Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Discussions about religious, spirtual, philosphical, scientific, and political beliefs.
YES we admit to mixing church and state
User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:48 pm

Alright Zuir, enough back and forth over AIM. I'm going to lay out a Biblical defense of why I believe the Bible to teach that salvation is through faith and faith alone, in Christ and Christ alone. It is my conviction that the Bible teaches that water baptism has nothing to do with the eternal salvation of an individual. Check your books and training from your professors at the door. Bring Scriptural support, should be fun :)

I went and laid out the verses in which you use to stand on water baptism saves, I'll save my regeneration/salvation by faith alone for the end. I put them in bullet points to make it easier to read.


From the time of John the Baptist to the Day of Pentecost
• John the Baptist (or John the Baptizer) came to Israel baptizing in water
It was a baptism of repentance in order to prepare themselves for the coming of the Lord Jesus, whose way John was sent by God to prepare
The religious Jews questioned John’s right to baptize others in water, since up to that time, people who considered themselves to be defiled baptized themselves in water for outward purification in order to enter the Temple area to worship God
John answered their objections by pointing out the significance of his role in preparing the nation for the coming of the Lord, but then pointed out that the Lord who would come after him would have a greater baptism than he could perform; that being Christ’s authority as the Son of God to give the Holy Spirit to those who would believe on Him as God’s promised Lamb to die for the sins of the world
All of this is recorded in John 1:19-34. So right from the start, John the Baptist makes a great distinction between the significance of his baptism of converts in water and Christ’s greater baptism with the Holy Spirit
• The twelve apostles (including Matthias who replaced Judas Iscariot) were baptized by John the Baptist in water and were never re-baptized. Acts 1:5

On the Day of Pentecost
• Jesus told His twelve apostles to tarry in Jerusalem after His ascension in order to receive His promised Baptism with the Holy Spirit, which then occurred in the Upper Room ten days later.
The evidence that this special giving of the Holy Spirit from Christ in heaven took place was that each disciple of the 120 who were gathered together in the Upper Room, whether they be male or female, was then able to speak to the people in the streets of Jerusalem in languages foreign to their upraising
When Peter preached his famous sermon to explain the miracle that had taken place which unbelievers in Jerusalem could not deny, he then gave an invitation for those who had not yet believed in Jesus to repent of having rejected Him when He was on the earth in their midst, and then be publicly baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins. He promised that they too would then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, identifying them with Christ in heaven and His greater baptism mentioned by John the Baptist. Acts 2:37-41.
Peter’s invitation was in perfect harmony with Christ’s instructions to His apostles as to what they were to demand by way of response to the message they preached of Christ’s death for sins, resurrection the third day apart from corruption, and ascension into heaven. Mark 16:15-20.
o Unfortunately, many of those who do not believe that water baptism has anything to do with salvation discount these verses, saying they really are not part of God’s Word. They say this because two complete Greek translations dated from the fourth century omit these verses. But trying to deny what these verses say does not solve the problem of other New Testament passages that indicate that being baptized in water was to precede one’s salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit as evidence of that salvation.
There are some who try to say that the Greek preposition eis, translated “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38, KJV translation), should really be translated as “because of the remission of sins.” This is again an effort on the part of Baptists to deny that water baptism was at first required to receive the Holy Spirit. But the overwhelming use of the Greek preposition eis means “for” just as is translated in the King James Bible. Furthermore, would Peter resort to a rare usage of a Greek preposition to answer the question as to what those listening to him must do in order to receive the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit?

The Conversion of the Samaritans
• The believers gathered in Jerusalem were forced to flee due to the persecution of the church led by Saul of Tarsus who later become known as the apostle Paul
• One of the original seven deacons by the name of Philip, went preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the city of Samaria.
• Many of the Samaritans believed and were baptized in water, yet they had not received the Holy Spirit from Christ in heaven.
• So Philip, not being an apostle, sent for Peter and John from Jerusalem who, after praying for them, laid hands on them. They at that time received the Holy Spirit. This is recorded in Acts 8:12-24.

The Conversion of the first Gentiles
• A centurion by the name of Cornelius had a healthy fear of the only true God of both Jews and Gentiles, and attended the synagogue for worship. But as yet he does not know about Jesus Christ, and has therefore not received the Holy Spirit from Christ.
• Through the providence of God, Peter preaches the Gospel of Christ to Cornelius and his household (family and servants).
• For about five years or so, Peter has been used to preaching the Gospel, and then commanding the responders to repent, be baptized in water, and then they will receive the Holy Spirit from Christ in heaven.
• But on this occasion, the Lord Jesus completely surprises the apostle Peter. The Bible clearly says that the Holy Spirit simply fell upon Cornelius and his household while Peter was yet speaking. In other words, the Lord didn’t even give Peter time to tell them what to do.
• Peter then commands them to be baptized in water, as Jesus had commanded for all of His disciples. But he so commands them, not for the purpose of then receiving the Holy Spirit, but because it had become evident that they had already received the Holy Spirit.
• All of this is recorded in Acts 10.
• Peter later defends his having baptized these Gentiles before the Jews in Jerusalem, indicating that God had the perfect right to purify their hearts by simple faith, Acts 11:15-18; 15:8-9.
Paul and the Philippian Jailor
• When God caused an earthquake to break the shackles that bound Paul and Silas in prison, the jailor drew his sword to kill himself, thinking that they had escaped.
• When Paul assured him they had not tried to escape, the jailor asked him what he must do to be saved. Paul’s answer was quite different that that which Peter had given the Jews on the day of Pentecost. He simply tells them to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” and he would be saved. Paul then goes to his house and after further instruction, then baptizes them in water.
• This is recorded in Acts 16.
Paul and the Jewish Disciples of John living in Ephesus
• When the apostle Paul encounters twelve Jewish men in the city of Ephesus on his third missionary journey, he asks them whether or not they have received the Holy Spirit.
• When they indicate to him that they had not, he reminded them what John the Baptist had required of those he baptized in water. It was not enough to repent. They would then have to believe on Jesus Christ who would follow Him in order to receive the Holy Spirit.
• Since these men had been baptized with the water indicating their willingness to repent of the sins, but had not followed through in their need to then believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they therefore had not received the Holy Spirit from Christ.
• Consequently, these twelve men were re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and upon Paul’s laying on of hands, they received the Holy Spirit.
What do these events in the book of Acts indicate about the relationship between John’s baptism in water and Christ’s baptism with the Holy Spirit?
• That while there were believers who were baptized by Christ from heaven with the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water, and there were believers who were baptized with the Holy Spirit after they were baptized in water, no Jew or Gentile ever received the Holy Spirit in the waters of baptism.
• That John, the first one God authorized to baptize in water, made it very clear that Christ’s baptism was much greater than that performed with human hands.
• That the only ones in the book of Acts that were required to first be baptized in water and receive the laying on of the apostle’s hands before receiving the Holy Spirit, were those who had seen Christ’s ministry on earth and yet rejected Him. Having rejected Him publicly before the Gentiles in delivering Him over to be crucified, they were required by Christ from heaven to repent and publicly confess their faith in Him before giving them the Holy Spirit.
• But it is very clear from the Scriptural account that justification is by faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
How does Paul’s selection by Christ to be an apostle clear up any potential confusion?
• Because Jewish unbelievers were required to first be publicly baptized in water after Christ’s death and resurrection before they were given the Holy Spirit, it is easy to see how some believers might associate water baptism with salvation. Even the apostle Peter was surprised when God gave the Holy Spirit to Gentiles without first requiring water baptism.
• So to clear up any misunderstanding, while Jesus had commanded His twelve apostles to baptize every disciple in water, He purposely did not command Paul to do so, but to simply require faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in response to the Gospel.
• For this reason Paul did not keep good records as to whom he personally baptized or not (as indicated in his first epistle to the Corinthians, 1:12-16). He then informed the Corinthian church that the reason he did not emphasize his own role in baptizing them when they responded to his preaching, is lest “the cross of Christ should be made of none effect,” 1 Corinthans 1:17).
• In other words, there are even believers today, as there were in the church back then, who allow water to interfere with what should be the proper focus of the unbeliever, and that is the cross of Jesus Christ.

