Question to protestants about Faith Alone

[boughtwithaprice]

It says that the one who HEARS and is baptized -- it does not say "the one that does NOT hear but is baptized shall be saved".

R.C. Sproul had a debate with John MacArthur a few years ago and freely admitted that there is not one example of infant baptism in scripture. And that is interesting since Sproul practices infant baptism.

IT does not teach baptism for one that does not hear the gospel.
This is irrefutable. It just isn't there.

Mark 16:16 The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.

Read it again. It does not say hearing, nor does scripture give explicit instructions regarding the sequence of baptizing and believing.

For those families that have not heard the Gospel, of course it goes hearing and believing. They did not know God existed and died for them.
children of believers though can be baptized, as they have already received the grace of faith and can make the decision to share it with their children. Scripture does not restrict it. Colossians 2 implies that baptism is as circumcision. It was done to infants and converts that ask for it

We are a communion of saints that are servants of each other, not a fiefdom of individuals that has every man for himself. Parents serve their children in grace by baptizing them

 

[The Liturgist]

IT does not teach baptism for one that does not hear the gospel.
This is irrefutable. It just isn't there.

It’s entirely refutable, because what you are saying is fundamentally inaccurate. Mark 16:16 reinforces the imperative of baptizing infants contained in Matthew 28:19 , because it makes it clear that baptism is needed along with faith, and it also makes it clear that baptism can be an expression of faith.

The problem here is once again eisegetical proof-texting. Just like with Mark 7:13, you read this text in isolation, and read it in order to support an existing SDA belief, as opposed to an exegetical approach in which the scriptures are read relative to each other, and not based on the writings of someone in the 19th century, but rather in a manner that is not entirely inconsistent with how all Christians prior to the emergence of the Anabaptist movement in the late 16th century interpreted them.

Indeed, we know that an objective systematic reading of Scripture, from the work of Calvinist theologians who worked from this premise, such as Karl Barth, will support the baptism of infants, even where such a systematic reading, as in the case of Karl Barth, does not rely upon tradition or Patristics.

Our Lord commanded “Suffer the little ones to come to me” and “Go forth and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” and these two commandments individually and collectively require the baptism of infants. So my view is that we should show our love for Christ our True God by baptizing infants in accordance with his two explicit instructions to this effect.

And yes, both quotes are explicit instructions to this, since nations include infants as well as adults and elderly people, and also the way for anyone who has not been baptized to come to our Risen Lord and receive the Holy Spirit is through the sacrament of Holy Baptism.

 

[BobRyan]

Heb 8 says this -
Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain..

So then
1. A real sanctuary in heaven
2. Made by God
3. The PATTERN from which Moses took to make a miniature basic model for the sanctuary in the wilderness.
4. Christ ministers as High Priest in that sanctuary in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
5. If He were on Earth He would not be a priest at all.

None of those details in heaven - seen/reported by any other NT writer. We know it from scripture.

yep

nor of 31 AD or 34 AD or whenever you might want to say the date was for Christ's ascension to heaven to take up that role as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary -- yet there it is in Heb 8.

Heb 9:

8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,



11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things having come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all time, having obtained eternal redemption. ...

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, ...

18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And almost all things are cleansed with blood, according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these things, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

Heavenly things , in the heavenly sanctuary - cleansed with "Better sacrifices" - ie the blood of Christ.

The heavenly holy place rather than an earthly one.

We just read it. Just when you say "no cleansing" mentioned - we see in chapter 9 "the cleansing" in heaven.

What you read were the effects of Our Lord’s death and resurrection. The benefits of which were immediately available to all believers.

What I posted showed a lot of "details" about what happened in heaven at Christ's ascension. Details about events in heaven that we know from based on scripture. One cannot then argue "well no one else reported that --- except for Paul" . That does not work

The point is that "the details" show the very thing Adventists argue for regarding the Holy Place and most Holy Place in heaven.

Dan 7 details in vs 9-10 show that the father goes to the court room event first - and then Christ follows later. In that court room is depicted the very IJ (out of books) judgment , pre-advent, while saints are being persecuted... "starting" after the fall of the Roman Empire, after the 1260 years of persecution.... in fact it starts at the point that Dan 8 predicts... which is the end of the 2300 year timeline of Dan 8.

It says nothing of waiting until 1843 for it to happen.
It contrasts Old and New Covenant, not a third covenant of 1843

No one has argued for a 3rd covenant in 1843.

