Salvation, through the Gospel, not the bible


#1

Jesus, is the fullness of revelation, not the bible.
Jesus taught the Gospel to His apostles. In this Gospel He taught them everything and sent the Holy Spirit to teach them everything again and remind of all that He taught them.
Mk 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
[size=2]Mt 13:11[/size] "to you it has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven”.
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
Jesus commanded His apostles to proclaim this Gospel, “He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16
Thus Jesus taught salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles preached and taught.
But no where does the bible claim to have a summary of this Gospel that they preached and taught. There is not a single book, a single Chapter of the bible that claims to present this Gospel the apostles taught. The four written Gospels only claim to be a narrative of the life of Jesus. They do not claim to be a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.
Yet Jesus says salvation comes from believing this Gospel the apostles PROCLAIMED. That is because the apostles learned the Gospel from Jesus and NOT from reading scripture.
No where does Jesus say salvation comes from believing the Gospels they wrote.
No where does Jesus say salvation comes from the bible, scripture, or reading the bible or scripture.

So how do we know what is the content of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, since it is NOT written down in the bible and since there is so much to learn that even the apostles could not remember it all without the help of the Holy Spirit?
All we have to do is find out what the early Christians believed, who learned from the apostles.
And the early Christians believed the same Catholic faith. Thus, the Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic faith.

So Jesus says salvation comes from believing the Gospel His Church teaches and preaches and NOT from reading scripture. But scripture is good for illuminating some of the teachings of the Gospel.
And scripture is good for salvation history. And we must believe it because it is the Word of God.
But salvation does not come from believing this Gospel they wrote, but from believing the Gospel the apostles preached, the Catholic faith.


#2

Responding to my own post.
I posted this above to inform Catholics that the doctrines of the Church ALL came directly from Jesus, the “fullness of revelation”. None originated in their fullness from the bible.
Jesus, and through the Holy Spirit He sent, is the origin of the doctrines of the Church. All these doctrines were handed down by the apostles to their successors in Tradition. Some were also handed down in scripture. Thus, no doctrine of the Catholic Church HAS to be in scripture, since no doctrine of the Catholic Church originated from scripture. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are simply the Gospel that Jesus taught to His apostles, or they are a deeper penetration into these doctrines. The Catechism quotes scripture as a different way of expressing these doctrines, so to help us understand them and the Church quotes scripture as a witness to the teachings. The Catechism does NOT quote scripture to show that the Church learned them from scripture. The Church learned all doctrines from Jesus, the fullness of revelation, not from scripture. Jesus taught His apostles EVERYTHING in regards to salvation. The Church learned no new doctrines from scripture, otherwise Jesus would have been a liar.

Therefore there is no need to “prove” doctrines from scripture. There is no need to show that all doctrines are contained in scripture. Sure it is useful and good to show how parts of Church teachings are found in scripture. But, when in the end, others disagree, we simply state the fact that the Church did not learn her doctrines from scripture, but directly from Jesus Christ and all was handed down by the apostles and the successors they appointed to “each generation” in Tradition. All scripture must be interpreted according to Tradition because this Tradition is simply the Gospel of Jesus Christ who revealed ALL to His Church.


#3

Many Protestants define the term “Gospel” too narrowly to be in reference to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. The fact is the Gospel is the whole of the Life and Teachings as well as the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, all this as passed on by the Apostles.
One verse I like to point to is Mark 1:1
1The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
This shows “the Gospel” encompasses the whole life and teachings of Jesus, not just one aspect. When Catholics talk about accepting the Gospel we are talking about accepting the whole of divine revelation.


#4

Time cannot allow one to refute the errors in this (dcdurel’s posting) of course, nor will time allow me to take every individual argument supposedly, and answer it accordingly.

The argument put forth here of course is only to give the catholic church a par authority with the Scriptures, the Word of God.

One Scripture will show what the Spirit of God uses to bring men & women to genuine faith in the Lord’s Christ, and that would be …

“Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” Rom 10:17

Just one more pointer regarding how loosely the word “Gospel” is used.
The word used in Mk 1:1 simply means “good news” which in this case is the beginning of the good news of the Lord’s Christ. And that to a dying world should be just that, good news!

