Baptism Question/Explanation?

[Varangian Christian]

Ok, to begin with let me state that I do not believe Baptism is just a sign. As all the other Sacraments are said both in Scripture and in Tradition to give real Grace so the same must be true of Baptism, the sacred mystery most emphasized in the New Testament. This is not an impediment to me joining Orthodoxy, just a nagging question in my mind.

My question is how can Baptism be said to bring Salvation if it is also admitted that people can go to Paradise without Baptism, such as Martyrs through Baptism of blood or other believers who died before they could be baptized or simply were ignorant of its necessity? I think I may have found a suitable answer for myself but I want to know for sure it is acceptable:

The Problem

• Salvation is not a one time event but rather a lifelong and eternal process. This is the reason Orthodox don't really use the term "get saved".
  
• One can be given eternal life without physical baptism (martyrs, ignorance, etc).
  
• Baptism is the Baptism for remission of Sins, the one Baptism of the faith and Salvation. But how?

Solution
There is no real problem because of the eternal, timeless nature of Salvation. The physical Baptism acts as the weight, point or bridge between the physical and Spiritual for ones Salvation regardless of whether the Holy Spirit filled someone (for example a martyr) before the physical act of Baptism because our Salvation is not constrained by linear time as perceived by mortals.

The perfect example to illustrate this, i think, is Christ's incarnation. As I understand it Christ is eternally begotten as the Son of God through His incarnation, the Word thus eternally being generated from the Father. Christ became man, the son of God and man, at a definite point in linear time and yet He was also eternally the Son of God beyond all time. The Saints likewise are said to be God and joint heirs with Christ not by essence but by sharing in His energies, and therefore the Saints are capable of hearing our prayers through God's energies, granting miracles through God's energies and being eternal through God's energies.

Therefore, just as the Logos is eternally God the Son through an incarnation in linear time, so to our Salvation is eternal but rooted in Baptism in linear time. The Baptism is of water & spirit all at once and like the nature of Salvation is itself a mystery, thus the argument over whether someone was "saved" without Baptism is a useless and vain argument. If someone is in paradise without having been Baptized in water that does not contradict the nature of Baptism just as the Salvation of the Old Testament Patriarchs does not contradict Salvation through Christ and the New Covenant.

Is this a good explanation?

 

[~Anastasia~]

It puts me in mind of something a bishop once told me about Rome and transubstatiation. He said the problem isn't that they believe the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood (because it does) ... the problem is all the philosophy they attach to it. (Which parts may or may not be true, but it's not what we were given.)

I think he would say that baptism saves. Yes. But God has many means of grace, and isn't limited.

It's not for us to assume we can simply avoid baptism of course. But we also can't assume that God's hands are somethow tied and He cannot act without it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok, to begin with let me state that I do not believe Baptism is just a sign. As all the other Sacraments are said both in Scripture and in Tradition to give real Grace so the same must be true of Baptism, the sacred mystery most emphasized in the New Testament. This is not an impediment to me joining Orthodoxy, just a nagging question in my mind.

My question is how can Baptism be said to bring Salvation if it is also admitted that people can go to Paradise without Baptism, such as Martyrs through Baptism of blood or other believers who died before they could be baptized or simply were ignorant of its necessity? I think I may have found a suitable answer for myself but I want to know for sure it is acceptable:

The Problem

• Salvation is not a one time event but rather a lifelong and eternal process. This is the reason Orthodox don't really use the term "get saved".
  
• One can be given eternal life without physical baptism (martyrs, ignorance, etc).
  
• Baptism is the Baptism for remission of Sins, the one Baptism of the faith and Salvation. But how?

Solution
There is no real problem because of the eternal, timeless nature of Salvation. The physical Baptism acts as the weight, point or bridge between the physical and Spiritual for ones Salvation regardless of whether the Holy Spirit filled someone (for example a martyr) before the physical act of Baptism because our Salvation is not constrained by linear time as perceived by mortals.

The perfect example to illustrate this, i think, is Christ's incarnation. As I understand it Christ is eternally begotten as the Son of God through His incarnation, the Word thus eternally being generated from the Father. Christ became man, the son of God and man, at a definite point in linear time and yet He was also eternally the Son of God beyond all time. The Saints likewise are said to be God and joint heirs with Christ not by essence but by sharing in His energies, and therefore the Saints are capable of hearing our prayers through God's energies, granting miracles through God's energies and being eternal through God's energies.