Heb 8 points to the same New Covenant -- that the OT proclaimed in Jer 31:31-34 -- quoting it verbatim.
The "ONE and only Gospel" by which both Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in Matt 17 - before the cross event even happens.

 

[BobRyan]

It says that the one who HEARS and is baptized -- it does not say "the one that does NOT hear but is baptized shall be saved".

R.C. Sproul had a debate with John MacArthur a few years ago and freely admitted that there is not one example of infant baptism in scripture. And that is interesting since Sproul practices infant baptism.

IT does not teach baptism for one that does not hear the gospel.
This is irrefutable. It just isn't there.

Mark 16:16 The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.

Read it again. It does not say hearing, nor does scripture give explicit instructions regarding the sequence of baptizing and believing.

Mark 16:16 The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.

Rom 10 "faith comes by HEARING and hearing by the WORD of GOD"

Heb 11 - "without faith it is impossible to please God"

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

IT does not teach baptism for one that does not hear the gospel.
This is irrefutable. It just isn't there.

Mark 16:16 The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.

Rom 10 "faith comes by HEARING and hearing by the WORD of GOD"

Heb 11 - "without faith it is impossible to please God"

It’s entirely refutable,

ok .. this should be good.

because what you are saying is fundamentally inaccurate. Mark 16:16 reinforces the imperative of baptizing infants

Are you familiar with the term eisegesis?? Infant baptism is not in Mark 16 at all

Even R.S. Sproul admitted it.

it makes it clear that baptism is needed along with faith, and it also makes it clear that baptism can be an expression of faith.

No infant makes a claim to having faith in something as we all know. Nor does Mark 16 say anything about infants making a claim to have faith in something.

Rom 10 specifically says faith only comes from hearing the Word of God.

The problem here is once again eisegetical proof-texting.

Seems like you have a little bit of "projection" going on just then.

Indeed, we know that an objective systematic reading of Scripture, from the work of Calvinist theologians

An actual text that makes your point would be useful just then.

No text claims infants have faith, or make a profession of anything at all.

It just does not get any easier than that.

 

[The Liturgist]

Read it again. It does not say hearing, nor does scripture give explicit instructions regarding the sequence of baptizing and believing.

For those families that have not heard the Gospel, of course it goes hearing and believing. They did not know God existed and died for them.
children of believers though can be baptized, as they have already received the grace of faith and can make the decision to share it with their children. Scripture does not restrict it. Colossians 2 implies that baptism is as circumcision. It was done to infants and converts that ask for it

We are a communion of saints that are servants of each other, not a fiefdom of individuals that has every man for himself. Parents serve their children in grace by baptizing them

Amen.

The real problem is that Ellen G. White accused St. Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church of various things which are inaccurate, and in so doing apparently according to our friend @tall73 also accused the traditional Protestant churches like the Lutherans and Anglicans of the same, and while doing so failed to mention the existence of the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox churches, which is significant because St. Constantine’s primary involvement was of course in convening the ecumenical council in 325 AD wherein the Church of Alexandria, whose successors are the Greek and Coptic Orthodox churches of Alexandria (EO and OO), argued that the Arian doctrine being spread by Arius in denial of the Holy Trinity was a heresy, and as a result the Nicene Creed was adopted and Arius was anathematized, but later, in 336, two years before his death, St. Constantine was persuaded by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop, to arrest St. Athanasius of Alexandria because of an allegation that he had murdered a layman, but St. Athanasius was released when the allegedly murdered layman was produced very much alive. But after St. Constantine’s son Constantius, who had been converted to Arianism came to power, he began a massive persecution of all Christian bishops which resulted in St. Athanasius being arrested and exiled once more, this time replaced by an Arian bishop. The problem is that Ellen G. White doesn’t mention any of this, and while she did apparently do much to promote belief in the Trinity among Adventists, there were also Arian influences on the denomination, so it is not helpful that she failed to mention the Orthodox or the involvement of St. Constantine and St. Athanasius in suppressing the Arian heresy and adopting the Nicene Creed. Additionally she incorrectly stated that it was St. Constantine who was ultimately responsible for the Roman Catholic Church forcing the day of worship to be changed to Sunday, when in fact the Christian church had primarily worshipped on Sunday since the first century, and we have numerous Patristic writings from the first, second and third century, as well as Scriptural evidence, to support this. And also churches which were never under the control of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, and others, have always worshipped on Sunday, and Adventist claims that the Albigensians, Bogomils, Waldensians and Paulicans were Sabbatarian credobaptists are unsubstantiated in the case of the Waldensians, who are a traditional Protestant denomination and always have been, which is why they united with John Calvin in Switzerland after fleeing from Piedmont, and later merged with the Italian Methodists, and in the case of the Albigensians, etc, we know with great detail what these groups believed and have some of their apocryphal writings, which contradict what was said about them.