The truth is of course, that the life of Christ is necessary because apart from an impeccable life, the sacrifice would have been of no worth.
But had He simply lived and gone back to heaven without any blood shed, there would have been no salvation.
When it comes to genuine salvation, Paul would remind the Corinthians about the Gospel, a specific Gospel (good news) that was absolutely necessary as a basis of their eternally being saved. This is seen in 1Cor 15:1-4.
This particular aspect of the Gospel was the death of Christ, His burial and physical resurrection out from among the dead.
Salvation rest in the Person of Christ t’is true, but it rest on the fact that His death was a vicarious death, a foundation for salvation for the whole world.

But then how does one get in on the good of this? Dropping ones’ preconceived ideas, Acts 17:30 and repentance from sin, i.e. Lk 5:32 / Acts 3:19 and faith taken out of whatever one might have it in (catholicism / protestantism etc) and put all of it, 100% of it in the Person and finished work of Christ.

This will be somewhat for to consider. Please understand that any question(s) might not be too quickly answered for other things that are consuming my time at present. I’m sorry if that should happen. Again this is written for someone out there that might be having second thoughts about catholicism.


#5

Salvation is through Jesus Christ. Jesus taught everything to His apostles, and they appointed successors, the pope and bishops of the Church to carry on the teachings of Jesus.
The apostles learned the gospel directly from Jesus. They did not learn the Gospel from reading the bible. Since salvation is through Jesus, we MUST learn from Him on how to be saved.
He clearly said that His Apostles were to "preach the Gospel"
and those who believed this Gospel they PREACHED and were baptized would be saved. (Mark 16:16) He did not say salvation comes from “reading the bible”, believing the bible, studying the bible, believing Martin Luther’s interpretation of it, etc., but ONLY by believing the Gospel His Church taught and preached.

  Thus faith comes from 'HEARING' as St. Paul says, NOT reading.   And Jesus and Paul say this faith, then salvation comes from believing the Word of God the apostles preached, which is the Word of God they learned from Jesus, NOT the Word of God that was written (salvation history) the scriptures. 
 
   While we must believe all the word of God, even the written part (scripture) it is ONLY through believing the Word of  God the Church preaches and teaches (the Gospel, handed down from the apostles as the Catholic faith, that we can attain the fullness of salvation.

#6

Also:
Acts:1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,


#7

Yes. :thumbsup:


#8

dcdurel … again, a couple corrections if you don’t mind too too terribly.

But first, I would give you a thumbs up to your first sentence, although you really do not believe that.
Salvation per se is through the Lord’s Christ alone, not Christ PLUS the catholic church / Mary / baptism etc etc.

But to the corrective part of this note to you. You say word of God, even the written part (scripture) it is O"He did not say salvation comes through reading the Bible."
This is one of your more serious mistakes. If you were to remove the catholic bi-focal’s and read the Roman epistle ch 10:17, you would see faith DOES come by hearing BUT by the Word of God. There is nothing here telling me or anyone else that faith comes by what dogma the catholic church presents or any protestant church may present. So your statement flies right into the face of holy Scripture, contradicting it and denying it.

Secondly, I notice you’re hanging on Mk 16:16. If you would have thought your statements through a bit more carefully, you would see that the catholic church practices a bit different from what this inspired text states.

This Scripture puts believing first then baptism second. Catholic teaching turns this Scripture on its head (as you have quite sincerely done) and reverses the formula, i.e. baptizing infants long before they even have the capability to believe.

Another thing you are doing to this verse … you are half quoting it, hoping for it to give you a foundation for your erroneous teachings.
The latter part of this verse does not say “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned” … and with this, I’m going to suggest quite strongly that you pick up a Bible (Douay version or no) and re-read that text a few times.

And then again, this verse (nor any other verse of Scripture) teaches salvation by baptism. If you were to read the Bible as much as your catholic dogma, you would read that baptism was closely associated with salvation, not to get it, but rather immediately following it. The longest anyone went after genuine repentance and faith in the Lord’s Christ alone, for baptism was three days … you guess who it was!

