

I agree. It seems a Christian can reject Christ and "fall" (just as it seems a person with physical life can commit suicide). But whether we reject our physical or spiritual life (both equally and fully GIFTS of God), either means that "ergo" we were not fully alive (the "logic" suggested in this thread amazes me).

 

[atpollard]

Mankind CAN reject the Savior. Scriptures speak of that. Anyone at any time can reject Him and thus damn themselves. That doesn't mean that they were partly saved though at any point. It isn't the amount of faith...but the fact of whether you have it or not that pertains to salvation. Of course as believers we want more faith and pray to the Holy Spirit to give us more.

Thank you.
I wasn’t challenging your statement, just looking for clarification on your beliefs.
You clarified the point and satisfied my curiosity.

(Just for the record, I disagree with your conclusion. I place more faith in the promise that He who BEGAN a good work will complete it, and the Holy Spirit is a deposit which GUARANTEES our inheritance and Jesus will raise ALL that the Father draws to Him on the last day. So “quitting” is not an option, IMHO).

 

[Lamb]

Thank you.
I wasn’t challenging your statement, just looking for clarification on your beliefs.
You clarified the point and satisfied my curiosity.

(Just for the record, I disagree with your conclusion. I place more faith in the promise that He who BEGAN a good work will complete it, and the Holy Spirit is a deposit which GUARANTEES our inheritance and Jesus will raise ALL that the Father draws to Him on the last day. So “quitting” is not an option, IMHO).

Lutherans also believe that God is the one who is the author and perfecter of our faith. The Law tells us we can fall away and the Gospel tells us that God will never leave us and no one can pluck us from His hand.

 

[TurtleHare]

==============================================================================================

There is only situation that I can think of where being partly saved (whatever the implications of that are) could be deemed possible.

The situation is where a church teaches that:
- The rite of baptism saves an infant;
- Later, as an adult, that baptised child must confirm that saved status personally so that the saved status can be retained;
- There is no particular instant in time (later on) for a baptised infant (i.e. no precise age of accountability) beyond which that continuing saved status is in doubt.

Could it be that one or two organisations represented in CH have characteristics like that?

==============================================================================================

In the event of their being no age of accountability – no definable moment in time at which the transition from baptismal protection to personal responsibility occurs, a time by which commitment must take place – the transition must happen over a period of time; it must be a process.

I have seen no indication on CH of how long such a process would last, be it seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, or even years. But for sake of argument, lets say the process for a particular grown infant would take 4 months.

At the end of the first month, the person would still be ¾ protected by their baptism. At the end of the second month, they would be only ½ protected. And so on. During that period the person would be partly saved (progressively less saved) until either the period ended or that person made the required commitment.

And even if there were an age of accountability for each baptised baby, because no-one knows what that age is, it could well pass by without a person realising, and that would leave them endangered.

Unless of course it is said that infant baptism saves permanently.

==============================================================================================

Such are the problems associated with the teaching and practice of infant baptism.

==============================================================================================

Me thinks that Pedrito thinks his commitment is what assures his salvation instead of being saved by grace through faith on account of Jesus which is what our bible tells us and if he would only commit to believing that baptism isn't what we do he'd not question God's role in it for salvation by providing for an infant as much as he provides for an adult.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #16 (Lämmchen):

Which churches insist that in order to have salvation status that a baptized infant MUST make confirmation? I've never heard of that one.

Well, how about:

Post #247 in the ‘Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?’ thread:

If the baptized baby remains in faith then yes, that baby is a brother and sister in Christ. Baptizing and teaching are to go together. At some point that child will make a confession of faith that confirms what the child already believes concerning the Savior and forgiveness of sins.

The information imparted in that quote (incomplete though it may be) is:
- If a baptised baby remains in faith, that baby remains a brother or sister in Christ;
- At some point that baby “will” make a confession of faith that confirms the belief that the baby already had (or was given) when baptised.

==============================================================================================

What is not expressly expressed in that quote, is what happens if that confirmation that the child “will” make, is not made? Does that mean that the term “remains in the faith” no longer applies to that now-older child?

If it doesn’t mean that, then what is the precise measuring stick that determines whether or not a formerly baptised infant has not remained in the faith?

And if it is not true that “in order to have salvation status that a baptized infant MUST make confirmation”, then why are baptised babies when they grow older, subjected to a rite of confirmation, and even required to make a public declaration of their faith (whether sincere or not)?

==============================================================================================

A revealing question (whether or not directly and truthfully answered) is: What would the actual resulting social standing of a child and its parents within a Lutheran congregation (for instance) be, if the parents refused to have their child confirmed with the others? (Refused to conform to the expected norm.)


I believe that anyone from a socioreligious organisation, knows the answer to that.

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does God have you in the palm of His hand or are you dangling from his finger tips and holding on for dear life wondering if you're going to last? Which one is Gospel? Which one is Law?

Neither one is gospel and neither one is law. Dangling from a finger of God's hand is just silly imagination. Imagining a nice secure safe palm position is also imaginary.