How does Peter’s later writing on this topic confirm that water baptism is only symbolic of salvation?
• Because Peter says baptizing in water is symbolic of God’s deliverance of Noah and his family through the waters of the flood, even as the person being baptized is believing in Christ to deliver him from the wrath to come. (The KJV translation “the like figure” is one word in the Greek for the English word “antitype”).
• Because Peter makes it very clear that the water in which a disciple is being baptized in no way removes the “filth” of the flesh. That is, it is not holy at all in the sense of removing one’s sins.
• In other words, Peter himself finally got it straight when it comes to the subject of water baptism.
• Water baptism is very important as one’s testimony of a good conscience towards God because of his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21), and is commanded by Christ for every disciple to publicly declare his or her faith in Christ, but in no way is to be construed as being necessary for salvation in receiving the Holy Spirit from Christ.

20- ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε ὅτε ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ εἰς ἣν ὀλίγαι, τουτέστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί διεσώθησαν δι᾽ ὕδατος
21- ὃ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

I'm not familiar who well you know Greek yet, but 1 Peter 3:20,21 has major holes if you believe it to state baptism means salvation. In verse 20 Peter lays the vivid example of Noah being saved through the waters, the word δι᾽in the Greek means through, not by. So Noah and his family were saved through the flood because they were on the ark. In verse 21, Peter uses the neuter article ὃ which points back to the neuter form of δι᾽. Then Peter uses the word ἀντίτυπον which means "like figure" or antitype of the example of Noah. Saying that the like figure or the example of Noah is a symbolic one that verse 21 ends with, is an appeal of a good conscience to God because of their faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism in verse 21 doesn't remove dirt/evil/depravity from the flesh, as the text says, but it is an indication of a clear conscience that one has because of their faith in Christ.

This is getting long, but I want to address John 3:5 as well. Born of water is not water baptism. Read John 4:13-14 and John 7:37. John defines water not as water baptism, but water as the new life that is given through Christ.

Also the conversion of Saul (Paul) in Acts. Read Acts 9:17-19, Paul was never commanded to be baptized for salvation.



Scriptures that clearly support regeneration/salvation by faith and faith alone: (You'll have to grapple with these, as I've grappled with the passages you use to support water baptism) If you want to have integrity to what the Bible says and not what you've been taught.

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."
Rom. 3:24, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"
Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,"
Rom. 4:16, "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."
Rom. 9:33, "just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
Gal.3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you."
Gal. 3:14, "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."
Gal. 3:22, "But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."
Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
Eph. 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."
Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
1 Tim. 1:16, "And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life."


I have a PDF of a paper I wrote on 1 Peter 3:21 if you are interested as well. When you chew through all this and reply, I'll add more to my arguments then.
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55

User avatar
regulator088
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:59 pm
TSB W-L-T: 21 Titles

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby regulator088 » Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:33 pm

You really took the time to write this on TW..... but I guess thats not as bad as me taking the time to read it LOL! Since I did though I'll take the position of agreeing with you. I am Catholic, and while I do believe in the power of Baptism and that it takes away Original Sin, it is not necessary to enter heaven. If that were the case, then the tribal people in Africa who have no idea what Baptism is or even who God is would have no chance of going to heaven. That is not the case! They have just as good a chance as all of us. Biblical teaching suggests every human being has an inner longing to do good and fulfill their life with meaning. God is that meaning, and although they know not who He is, the Bible suggests they can sense and yearn for his presence.

If I repeated some of the things you stated sorry.... I didnt't actually read the WHOLE thing lol.
Play games, say GG, do recaps..... Harmony in tecmo

User avatar
TSBGOD
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10586
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:56 am
TSB W-L-T: 19 TECMO TITLES
Location: HOME OF THE MOST NBA TITLES...17!
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 50 times
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby TSBGOD » Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:17 pm

MY BAD!
Last edited by TSBGOD on Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
daboy8821
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 2429
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:35 am
TSB W-L-T: 0-0-0
Location: Philly 2 Louisville
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby daboy8821 » Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:19 pm

when I get a second (or 4 days) I will read this. but just reading topic, Ill reply real quick.

Luke 23:43
New International Version (NIV)

Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Now the whole paradise study is interesting, also why only in Luke.

but to the topic- baptism,speaking in tongues, good works, etc. are all squashed from this scripture

User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:46 pm

TSBGOD wrote:MY BAD!



Umm, you're an idiot (check where the thread is located).... carry on
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55

User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:49 pm

daboy8821 wrote:when I get a second (or 4 days) I will read this. but just reading topic, Ill reply real quick.

Luke 23:43
New International Version (NIV)

Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Now the whole paradise study is interesting, also why only in Luke.

but to the topic- baptism,speaking in tongues, good works, etc. are all squashed from this scripture



Good point, the man on the cross next to Jesus was never baptized, but he was promised by Jesus himself that he'll be in paradise with Christ. It would be difficult to try to twist paradise to mean anything other than salvation or heaven.
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55

User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:52 pm

regulator088 wrote:You really took the time to write this on TW..... but I guess thats not as bad as me taking the time to read it LOL! Since I did though I'll take the position of agreeing with you. I am Catholic, and while I do believe in the power of Baptism and that it takes away Original Sin, it is not necessary to enter heaven. If that were the case, then the tribal people in Africa who have no idea what Baptism is or even who God is would have no chance of going to heaven. That is not the case! They have just as good a chance as all of us. Biblical teaching suggests every human being has an inner longing to do good and fulfill their life with meaning. God is that meaning, and although they know not who He is, the Bible suggests they can sense and yearn for his presence.