So as I see it, Adventists should actively reform all of their teachings that were adopted on this basis, so as to remove any negative statements concerning the Roman Catholic Church and other Protestant churches, because there is no factual basis for those claims. If Adventists wish to worship on Saturday and engage in credobaptism, I don’t care, because there are several other Christian groups that do that, but the distinction is that those other groups do not actively criticize or seek to convert Christians who disagree with them, but rather in many cases are highly amenable to ecumenical cooperation. Which is also the case with some of the Adventists, but not all.

 

[The Liturgist]

No infant makes a claim to having faith in something as we all know. Nor does Mark 16 say anything about infants making a claim to have faith in something.

I never asserted as much.

Are you familiar with the term eisegesis?? Infant baptism is not in Mark 16 at all

Yes I am, and eisegesis is what you are doing in reading Mark 16:16 as an attempt to proof-text credobaptism, which it does not do.

Setting aside the fact that its authenticity is disputed, if Mark 16:10-16 is accepted canonical (and I do accept it as canonical, but many do not, on the basis of manuscript evidence, so the use of it as a prooftext for anything is suboptimal) avoiding eisegesis and emplying an exegetical hermeneutic means that it still cannot be read in opposition to and in isolation from Matthew 28:19 and Matthew 19:14, both of which, especially when read in the context of entire households being converted in Acts, and when read in the context of first and second century Patristic writings on baptism, and ancient liturgical texts for the baptism of infants, make it clear that the baptism of infants and children was being performed.

This is quite important, since otherwise, it would be impossible for the little children to come to Jesus Christ, as He commanded, after His ascension, and it would be impossible to baptize an entire household or an entire nation in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as Jesus Christ commanded, since households and nations include infants. Unless you wanted to deny that infants are persons or have souls.

 

[The Liturgist]

Rom 10 specifically says faith only comes from hearing the Word of God.

Whereas it is true that Romans 10 says that faith comes from hearing the Word of God, this does not impact the baptism of infants, for these reasons:

• The Word of God is defined in John 1:1-18 as being Jesus Christ, and furthermore the text in question has also been translated as “hearing through the Word of Christ”, and we know from the Gospel of Matthew that the pure in Heart will see God - Jesus Christ being God. Ergo, this text provides for faith to be received by hearing the preaching of the Gospel, or the reading of Scripture, which happens at baptismal liturgies, or by encountering Jesus Christ personally, which seems like a distinct possibility since infants, having not had the chance to sin voluntarily, are pure of heart in that respect according to the anti-Pelagian hamartiology of St. John Cassian (although not according to St. Augustine, however, the early church historically used the model of St. Cassian exclusively, until the Roman church de-emphasized his writings in favor of those of St. Augustine around the tenth century), among other things.
• It does not say that faith exclusively comes from hearing the Word of God. You interpolated the word “only” in your summation of the text, but there is no “only” in the passage, and our Lord said “I will have mercy on who I will have mercy,” and thus the promise of salvation through baptism in Mark 16:16 and elsewhere cannot possibly be said to not apply to infants, since nowhere is this explicitly stated.

Therefore, since infants hear the Word of God at baptismal liturgies in the form of the appointed scripture lessons, and indeed when baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which is a direct quote of Matthew 28:19, and since being pure of Heart they also have the opportunity to see the Word in person, and thus to hear Him, and since the passage is not exclusive, and our Lord reserves the right to save whomever He wishes, there is no basis for asserting that infant baptism is forbidden.

Furthermore, since Adventists, according to their website, believe that baptism is not a way to earn salvation, but rather symbolizes salvation, which presumably means you do not regard it as a prerequisite for salvation, it shouldn’t matter to Adventists whether infants are baptized or not. So invoking Mark 16:16 in an attempt to condemn the baptism of infants contradicts your own doctrinal position on this issue. The Baptism of infants should be understood as symbolic of the faith that they are brought up in, if you are going to interpret Baptism as being merely symbolic (which it isn’t, but nonetheless, if your sacramental theology is authentically symbolic after the manner of Zwinglian on this point, this should be a matter of adiaphora).

