History Of Faith Only
There are many theories that try to define the history of faith only. Baptists want to show their antinomial theology goes back to the apostles, Luther sought to show post-baptism faith only statements from Catholic writers to support his thesis. It is an important topic since historical precedents are valuable in persuading others to embrace one theology over another.
The best document is scripture, and that is my preference, but older writings do help us see how different philosophies viewed bible verses. We can see how they applied scripture. Keep in mind older statements don't prove a commentator was correct, and there are different views even among older commentators of the same church group.
Historically all church groups included faith in their plan of salvation. Catholics for instance included the concept of faith at confirmation and absolution, others like the Church of Christ see faith incorporated and exercised in baptism followed by confession and prayer as the Donatists had.
Catholics had used faith only in limited contexts such as baptism of desire, it did begin with them. Yet, they had gone the other direction saying one merits salvation by cooperating with God through good works. Their emphasis was based on context and a bit of hypocrisy to meet the needs of the differing contexts. Their wording is extra-biblical. They try to explain bible passages with non-bible words, it simply adds confusion.
The biggest stir historically occurred around the concept of Faith Only being written into a Bible, because Martin Luther translated faith only into his Bible Translation, in an effort to fight the need for imposed works and acts of penance after Christians sinned. Luther used "faith only" for baptized christians. With Luther It wasn't just faith was exercised, but that faith was the entire requirement for man to complete and fulfill God's covenant after baptism and absolution, faith being completed when believing in absolution through priests. He saw Ephesians 2:8 applying to previously baptized Christians.
Nevertheless, faith only went from theory based upon circumstantial evidence and faulty reason to a biblical doctrine under Luther.
Luther did not use faith only to annul baptism, and he believed it was for the remission of sins.
Baptism perfectly and instantaneously cleanses and saves" (The Sermons of Martin Luther, VI: 142-165. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)
Luther taught faith only while accepting baptism as a part of salvation simply by placing the faith requirement after baptism just as Catholics had, but was primarily concerned not with confirmation, but faith during absolution after a Christian sinned.
I'm not looking to show that faith was in salvation, that is a given, I am testing the concept of faith only which excludes everything else during different phases of the salvation process, does faith only nullify the need for baptism during a christians conversion, or repentance during conversion or later after a Christian sinned, etc.
Of course Luther wasn't the only teacher to use faith only, but he was the first to translate it as such in a Bible version. His idea of salvation apart from works was that repentance didn't have arbitrary acts of priest commanded penance or payment to the church, Repentance was simply a visible change in purpose and behavior, and based upon such change a priest should grant absolution without requiring other prolonged acts of penance that was unrelated to the behavior.
Luther often contradicted himself and also evolved theologically to some degree. Yet, he was willing to put his beliefs in writing so we should respect him for his courage. He was trying to tell high ranking judges his beliefs without getting killed or being imprisoned or excommunicated; all penalties could have big impacts on health, social status, and wealth. He was walking a fine line with great consequences.
So let's look at what he said. Since Luther was Catholic his statements don't have much bearing on groups like baptists or Churches of Christ, only to the point that his usage of "Faith Only" spilled over and was utilized by different groups to support their own theories. Baptists would use Luther 's statements, but hide the fact he was coming from a post baptism perspective.
Luther clearly kept a Catholic view of baptism.
Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and
that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that
children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through
Baptism are received into God's grace.
Luther never used faith to change the pedobaptist purpose of Baptism. He still baptized infants and considered it a grace of the church, so he didn't argue faith only against baptism as others do today. He also moved aspects like repentance and confession out of the faith category concerning absolution since those acts came before absolution should be granted, and placed them before absolution in an earlier period in the absolution process.
Thus, he did not use faith only to say repentance was unnecessary, in his argument repentance was already past and was recognized by the priest before absolving the sinner. He was concerned with required penance beyond repentance, like doing good works for days, weeks, or months before absolution would be valid. Like in the Donatist revolt some required priests who had rebelled to serve years before being restored to churches permanently.
In a nutshell, Luther used faith only after baptism when a person sinned post-baptism. He saw Ephesians 2:8 as post-baptism. His main fight was with extended penance or payment requirements that might be placed upon sinners.
