• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Baptism to be Saved?

May 26, 2011
44
2
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Many Catholics believe one must be water baptized to be saved. Why is this when there's no scripture that say this? In fact, there have been many instances in scripture where people were saved without baptism (the dying theif, Peter's confession). Are the Catholics who say this saying that Christ's sacrifice isn't enough to save them? If anyone believes this way, can they use scripture to support it?
 
Last edited:

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,084
45,773
68
✟3,091,817.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Many Catholics believe one must be baptized to be saved. Why is this when there's no scripture that say this? In fact, there have been many instances in scripture where people were saved without baptism (the dying theif, Peter's confession). Are the Catholics who say this saying that Christ's sacrifice isn't enough to save them? If anyone believes this way, can they use scripture to support it?

I don't believe that one must be baptized to be saved, but I know that those who do often use Mark 16 as proof of their position.

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned"
Mark 16:16
 
Upvote 0
May 26, 2011
44
2
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I don't believe that one must be baptized to be saved, but I know that those who do often use Mark 16 as proof of their position.

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned"
Mark 16:16

Yes, I'm aware of this.
Notice the last part of what you posted. The conditions for condemnation is unbelief. Jesus didn't say that if you don't get baptized you'll be condemned. He goes on later after that to say "these signs will accomany those who believe...", not those who are baptized.
 
Upvote 0

INTJ-F

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2011
950
92
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟16,800.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned"

Mark 16:16

Baptized by water or the Holy Spirit?

Also why do those who think you have to be baptized to be saved (a "work") bad mouth those who keep God's commandments claiming "we are under grace, not the law" ?
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,084
45,773
68
✟3,091,817.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I'm aware of this.
Notice the last part of what you posted. The conditions for condemnation is unbelief. Jesus didn't say that if you don't get baptized you'll be condemned. He goes on later after that to say "these signs will accomany those who believe...", not those who are baptized.

Agreed! I believe that baptism is included in Mark 16:16a because it was (and still is) seen as part of the normal process that one goes through immediately after coming to faith in Christ. Our newfound faith results in works of obedience to God, and getting baptized, in most instances, is something that every new Christian should do.

--David

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me,
has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life"
John 5:24
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,673
4,146
Louisville, Ky
✟993,584.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Many Catholics believe one must be baptized to be saved. Why is this when there's no scripture that say this? In fact, there have been many instances in scripture where people were saved without baptism (the dying theif, Peter's confession). Are the Catholics who say this saying that Christ's sacrifice isn't enough to save them? If anyone believes this way, can they use scripture to support it?
One is baptized into the body of Christ but there are many baptisms in scripture. John's baptism or baptism of the washing of sins and repentance was the first of the NT. The cross was a baptism or the baptism of blood, martyrdom. Baptism of desire, such as the thief. Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Do you agree that one must be baptized into the body of Christ to be saved or is salvation found without Christ?

The Apostles all baptized new believers. If they had received the Holy Spirit they baptized them with John's baptism. If they had John's baptism, they laid hands on them and baptized with the Holy Spirit. They always baptized.

Speaking of the flood Peter said in 1 Peter 3:21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
Christ's sacrifice was payment for our sin, so that those that who believe may be saved but belief is not only an acknowledgment that Christ died for our sin. Belief is a walk or life in the Spirit of God.

Romans 8:
1 Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are "in Christ Jesus."
2 For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
4 so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, who live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.
5 For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit.
6 The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace.
Being baptized doesn't mean much if one lives their life according to the flesh. The Catholic Church will not judge if you are baptized into the body of Christ and have been saved. That is for God, not man.

As a side note, I used to be Baptist when I young. They wanted to baptize my older brothers and myself. They were baptized but I refused. One became an atheist and the other embraces parts of all religions, whichever part suits him. I left the Baptist Church.

God later baptized me in his Holy Spirit, in my late teens, in my bedroom, late at night. I grew in the Spirit and heard the Spirit's voice. When I was in my late twenties God spoke and told me to get baptized and fellowship. That is when I became a Catholic.

God brings us home in the manner in which He chooses. Follow that path which he has given you and we will follow ours.

God Bless,
YD

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm
 
Upvote 0

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟27,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Many Catholics believe one must be baptized to be saved. Why is this when there's no scripture that say this?

It's all over the place in Scripture, the most point blank statement is in 1 Peter 3:21, where the writer says,

"This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

Baptism is not merely getting wet, like taking a bath, it actually does something, "an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

In fact, there have been many instances in scripture where people were saved without baptism (the dying theif, Peter's confession). Are the Catholics who say this saying that Christ's sacrifice isn't enough to save them?

Two points: Sacramental Christians such as Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans (etc) don't turn Baptism into some stringent work of law that must be accomplished to satisfy God's demands. Instead we see it as a good gift from God for us. That is, it's not our contribution to God, but God's contribution to us. Baptism is the usual and normative means by which God unites us to the crucified and risen Jesus. Baptism is not in addition to the Cross, Baptism is God's gracious application of the Cross to us, it is God's work and activity to bring us and unite us to the gracious and all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ. Baptism is about Jesus' death and resurrection, it is our participation and union with Jesus in His death and resurrection. Not by our activity, but God's activity; not our contribution but God's contribution.