Thirdly you say “faith comes by hearing …not reading!” Really now? I wonder what the Lord Jesus meant when He said “He that readeth, let him understand” Mt 24:15. I do wonder what the God of the Bible meant when He said “Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of this prophecy …” The Revelation 1:3?

Nay sir … your statements reveal a mind that has been led astray by a system that is not of God.

As stated, your statements that salvation only comes by what the catholic church teaches, falls into the same category as Mormonism / the Watchtower Society etc. which step outside the covers of holy Writ.

The path you have chosen and tread is the very reason you cannot say with absolute certainty that you will be in heaven say … a hundred years from now.
And as long as you believe in something instead of Someone, you will remain the same till the day of your death which will then bring you into judgment.

A bit for you to consider …


#9

Rom 10:17: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”

OK, faith comes from the Word of God. Excellent. But that doesn’t mean that the transmission of that Word is solely written, does it?

If you were to read the Bible as much as your catholic dogma, you would read that baptism was closely associated with salvation, not to get it, but rather immediately following it.

What, according to 1 Peter 3, now saves us?
What, according to Romans 6, unites us with Christ in His death and resurrection?
What exactly did Peter command of the Jews in Acts 2?
What does Paul command in Acts 22?

Sounds like Baptism has a lot more to do with “getting” salvation than you’re letting on…

And as long as you believe in something instead of Someone, you will remain the same till the day of your death which will then bring you into judgment.

On the contrary, we believe in Christ, and we believe in the Church He founded and gave His authority. Let’s not pretend that Catholics aren’t followers of Christ, hm?


#10

Romans 10:17 is how faith comes … by hearing, and hearing what? Hearing the Word of God. What is that? In this context, it is the holy Scriptures.
The Word of God was preached / communicated by mouth for sure, but its basis is found in the Scriptures!!!

Furthermore, 1Peter 3 … you obviously are overlooking some things in each of these references you refer.

  1. you should have noted the word figure in this aforementioned passage … baptism in itself does not save, but is a figure (picture) of salvation.

As long as you place your faith in Christ PLUS water / other catholic dogmas, then is the reason you cannot say with surety you will be in heaven.

  1. Acts 2 … you should again note the order in this passage. Repent and be baptized for (because sins are remitted through genuine repentance) then true believers are for sure to be baptized … not to be saved, but because they are saved. This Scripture again is violated by catholicism.

  2. Acts 22:16 … a verse that is isolated from its context will leave you with some kind of pretext.

Paul was actually saved before he was baptized, which you should have noticed in Acts 9:17-18. Baptism here (as in 1Peter 3) is seen to be a figure (a picture) of what already had taken place in the life of Paul … saved & Spirit possessed.

So no, I really wasn’t holding anything back from you or anyone else on this forum regarding baptism or the false teaching that it saves in itself.

Water does not remove sin … from infants or adults. Again this point should be proven from the fact of not only the context of each of these Scriptures you quote, but also from Lk 23 … the malefactor who was crucified with the Christ of God, but went into paradise with God … not because of baptism / religion / catholicism / protestantism etc, but rather an acknowledgment of his own sin and who this Jesus was … the LORD!!!
When that sinner placed his faith (100% of it and nothing less) in the Lord Jesus, the promise of Christ was, “today thou shalt be with Me in paradise!”

A bit for you also to consider sir … and it has been a long time since you & I have communicated. I’m saddened to see you are still leaning on catholicism instead of Christ alone.

This is the very reason you cannot say you are saved on a permanent basis!!!

Please forgive typo’s / poor grammar here … I’ve not a whole lot of time that I can give to this. I wish you and the others here only the best!!!


#11
  1. you should have noted the word figure in this aforementioned passage … baptism in itself does not save, but is a figure (picture) of salvation.

The “figure” is Noah’s flood, not baptism. This is clearer in, say, the NASB – “Corresponding to that [the flood], Baptism now saves you.”

Acts 2 … you should again note the order in this passage.

I already have: The order is “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins,” not “Repent for the remission of sins and be baptized.” Surely Peter was a good enough speaker to use the latter form if that’s what he’d meant.