Luther also taught good works were necessary, though they did not justify us. This quote below was for those previously baptized and absolved.
Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good
fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by
God, because of God's will, but that we should not rely on
those works to merit justification before God. For remission
of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the
voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these
things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17, 10. The
same is also taught by the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is
ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved,
freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith
alone.
Luther said works were necessary but did not merit. (Exactly true but needed explanations beyond what he supplied) His application of "apprehended by faith" was the act of believing the priest could absolve and the forgiveness granted was real. He believed you needed faith in Christ's work, baptism, and absolution.
He did not see in the scriptures a priests arbitrary right to establish his own requirements.
Thus we see that Luther was not faith only at all by today's standard of faith only, he believed we had to have grace through baptism, we must have evidence of the Spirit through good fruits, and we had to have evidence of obedience to Christ by good works, plus we had to approach the priest for absolution..
We could change Luther's objection above and his wording from "merit justification" to "complete justification" and be very biblical. Works complete faith, therefore works lead to the completion of justification. The work of going to the priest in the first place was an act of faith. I believe Luther saw this in his later years as he slowly accepted the book of James and tried to implement its precepts vs denying the book..
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Seeking absolution was a work but on its own did not complete absolution, but fulfilled faith that was required by the priest.
Though he made some sense he did have some problems he never worked out. Here is one of his contradictions, because he never admitted the good fruit was tied to justification by perfecting the faith accepted in justification..
He refused to tie good fruit and good works to justification, even though Paul also taught faith was a good fruit. Here is an analogy, Luther taught FAITH IS NECESSARY and part of justification, FAITH IS A FRUIT, BUT HE SAYS FRUITS AREN'T PART OF JUSTIFICATION.
Compare Paul's verse below.
Paul said,
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
One of Luther's contradictions, he taught we are justified by faith and not by fruits such as love or goodness,;but love, faith, and goodness are fruits.
Even though Luther quoted Christ to say we are unprofitable, he failed to acknowledge other sayings of Christ which tie fruits to salvation after hearing the word and being baptized. He failed to see that we are unprofitable even after good fruits come because we still have sin even with good works present, and we fail to measure up to God's glory even after good fruit is present.
The dilemma, how can fruit be required from those who are sinners, since we could never be perfect; the answer is that fruit does not imply perfection, it only implies the strength to produce worthy outcomes despite sin. (Even a tree with worms or blight can produce fruit in most cases, the tree doesn't have to be perfect to produce)
Mat 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
In this verse there is no assumption we have to be perfect to produce, only that we have the ability to hear, understand, and act accordingly. You cant teach faith and not fruits, when faith is a fruit. (Simple)
Also, the faith exercised as a fruit of the Spirit may be applied before or after absolution. It can be a beginning faith leading to repentance and baptism; or that faith which sustains a Christian later in life. Nevertheless it is a fruit the Christian bears through the Holy Spirit's help.
Acts 2 is an example of the Holy Spirit producing faith in those previously unbelieving.
The question is, does God accept us without fruit? Is fruit before or after justification? Certainly faith is before.
Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Yes, fruit is necessary for justification. Even after fruits such as service to Christ are born we are still unprofitable. We are unprofitable even after doing all we are commanded. Yet, it doesn't imply fruit is impossible.
Though the issue of faith only blossomed in the Protestant reformation, the seeds of faith only actually started in doctrinal questions stemming as far back as the Donatist revolt in the late 200's AD. Not that the Donatists believed in faith only, but formulating the concept of exceptions in cases where people had no control or ability to fulfill God's plan. It was also applied to priests who had committed treason against christianity in worshipping idols, they wanted to return as priests and issues arose as to that process, could they return based upon faith alone.
The Donatus question was over post-baptism unfaithfulness and idolatry. and they did not accept Catholic absolution based upon penance or payment.