Secondly, because Baptism isn't about our meeting the demands of God in order to satisfy Him, but God's gracious giving of Himself freely to us, and because it is God who does the saving, God who does the justifying (etc) God is free to do these very things outside the bounds of what He has established as the usual and normative means of accomplishing this.

Which means, yes, in Baptism we die to sin and rise to newness of life in and with Christ, becoming partakers of Him, being united to Him with our sins forgiven and washed away by His perfect and shed blood, justifying and saving us and bringing us into the eternal and abundant life of God. That does not mean God cannot do the same outside of Baptism, He can. The thief on the cross received no less grace than we ourselves receive in the waters of Baptism even though he was not baptized, Christ spoke the word (the same word we receive in Baptism) and the thief was forgiven and promised paradise. It is God's to give, freely, however He wishes.

That He has promised and said it is always and abundantly found in Baptism means just that. This is where it is certainly and truly found, but that does not mean it's not elsewhere. It can be, God can use any means He so wishes to save sinners, that's the kind of God He is; but He has given us Baptism as a sure and certain promise. Here His word and promises are found with and in the water, here in Baptism we have that sure promise from God to forgive us all sin, to unite us to His Son, to make us new creations in Christ Jesus, to make us born again in the life of God and fill us with His Holy Spirit. That's all available, freely, in Baptism.

So the question is not can God save us outside of Baptism (God can and has); but to ask ourselves, "Since this is where God has promised us that He Himself is found here in all His tenderness and grace, why look elsewhere?" If Christ is found sure and certain in Holy Baptism, why look for Him somewhere else? Why not look to where He has said He would be?

If anyone believes this way, can they use scripture to support it?

We have, for about two thousand years. John 3:5, Romans 6, Acts 2:38, Ephesians 5:26, 1 Peter 3:21, Colossians 2:12 (and so on and so on).

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
May 26, 2011
44
2
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
One is baptized into the body of Christ but there are many baptisms in scripture. John's baptism or baptism of the washing of sins and repentance was the first of the NT. The cross was a baptism or the baptism of blood, martyrdom. Baptism of desire, such as the thief. Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Do you agree that one must be baptized into the body of Christ to be saved or is salvation found without Christ?

The Apostles all baptized new believers. If they had received the Holy Spirit they baptized them with John's baptism. If they had John's baptism, they laid hands on them and baptized with the Holy Spirit. They always baptized.

Speaking of the flood Peter said in 1 Peter 3:21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
Christ's sacrifice was payment for our sin, so that those that who believe may be saved but belief is not only an acknowledgment that Christ died for our sin. Belief is a walk or life in the Spirit of God.

Romans 8:
1 Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are "in Christ Jesus."
2 For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
4 so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, who live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.
5 For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit.
6 The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace.
Being baptized doesn't mean much if one lives their life according to the flesh. The Catholic Church will not judge if you are baptized into the body of Christ and have been saved. That is for God, not man.

As a side note, I used to be Baptist when I young. They wanted to baptize my older brothers and myself. They were baptized but I refused. One became an atheist and the other embraces parts of all religions, whichever part suits him. I left the Baptist Church.

God later baptized me in his Holy Spirit, in my late teens, in my bedroom, late at night. I grew in the Spirit and heard the Spirit's voice. When I was in my late twenties God spoke and told me to get baptized and fellowship. That is when I became a Catholic.

God brings us home in the manner in which He chooses. Follow that path which he has given you and we will follow ours.

God Bless,
YD

I'm not sure which position you're taking.

You asked about what I believe about salvation. I believe salvation is only found through faith in Christ and I believe that faith in Christ alone is sufficient to save, and that Baptism is not what saves nor has any part in salvation.

You said, "One is baptized into the body of Christ but there are many baptisms in scripture. John's baptism or baptism of the washing of sins and repentance was the first of the NT. The cross was a baptism or the baptism of blood, martyrdom. Baptism of desire, such as the thief. Baptism of the Holy Spirit.". Is this catholic doctrine? I'm not to familiar with the semantics and nomenclature of how their each of these "baptisms" work according to Catholic teachings. Enlighten me.

You said, "The Apostles all baptized new believers. If they had received the Holy Spirit they baptized them with John's baptism. If they had John's baptism, they laid hands on them and baptized with the Holy Spirit. They always baptized.". So does that mean that the "new believers" you talked about weren't actually saved? Yes they baptized in the name of Christ, but that doesn't mean that baptism was required for salvation. In fact, there are many instances where faith in Christ is the only thing mentioned for salvation. If Baptism was so necessary then how did the dying thief get into paradise? Or why did Jesus accept Peter's confession? and are you saying that the Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48 who recieved the Spirit of God before being baptized were still not saved?

