It is not about repenting first, but the only essential faith is with repentance. They go together.
I agree. Thus, sequence is irrelevant. So there goes the apologetic that FIRST the dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God must repent and only after that is God able to grant the divine gift of faith.
I agree that faith is accompanied by repentance and works. But where we seem to disagree is that I hold that one is saved by faith in Christ alone. The works the Christian does and the repentance the Christian offers are not what means he/she is no longer a dead, unregenerate, atheistic enemy of God but now a child of God, alive in Christ, with the Holy Spirit and with the divine gift of faith.
And it is not faith saving us, I do not say it is. God saves us, only God can do the work that will bring any to God in Heaven, Christ is needed for that. God has basis for who God saves, response from any in the important way is the basis, that God is not arbitrarily selecting some to go to Heaven and some of those created by God to be left to go to Hell.
Correct. The Protestant position is:
SOLA GRATIA - SOLUS CHRISTUS - SOLA FIDE - SOLI DEO GLORIA as one, united, inseparable truth. While this is overly-simple: It motivation/cause is God's limitless mercy and universal grace.... achieved exclusely by Christ who is the Savior.... apprehended by the divine gift of faith.... and all this is the work of God so that He has all the credit/glory and no one has any basis to boast of anything he;/she did.
Now, we can argue over whether 0r not God can give faith to one under the age of we-can't-tell-you.... or whether He cannot or does not do so unless and until the atheistic, dead, unregenerate enemy of God repents and believes (without God) and thus earns salvation, but the Reformation basis is that the reason is God's grace (not the lifeless, dead, atheistic, enemy earns it by jumping through certain hoops), and that Christ is the one and only and all-sufficient Savior (not part Savior, not just an offerer or possibility maker but the one who actually saves people) and that ALL the credit for this goes to God, NONE to us, that no one has ANY cause to credit self with anything whatsoever.
Baptism by water certainly is not the basis and is not how any go to Heaven to be with God there. You disregarded that is shown in the same passages you referred to that the jailer and all those of his household Believed the gospel of God brought by Paul and Silas, Acts 16:34.
Faith CAN be given before Baptism is given, even if Baptism is never administered. . No one disputes that. And there are cases of that in the NT. No one disputes that.
You are assuming that God is able ONLY to grant His gift of faith immediately ... without any means.... "by fiat." I don't agree. Indeed, I think God USUALLY uses means by which to grant His gift of faith. Now, we can argue whether Baptism IS such a means.... I think Scripture shows tht Baptism is NOT inert (nothing about it being just a sign of something the recipient did) and I can point to universal, ancient faith and belief but I don't have a verse "God may use Baptism to grant His gift of faith" just as you don't have one that says "Baptism is just an inert symbol to designate the person performed a good work."
Early believers also just had those confessing faith in Christ being baptized,
1. This cannot be shown in every case.
2. So what? Your rubric that we can only do as illustrated in the NT (the entirely of your apologetic) is one you yourself reject (Proof? You are posting on the internet, LOL). and I suspect that 99% of what Baptists do on a Sunday morning is never illustrated - not once - anywhere in the Bible. Baptists completely reject the entirety of their own argument. Do they only baptize in rivers? Only in the Middle East or very southeast Asia? Do only Hebrew men administer the Baptism? Ah, then they aren't doing as illustrated in the Bible. And with Communion.... does the Bible only show it with little plastic cups filled with Welch's Grape Juice and a bowl with little cup up pieces of Weber's White Bread pass around the auditorium to women, kids and everyone else? That's the exclusive practice illustrated in the Bible? Ah, how silly for them to insist "We can only do as it seems is illustrated in the Bible" when... well.... they almost never do. That's the height of hypocrisy?
It is not a prohibition of any
1. The Anabaptist dogma is that those under the age of "we don't know" are FORBIDDEN to be baptized. It's called "ANTI-PAEDObaptism" ANTI- against. PAEDO - a general term for a minor, variously applied to those under 13-18 years of age. So, yes, the Baptist dogma IS about age ("paedo" refers to an age of humans).
2. If it's a prohibition against those who don't chant the sinner's prayer, then it is a prohibition.
It needs to be with confession of faith in Christ. Infants just do not do that.
... and the verse that states that is....
FRED,
The Protestant operative principle of Sola Scriptura is that dogmas (and perhaps practices) are normed by the TEACHING of Scripture, NOT illustrations. Which is why we can do all the things Baptists actually do. To argue that we can only DO as done would It's just hypocritical to say "We can't baptize any until they accurately chant the sinner's prayer BECAUSE every single example in the Bible is of such" and then "We celebrate Communion once a month because every example in the Bible is like that.... and we pass around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread to women, kids and everyone in the pews because that's what was done EVERY TIME Communion was celebrated in the Bible. You get my point. Protestants avoid such silliness and hypocrisy however because illustrations are not normative, TEACHINGS are. But the Anabaptists invented their own stuff and often get themselves into such .. well.... obvious problems.
You've imposed prohibitions, limitations and mandates. None of which are taught in Scripture. We are taught to baptize...but those things the Anabaptists invented in the 16th Century are not taught.
A blessed Christmas season to you and yours....
Josiah
.
.