  1. Acts 22:16 … a verse that is isolated from its context will leave you with some kind of pretext.

Paul was actually saved before he was baptized, which you should have noticed in Acts 9:17-18.

Acts 9 just says that Paul regained his sight and was subsequently baptized. How do you know exactly when his initial justification occurred? Acts 9:17-18 certainly permits the possibility that it occurred with his baptism.

When that sinner placed his faith (100% of it and nothing less) in the Lord Jesus, the promise of Christ was, “today thou shalt be with Me in paradise!”

How do you know he was never baptized?

I wish you and the others here only the best!!!

Indeed, may the blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be upon us all.


#12

#13
  1. The flood was indeed a figure in this sense, that Noah & his family were saved through the water from the defilement of the world and its consequences. They were saved to walk in an entirely new life. They passed “through water” (New Translation) and were saved. That water forever separated them from their old life in the old world.

Likewise, baptism is a figure; it figures death, burial and a resurrection that enables the obedient to walk in newness of life.
This is seen in the NKJV "**There is also an antitype which now saves us––baptism (**not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
The Douay Version comes close to capturing this truth, “Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

  1. The preposition for is very important here. Someone has illustrated it this way.
    (a) The word for can mean for instance, “someone is wanted for murder” i.e. because he has murdered someone.
    (b) The Gk word for can be taken this way, “someone wanted for murder” in the sense he is wanted as a hitman!

Case number (a) would fit better in Acts 2:38. Why you ask? Because it fits with the whole of Scripture, particularly Acts i.e. Acts 3:19 “Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out” / 10:43 "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."
See again Acts 13:38-39, “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.”

One time only is the question asked in the whole of the Bible “Sirs, what must I do to be saved” and the answer was nothing close to baptism, but rather "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!"
Ahhhhhhhhhh … someone shrieks … BUT baptism IS mentioned in vs 33 of this very chapter. Allow me to add, t’is so true, but nought to do to GET saved, but because he WAS saved … how? See vs 31 once again for the first time!!!

Acts 9 actually says more than Paul gaining sight and then baptized. Note again vs 17 … when Ananias laid his hands on Saul (Paul) he not only gain his sight, but was filled with the Holy Ghost.
This latter of course is a sure signal that one belongs to God, i.e. Eph 1:13.
A man is not justified and filled with the Spirit of God spite the fact. Just the opposite is true.

And this did not happen simultaneously with his baptism … after he was filled with the Spirit of God we are told Saul “arose and was baptized!”

Regarding the thief on the cross, I suppose I could likewise ask the question "how do we know he was baptized?"
I would answer your question this way … the tenor of Scripture would not allow it.
John Baptist would not baptized just anyone, but rather see Mt 3:7-8. There was to be an obvious sign (fruits meet for repentance) of a genuine repentance before he would baptize them.
Why would we believe a murder (Lk 23:19) would then be baptized?
Nay, there was no time for this man to be baptized or join a church so called or join a new religion … he rather needed a Redeemer and he looked to the Christ of God as such and consequently he was taken into Paradise!

Again, I wish you only the best!!!


#14

LGR,

You seem so authoritative in your teachings. I understand your position, but how you can be so sure of yourself? What are your credentials?


#15

Thank you for your question. My credentials … one can be 110% certain when that one has for his or her foundation (credentials if you will) the Holy Scriptures.

On the negative side (with respect to the unregenerate) Scripture states “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” Isaiah 8:20

On the positive side (with respect to the regenerate) the same Scripture states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” … 2Tim 3:16-17.

I am a Christian (not a protestant / catholic / mormon / Russelite etc) but a Christian, one who belongs to God by sacrifice.
I am saved with an everlasting salvation, a salvation that cannot be lost because it has been purchased with the Saviour’s blood.
I came into the good of that sacrifice when I accepted God’s verdict upon me and my sins … and heeding God’s command to repent i.e. Acts 17:30 and to relied totally 100% on God’s Son for salvation.
Consequently 100 years from now, yea, one trillion years and never ending, I shall be with the living Christ because He died and rose again for me!!!

Thanks again for the good question.