Looking at Peter's letter in 1 Peter 3:21:
First off, regardless of what Peter said, we have to look at it in the light of what the other Apostles and more importantly, what Lord Jesus said. The ever famous (or infamous) passage John 3:16 was said by our Lord himself. "Whosoever believes in him will.... have everlasting life." Nothing about baptism there. So did what Peter say contradict what Christ said? If it did, who's word do we take?
Paul made it clear to the Ephesian Church that no other works besides faith in Christ were needed (Ephesians 2:8-9). Also, the thief on the cross did get baptized after believing, yet Jesus promised him a place in paradise.
Looking at that passage, the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." doesn't support that baptism is needed for salvation. In fact, it goes against it. It says "not the removal of dirt... but an appeal to God... through the resurrection...". He's not talking about water baptism being what saves, but an appeal to God through Christ, i.e. faith in the Gospel.

I'm not sure if you quoted Romans 8 in support of the Catholic doctrine or not.

Shalom and God bless!
 
Upvote 0
May 26, 2011
44
2
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
It's all over the place in Scripture, the most point blank statement is in 1 Peter 3:21, where the writer says,

"This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

Baptism is not merely getting wet, like taking a bath, it actually does something, "an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"



Two points: Sacramental Christians such as Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans (etc) don't turn Baptism into some stringent work of law that must be accomplished to satisfy God's demands. Instead we see it as a good gift from God for us. That is, it's not our contribution to God, but God's contribution to us. Baptism is the usual and normative means by which God unites us to the crucified and risen Jesus. Baptism is not in addition to the Cross, Baptism is God's gracious application of the Cross to us, it is God's work and activity to bring us and unite us to the gracious and all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ. Baptism is about Jesus' death and resurrection, it is our participation and union with Jesus in His death and resurrection. Not by our activity, but God's activity; not our contribution but God's contribution.

Secondly, because Baptism isn't about our meeting the demands of God in order to satisfy Him, but God's gracious giving of Himself freely to us, and because it is God who does the saving, God who does the justifying (etc) God is free to do these very things outside the bounds of what He has established as the usual and normative means of accomplishing this.

Which means, yes, in Baptism we die to sin and rise to newness of life in and with Christ, becoming partakers of Him, being united to Him with our sins forgiven and washed away by His perfect and shed blood, justifying and saving us and bringing us into the eternal and abundant life of God. That does not mean God cannot do the same outside of Baptism, He can. The thief on the cross received no less grace than we ourselves receive in the waters of Baptism even though he was not baptized, Christ spoke the word (the same word we receive in Baptism) and the thief was forgiven and promised paradise. It is God's to give, freely, however He wishes.

That He has promised and said it is always and abundantly found in Baptism means just that. This is where it is certainly and truly found, but that does not mean it's not elsewhere. It can be, God can use any means He so wishes to save sinners, that's the kind of God He is; but He has given us Baptism as a sure and certain promise. Here His word and promises are found with and in the water, here in Baptism we have that sure promise from God to forgive us all sin, to unite us to His Son, to make us new creations in Christ Jesus, to make us born again in the life of God and fill us with His Holy Spirit. That's all available, freely, in Baptism.

So the question is not can God save us outside of Baptism (God can and has); but to ask ourselves, "Since this is where God has promised us that He Himself is found here in all His tenderness and grace, why look elsewhere?" If Christ is found sure and certain in Holy Baptism, why look for Him somewhere else? Why not look to where He has said He would be?



We have, for about two thousand years. John 3:5, Romans 6, Acts 2:38, Ephesians 5:26, 1 Peter 3:21, Colossians 2:12 (and so on and so on).

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for replying.

I will go through the scripture evidence you gave first.
John 3:5- Looking at the surrounding context of that convo with Nicodemus makes it clear that they were contrasting being born of a woman to being born of Spirit. In fact, this contrast was made earlier in this Gospel in the first chapter. "born of water" refers to being born of a woman's womb.

Roman 6- There's no evidence to say that Paul is speaking about water baptism. The Greek word for baptism (baptizō) means many things, such as as "to overwhelm", which is why Jesus made it a point in Acts 1:5 to distinguish between two baptisms.

Acts 2:38- First off, to understand what Peter said in this passage to mean that one has to be baptized in order to be saved is a contradiction to what Lord Jesus said himself in John 3:16. "Whosoever believes in me will... have everlasting life." Notice how he said nothing of baptism. Peter himself knew that Lord Jesus confirmed his confession of him as Christ and it didn't have anything to do with baptism.
I admit, I had to do my homework for this one!
Looking at Peter's statement in the original Greek will make it clear what he meant:

“Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

In the Greek, "(you) repent" is plural (ya'll repent for us Southerners) and "your sins" is plural (ya'lls sins). However "each one of you" is singular. It would be improper to link the plural "ya'lls sins" with the singular "each one of you". The command for "ya'll repenting" can only go with the result (forgiveness of ya'lls sins).