If I repeated some of the things you stated sorry.... I didnt't actually read the WHOLE thing lol.



Thanks for your input there. I'm not going to pick it apart, I don't want to deviate off the thread of the title. But I appreciate your input specifically on the mark of God put on the heart of every man and woman, that they have a yearning for God. Romans 2, clearly identifies with what you are laying out before us.
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55

User avatar
TSBGOD
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10586
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:56 am
TSB W-L-T: 19 TECMO TITLES
Location: HOME OF THE MOST NBA TITLES...17!
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 50 times
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby TSBGOD » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:47 pm

WHO THE FUCK CARES! You do good you go to heaven, NUFF SAID! AMEN BROTHER!

User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:52 pm

TSBGOD wrote:WHO THE FUCK CARES! You do good you go to heaven, NUFF SAID! AMEN BROTHER!


Some of care, so we talk about it, because it has great value to us. That is why we talk about it. Zuir and I have a good relationship where we can differ on points but still respectfully talk about our convictions. In regards to your comment, by what authority do you make these claims? Who and where does it say that heaven is obtainable by doing good things? In fact the Bible says the complete opposite of this. Our best works are like filthy rags (Isaiah) and we are saved by grace through faith, it is a gift of God, not of works, so no man can boast about his obtaining salvation through good works (Ephesians 2:8,9). I'm not suggesting there are not good people, I know many. I just ask by what authority (other than your opinion) do you stand upon the belief that good deeds gets someone to heaven?
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55

User avatar
ziurziur
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:58 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby ziurziur » Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:39 pm

I never said water baptism in itself saves, I have stated that water baptism in conjunction with a belief in Jesus does save and that believing in Jesus but not being baptized in Jesus name does not bring about salvation. Water baptism is part of the salvation process, if we want to use that term.

The verses you have used do indeed say that faith in Jesus brings about salvation. I am not arguing against that since its obvious that faith in Jesus saves. The Bible talks about what faith is, and faith is more than just saying "I believe in Jesus" and therefore a person is saved. The question is, "What is faith in Jesus?" since this is what it takes to be saved. I have used the book of James in our conversations to point out that the Bible says that justification/salvation does not come to a person just by faith alone, it also comes by works. Faith+works=justification/salvation. I say this because that is what it says in James 2:20-24:

"20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[f] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[g]And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

According to vs 21, Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar. God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac after God had told Abraham that he would bring about a great nation through his seed(which was Isaac) so it would make no sense to kill Isaac if God was going to bring about a great nation through Isaac, but Abraham believed in God, that God could raise up Isaac even if he sacrificed him. Hebrews 11:17-18 "17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death"

So how did God know that Abraham believed in God? Just because Abraham said, "I believe in you GOd." Nope, God knew that Abraham had faith because of his works(offered Isaac his son on the altar) and this proved that he had faith in God. HIs works were proof of faith. Without works there is no faith. "faith without works is dead" (vs 20). Faith without works is no faith at all. And if a person has no faith in Jesus they can not be saved. So you need faith to be saved, and you need works to have faith. A person can not say they have faith in Jesus and not have works. The bible teaches that a work that shows a person has believed in Jesus is water baptism. If a person hears the gospel and believes in Jesus then they must have works to prove they have the faith in Jesus, water baptism is a work that a person can do to show they have believed in the gospel which is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Water baptism in Jesus name does save because 1 Peter 3:21 says "21 and this water symbolizes BAPTISM THAT NOW SAVES YOU ALSO—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."

Here in vs. 21 we see both faith and works combining to bring about salvation. The faith is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ(last part of the verse) but the works is water baptism. If a person claims to believe in Jesus, they must be baptized in water in Jesus name for the forgiveness of their sins. (Acts 22:16 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ " So baptism is a work that works together with faith to bring about forgiveness of sins. We also see this in Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized in Jesus name for the forgiveness of sins..." James 2:24 says it again, "24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."...

When the bible says that we are not saved by works, it refers to good works, such as giving money to the poor, being nice etc. It also refers to works of the law, christians in some of the NT churches were trying to go back to the law to find in the law justification. So these two types of works do not justify. But there is a third type and that is the type that James 2:24 makes reference to.

User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:58 pm

Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Abraham was declared righteous by his faith, the works in his life after his belief justified/affirmed/proved that he indeed had genuine faith and the didn't merely say "I believe in God" and not have it change his life. Your biggest hole in James 2 is this, there is absolutely no mention of water baptism. Was Abraham baptized? Does it mention baptism? You are taking a passage that states that works in the believers life will confirm their faith in Christ. Faith with no works proves there was never a faith at all. You can't pull water baptism out of the text of James 2. The only reason you do is so you can push your theology and what you've been taught. It's not in the the passage itself.

In regard to James 2, you either believe James and Paul preached two different Gospels, (James being one of faith plus works, and Paul being one of just faith), or you are confusing that they say the same thing in their teaching. Salvation comes by Grace through faith, and the works in their life are the PROOF or the JUSTIFICATION of their genuine faith. Your handling of the text is shallow, you'll have to derive and grapple with the text more than just quoting James 2:20-24.

As far as your 1 Peter 3:21 comment, you clearly ignored 3:18-21 and how Peter clearly says it is "a like figure" an "antitype" of Noah. It is a SYMBOL. Unless you can show me where the Greek is wrong, you are grasping at straws. Again, 1 Peter 3:21 is your strongest argument in the New Testament, but it has too many holes for you stand upon.

And I'll restate this again, if salvation is faith plus works, what do you do with the 20 some passages I laid out that blows that out of the water. Do you believe the Bible to preach two different Gospels, do you believe the Bible to contradict itself?
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55

User avatar
ziurziur
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:58 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby ziurziur » Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:33 pm

I can pull James 2 into the conversation of water baptism because James teaches that men are justified by works and faith. It does not say that a person or believer will have his faith merely confirmed by works which is what you continue to say, it is explicit in saying that works justify/save a person. And 1 peter 3 also says that water baptism saves us now. So there is a connection, water baptism is a work that brings about salvation, a work combined with faith in Christ. Im stating that faith and works must be united to bring about salvation, that is what it says in James 2:24. "24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

1 Peter 3 compares the salvation of the 8 who were in the boat as being saved through water since water destroyed all sinners, sin was "washed away" by the flood. The flood purified the earth just like water baptism in Jesus name, purifies a person from their sin, that is why Acts 22:16 says to be baptized and wash our sins away.