#16

Again, I feel like you’re reading something into this passage that isn’t there. The NKJV says that there is an antitype to Noah’s flood, baptism, and that this antitype now saves us. The DRV says that baptism is “of the like form” – but to what? Our salvation? That doesn’t make any sense, because it would then be saying, “Whereunto baptism, being of the like form of salvation, now saveth you also.” Are we to infer that something that is only like salvation actually brings us salvation?

Even the most dynamic of translations can’t avoid saying that baptism saves us. Baptism may be referred to as a figure or antitype, but it’s clear from the way the passage is phrased that whatever it is, it actually saves.

Acts 9 actually says more than Paul gaining sight and then baptized. Note again vs 17 … when Ananias laid his hands on Saul (Paul) he not only gain his sight, but was filled with the Holy Ghost.

So was it the laying on of hands that did the trick, rather than the baptism? Sounds like Confirmation to me :wink:

This latter of course is a sure signal that one belongs to God, i.e. Eph 1:13. A man is not justified and filled with the Spirit of God spite the fact. Just the opposite is true. And this did not happen simultaneously with his baptism … after he was filled with the Spirit of God we are told Saul “arose and was baptized!”

The chronology given is:

  1. Ananias lays his hands on Paul
  2. Ananias speaks some words
  3. The scales fall from Paul’s eyes
  4. Paul gets up and is baptized

You said previously that Paul received the Spirit in verse 17. That’s not what that verse says. It says that Ananias said that he was sent so that Paul might receive the Spirit – but although Ananias says this, the passage is otherwise mute on when the reception of the Spirit actually occurs.

Someone bolder than me might even claim that Luke left this out because it would have been obvious to early Christians in light of the other teaching of Scripture on this point, but he could have had myriad other reasons for doing so, so this doesn’t seem like safe ground to me.

Regarding the thief on the cross, I suppose I could likewise ask the question "how do we know he was baptized?"
I would answer your question this way … the tenor of Scripture would not allow it.
John Baptist would not baptized just anyone, but rather see Mt 3:7-8. There was to be an obvious sign (fruits meet for repentance) of a genuine repentance before he would baptize them.
Why would we believe a murder (Lk 23:19) would then be baptized?

Well, the man was certainly guilty of some crime (Lk 23:40-41). But I posit that he could have been baptized, committed that crime, found guilty, and crucified, and after all that he could have repented in the presence of Christ, which would have been enough to get him to heaven (since Jesus could obviously forgive whatever sin he had committed). I offer myself as an example of someone who sins very, very frequently and tries to repent of those sins just as frequently.


#17

We can be sure that everything in scripture is trustworthy, true, profitable and of God. But I see two very big problems with the notion of the Bible as the sole authority of God’s Word. One problem is that Scripture does not record everything Jesus ever did; therefore, when one relies on scripture alone, they cut themselves off from spoken Tradition passed down from the Apostles. Furthermore, it is self-evident that not everyone who reads scripture understands scripture. We know this because there is more than one interpretation of what God has spoken in scripture. There is only one truth, God’s truth, but if there is more than one opinion of what that truth is, then someone has to be wrong. For example, the bible records that Jesus said that the bread and the wine are His Body and Blood, they are real food and drink. Some say He was speaking symbolically, however, Scripture does not support the symbolic view at all, neither does the Tradition passed to us by the Apostles (nor does the historical records of the earliest Christians).

One who does not rely on the pillar and foundation of truth, that is, the Church, become dependant NOT upon scripture, but their interpretation of scripture. This is dangerous to salvation, for many reasons, including the failure to recognize the grace giving sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconcilliation. Grievous errors result from personal interpretation, rather than interpretation from the authority that has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and earth, that is, the Church. For example, the notion that one can make a one time profession of Christ and they are ‘saved’ is absurdly unbiblical. Folks who make that claim base it upon a few favorite verses about belief (which is certainly necessary) but they exclude other verses which talk about mortal sin, lampstands being removed ,and Paul’s wisdom of “working out (his) salvation iin fear and trembling” (I think we can agree that Paul had professed his faith, if his salvation were 110% secured, what did he have to “work out?”)