Donatus spoke
A. D. 317.-Donatus, a bishop at Carthage, "That the preaching of the divine Word and the administration of the sacraments by an ungodly minister, were of no avail. They (his followers) held that the church of Christ existed only among them, and hence, they rebaptized all who wished to adopt their religion, saying that the heretics, or the Pope, had no Christian church, and consequently, no baptism, inasmuch as there was only one God, one faith, one Gospel, one church, and one baptism. 'They, like the Anabaptists, also held,' says Franck, 'that no children, even in the extremity of death, should be baptized, but only believing adults who desired it."
Donatus was imprisoned for his stance against priests being returned to office, but his statements were enough to excite questions and responses about returning sinners to the church and to office.It shows Christians were concerned with topics like repentance and what it took to be restored after sin.
It also shows adult baptism was supported by Christian Bishops very early on. Pope Gregory excluded Donatist leaders, so we see a separation and the marks of two distinct churches.
It is popularly taught the Donatists were unreasonable, but Catholics excluded them as much so. Catholics said Donatists rejected grace and absolution, Donatists said Catholics rejected the holiness required in a Christian office.
Catholics made it seem that penance to return wayward priests to Christ was all that was at stake, but the issue was in returning wayward priests (presbyters) to their office in the church, not just to the church. Donatists accepted they could be forgiven with repentance and proper baptism, but not return to office.
The Donatists were correct in rejecting their return to office even if they had been baptized as adults, and historically we can see how much harm it caused. The Muslim's used their sins to great avail and in bringing accusations against the Catholics.
Paul was ignored by Catholics.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
The office of presbyter required criteria that these men no longer met, there were many inside the church and outside who questioned their integrity. They also knew that they had received favor from Rome for turning over Bibles and turning other Christians to the Romans. There was general mistrust due to earlier bribery and confederacy to Roman Idolatry.
Again, it wasn't just a question of forgiveness, but of meeting leadership requirements laid out by the Holy Spirit.
There were also political ramifications. Rome could now use priests they had earlier persuaded to obey them in Idolatry, it gave them a certain amount of instant power in Christian Churches if they could implant these priests.
They may have in some cases received rewards from Rome. Thus greedy for filthy lucre. There is evidence the leaders in Rome attempted bribery to bring them into compliance. The return of wayward priests created an imbalance in voting power and threatened the integrity of any proceedings. Thus, the councils later called by Catholic leaders were administered with this imbalance.
Thus the traditors decisions were to be questioned, including their appointment of any other leaders. In the Donatist mind they were appointed against the authority of the apostles and against Christ.
On the other hand,
Though Peter denied Christ and was allowed to continue as an Apostle, Donatists believed the traditors still had a commitment to the Roman government, thus there was no real repentance. Plus Peter's denial of Christ was momentary followed by tears, Catholic priests had worked with the Romans over many years.
We can wonder if these presbyters were allowed to live and retain power because they helped Rome. Probably. Then after their appointment arose a system where payment must be made to the presbyters for forgiveness. A salvation tax so to speak. Rome basically taxed the church through the priests.
I believe this was Luther's point in including this question in his Augsburg confession. Though it seems he addressed this at random, he included it into the confession as a silent reminder to Catholics. Priests were allowed to continue practice in the priesthood and their work was recognized even after committing treason by worshipping idols under persecution. Yet, the layman was required to make payment.
I believe it was used as a silent precedent, without pointing it out specifically, he left it for others to see.
Priests returned under 'Faith Only" in most cases, but laymen were required to make payment.
That does not mean the Donatist revolt was over faith only per se, but they considered penitence to be a necessary part of Gospel preaching. Not payment, but penitance and sincere repentance.
The Donatists questioned the appointment of men receiving favor for past traitorous acts. They were right in that it later swung the balance of power to Catholics.
Questions over retaining such priests can be traced to Cyprian of Carthage who said, "if the church neglected to baptize, God could still receive them". The context of his writing involved the above Donatist argument that only Holy and recognized presbyters could administer sacraments, he believed in a Holy priesthood and if some were not baptized because a Holy presbyter was unavailable or if no presbyter with the real faith was present, then God could sort through all that and accept a convert without baptism until a rightful presbyter was found. Or if baptized by an un-holy bishop, the church did not have to accept it, God could accept the baptism if the church was incorrect in its decision about accepting a persons baptism as authentic. Cyprian believed repentance had to be real and sincere and the baptism had to be into the real faith. He believed they should reject the unfaithful priest.