You still have not dealt with 1 Peter 3:21, it says that "baptism now saves us". If it says it saves us, it does. It is a work combined with faith. Being water baptized in Jesus name brings about salvation, because it is for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2:38) Rom 6 talks about what happens when a person is water baptized, they are born again, born of the water.

Rom 6:1-9 " 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.

Born of the water according to John 3:5 is not being born of the spirit. Jesus says a person must be born of water and spirit. If being born of water was the same as being born of the spirit then Jesus would have just told Nicodemus, you must be born of spirit only, but he did not, he made a distinction between born of water and being born of spirit. Being born of water is not natural birth either. If it was, then Jesus would have not even told Nicodemus that he needed to be born of water to be saved since everyone would automatically would have already be born of water, Jesus would have no need to state the obvious. Being born of water is being baptized in Jesus name for the forgiveness of sins. That is why a person is born again, because they are now forgiven for all their past sins, it is now a new life in Christ, all the old things have passed and all things are made new. A person whose sins have been forgiven is a saved person, that is why it says "baptism now saves us."

Paul and James are preaching the same gospel, faith in Jesus saves, but faith without works is dead. You need the works, there is no doubt about it. You need the works or else there is no faith, and no faith means no salvation. Same gospel is being preached by both, there is no confusion on my part, there is no faith, without works.

brookstonfowler
Up and Comer
Up and Comer
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:38 pm
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby brookstonfowler » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:51 pm

the verses you reference, matt, are indeed indicative of faith as a requirement for salvation. and i think i take issue with ziur's semantics regarding the necessity for works for salvation. i would say that one has to understand what faith is to have it. my understanding is admittedly limited, but from what i gather (mostly from the book of Hebrews) is that faith is a living thing that waxes or wanes according to our willingness to follow the Savior. i think it is a principle of action rather than merely a sedentary belief--i believe that belief and faith are interrelated, but different, and that one leads to the other. in that vein, i believe that you can't have faith without belief. with that idea, any scriptures relating belief to salvation need to be viewed with belief as a precursor to faith. if one verse uses faith as a requisite for salvation, then belief alone cannot possibly achieve the same results, but it can if the next step of faith is taken. thus belief leading to salvation is a true statement just not the whole story.

with this framework, i do believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the sole requirement for salvation. but what of faith if it have not works. james tells us it is dead. does james contradict what Jesus and many of His apostles have stated? i don't believe so. james has merely given us greater insight into what allows faith to produce such salvation. james says that faith without works is dead. does that mean that works gain salvation? i don't believe that. works alone will never attain to salvation through Christ, but without them do we truly have faith? only God can judge. i would think that there might be some who will be saved despite their lack of evident works. and (not to open a whole other can of awesomeness) i don't believe that those who don't have the opportunity to hear the Gospel -- and thus get baptized -- in this life are condemned. i think that idea is a bit nearsighted. but...

the Bible is replete with these additive principles where less is given to those who required less at the time it was delivered, and more was given to those who were ready for more. so are we to take each verse alone as a standalone foundation for doctrine? i don't believe so. we have the whole story now, and we can compare the scriptures to gain a more complete picture. i wholeheartedly agree with matt's view on the importance of faith. but what of all the scriptures that talk about baptism? are we just supposed to ignore them? stories such as Jesus baptism, or His command to His apostles to go into all nations baptizing them.
Image

User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:11 pm

This is going to be my last post in response to you Zuir. Not that I feel I've exhausted the subject, but I'm approaching the point where I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over, just as you are. We obviously have different convictions on this topic and I'm cautious of getting to the point where we pick this to death where it becomes personal. I'll respond with a detailed explanation of what I believe 1 Peter 3:18-21 to state, I'll let you have the last word if you would like. I won't try to counter it. I'm going to try to lay out the passage but I believe if we merely take one verse here or there to pull from it what we want without dissecting the passage and the author's flow of thought, you can make Scripture say anything you want, which I feel you to be doing.

1 Peter 3:18-22

1. How to interpret the passage as a whole.
- The key verse that governs the author's flow of thought is 3:17, in which it is asserted that if a Christian suffers, it would be better to suffer according to the will of God in doing good, rather than in doing evil.
- The evidence that this assertion is true is God's deliverance and exaltation of Jesus Christ from His suffering on our behalf. 3:18-22. His death and resurrection is mentioned in 3:18. His victory over Satan's imprisoned angels in the underworld since the time of Noah's flood (at which time God delivered Noah through the waters of the flood which is symbolized in the waters of baptism), 3:19-21. His victory over Satan's angels in the heavenlies upon His ascension, 3:22.
- What God did for His Son, Jesus Christ is used by Peter to encourage the believers to whom he is writing regarding their suffering for Christ, some of whom have lost loved ones in martyrdom, 4:1-6.

2. How to interpret key words in light of the author's flow of thought as a whole.
- 3:18 "being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."
- One should note the contrast introduced by the work "but"
- The word "quickened" is contrasted to the words "put to death" and refer to Christ's coming alive, or His resurrection by God from the grave.
- The word "Spirit" is capitalized in the King James Translation, but in the Greek it is not. And the preposition "by", should hhave been translated with the preposition "in", as a dative of sphere rather than as a dative of means or manner

-3:19 "by which also he went"
This would normally be translated as "in which also he went", the preposition being the Greek word for "in" (en).

-3:19 "unto the spirits in prison"
This is a reference to the angles that sinned during the days of Noah, and are mentioned again by Peter in his 2nd epistle (2 Peter 2:4-5) and Jude (in verse 6 of Jude). They are contrasted in verse 19 to the "souls" of humans who were drowned in the waters of Noah's flood, with the exception of Noah and his household.

-3:20 "eight souls were saved by water"
This is a reference to the waters of the universal flood that destroyed all but eight of the souls of humans on the earth at that time. The preposition translated "by" is usually translated as "through" (dia). Noah and his household were saved through the waters of the flood. That is, they came through the waters on to dry land, rather than being drowned in the waters.