Rather this is being used as the basis to articulate a criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches which agree with it, which seems to be the primary objective, and in my opinion this is fundamentally misguided, because we know from the historical record of what St. Constantine actually did, and what actually happened in the fourth century, and where it happened, that what Ellen G. White asserted concerning the Roman Catholic Church is historically inaccurate and incomplete, because of her failure to discuss the very significant events that happened within what became the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and which did not involve in any substantial way the Roman church (indeed, Rome sent only two representatives to Nicaea, who were not bishops, whereas the Orthodox churches sent 318 bishops who participated in the entire council, and this is is reflected in the council voting down the proposal of the Roman legates to include clerical celibacy among the canons of the Council of Nicaea was unsuccessful, because clerical celibacy for all presbyters, as an idea, was always exclusively associated with the Roman church, which is the only church that historically required its presbyters to be celibate. Had it been the case that the Roman church was somehow in control of the proceedings at Nicaea, clerical celibacy would have been adopted as a canon ecumenically.

 

[The Liturgist]

An actual text that makes your point would be useful just then.

Church Dogmatics, by Karl Barth, is one example of the results of a systematic exegesis of the Bible that did not rely on Patristics or Church Tradition but which nonetheless supported the practice of infant baptism.

 

[The Liturgist]

Also @BobRyan , I have to ask, for clarification regarding your proposed interpretation of Hebrews ch. 8, on what basis do you personally or in the context of your denomination chose whether to interpret specific verses, chapters or passages of Scripture literally or metaphorically?

 

[KevinT]

BobRyan said:

IT does not teach baptism for one that does not hear the gospel.

Be careful to not shut out salvation for the deaf.

KT

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I also find it ironic that Our Lord chose to describe justification as a process of birth. Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

The fractured 21st century lacks understanding, as we have become isolated individuals. The Gospel must be preached and heard in the world, that is true, yet we forget our dependency and hierarchal structure.


The father is the head of the house, but in the 21st century he is the butt of jokes

A father can hear the Gospel and have his whole house baptized

 

[Hazelelponi]

the distinction is that those other groups do not actively criticize or seek to convert Christians who disagree with them, but rather in many cases are highly amenable to ecumenical cooperation

What's ecumenical cooperation?

 

[eleos1954]

You are correct that justification comes from grace alone. It is BY grace THROUGH faith. That begs the question. What is faith?
Is it mere intellectual belief?



You are correct that it is by grace alone that we are saved. The natural man can only determine three things by reason alone. Human reason cannot come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ on its own.
Why? Because saving faith is unreasonable. Natural man can reason that there is a God, God is intelligent, and I am not God. That is it.
Saving faith is unreasonable because there is no earthly benefit to it. Jesus says in order to follow Him, we must deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. No one would do that unless he is called by God. That is grace. We have to die to the world and the lusts thereof. If we have difficulty with sin, then we need cry out to God for deliverance, and He says He will help us.

We cannot say that God’s commands are too burdensome for me now, but I believe in Him, so I will wait until Heaven to be cleansed. That is not faith but mere lip service to God. Our Lord says many will say to me Lord, Lord and He will turn them away because they did not do what He said
James 2:18-20 talks about faith without works is dead and says even demons have that kind of faith but tremble at the thought of God.


If we believe Jesus, we will do what He says, that is faith. He told us to be baptized, not if we purposely decline, then we are not acting in faith and have no claim to the kingdom of God. It is still possible to be saved without being baptized, but those are special circumstances to be left to the judgement of God alone. I am talking about people that deliberately decline baptism and claim God will save them anyway. Do you not know that the Bible also says, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God?

Jesus says if you love me, keep my commandments, baptism is one of them. I do not recommend that it be taught to ignore the Lord’s commands

Baptism is a covenant—or a promise—that you make with God. When you get baptized, you promise to serve Him and follow His commandments to the best of your abilities with HIs help.

Being baptized within itself is not a commandment ... it is a symbolic act that one has chosen (surrendered their life to Jesus) and to keep all the commandments (the law) that Jesus taught and one's public confession of that is what they are choosing to do ... to follow Jesus and with His help to keep His commandments ... the law ... out of love and for no other reasons. If one has surrendered their life to Christ I believe they are indeed drawn to baptism ... I know I was ... but it was after I personally accepted Him as my Lord and Savior. I believe baptism is a natural course of action a person chooses to take .. but not a required course of action (for salvation). If one is drawn to be baptized then of course get baptized.