This meant knowing each baptizers standing and doctrine.
The Donatus church of their day wanted to re-baptize Catholics and were more direct about it than today, where people are left to discover for themselves that their baptism isn't valid for some reason.
Luther's Augsburg confession gave some space to the holiness required in baptizers. We know he was reaching back to the Donatus revolt to align himself with Catholicism in matters he could.
Luther also quoted Ambrose from the 3rd or 4th century who used the term "faith only" in dialogue. Pelagius used faith only as well but Luther failed to attatch himself to Pelagius. Pelagius used Faith Only in a different sense. The Augsburg confession which addressed some of these issues in an attempt to align with early teachers avoided teachers who would cause Catholic hierarchy to automatically dismiss their confession. They weren't wanting to leave Catholicism, only redirect it back to an earlier state.
We should realize Ambrose was made a presbyter without being baptized yet. He was selected on political grounds being promoted during a riotous assembly, so I don't place much faith in his writing, except that after study in Rome he embraced his later views. Luther chose to quote Ambrose, however.
For Ambrose says: It is
ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved,
freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith
alone.
seems like faith only as taught by Antinomian Baptist, but his idea of freely receiving remission involved baptism, which he learned after becoming a presbyter..He used "receive remission" as Peter did in Acts 10:43 concerning baptism. They did not consider baptism a work of the person.
Ambrose again writes
I see the water I used to see every day; does this water in which I have often bathed without being sanctified really have the power to sanctify me? Learn from this that water does not sanctify without the Holy Spirit.
You have read that the three witnesses in baptism – the water, the blood and the Spirit – are one. This means that if you take away one of these the sacrament of baptism is not conferred. What is water without the cross of Christ? Only an ordinary element without sacramental effect. Again, without water there is no sacrament of rebirth: Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord . . .
Again, Ambrose taught baptism of infants after becoming presbyter. His idea of faith alone was after confirmation. He also disregarded exceptions. In the above quote he was referencing adult baptism and a later mature faith;
"the catachumen believes in the cross of the Lord"
St. Ambrose (387 AD)
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity." (Ambrose of Milan, Abraham 2,11,84 -- AD 387)
It should be noted Cyprian still believed baptism was for the remission of sins as did Ambrose, but believed all sacraments should be administered by the Holy. His point wasn't penance for the one being baptized but penance for a priest who had gravely sinned in offering to idols during persecution. If a person knowingly accepted such a baptism they were accepting that these presbyters could return to office without meeting the requirements of I Timothy 3.
Catholics held that the right of sacraments could not be taken away from these men no matter what they had done, even if they no longer met Paul's requirements. Catholics saw Paul's statement only for new presbyters, but refused to apply them to remove men from office.
Augustine even said a drunken priest administering sacraments was valid.
There is no difference between a baptism administered by a drunken priest and that of an apostle, was the avowed doctrine of Augustine;
His idea was the person being baptized was placing his faith in Christ, therefore he was saved. On the other hand baptism was to go hand in hand with the teachings of Christ, and Christ had denounced drunkenness.
Thus Catholics were administering baptism without teaching the precepts of Jesus, just upon faith in his sacrifice and not with faith in his Lordship and commands.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
In the Donatist view the drunken priest was not teaching first, and his example wasn't teaching, and by teaching forgiveness without responsibility to live after Christ the convert was not really a disciple. Thus catholics admitted converts without expectations of discipleship and repentance.
Christ taught against drunkenness as did the Apostles. They were not to keep company with drunken priests.
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
and
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Thus a priest that is drunk shouldn't be a priest, and especially as a life style. We shouldn't keep company with such brothers per the Apostles. If we shouldn't keep company how can we engage them in absolution. So Augustine was just making rash and unreasonable statements.
So where does Augustine derive his comments about a drunken priest being in the same position as an Apostle who has denounced his life style. Especially with Paul's comment that the person should be removed and that his example would be soul threatening.