-3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us"
- This literally reads in the Greek: "which also us antitype now saves baptism" ὃ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
- The word "which" is a relative pronoun pointing back to the word "water" (Neuter case), to show that the water used in believer's baptism points back to the waters of Noah's flood.
- The word "like figure" is the Greek word "antitype". A type is a symbol used to portray the past. For example, the tabernacle furniture used in the tabernacle is said by the author o the book of Hebrews to be an antitype or "copy" of the real sanctuary the Lord pitched in heaven (Heb. 9:24 "figures" or "antitypes" with 8:1-5)
- The word "baptism" means that a believer is dipped/immersed under the water which symbolizes the waters of the flood in Noah's day, and then brought back up out of the water.
- The words "save us" means that water baptism pictures symbolically our future salvation from the wrath of God, even as Noah and his family were saved through the waters of the flood (compare 2 Peter 3:1-7)
- The reason many Baptist preachers avoid this passage on the meaning of water baptism, is because their are people who use the words "baptism now saves us" to preach that water baptism is necessary for salvation. But this is a gross misinterpretation of what Peter is saying about water baptism.

-3:21 "not putting away of the filth of the flesh"
= This is a hapax in the Greek, which means this word is only used here in the New Testament. However a word that comes from the same root is sued by the apostle John in the book of Revelation to speak of the moral filth or sin nature we inherit in the flesh. (Rev. 22:11)
- Peter is declaring that while water baptism pictures the believer's baptism from the coming wrath of God upon the world for its sin, it is only symbolic. It does not remove sin in the flesh, In other words, it is NOT holy water.

-3:21 "but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Christ"
- The word for "answer" is a Greek word meaning one's answer to questions. In this case, the one being bapatized is asked to pubically give an answer as to why they seek to be baptized. This gives the candidate an opportunity to give testimony to having a good conscience towards God because of the death and resurrection of Christ (see 3:18)
- In other words, Peter is saying that believer's baptism and what it portrays does not really save. What really saves is one's confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His death and ressurection. The Greek word translated "by" again is really "through" (dia)

-3:22 This verse refers to Christ's ascension into heaven, when he led the captive angle in the underworld as His captives into heaven, demonstrating his future triumph over all of Satan's angles not yet imprisoned. Eph. 4:8-10 with Col. 2:14-15

3. Why I believe that water baptism portrays the waters of Noah's flood, rather than identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurection?

- Because the text says so in 1 Peter 3:19-20
- Because it is the only text in the New Testament that speaks of the symbolism involved in water baptism (the words "like figure" or "antitype"
- Because the believer's identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection occurs when one is baptized into CHRIST as of the day of salvation when he places his faith in Christ Romans 6:3-5 with Gal. 3:26-28
- Because it is Christ's baptism (spirit baptism) that saves, and has nothing to do with water baptism performed by human hands Matt. 3:11-12 with Eph 4:5
- Because the evidence of having been baptized by Christ (spirit baptism) from heaven is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Rom. 8:9 wit 1 Cor 12:11-12
- Because the symbolism involved in baptizing correlates with Noah's being delivered from drowning in the waters of the flood, better than the picture of being identified with Christ in His burial in a dry tomb.
- Because if the symbolism of John's baptism unto repentance changed once the church age began, than the apostles themselves were never baptized under the new symbolism (Acts 1:5)
- Because it is signficant that God wanted to remind unbelievers is observing the baptism of believers, that just as the world did not believe God was going to judge the world for its sin in Noah's day, so will most of the world not believe that God is going to do the same again, not by water, but by fire. Every time the unbeliever observes baptism, he or she is reminded of their need to believe God, as did Noah, and obey God's instructions for escaping the wrath to come.

Zuir, I'm going to stop with this I have more, but this should be sufficient. You'll have to grapple with the passage and not merely pick a couple words out of the verse. Show me where the author's intent is, show me the Greek is wrong and show me how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't have major holes in it if you are leaning on it for salvation by baptism. Again I'll let you respond, I'm going to let you have the last word. I've laid out be clearly what I believe the Scriptures to teach. I've given cross reference, language and context of the passage. If you actually take the time to read this explanation as well as the ones I laid out in Acts in the first post, I think it's very difficult to come to any other conclusion. It's been fun, thanks for keeping me sharp
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55

User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:16 pm

brookstonfowler wrote:the verses you reference, matt, are indeed indicative of faith as a requirement for salvation. and i think i take issue with ziur's semantics regarding the necessity for works for salvation. i would say that one has to understand what faith is to have it. my understanding is admittedly limited, but from what i gather (mostly from the book of Hebrews) is that faith is a living thing that waxes or wanes according to our willingness to follow the Savior. i think it is a principle of action rather than merely a sedentary belief--i believe that belief and faith are interrelated, but different, and that one leads to the other. in that vein, i believe that you can't have faith without belief. with that idea, any scriptures relating belief to salvation need to be viewed with belief as a precursor to faith. if one verse uses faith as a requisite for salvation, then belief alone cannot possibly achieve the same results, but it can if the next step of faith is taken. thus belief leading to salvation is a true statement just not the whole story.

with this framework, i do believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the sole requirement for salvation. but what of faith if it have not works. james tells us it is dead. does james contradict what Jesus and many of His apostles have stated? i don't believe so. james has merely given us greater insight into what allows faith to produce such salvation. james says that faith without works is dead. does that mean that works gain salvation? i don't believe that. works alone will never attain to salvation through Christ, but without them do we truly have faith? only God can judge. i would think that there might be some who will be saved despite their lack of evident works. and (not to open a whole other can of awesomeness) i don't believe that those who don't have the opportunity to hear the Gospel -- and thus get baptized -- in this life are condemned. i think that idea is a bit nearsighted. but...

the Bible is replete with these additive principles where less is given to those who required less at the time it was delivered, and more was given to those who were ready for more. so are we to take each verse alone as a standalone foundation for doctrine? i don't believe so. we have the whole story now, and we can compare the scriptures to gain a more complete picture. i wholeheartedly agree with matt's view on the importance of faith. but what of all the scriptures that talk about baptism? are we just supposed to ignore them? stories such as Jesus baptism, or His command to His apostles to go into all nations baptizing them.


I absolutely love it when you respond to these threads. You always have excellent input. I'm going to head out for the morning (helping a buddy build a deck this afternoon) But you draw out a very important truth. We can't just do anyway with verses that seem to contradict our theology. The Word of God is truth and authoritative, it doesn't contradict. So while I believe salvation is faith and faith alone in Christ (The Scriptures make this very clear) then what do we do with verses that seem to suggest something else. One reason I've stayed away from just exegeting my verses and am trying to go the the verses Zuir is bringing up, namely the passages in Acts and 1 Peter 3. It's dangerous to build a doctrine a stand alone verse, thus the reason to take the whole counsel of God's Word to draw out our theology on certain topics, not just a couple of verses we find to support us. I'll add more later tonight maybe.
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55

User avatar
ziurziur
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:58 am
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby ziurziur » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:13 pm

In reference to 1 Peter 3

Matlisab Wrote: The word "baptism" means that a believer is dipped/immersed under the water which symbolizes the waters of the flood in Noah's day, and then brought back up out of the water.
My Response: So baptism here does mean water baptism but not in Romans 6? I think you try to pick and choose how to apply the word baptism based on what you want it to mean, not what it does mean.