Ephesians 5:26- This verse does not even refer to baptism. "water" in the scriptures doesn't always refer to baptism. This verse does, however, say that the washing is done with the word. Other scripture makes it clear that becoming clean is done with the Word of God (John 8:31-32, Psalm 119:9), so this is sufficient evidence to say that what Paul is talking about here is the Word of God, not literal water from baptism. This doesn't support the need for baptism in order to be saved.

1 Peter 3:21- First off, regardless of what Peter said, we have to look at it in the light of what the other Apostles and more importantly, what Lord Jesus said. The ever famous (or infamous) passage John 3:16 was said by our Lord himself. "Whosoever believes in him will.... have everlasting life." Nothing about baptism there. So did what Peter say contradict what Christ said? If it did, who's word do we take?
Paul made it clear to the Ephesian Church that no other works besides faith in Christ were needed (Ephesians 2:8-9). Also, the thief on the cross did get baptized after believing, yet Jesus promised him a place in paradise.
Looking at that passage, the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." doesn't support that baptism is needed for salvation. In fact, it goes against it. It says "not the removal of dirt... but an appeal to God... through the resurrection...". He's not talking about water baptism being what saves, but an appeal to God through Christ, i.e. faith in the Gospel.

Colossians 2:12- Looking at this in context, in verse 11, Paul refers to circumcision of Christ as a circumcision without hands. He then goes on the to link circumcision to baptism. If Paul acknowledges the "circumcision without hands" and then links it to baptism that would mean that this is a baptism without hands. Paul used baptism as a picture of what Christ has done for us, not to say that baptism with hands is required for salvation.

You said, “The thief on the cross received no less grace than we ourselves receive in the waters of Baptism even though he was not baptized, Christ spoke the word (the same word we receive in Baptism) and the thief was forgiven and promised paradise. It is God's to give, freely, however He wishes.”. Jesus Christ made it clear that only his name can save others and nothing else is necessary. If you say baptism is needed to save and then say that the thief could be saved without it then that would be false. Is there some word that Christ spoke to the thief that he doesn’t speak to others who believe in his name, but haven’t gotten baptized in water?

You said, “That He has promised and said it is always and abundantly found in Baptism means just that. This is where it is certainly and truly found, but that does not mean it's not elsewhere. It can be, God can use any means He so wishes to save sinners, that's the kind of God He is; but He has given us Baptism as a sure and certain promise.”. The promise of salvation is found only in the name of Jesus Christ. Where is it found that baptism is the sure promise?

Thanks you for your response and Shalom.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,673
4,146
Louisville, Ky
✟993,584.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure which position you're taking.

You asked about what I believe about salvation. I believe salvation is only found through faith in Christ and I believe that faith in Christ alone is sufficient to save, and that Baptism is not what saves nor has any part in salvation.

You said, "One is baptized into the body of Christ but there are many baptisms in scripture.
What does baptism mean to you? Is it just an outward sign or does it go deeper into the spirit?

John's baptism or baptism of the washing of sins and repentance was the first of the NT. The cross was a baptism or the baptism of blood, martyrdom. Baptism of desire, such as the thief. Baptism of the Holy Spirit.". Is this catholic doctrine?
It's not just Catholic.

I'm not to familiar with the semantics and nomenclature of how their each of these "baptisms" work according to Catholic teachings. Enlighten me.
Baptism of John vs the baptism of the Holy Spirit:
Acts 19:
2 He said to them, "Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?" They answered him, "We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit."
3 He said, "How were you baptized?" They replied, "With the baptism of John."
4 Paul then said, "John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus."
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
In the above verses, Paul shows the distinction between the baptism of repentance and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The above occurred early in the Church because Jesus commanded the Church to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which combines these baptisms.

The baptism of blood or martyrdom is dying for God. Jesus did this on the cross and many other Christians did this during the early Church. It has also occurred over the history of the Church such as when evangelists are killed spreading the Gospel.

Jesus says in Luke 12 about his sacrifice- 50 There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!
Baptism of desire is where the water baptism is impossible to perform, such as the thief on the cross.
So does that mean that the "new believers" you talked about weren't actually saved?
Is it our place to say who is saved and who is not? What we can say is that Paul sure believed that it was important to baptize the believers that he spoke to in the verses from Acts 19 which I gave you earlier in this post. If baptism were not a necessity, why did he bother?

Yes they baptized in the name of Christ, but that doesn't mean that baptism was required for salvation.
Why did they bother? We see no instance where the Apostles denied the importance of baptism.

In fact, there are many instances where faith in Christ is the only thing mentioned for salvation.
What is your definition of faith? Doing things as you want or doing them as the Apostles taught? Anyone can say that they believe and have faith, but that doesn't mean that they faith which saves.

Paul says: 1 Cor. 15: 1 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand. 2 Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

If Baptism was so necessary then how did the dying thief get into paradise?
I told in the other post. The baptism of desire. He recognized Jesus' innocence.
Luke 23:
40 The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? 41 And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 He replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

Or why did Jesus accept Peter's confession?
It was a confession of faith but Jesus did not say that it saved him.

and are you saying that the Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48 who recieved the Spirit of God before being baptized were still not saved?
I know only that they received the Holy Spirit and Peter saw the necessity to baptize them. Do you believe that you know better than Peter?