1Co 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Instead of the sacrifice of Christ making it acceptable for him to stay in the body, his sacrafice required the person to be removed.
It all came down to a baptism with proper teaching and example vs a baptism with false teaching and examples included. The Donatists rejected such a baptism for it was not sincerely in Jesus' name. It did not honor Christ's teachings.
Cyprian and others believed a baptism that did not instruct in the area of Christian responsibility to faithfulness was a false baptism. Cyprian simply believed the church shouldn't accept baptisms from priests who were in his mind no longer faithful,and if the church made the wrong judgment on some people by refusing to accept them, God could still aid them. It really wasn't a point about receiving the unbaptized, as it was receiving the improperly baptized and those baptized without repentance to Christ's name.
Baptism into Christ meant baptism into Christ as messiah, rejecting Christ's teaching was a rejection of Christ and an invalid baptism.
I guess it might depend if the person was knowingly rejecting Christ's teaching in their baptism, they were likely in ignorance about their life responsibility, since the priest himself were drunk he wouldn't teach such responsibility.
As for the priest, he should be removed as an unfaithful brother and did not meet the requirements of the presbytery.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
It is obvious Catholic priests who have bad reputations aren't exactly qualified, and a person receiving such may be rejecting Christ's decision on the matter. Augustine was way out of Christ with his comments.
Basically, most changes in theology involved questions like
1. What if babies die before baptism?
2. Are baptisms valid if administered by the wrong person into the wrong theology?
3. Can only bishops baptize?
4. Does the baptizer have to be holy and meet certain requirements?
5. What if a person dies on the way to getting baptized or has to wait for some reason like a lack of water, are they accepted by Christ while they are waiting.
6 Does the baptizer have to teach responsibility toward Christ in areas like fornication or drunkenness?
I have never seen anything that states only presbyters could baptize, this seems to be of later origin, so this argument was really silly all the time. It was never a real argument, it was meant to imply the authority of sacraments without making the question the main issue.
In Luther's case men later twisted his idea of sola faith into what is now mainstream theology. Luther never meant it as faith without baptism or faith without anything. In his view baptism preceded faith. Yet he did not believe there were any works meriting or completing salvation.
Here is another Lutheran quote,
Lutherans believe that good works are the fruit of faith,[143] always and in every instance.[144] Good works have their origin in God,[145] not in the fallen human heart or in human striving;[146] their absence would demonstrate that faith, too, is absent.[147] Lutherans do not believe that good works are a factor in obtaining salvation; they believe that we are saved by the grace of God - based on the merit of Christ in his suffering and death - and faith in the triune god. Good works are the natural result of faith, not the cause of salvation. Although Christians are no longer compelled to keep God's law, they freely and willingly serve God and their neighbors.[14
The idea works are not a factor is the idea man is saved at faith after baptism.
All such questions invited leaders of their day and later generations to be less dogmatic and more prone to give their opinion, even if their opinion had no scripture to support them, their decisions became accepted. Instead of just doing what God had instructed, many questions led to doctrinal adjustments that gave people confidence these questions were answered.
The term Catholic, used today for universal in admitting all nationalities, was originally a word used in relation to admittance of all whether administered by the holy or unholy presbyter. People were admitted upon baptism without restriction, even if the priest was evil, admitted based upon God's holiness. Cyprian's question, "should we be Catholic or holy", lends a glimpse into this thinking. Donatists wanted restrictions based upon holiness, catholic was the liberal side and allowed broader latitude with those administering sacraments. Thus today we see Catholic priests allowed to continue even while living lives of moral turpitude.
The donatist contention was that an immoral presbyter by implication taught a false gospel, and baptism based upon a false gospel is false.
Caecilius of Bilta said: I know only one baptism in the Church, and none out of the Church. This one will be here, where there is the true hope and the certain faith. For thus it is written: One faith, one hope, one baptism; Ephesians 4:5 not among heretics, where there is no hope, and the faith is false...
Thus baptism into a false faith was not saving.