Matsilab Wrote: The words "save us" means that water baptism pictures symbolically our future salvation from the wrath of God, even as Noah and his family were saved through the waters of the flood (compare 2 Peter 3:1-7)
My response: Here you are saying that baptism does save after all, but in the future not now. But if you reread 1 Peter 3:21 it says "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,..." It says "which NOW saves us, so it is not a future salvation it is a present salvation. Baptism does not remove the filth of the flesh but what it is, is a answer of a good conscience toward God. Can a person be saved without a good conscience toward GOd? I think not, so therefore this is what happens when a person is water baptized, they receive a good conscience toward GOd. GOd can has washed our sins away(Acts 22:16), we are guilty of no more sin and therefore are conscious is not guilty anymore in the eyes of God. So water baptism does not remove the sin nature but it does allow God to forgive us for our sins.

Matsilab wrote: - The word for "answer" is a Greek word meaning one's answer to questions. In this case, the one being bapatized is asked to pubically give an answer as to why they seek to be baptized. This gives the candidate an opportunity to give testimony to having a good conscience towards God because of the death and resurrection of Christ (see 3:18)
- In other words, Peter is saying that believer's baptism and what it portrays does not really save. What really saves is one's confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His death and ressurection. The Greek word translated "by" again is really "through" (dia)
My response: Your interpretation of baptism as an answer, to publically give an answer to why a person seeks to be baptized does not make sense. Where in scripture does it say that water baptism is an answer to the public question of why a person seeks to be baptized? Just not making any sense here, and you have no scripture to back this up. The word answer you say means to give an answer to a question, so what is the question? Where is the scripture that says what the question is?

Matsilab wrote: "- Because it is Christ's baptism (spirit baptism) that saves, and has nothing to do with water baptism performed by human hands Matt. 3:11-12 with Eph 4:5"
My response: A person must be born of water and spirit not just spirit. (John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.) I talked about how water is not the same as spirit. Jeus is not telling Nicodemus to be born of spirit(water) and spirit. Jesus did not need to repeat himself, there is no need. If being born of water means natural birth, then why even mention it to Nicodemus if everyone is has been born a natural birth. In fact in verse 6 Jesus says what is born of flesh is flesh. If anything natural birth is being born of the flesh.

Matsilab wrote: - Because if the symbolism of John's baptism unto repentance changed once the church age began, than the apostles themselves were never baptized under the new symbolism (Acts 1:5)
My response: There is no evidence that they did get baptized or not. But there is evidence of people who were baptized under John's baptism who had to be rebaptized in Jesus name. Acts 19:1-5 " 1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

If water baptism is not for salvation then how does a person get a good conscience towards God? That is what salvation is, a good conscience towards God. Can a person have a good conscience towards God without water baptism? 1 Peter 3 tells us we get a good conscience towards God through water baptism. Is a person saved that does not have a good conscience towards God?

iceage
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:40 pm
TSB W-L-T: 0-0-0

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby iceage » Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:27 pm

ziurziur wrote:I never said water baptism in itself saves, I have stated that water baptism in conjunction with a belief in Jesus does save and that believing in Jesus but not being baptized in Jesus name does not bring about salvation. Water baptism is part of the salvation process, if we want to use that term.

The verses you have used do indeed say that faith in Jesus brings about salvation. I am not arguing against that since its obvious that faith in Jesus saves. The Bible talks about what faith is, and faith is more than just saying "I believe in Jesus" and therefore a person is saved. The question is, "What is faith in Jesus?" since this is what it takes to be saved. I have used the book of James in our conversations to point out that the Bible says that justification/salvation does not come to a person just by faith alone, it also comes by works. Faith+works=justification/salvation. I say this because that is what it says in James 2:20-24:

"20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[f] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[g]And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

According to vs 21, Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar. God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac after God had told Abraham that he would bring about a great nation through his seed(which was Isaac) so it would make no sense to kill Isaac if God was going to bring about a great nation through Isaac, but Abraham believed in God, that God could raise up Isaac even if he sacrificed him. Hebrews 11:17-18 "17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death"

So how did God know that Abraham believed in God? Just because Abraham said, "I believe in you GOd." Nope, God knew that Abraham had faith because of his works(offered Isaac his son on the altar) and this proved that he had faith in God. HIs works were proof of faith. Without works there is no faith. "faith without works is dead" (vs 20). Faith without works is no faith at all. And if a person has no faith in Jesus they can not be saved. So you need faith to be saved, and you need works to have faith. A person can not say they have faith in Jesus and not have works. The bible teaches that a work that shows a person has believed in Jesus is water baptism. If a person hears the gospel and believes in Jesus then they must have works to prove they have the faith in Jesus, water baptism is a work that a person can do to show they have believed in the gospel which is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Water baptism in Jesus name does save because 1 Peter 3:21 says "21 and this water symbolizes BAPTISM THAT NOW SAVES YOU ALSO—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."

Here in vs. 21 we see both faith and works combining to bring about salvation. The faith is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ(last part of the verse) but the works is water baptism. If a person claims to believe in Jesus, they must be baptized in water in Jesus name for the forgiveness of their sins. (Acts 22:16 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ " So baptism is a work that works together with faith to bring about forgiveness of sins. We also see this in Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized in Jesus name for the forgiveness of sins..." James 2:24 says it again, "24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."...

When the bible says that we are not saved by works, it refers to good works, such as giving money to the poor, being nice etc. It also refers to works of the law, christians in some of the NT churches were trying to go back to the law to find in the law justification. So these two types of works do not justify. But there is a third type and that is the type that James 2:24 makes reference to.


bro you sound like a Jehovah witness, that whole faith without works brings back bad memory's for me, when I was studying with a J dub named kyle, he insisted that I become a pioneer and join him in meetings 5 days a week,

Jesus came to rebuke the Jews who were just like Jehovah witnesses, they were all about laws and works which led nowhere, the only way to be saved is to believe in Jesus and that's it. the rest works it self out.

SOWA1291
Up and Comer
Up and Comer
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:31 pm

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby SOWA1291 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:50 pm

Baptismal Grace


Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

Despite this wealth of evidence, Protestants are almost equally unanimous in rejecting this truth. In general Protestants regard baptism as something like an ordinance: an observance that does not itself bring about any spiritual effect but merely represents that effect. Its observance may be required by obedience, but it is not necessary in any further sense—certainly not for salvation.