Looking at Peter's letter in 1 Peter 3:21:
First off, regardless of what Peter said, we have to look at it in the light of what the other Apostles and more importantly, what Lord Jesus said. The ever famous (or infamous) passage John 3:16 was said by our Lord himself. "Whosoever believes in him will.... have everlasting life." Nothing about baptism there. So did what Peter say contradict what Christ said? If it did, who's word do we take?
Peter does not contradict any of scripture, you ignore scripture. It is a grave mistake to think that all verses stand alone and one can pick and choose without regard to what else is written. Scripture shows the need for baptism. When one believes, they believe all.

Paul made it clear to the Ephesian Church that no other works besides faith in Christ were needed (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Baptism is not a work which Paul was referring to. The Mosaic law is about working for justification. Paul condemns those works and the only works which matter are the works of Jesus Christ but that doesn't mean that we are not to work. If you read the next verse in Eph. 2 Paul makes it clear.
10. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.

Faith calls us to do the things which God has place for us to do. Baptism is one of things. Paul calls us into baptism in Eph. 4: 1 I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received,
2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love,
3 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace:
4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.
In Galatians 3: 27 he says: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

Yes, we are called into baptism.


God Bless,
Yarddog
 
Upvote 0

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟27,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for replying.

I will go through the scripture evidence you gave first.
John 3:5- Looking at the surrounding context of that convo with Nicodemus makes it clear that they were contrasting being born of a woman to being born of Spirit. In fact, this contrast was made earlier in this Gospel in the first chapter. "born of water" refers to being born of a woman's womb.

Except that the text speaks of the new birth as being of "water and spirit". If "water" means natural birth, i.e. amniotic fluid, then what Jesus is effectively saying is one must be born naturally in order to be born again/from above. That seems a bit silly to me. Non-existent people don't need to be born again, because they don't exist yet, the only people that need to be born again are those that exist, so telling someone they have to be born to be born again is redundant to the point of the absurd.

Water may mean something else, I've heard arguments that says water is symbolic of repentance or the like, but the amniotic fluid argument is, in my humble opinion, completely absurd.

However, as it so happens, the baptismal interpretation of John 3:5 is the unanimous position which Christians have taken since antiquity, which may not mean anything to some people; but it means a lot to me.

Roman 6- There's no evidence to say that Paul is speaking about water baptism. The Greek word for baptism (baptizō) means many things, such as as "to overwhelm", which is why Jesus made it a point in Acts 1:5 to distinguish between two baptisms.

And, of course, the "baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire" almost certainly refers to the historic event(s) associated with Pentecost. I think if one is going to argue that "baptism" must mean some special other sort of baptism then one needs to demonstrate this. A first century Greek-speaking group of people, Jewish or Gentile, is almost certainly going to understand the concept of "baptism" as involving water unless defined otherwise. If I say I'm going to take a bath, it probably means I'm going to get wet unless there is some sufficient cause or reason by way of context to know I'm speaking metaphorically or something else. If I said, "I want to bathe in light" you'd instantly recognize the metaphorical use of 'bathe" but if I just say, "I'm going to go bathe" we can probably assume it means I'm going to get wet.

In order to demonstrate that Paul doesn't mean "water baptism" in Romans 6 that will require some sort of demonstration that "baptism" doesn't in its normative sense mean getting wet.

Acts 2:38- First off, to understand what Peter said in this passage to mean that one has to be baptized in order to be saved is a contradiction to what Lord Jesus said himself in John 3:16. "Whosoever believes in me will... have everlasting life." Notice how he said nothing of baptism. Peter himself knew that Lord Jesus confirmed his confession of him as Christ and it didn't have anything to do with baptism.
I admit, I had to do my homework for this one!
Looking at Peter's statement in the original Greek will make it clear what he meant:

“Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

In the Greek, "(you) repent" is plural (ya'll repent for us Southerners) and "your sins" is plural (ya'lls sins). However "each one of you" is singular. It would be improper to link the plural "ya'lls sins" with the singular "each one of you". The command for "ya'll repenting" can only go with the result (forgiveness of ya'lls sins).

Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς Μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Peter then said to these repent and be-baptized each of you (genitive case) by the name Jesus Christ for release [of] sins and receive the gift of Holy Spirit

I noted that there was only case of "you" (ὑμῶν) in the text, and noticed I was going by the TR here, so I looked and yes, in other variants of the text there is a second "you", the Alexandrian text type has "ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε" whereas the TR/Byzantine text type does not include this second use of ὑμῶν.

Though what I'm noticing is that even going by the Alexandrian text type, the word is in the same case both times. It's ὑμῶν both times (the dative case is used in the following verse, ὑμῖν indicating the possession of the promise, i.e. "promise is for you").

The genitive case, would be "your baptism and repentance" and "your sins" in either event that is what this baptism which is to "every/each your", for the purpose of releasing/forgiving/remitting their (the ones being baptized and repenting) sin. And, as Peter follows it up, "this is for you and to your children and to all who are far off", it's for everyone.