It is a similar argument that Baptist baptism is invalid because they are baptizing into a faith that is false, baptist teachings deviating from the Gospel on many points such as the existence of God's kingdom today. They are looking in some cases for Christ's coronation later.In Cyprian's day the faith was labeled false because it neglected the need for repentance and holiness, and he believed the faith required penance. Baptist deviation is the change of the historical faith instead of a sin of moral bounds. Certainly if a person baptized someone stating they could live any way they want that would be a false faith and likely a false baptism.
There is a middle ground between Catholic and Donatist,
Paul said to Timothy, "receive not an accusation against an elder but by two or three witnesses", immoral elders can be removed while their past work could stand. Also, there was no example in scripture that a bishop or appointed official had to baptize, that became custom later than the apostolic period in my view. It may be a good idea to have a mature teacher validate the process but not wholly necessary. This tradition of restricting sacraments to ordained officials led to many of these questions because it made the process more restricted in the first place. Most of the questions above would not be relevant if the church had not innovated in other areas.
The seeds of "faith only" were planted in these questions over the requirements of holiness, and though they really aren't relevant and may be silly in some respects, they became the basis for the opinions we now have ingrained into our society's theological thinking. Do we have to live a holy life or simply have faith?
Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
The faith itself, though not requiring perfection, does require self denial and imposition against our own will. Thus "faith only" if true, in fulfilling faith would require abstaining from lusts of our own will. Self denial is an aspect of the faith.
Luther's thesis would fall apart based upon that one scripture.
Luther introduced some of these issues in the Augsburg Confession, they were very much on his mind in formulating his theology.
1. The augsburg document addressed the allowance of sinners in administering sacraments.
2. He kept the need for confession of sins in general, those we know about.
3. He kept the idea of repentance.
In reality he wasn't actually faith only as some view the term today. He just didn't believe some works were necessary like paying money for absolution.
He also didn't address all possible questions,
Like the question of dying on the way to baptism, would the person be saved? Such questions led to the formulation of statements and doctrines on such issues, they made statements without real biblical support.
Their desire for baptism was held to be sufficient guarantee of their salvation, if they died before the reception. In event of their martyrdom prior to baptism by water, this was held to be a "baptism by blood" (Baptism of desire), and they were honored as martyrs.
In the fourth century, a widespread practice arose of enrolling as a catechumen and deferring baptism for years, often until shortly before death, and when so ill that the normal practice of immersion was impossible, so that aspersion or affusion -- the baptism of the sick—was necessary. Constantine was the most prominent of these catechumens. See also Deathbed conversion.
In truth, sprinkling would have never taken the place of dipping had such practices not been instituted. and people baptized once they believed.
Abraham had to travel to offer his son before being justified. After the offering God accounted his faith, what if he died on the way? Such a question isn't relevant to the person completing God's will such as Abraham. The scripture clearly says his faith was accounted for righteousness after fulfillment - James 2:21-24. Since he completed the instruction God had no reason to account faith prior to completion. In his all knowing mind he knew he didn't have to. In cases of fulfillment God needs no exceptions. I was baptized for the remission of sins because I fulfilled the process. If there are cases where fulfillment is impossible before death, not just putting it off too long, God makes no statements.
God never needs to deviate on the purpose, if someone fulfills his plan then no exception is needed, if someone cannot fulfill the plan, since they weren't baptized it couldn't be used to change baptism's purpose. How could their example change baptism when they never got baptized. The only baptism is the fulfilled baptism, and its purpose would never change.
God never speaks of exceptions, perhaps because all those moving to fulfillment are under God's grace on the way, there is nothing more hypocritical than a Calvinist who believes in election and total predestination saying someone died before fulfillment, by their own doctrine such would be impossible. 80 percent of the "faith Only" movement is calvinist. In one breath they say we are predestined, in another they say an accident could prevent a person's completion of the process.
Pro 1:33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.
I don't believe predestination guaranteed salvation, only that God would give the predestined group the choice of salvation, being predestined to hear the gospel, but I do believe those making the right choice are helped along the way.
Like Abraham completing his offering of Isaac, I don't believe he was in any danger, having received the promise beforehand. The predestined seed has the same promise.