Therefore, just as the Logos is eternally God the Son through an incarnation in linear time, so to our Salvation is eternal but rooted in Baptism in linear time. The Baptism is of water & spirit all at once and like the nature of Salvation is itself a mystery, thus the argument over whether someone was "saved" without Baptism is a useless and vain argument. If someone is in paradise without having been Baptized in water that does not contradict the nature of Baptism just as the Salvation of the Old Testament Patriarchs does not contradict Salvation through Christ and the New Covenant.

Is this a good explanation?

I think it's simpler just to say God loves them, desires their salvation, and He is not bound in who He can save. He is the potter and we are the clay.

and I would not say the Logos is eternally God the Son through an incarnation in linear time. the Logos is God the Son outside of time Who becomes incarnate within time. the incarnation makes the Logos the Son of Man, not the Son of God.

 

[Varangian Christian]

It puts me in mind of something a bishop once told me about Rome and transubstatiation. He said the problem isn't that they believe the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood (because it does) ... the problem is all the philosophy they attach to it. (Which parts may or may not be true, but it's not what we were given.)

I think he would say that baptism saves. Yes. But God has many means of grace, and isn't limited.

It's not for us to assume we can simply avoid baptism of course. But we also can't assume that God's hands are somethow tied and He cannot act without it.

That is true. I am not trying to over philosophize Baptism like Catholics with the Eucharist, rather I am simply trying to find a way to logically explain how the physical Baptism is the ONE Baptism. Logic can be used to explain these things to an extent, such as the logic employed in the doctrines of the Trinity and God's essence/energies distinction, it is simply a matter of not going too far.

Have I gone too far in some way in my explanation? Perhaps it would be better for me to use something other than the Logos' eternal Sonship as that is also a mystery.

I think it's simpler just to say God loves them, desires their salvation, and He is not bound in who He can save. He is the potter and we are the clay.

and I would not say the Logos is eternally God the Son through an incarnation in linear time. the Logos is God the Son outside of time Who becomes incarnate within time. the incarnation makes the Logos the Son of Man, not the Son of God.

That is simpler and sufficient for faith, but I would like to be able to explain with reason how the water Baptism is the one Baptism of the creed and for the remission of sins. Certain members of my family are hung up on this issue because they believe they experienced salvation (the initial kind) before Baptism. I think their problem results from a flawed outlook on time, them understanding ones state of salvation through a linear rather than eternal lens.

I'll try to think of something else to use for my argument. The Logos' Sonship is a mystery and should not be used for such debate. My apologies.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That is simpler and sufficient for faith, but I would like to be able to explain with reason how the water Baptism is the one Baptism of the creed and for the remission of sins. Certain members of my family are hung up on this issue because they believe they experienced salvation (the initial kind) before Baptism. I think their problem results from a flawed outlook on time, them understanding ones state of salvation through a linear rather than eternal lens.

I'll try to think of something else to use for my argument. The Logos' Sonship is a mystery and should not be used for such debate. My apologies.

simply put, the one water baptism was what Christ told Nicodemus in John's Gospel. despite this, in Luke we know He saves the repentant thief on the Cross. neither of these override the other.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This probably won't be helpful but I recently read a suggestion of "baptism of tears" ... in this case a Saint weeping and praying for a pagan who had displayed very Christian behavior.

Different kinds of baptism are talked about. If you're having a particular problem explaining to some folks, a different question/answer may help more?

(Or maybe not, but I'm trying to be helpful.)

 

[Varangian Christian]

simply put, the one water baptism was what Christ told Nicodemus in John's Gospel. despite this, in Luke we know He saves the repentant thief on the Cross. neither of these override the other.

Alright. Thank you for your answers.

 

[Varangian Christian]

This probably won't be helpful but I recently read a suggestion of "baptism of tears" ... in this case a Saint weeping and praying for a pagan who had displayed very Christian behavior.

Different kinds of baptism are talked about. If you're having a particular problem explaining to some folks, a different question/answer may help more?

(Or maybe not, but I'm trying to be helpful.)

Interesting. I'll look into that.

Many thanks!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Interesting. I'll look into that.

Many thanks!

In case this helps ...

It is related in the footnotes under the bar. Just a heads-up ... some parts of the text above are "in reply to" so it quotes first someone's belief, then follows with St. Mark of Ephesus' reply. So there are paragraphs here and there that are NOT Orthodox teaching. Some of that may show above the bars.