Ephesians 5:26- This verse does not even refer to baptism. "water" in the scriptures doesn't always refer to baptism. This verse does, however, say that the washing is done with the word. Other scripture makes it clear that becoming clean is done with the Word of God (John 8:31-32, Psalm 119:9), so this is sufficient evidence to say that what Paul is talking about here is the Word of God, not literal water from baptism. This doesn't support the need for baptism in order to be saved.

For Lutherans what differentiates baptism from an ordinary bath of water is the fact that the word of God is present in it. It's "water and the word", that word is the promises God has attached to Baptism, it's the Gospel promises of "this baptism which saves you" etc, it's also Christ Himself. It's that word which gives us faith "faith comes from hearing, [etc]".

It's definitely a Lutheran interpretation, but for Lutherans that is very important. We don't believe water accomplishes anything, but water attached to God's word makes it Baptism--which is why we can say that the same gracious word Christ spoke to the thief on the cross which freed him from sin and promise to rest in paradise is the same gracious word which Christ speaks to us in and through Baptism.

1 Peter 3:21- First off, regardless of what Peter said, we have to look at it in the light of what the other Apostles and more importantly, what Lord Jesus said. The ever famous (or infamous) passage John 3:16 was said by our Lord himself. "Whosoever believes in him will.... have everlasting life." Nothing about baptism there. So did what Peter say contradict what Christ said? If it did, who's word do we take?

You're separating faith and Baptism, the two aren't separated. The two are mutually inclusive, they are united together by the gracious activity of God. As a Lutheran there is no contradiction, to be baptized is to believe, because faith is God's gift to us, created in us by the word of Christ.

Paul made it clear to the Ephesian Church that no other works besides faith in Christ were needed (Ephesians 2:8-9). Also, the thief on the cross did get baptized after believing, yet Jesus promised him a place in paradise.

Except faith isn't a work. If faith is a work then Paul contradicts himself. There are no works which can justify us or improve our state before God, it is entirely the gracious activity of God that justifies and sets us right with Him which He does freely. The faith through which we are justified is a gift, it comes from God, not ourselves "so that none may boast".

Looking at that passage, the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." doesn't support that baptism is needed for salvation. In fact, it goes against it. It says "not the removal of dirt... but an appeal to God... through the resurrection...". He's not talking about water baptism being what saves, but an appeal to God through Christ, i.e. faith in the Gospel.

It would require an extreme eisegesis to get to that position, since the author is first offering the flood (which last I checked was quite wet) as analogous/a type of baptism. The issue of water, thus, is essential to the point made; but Peter makes it clear that it's not a matter of removing dirt from the body (it's not a bath), but there is something deeper going on. Saying it's not about normative baptism is, in my frank opinion, a total butchery of the plain statement of the text.

Colossians 2:12- Looking at this in context, in verse 11, Paul refers to circumcision of Christ as a circumcision without hands. He then goes on the to link circumcision to baptism. If Paul acknowledges the "circumcision without hands" and then links it to baptism that would mean that this is a baptism without hands. Paul used baptism as a picture of what Christ has done for us, not to say that baptism with hands is required for salvation.

Our baptism is a circumcision without hands. That doesn't mean it's some form of invisible baptism which has zero basis in the text of Holy Scripture.

You said, “The thief on the cross received no less grace than we ourselves receive in the waters of Baptism even though he was not baptized, Christ spoke the word (the same word we receive in Baptism) and the thief was forgiven and promised paradise. It is God's to give, freely, however He wishes.”. Jesus Christ made it clear that only his name can save others and nothing else is necessary. If you say baptism is needed to save and then say that the thief could be saved without it then that would be false. Is there some word that Christ spoke to the thief that he doesn’t speak to others who believe in his name, but haven’t gotten baptized in water?

I think you're struggling with the idea that salvation has to be some strict formula. You must do "X, Y and Z" to be saved--even though you're saying "have faith in Christ's Gospel" that's still a certain thing that must be done in order to accomplish the whole salvation thing. From a Lutheran perspective even that is works, even that is salvation by our own merit rather than relying entirely on the grace of God.

For a Lutheran, Baptism isn't something we do, it's something God does. God saves us in Baptism. Why? Because He has promised to do so, and God keeps His promises. It's not about meriting anything, but about being a passive receiver of God's good things, God doesn't hand us a gift waiting for us to take it, He just gives us the gift and says, "It is yours, I love you"; and this is what Baptism is.

It's not "You must be baptized in order to be saved, there is this one thing you must do" because that's not it. There is nothing we can do, it's all God's thing. Even the faith to believe comes from God apart from ourselves and our will and our strength and our sinfulness.

So we confess that here, in Baptism, is what God has promised. God saves us in Baptism, that's true because God has promised it. That does not mean God will not save the unbaptized, because God has not said that. So if God saves those who are unable to be baptized, He can and has and does (such as the thief on the cross) because He's God and He loves us and is unwilling that any should perish.