This view requires Protestants to explain away all the New Testament passages on the nature of baptism as figurative language. It is not baptism itself, they assert, but what baptism represents, that really saves us. Yet the language of the New Testament on this point is so uniform that they cannot even dredge up a couple of "proof-texts" on baptism to support this view or their figurative reading of all the other passages.

There is one text that Protestants occasionally mention. In 1 Corinthians 1:14–17 Paul wrote that he was glad that he himself had baptized so few of the Corinthians, since they could not say that they were baptized in his name; and he went on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. . . ."

Needless to say, this passage doesn’t say anything about baptism only representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesn’t say anything about how those who accepted Paul’s preaching of the gospel were then saved. Paul didn’t write, "For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior" (or even "to lead people to faith"). Paul didn’t pit faith against baptism.

Nor did he pit preaching against baptism. He would hardly have contradicted the great commission in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Paul’s point was not that God didn’t want him to baptize, only that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry.

In short, Paul’s remark doesn’t remotely support the Protestant view of baptism, or justify a figurative interpretation of all the other passages. Yet this is the closest thing to a Protestant proof-text!

The early Fathers were equally unanimous in affirming baptism as a means of grace. They all recognized the Bible’s teaching that "[In the ark] a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:20–21, emphasis added).

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the beginning baptism was the
universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare" (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).


The Letter of Barnabas



"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).


Hermas



"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).


Ignatius of Antioch



"Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply" (Letter to Polycarp 6 [A.D. 110]).


Second Clement



"For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey his commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?’ (Second Clement 6:7–9 [A.D. 150]).


Justin Martyr



"Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’" (First Apology 61:14–17 [A.D. 151]).


Theophilus of Antioch



"Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration—all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God" (To Autolycus 12:16 [A.D. 181]).


Clement of Alexandria



"When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).


Tertullian



"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

...

"Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins" (ibid., 7:2).


Hippolytus



"And the bishop shall lay his hand upon them [the newly baptized], invoking and saying: ‘O Lord God, who did count these worthy of deserving the forgiveness of sins by the laver of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit and send upon them thy grace [in confirmation], that they may serve you according to your will" (The Apostolic Tradition 22:1 [A.D. 215]).


Cyprian of Carthage



"While I was lying in darkness . . . I thought it indeed difficult and hard to believe . . . that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind. . . . But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man" (To Donatus 3–4 [A.D. 246]).


Aphraahat the Persian Sage



"From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit. . . . [I]n the second birth, that through baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit" (Treatises 6:14:4 [A.D. 340]).


Cyril of Jerusalem



"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism [Mark 10:38]. . . . Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10, 12 [A.D. 350]).


Basil the Great



"For prisoners, baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, the death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a royal protector, a gift of adoption" (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects 13:5 [A.D. 379]).


Council of Constantinople I



"We believe . . . in one baptism for the remission of sins" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]).


Ambrose of Milan



"The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins" (Commentary on Luke 2:83 [A.D. 389]).


Augustine



"It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).

"The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (ibid., 2:27:43).

"Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted" (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).

"This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

SOWA1291
Up and Comer
Up and Comer
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:31 pm

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby SOWA1291 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:51 pm

Born Again in Baptism


One key Scripture reference to being "born again" or "regenerated" is John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol must deny that Jesus here refers to baptism. "Born again" Christians claim the "water" is the preached word of God.

But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).

No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.


Justin Martyr



"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).


Irenaeus



"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).


Tertullian



"[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).


Hippolytus



"The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism" (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).


The Recognitions of Clement



"But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).


Testimonies Concerning the Jews



"That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works" (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).


Cyprian of Carthage



"[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).


Council of Carthage VII



"And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ" (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).


Cyril of Jerusalem



"Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it" (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).


Athanasius



"[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened" (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3:26[33] [A.D. 360]).


Basil the Great



"This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit’s presence there" (The Holy Spirit 15:35 [A.D. 375]).


Ambrose of Milan



"Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God" (The Holy Spirit 1:6[75–76] [A.D. 381]).

"The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (Abraham 2:11:79–84 [A.D. 387]).

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).


Gregory of Nyssa



"[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit" (Against Eunomius 2:8 [A.D. 382]).


John Chrysostom



"[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]" (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).


Gregory of Nazianz



"Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths" (Oration on Holy Baptism 7–8 [A.D. 388]).


The Apostolic Constitutions



"Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13]. . . . [H]e that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ And again, ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned’" [Mark 16:16] (Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:15 [A.D. 400]).


Augustine



"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).

"Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’" [Matt. 10:32] (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

SOWA1291
Up and Comer
Up and Comer
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:31 pm

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby SOWA1291 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:55 pm

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism


Although many Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptists—and "Bible churches" in the Baptist tradition—insist that baptism is only for those who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized.

On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptism—either in infancy or later.

This poses a problem for Baptists and Bible Christians: On what basis do they require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?

This, of course, would be contrary to historical Christian practice. But so is rejecting infant baptism. As we will see, there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this practice were ever voiced until the Reformation.

The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject.

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me
. . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

When Baptists speak of "bringing someone to Jesus," they mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says "even infants" can be "brought" to him. Even Baptists don’t claim their practice of "dedicating" babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism.

Thus Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39).

The apostolic Church baptized whole "households" (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term "households" indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be "brought to Christ" in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.

Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or "the circumcision of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but "[b]aptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).

The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.


Irenaeus



"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).


Hippolytus



"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen



"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage



"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).


Gregory of Nazianz



"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).


John Chrysostom



"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).


Augustine



"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).


Council of Carthage V



"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).


Council of Mileum II



"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

SOWA1291
Up and Comer
Up and Comer
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:31 pm

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby SOWA1291 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:56 pm

Infant Baptism


Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."


Christ Calls All to Baptism



Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?


In Place of Circumcision



Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.


Were Only Adults Baptized?



Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.


Specific Biblical References?



But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.


Catholics From the First



The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).


No Cry of "Invention!"



None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

SOWA1291
Up and Comer
Up and Comer
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:31 pm

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby SOWA1291 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:05 pm

Matlisab said
• The twelve apostles (including Matthias who replaced Judas Iscariot) were baptized by John the Baptist in water and were never re-baptized. Acts 1:5


See below I can argue from scripture that your assertion is false.


"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18).

Jesus was explicit in his instruction to the apostles in Mat 28:18 - to baptize all in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

See also: Acts 19:1. " While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all."