Salvation cannot be “lost” per se-- Jesus never revokes the free gift of salvation. He has done the work already and died once, for all. People, though, can throw away the gift of salvation through unrepented mortal sin. We must listen to all of what Jesus said, not just what we want to hear.


#18

There is nought in 1Peter 3 that actually says “baptism saves” … rather, “the like figure” … baptism is likewise a figure. It is a type of the death / burial and resurrection of Christ.
Probably to paraphrase this for you might help … “baptism now saves you - not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents” …

It is not physical water that washes the flesh that saves, but rather what this physical water symbolizes “the washing of regeneration” Titus 3:5.
Literal water does not do this, but the Spirit of God accomplishes this upon repentance & faith in the Christ of God.

In other words, salvation is a work of the Spirit of God and it comes based on the crosswork of Christ. One comes into the good of it by repentance and faith in this Christ, nothing plus!!!

Quickly (and forgive me overlooking your other points for my lack of time) … to argue the murderer in Lk 23 was baptized could also be argued he was an Eskimo from Greenland there on a spring vacation.

Actually Scripture does not say anything of the like … the man was taken into paradise, not because he was baptized, but rather because his faith was placed in the Christ of God, i.e. “Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy Kingdom” … and the response from Christ was “today, thou shalt be with Me in Paradise!”

Here’s something for to consider … down deep inside your own heart, do you really know without a shadow of a doubt that you will be in heaven when you die?

Why do I think you do not? People never do when their faith is placed a bit here and there. Salvation does not come by trusting Christ a bit and something else a bit and something else a bit again. And neither does the assurance of salvation come by this means.

But salvation does come and the assurance of it comes only when the sinner takes his place as such and relies solely upon the finished work of Christ alone!!

I hope you seriously consider the end of what you’re trusting in!!!

Now I’ve got to gallop out of here for now. I appreciate your correspondence and your kind spirit in it all. This is something at least to be coveted!!! All the best my good friend!


#19

hey lubbergumrubber -

did you miss post 12 or simply not wish to respond to it?


#20

quote=LumberGumRubber;3715762]There is nought in 1Peter 3 that actually says “baptism saves” …

Uh, well, yes actually there is. What is happening my friend, is that you are explaining why the “baptism now saves you” doesnt mean that baptism saves you. Its just like when Scripture says “A man is justified by works and not by faith alone” and you will tell us what it really means is that a man is NOT justified by works, but IS justified by faith alone." The verse says quite clearly that baptism, which corresponds to the saving of Noah during the flood, now saves YOU. Your point is actually irrelevent even if it were true. The fact that baptism corresponds to the saving power of God is not somehow altered by the clause “which corresponds to this,” - not even in the slightest.

rather, “the like figure” … baptism is likewise a figure.

This does not follow at all. Noah was actually saved and the water was real water. The only “figure” that makes any sense is that the water which saved him now saves you. The physical salvation which Noah experience through water “prefigures” the eternal salvation which WE experience through baptism.

It is not physical water that washes the flesh that saves, but rather what this physical water symbolizes “the washing of regeneration” Titus 3:5.
Literal water does not do this, but the Spirit of God accomplishes this upon repentance & faith in the Christ of God. In other words, salvation is a work of the Spirit of God and it comes based on the crosswork of Christ. One comes into the good of it by repentance and faith in this Christ, nothing plus!!!

No one disagrees with you here. Baptism is most definitely an act of faith and requires repentance.

Here’s something for to consider … down deep inside your own heart, do you really know without a shadow of a doubt that you will be in heaven when you die? Why do I think you do not? People never do when their faith is placed a bit here and there. Salvation does not come by trusting Christ a bit and something else a bit and something else a bit again. And neither does the assurance of salvation come by this means.

Once again, where does the bible speak of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that you will be in Heaven when you die???
I honestly cannot think of a single verse. So I am gonna call your bluff on this one. I could site verse after verse that speaks of not getting “puffed up”, not sinning, persevering in faith, persevering in good works etc etc “lest you should fall” and be “cut off” from the Vine and thrown into the fire".

All the best my good friend!

Peace and God bless to you as well…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.