Now ... that being said ... I do not know why a person having received Christ as their Lord and Savior through faith would not want to be baptized and publicly confess that fact (it is our public testimony of a change that has taken place inside and it's uplifting for others). A refusal to be water baptized does not - by itself - prove a lack of salvation. Baptism is an important step being a public statement that one has surrendered their life to Jesus ... but water baptism is not a required for salvation (as some may teach)

The Apostle John wrote in John 3:22 that Jesus baptized. However, he corrected himself in John 4:2 to say that Jesus didn't baptize, but his disciples did. So, these verses indicate that Jesus taught his disciples how to baptize, but He didn't baptize anyone himself.

Did Jesus break His own commandment? (If one is considering baptism as a commandment)

Sin is transgression of the law .... is baptism a law? No it is not. We are indeed called to keep the commandments (the law) ... out of love.

I'm just saying teaching that baptism is a requirement to be saved is not biblical and salvation is not dependent on it ... that don't mean it isn't a important step to take.

Mark 16:16 Jesus says - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Jesus says here that you should believe and be baptized, but only those who don't believe will be condemned. (the latter omits the baptism part)

 

[Hazelelponi]

Baptism is a covenant—or a promise—that you make with God. When you get baptized, you promise to serve Him and follow His commandments to the best of your abilities with HIs help.

Being baptized within itself is not a commandment ... it is a symbolic act that one has chosen (surrendered their life to Jesus) and to keep all the commandments (the law) that Jesus taught and one's public confession of that is what they are choosing to do ... to follow Jesus and with His help to keep His commandments ... the law ... out of love and for no other reasons. If one has surrendered their life to Christ I believe they are indeed drawn to baptism ... I know I was ... but it was after I personally accepted Him as my Lord and Savior. I believe baptism is a natural course of action a person chooses to take .. but not a required course of action (for salvation). If one is drawn to be baptized then of course get baptized.

Now ... that being said ... I do not know why a person having received Christ as their Lord and Savior through faith would not want to be baptized and publicly confess that fact (it is our public testimony of a change that has taken place inside and it's uplifting for others). A refusal to be water baptized does not - by itself - prove a lack of salvation. Baptism is an important step being a public statement that one has surrendered their life to Jesus ... but water baptism is not a required for salvation (as some may teach)

The Apostle John wrote in John 3:22 that Jesus baptized. However, he corrected himself in John 4:2 to say that Jesus didn't baptize, but his disciples did. So, these verses indicate that Jesus taught his disciples how to baptize, but He didn't baptize anyone himself.

Did Jesus break His own commandment? (If one is considering baptism as a commandment)

Sin is transgression of the law .... is baptism a law? No it is not. We are indeed called to keep the commandments (the law) ... out of love.

I'm just saying teaching that baptism is a requirement to be saved is not biblical and salvation is not dependent on it ... that don't mean it isn't a important step to take.

Mark 16:16 Jesus says - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Jesus says here that you should believe and be baptized, but only those who don't believe will be condemned. (the latter omits the baptism part)

Baptism is like a sacrament of the New Covenant.

Jesus was Himself Baptized, and we follow in His shoes.

Just because Christ didn't Baptize just means that wasn't His role, it's a role He gave to His Disciples and followers, according to their position.

Baptism isn't necessary to go to Heaven after we die.

For example I was saved in winter and my husband wouldn't allow me to be baptized until spring. His mother vehemently disagreed with him because she was baptized in the winter with ice in the river but my husband was adamant that I not be baptized until spring.

Had I died at any point before I could be baptized I was still saved and in Christ and my election sure.

But it doesn't stop Baptism from being a command. We have to be baptized if we are able. Not everyone is able for varying reasons. But where any ability exists it should be entered into.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Baptism is a covenant—or a promise—that you make with God. When you get baptized, you promise to serve Him and follow His commandments to the best of your abilities with HIs help.

Being baptized within itself is not a commandment ... it is a symbolic act that one has chosen (surrendered their life to Jesus) and to keep all the commandments (the law) that Jesus taught and one's public confession of that is what they are choosing to do ... to follow Jesus and with His help to keep His commandments ... the law ... out of love and for no other reasons. If one has surrendered their life to Christ I believe they are indeed drawn to baptism ... I know I was ... but it was after I personally accepted Him as my Lord and Savior. I believe baptism is a natural course of action a person chooses to take .. but not a required course of action (for salvation). If one is drawn to be baptized then of course get baptized.