 

[Varangian Christian]

In case this helps ...


It is related in the footnotes under the bar. Just a heads-up ... some parts of the text above are "in reply to" so it quotes first someone's belief, then follows with St. Mark of Ephesus' reply. So there are paragraphs here and there that are NOT Orthodox teaching. Some of that may show above the bars.

That is something I definitely never heard of before. Thank you for taking the time to get those images for me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Alright. Thank you for your answers.

no problem!

 

[~Anastasia~]

That is something I definitely never heard of before. Thank you for taking the time to get those images for me.

It stayed with me because I'd never heard it either. It comes along with the teaching, btw, that we cannot "pray someone out of hell". It seems to be very nuanced. I can only share what I've read - it's all above my pay grade lol.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Ok, to begin with let me state that I do not believe Baptism is just a sign. As all the other Sacraments are said both in Scripture and in Tradition to give real Grace so the same must be true of Baptism, the sacred mystery most emphasized in the New Testament. This is not an impediment to me joining Orthodoxy, just a nagging question in my mind.

My question is how can Baptism be said to bring Salvation if it is also admitted that people can go to Paradise without Baptism, such as Martyrs through Baptism of blood or other believers who died before they could be baptized or simply were ignorant of its necessity? I think I may have found a suitable answer for myself but I want to know for sure it is acceptable:

The Problem

• Salvation is not a one time event but rather a lifelong and eternal process. This is the reason Orthodox don't really use the term "get saved".
  
• One can be given eternal life without physical baptism (martyrs, ignorance, etc).
  
• Baptism is the Baptism for remission of Sins, the one Baptism of the faith and Salvation. But how?

Solution
There is no real problem because of the eternal, timeless nature of Salvation. The physical Baptism acts as the weight, point or bridge between the physical and Spiritual for ones Salvation regardless of whether the Holy Spirit filled someone (for example a martyr) before the physical act of Baptism because our Salvation is not constrained by linear time as perceived by mortals.

The perfect example to illustrate this, i think, is Christ's incarnation. As I understand it Christ is eternally begotten as the Son of God through His incarnation, the Word thus eternally being generated from the Father. Christ became man, the son of God and man, at a definite point in linear time and yet He was also eternally the Son of God beyond all time. The Saints likewise are said to be God and joint heirs with Christ not by essence but by sharing in His energies, and therefore the Saints are capable of hearing our prayers through God's energies, granting miracles through God's energies and being eternal through God's energies.

Therefore, just as the Logos is eternally God the Son through an incarnation in linear time, so to our Salvation is eternal but rooted in Baptism in linear time. The Baptism is of water & spirit all at once and like the nature of Salvation is itself a mystery, thus the argument over whether someone was "saved" without Baptism is a useless and vain argument. If someone is in paradise without having been Baptized in water that does not contradict the nature of Baptism just as the Salvation of the Old Testament Patriarchs does not contradict Salvation through Christ and the New Covenant.

Is this a good explanation?

I would like to see scripture that says one can be saved without baptism. If you believe what scripture say baptism is the point when prior sins are forgiven.
In Him

 

[Varangian Christian]

I would like to see scripture that says one can be saved without baptism. If you believe what scripture say baptism is the point when prior sins are forgiven.
In Him

The thief on the cross, for one.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

The thief on the cross, for one.

1) The thief did not live during the Christian dispensation; he lived under the Old Testament (Law of Moses)

2) The church of Christ did not exist untill the day of pentecost, at and ever since that point, people have been bound by the New Testament.

Therefore the thief is an invalid argument.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the thief is not an invalid argument. you asked for salvation for someone who wasn't baptized. you can't clarify your argument after the fact, and then invalidate it afterwards.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

the thief is not an invalid argument. you asked for salvation for someone who wasn't baptized. you can't clarify your argument after the fact, and then invalidate it afterwards.

What you thought I was talking about something that was not pertinent to us?? You are kidding, right?

 

[ArmyMatt]

What you thought I was talking about something that was not pertinent to us?? You are kidding, right?

are you an Orthodox Christian? because your faith on your profile doesn't say you are.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

No, I'm just a Christian. Why do you ask?

 

[ArmyMatt]

No, I'm just a Christian. Why do you ask?

because this is the Eastern Orthodox subforum