Here again the apostles make clear that John's baptism of repentance was not enough and they were re: baptized in the name of Jesus after which they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

The fact that there are not specific references to the apostles themselves being rebaptized builds the case further against sola scriptura - its implied by scripture by the above verses that "all" (including the apostles) would be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - as was true for those previously baptized only in repentance.








Paul was baptized in Acts Acts 9:1-19a (NAB)

Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do." The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.
For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank. There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." He answered, "Here I am, Lord." The Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying, and (in a vision) he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay (his) hands on him, that he may regain his sight." But Ananias replied, "Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name." But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name." So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit." Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength.


Finally
Sacred Tradition Holds that they were Baptized.

"Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words:

'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (John 13:10), we gather that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized, either with John's Baptism, as some think; or with Christ's, which is more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others.

John 13:"6-11 "He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand." Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me." Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you."

[11] For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, "You are not all clean."

Quoted from St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa theologiae III, q. 72, a. 6, ad. 2)

User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:49 am

SOWA1291 wrote:Matlisab said
• The twelve apostles (including Matthias who replaced Judas Iscariot) were baptized by John the Baptist in water and were never re-baptized. Acts 1:5


See below I can argue from scripture that your assertion is false.


"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18).

Jesus was explicit in his instruction to the apostles in Mat 28:18 - to baptize all in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

See also: Acts 19:1. " While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all."

Here again the apostles make clear that John's baptism of repentance was not enough and they were re: baptized in the name of Jesus after which they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

The fact that there are not specific references to the apostles themselves being rebaptized builds the case further against sola scriptura - its implied by scripture by the above verses that "all" (including the apostles) would be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - as was true for those previously baptized only in repentance.

Paul was baptized in Acts Acts 9:1-19a (NAB)

Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do." The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.
For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank. There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." He answered, "Here I am, Lord." The Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying, and (in a vision) he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay (his) hands on him, that he may regain his sight." But Ananias replied, "Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name." But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name." So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit." Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength.


Finally
Sacred Tradition Holds that they were Baptized.

"Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words:

'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (John 13:10), we gather that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized, either with John's Baptism, as some think; or with Christ's, which is more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others.

John 13:"6-11 "He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand." Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me." Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you."

[11] For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, "You are not all clean."

Quoted from St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa theologiae III, q. 72, a. 6, ad. 2)


None of those Scriptures you quote states that the specific 12 disciples of Jesus were baptized again.
-Matthew 28 is a command to those disciples to go make more disciples. It doesn't say they again took part in water baptism by immersion.
-You might be confusing yourself in your reference to Acts 19, if you think those disciples are the "12 apostles" then you're mistaken.
-I don't know why you mention, Saul in Acts 9. I never said he wasn't baptized. He wasn't part of the original 12 disciples of Jesus.
- John 13 is not a reference to water baptism. I know Catholics think baptism is sprinkling or dipping so I see why you'd bring it up.
- I don't know why you singled out this one statement of mine. A mere mention of the 12 disciples water baptism has potentially spun the conversation about genuine salvation in Christ, into semantics about the time,place,value of a group of men's water baptism that we know were saved by their faith in Christ.
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55

SOWA1291
Up and Comer
Up and Comer
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:31 pm

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby SOWA1291 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:50 am

Matisab said
You might be confusing yourself in your reference to Acts 19, if you think those disciples are the "12 apostles" then you're mistaken.



Acts 19:1. " While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all."

Here again the apostles make clear that John's baptism of repentance was not enough and they were re: baptized in the name of Jesus after which they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
To say since the bible does not explicitly say the the 12 apostles of Christ were not re-baptized in the name of Jesus is ludicrousness in light of Act 19:1-5. According to those versus John's baptism for some disciples is not enough. Thus they needed to be re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. If its true for some disciples then its true for the 12 apostles.




Matisab
-Matthew 28 is a command to those disciples to go make more disciples. It doesn't say they again took part in water baptism by immersion.


Per your interpretation of Matthew 28 above shows that the apostles were baptized.

Assertion 1 Matthew 28 is a command to make more disciples
Thus in order to be a disciple per the verse you must be baptized by Christ Baptismal formula.
Because the apostles are disciples that means they must have been baptized by Christ Baptismal formula.
in

User avatar
Matlisab
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:40 am
Location: West Virginia
Contact:

Re: Water baptism doesn't bring about salvation

Postby Matlisab » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:07 pm

SOWA1291 wrote:Matisab said
You might be confusing yourself in your reference to Acts 19, if you think those disciples are the "12 apostles" then you're mistaken.



Acts 19:1. " While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all."

Here again the apostles make clear that John's baptism of repentance was not enough and they were re: baptized in the name of Jesus after which they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
To say since the bible does not explicitly say the the 12 apostles of Christ were not re-baptized in the name of Jesus is ludicrousness in light of Act 19:1-5. According to those versus John's baptism for some disciples is not enough. Thus they needed to be re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. If its true for some disciples then its true for the 12 apostles.


You're allowing your theology to dictate your interpretation. No where in the NT does it say any of the apostle's were rebaptised. In fact, a number of them died shortly after they received the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, they were martyred (James was the first in Acts 12 I believe). The apostles were baptised by John the Baptist and then received the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, they were saved. Water baptism had nothing to do with their salvation.

When the apostle Paul encounters twelve Jewish men in the city of Ephesus on his third missionary journey, he asks them whether or not they have received the Holy Spirit. When they indicate to him that they had not, he reminded them what John the Baptist had required of those he baptized in water. It was not enough to repent. They would have to believe on Jesus Christ who would follow Him in order to receive the Holy Spirit. Since these men had been baptized with the water indicating their willingness to repent of their sins, but had not followed through in their need to then believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they therefore had not received the Holy Spirit from Christ. Consequently, these twelve men were re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and upon Paul's laying on of hands, they received the Holy Spirit.



Per your interpretation of Matthew 28 above shows that the apostles were baptized.

Assertion 1 Matthew 28 is a command to make more disciples
Thus in order to be a disciple per the verse you must be baptized by Christ Baptismal formula.
Because the apostles are disciples that means they must have been baptized by Christ Baptismal formula.
in


The command in Matt.28 is to go make disciples. A disciple is a believer and follower of Christ. The apostles were told to baptize those people. This passage doesn't state the requirement for the apostles to be baptized again, you're reading into the text and allowing your theology to read between the lines. They were already disciples.


The apostles being baptized (water baptism) only once and by John the Baptizer only causes problems if you believe water baptism has something to do with salvation (which it doesn't). If you are pushing water baptism equals a part of salvation, then 1 Peter 3 is your best passage to hang your hat on (although it has major holes, see exegesis in earlier posts).
League Regular Season Record: 193-81
League Playoff Record: 15-12
TPC Recored: 163-55


Return to “Beliefs & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest