[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Maybe I know why he decided to end his thorough 16-page paper on Justification with questions instead of statements.


I could be wrong, but if justification occurs at faith, then our sins are forgiven at faith. If our sins are forgiven at faith, then we are saved at faith.

If we are saved at faith, then our insistence that baptism in the Name of Jesus is the only salvational way of baptism is not correct, especially in light of the fact that baptism is no longer connected with justification/salvation.

I already thought the idea of my sins being washed away in baptism to be incorrect.

But if that is indeed incorrect, and if we are saved at faith, then the lack of a specific, consistent baptismal formula is no longer an issue.

In fact, it reduces the debate of baptism in the Titles vs baptism in the Name to the category of baptismal disputes addressed by Paul when he stated, "I am glad I baptized none of you...."


If we are saved at faith, then it becomes much more difficult to convince the masses that the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation.



Honestly, the fact that I am thinking like this disturbs me a great deal.


Maybe justification and salvation are two different deals.

That does not make sense to me either.



I am disturbed.

You are closer than you think. I will put it this way. One can be considered "just" in action before God and have not come into the covenant of Christ yet. Yet without God considering us "just" we cannot be saved.