Now ... that being said ... I do not know why a person having received Christ as their Lord and Savior through faith would not want to be baptized and publicly confess that fact (it is our public testimony of a change that has taken place inside and it's uplifting for others). A refusal to be water baptized does not - by itself - prove a lack of salvation. Baptism is an important step being a public statement that one has surrendered their life to Jesus ... but water baptism is not a required for salvation (as some may teach)

The Apostle John wrote in John 3:22 that Jesus baptized. However, he corrected himself in John 4:2 to say that Jesus didn't baptize, but his disciples did. So, these verses indicate that Jesus taught his disciples how to baptize, but He didn't baptize anyone himself.

Did Jesus break His own commandment? (If one is considering baptism as a commandment)

Sin is transgression of the law .... is baptism a law? No it is not. We are indeed called to keep the commandments (the law) ... out of love.

I'm just saying teaching that baptism is a requirement to be saved is not biblical and salvation is not dependent on it ... that don't mean it isn't a important step to take.

Mark 16:16 Jesus says - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Jesus says here that you should believe and be baptized, but only those who don't believe will be condemned. (the latter omits the baptism part)

John baptized with water. Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He also says that unless one is born of water and the spirt, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Water baptism is required .

I don’t understand how you say accept Jesus as my savior and try to talk a way out of his simple commands

What purpose do you have for the argument you make? What is wrong with following our Lord’s example to fulfill all righteousness? Do you want to change the way one becomes a Christian to do your own way, instead of God’s way? I don’t think He would be too happy with you when you talk to Him. Your argument seems to be one of presumption, rather than obedience.

Those that are born again, like the Ethiopian Eunuch, want to be baptized right away with joy of obeying the Lord. God can have mercy on you, like He did to Constantine to be baptized on his death bed, but God is not obligated to do that.

Salvation is not a mercantile or legal transaction, if you are justified, you preach obedience with joy, not make technical arguments to others on how obedience is unnecessary

I pray you rethink your position

 

[ARBITER01]

Baptism is like a sacrament of the New Covenant.

Jesus was Himself Baptized, and we follow in His shoes.

Just because Christ didn't Baptize just means that wasn't His role, it's a role He gave to His Disciples and followers, according to their position.

Water immersion in the OT during the time of Jesus was symbolic and pointing to the Spiritual immersion that Jesus would initiate and do after He was glorified and seated to the right of The Father,...

Act 1:5 for John indeed baptized in water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

That's the immersion that births us anew and adds us to the body of Christ,...

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Baptism isn't necessary to go to Heaven after we die.

Correct.

But like you said, it is the example that Jesus gave us to follow, and we are expected to do His works.

 

[Dan Perez]

Did you really need to waste all that time typing that?

Why don't you re-read what I posted and answer it better instead of giving a thesis on baptism that I have no need of?

Water Baptism is just one of the BIGGEST divider in the Body of Christ .

Rom 6:3 , Or are you Ignorant , that as many as were BAPTIZED into Christ Jesus were BAPTIZED into His DEATH ?

Where does anyone see the Greek word for WATER // HUDOR in verse 3 ??

The main reason why Jesus was water baptized , was because Christ is a HIGH PRIEST , after the order of Melchizedek as

written in Heb 6:20 and in Heb 5:6 .

All priests from A ARON all had to wash HANDS and FEET before doing there doing there duty as HISH PRIESTS ,

i have not seen a Greek word for IMMERSION , , maybe I missed it and be happy it anyone will show me with a verse ?

And here is one , did Paul ever baptize , with WATER or without WATER ?

dan p

 

[eleos1954]

Baptism is like a sacrament of the New Covenant.

Jesus was Himself Baptized, and we follow in His shoes.

Just because Christ didn't Baptize just means that wasn't His role, it's a role He gave to His Disciples and followers, according to their position.

Baptism isn't necessary to go to Heaven after we die.

For example I was saved in winter and my husband wouldn't allow me to be baptized until spring. His mother vehemently disagreed with him because she was baptized in the winter with ice in the river but my husband was adamant that I not be baptized until spring.

Had I died at any point before I could be baptized I was still saved and in Christ and my election sure.

But it doesn't stop Baptism from being a command. We have to be baptized if we are able. Not everyone is able for varying reasons. But where any ability exists it should be entered into.

We have to be baptized if we are able

Or what? What are the consequences (if any) if we don't?