That's because God's grace is big, really big, so we let it be big. If God saves someone outside of Baptism, then glory be to God. However to say God does not save people in the very means He says He does (Baptism) where is the grace in this? So God has said He saves us in Baptism so glory be to God, and God can and will save whomever He will even outside of Baptism and so glory be to God. But we shouldn't devalue the promises and word of God by devaluing His means, including Holy Baptism. Because Baptism remains Baptism regardless of what we think of it.

You said, “That He has promised and said it is always and abundantly found in Baptism means just that. This is where it is certainly and truly found, but that does not mean it's not elsewhere. It can be, God can use any means He so wishes to save sinners, that's the kind of God He is; but He has given us Baptism as a sure and certain promise.”. The promise of salvation is found only in the name of Jesus Christ. Where is it found that baptism is the sure promise?

Thanks you for your response and Shalom.

Christ is in our Baptism. When we are baptized we are baptized into Christ. You can no more separate Baptism from Christ then you can separate heat from fire.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
May 26, 2011
44
2
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
What does baptism mean to you? Is it just an outward sign or does it go deeper into the spirit?


It's not just Catholic.


Baptism of John vs the baptism of the Holy Spirit:
Acts 19:
2 He said to them, "Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?" They answered him, "We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit."
3 He said, "How were you baptized?" They replied, "With the baptism of John."
4 Paul then said, "John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus."
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
In the above verses, Paul shows the distinction between the baptism of repentance and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The above occurred early in the Church because Jesus commanded the Church to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which combines these baptisms.

The baptism of blood or martyrdom is dying for God. Jesus did this on the cross and many other Christians did this during the early Church. It has also occurred over the history of the Church such as when evangelists are killed spreading the Gospel.

Jesus says in Luke 12 about his sacrifice- 50 There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!
Baptism of desire is where the water baptism is impossible to perform, such as the thief on the cross.

Is it our place to say who is saved and who is not? What we can say is that Paul sure believed that it was important to baptize the believers that he spoke to in the verses from Acts 19 which I gave you earlier in this post. If baptism were not a necessity, why did he bother?


Why did they bother? We see no instance where the Apostles denied the importance of baptism.


What is your definition of faith? Doing things as you want or doing them as the Apostles taught? Anyone can say that they believe and have faith, but that doesn't mean that they faith which saves.

Paul says: 1 Cor. 15: 1 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand. 2 Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.


I told in the other post. The baptism of desire. He recognized Jesus' innocence.
Luke 23:
40 The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? 41 And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 He replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."


It was a confession of faith but Jesus did not say that it saved him.


I know only that they received the Holy Spirit and Peter saw the necessity to baptize them. Do you believe that you know better than Peter?


Peter does not contradict any of scripture, you ignore scripture. It is a grave mistake to think that all verses stand alone and one can pick and choose without regard to what else is written. Scripture shows the need for baptism. When one believes, they believe all.


Baptism is not a work which Paul was referring to. The Mosaic law is about working for justification. Paul condemns those works and the only works which matter are the works of Jesus Christ but that doesn't mean that we are not to work. If you read the next verse in Eph. 2 Paul makes it clear.
10. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.

Faith calls us to do the things which God has place for us to do. Baptism is one of things. Paul calls us into baptism in Eph. 4: 1 I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received,
2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love,
3 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace:
4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.
In Galatians 3: 27 he says: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

Yes, we are called into baptism.


God Bless,
Yarddog


Just to be clear, the discussion I posed was not the importance of baptism, but whether baptism is what saves a person or not.

To me, baptism, just like any work, is a fruit of the grace of Christ that one receives after believing on Christ. Giving to the poor is a work, but it does not save.Christ is who saves and he makes giving to the poor a fruit of the grace that one has already accepted. It’s the same with baptism. Yes, it’s a spiritual work, but it’s no more spiritual that helping out a neighbor in need out of the love that Christ put in us. Christ commanded for us to be baptized. Christ commanded a lot of things though, and if one doesn’t something he commanded that only means that we’re not perfect, not that we’re not saved.

Thanks for enlightening me.

You said, “Is it our place to say who is saved and who is not? What we can say is that Paul sure believed that it was important to baptize the believers that he spoke to in the verses from Acts 19 which I gave you earlier in this post. If baptism were not a necessity, why did he bother?”
It isn’t “our place” per say, but we know what Christ taught. He said that he is the only way to salvation, and he also taught that belief in his Christness is enough for salvation. For example, I believe that babies who die because of abortion to to heaven, but only through Christ, even though they didn’t necessarily “believe” in Christ.
Yes, he believed it was important, but that doesn’t mean he believed that they were saved by baptism or that if they didn’t have baptism they weren’t saved.

You said, “Why did they bother? We see no instance where the Apostles denied the importance of baptism.”
No, Apostles never denied the importance of baptism. However, they never said it was what saves a person either. They never denied the importance of helping out friends, or preaching the gospel, or other good works. That doesn’t mean that those works are what saved you.

You said, “What is your definition of faith? Doing things as you want or doing them as the Apostles taught? Anyone can say that they believe and have faith, but that doesn't mean that they faith which saves.”
Yes, faith itself isn’t what saves, because everyone has faith in something. Faith in Christ is what saves. Christ said himself that whoever believes on him will be saved. My definition faith is “things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I believe in the Christ for the redemption of my sins, and there is no evidence to support that any other gospel other than that was preached by Christ.
I don’t understand what you were trying to get at when referencing 1 Cor 15:1, but it is a very important verse. It shows that Paul tells them to remember the Gospel that he preached. Many trials befell that Church similar to how they befall us, so it was easy for them to forget the Gospel. Him telling the Corinthians to hold fast to the faith lets us know that we can lose the faith. Explain a bit more.

Concerning the dying thief; Yes, he couldn’t get baptized and he still was saved. This proves, according to scripture, that baptism isn’t required for one to be saved. He only believed in the Christ.

You said concerning Peter’s confession, “It was a confession of faith but Jesus did not say that it saved him.”,
however, right after Peter said that, Lord Jesus said that it is on that rock (that statement) that he will build his church. That would’ve been a great place for him to say “and water baptism”, but he didn’t.

You said concerning the gentiles in Acts 10, “I know only that they received the Holy Spirit and Peter saw the necessity to baptize them. Do you believe that you know better than Peter?”. I don’t know very much about Peter accept that he was a man.
You said yourself that they received the Holy Spirit. Are you agreeing that they were saved even before being baptized in water, or is it that somehow they received the Holy Spirit before salvation?

You said, “Peter does not contradict any of scripture, you ignore scripture. It is a grave mistake to think that all verses stand alone and one can pick and choose without regard to what else is written. Scripture shows the need for baptism. When one believes, they believe all.”.
Are you saying that I said Peter contradicted scripture? if so, then you’d be wrong. I merely posed that as a hypothetical question. In fact, I went on to show that his statement made no contradiction with what Jesus taught. Watch carefully what I type and don’t make assumptions about what I believe based off of my questions.
Are you saying that what Jesus said about salvation in John 3:16 doesn’t stand by itself? For hypothetical purposes, let’s say that everyone else contradicted Jesus and said something different. Who’s word would you take? I didn’t say this to show that Peter contradicted, but to show that if Christ explicitly says something, any other interpretation of another scripture that contradicts Christ is false.


You said, “Baptism is not a work which Paul was referring to. The Mosaic law is about working for justification. Paul condemns those works and the only works which matter are the works of Jesus Christ but that doesn't mean that we are not to work. If you read the next verse in Eph. 2 Paul makes it clear.
10. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.”
In fact, I agree with you that faith doesn’t mean that we don’t work. Faith without works is dead, because faith in Christ will naturally produce good works. In verse 9, Paul adds the phrase “lest any man should boast.” Therefore, a work is something that any man can boast in as if they were the ones who saved themselves. Baptism falls under that category as well as any other “good” work. This isn’t just the Mosaic Law, but anything “good” that we are able to boast in.

“Baptism is not a work which Paul was referring to. The Mosaic law is about working for justification. Paul condemns those works and the only works which matter are the works of Jesus Christ but that doesn't mean that we are not to work. If you read the next verse in Eph. 2 Paul makes it clear.
10. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.”
Well said.

Once again, I am not saying that baptism isn’t important, I’m saying that it is not what saves. That has been my argument from since I posted this; not on the importance of baptism. Only through Christ can we be saved.
 
Upvote 0

INTJ-F

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2011
950
92
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟16,800.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Except that the text speaks of the new birth as being of "water and spirit". If "water" means natural birth, i.e. amniotic fluid, then what Jesus is effectively saying is one must be born naturally in order to be born again/from above. That seems a bit silly to me.

Why is it "silly" ? Those who die before birth are not "born again" maybe they automatically go to heaven ? or maybe they get a "do over" at life?
 
Upvote 0
May 26, 2011
44
2
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Except that the text speaks of the new birth as being of "water and spirit". If "water" means natural birth, i.e. amniotic fluid, then what Jesus is effectively saying is one must be born naturally in order to be born again/from above. That seems a bit silly to me. Non-existent people don't need to be born again, because they don't exist yet, the only people that need to be born again are those that exist, so telling someone they have to be born to be born again is redundant to the point of the absurd.

Water may mean something else, I've heard arguments that says water is symbolic of repentance or the like, but the amniotic fluid argument is, in my humble opinion, completely absurd.

However, as it so happens, the baptismal interpretation of John 3:5 is the unanimous position which Christians have taken since antiquity, which may not mean anything to some people; but it means a lot to me.



And, of course, the "baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire" almost certainly refers to the historic event(s) associated with Pentecost. I think if one is going to argue that "baptism" must mean some special other sort of baptism then one needs to demonstrate this. A first century Greek-speaking group of people, Jewish or Gentile, is almost certainly going to understand the concept of "baptism" as involving water unless defined otherwise. If I say I'm going to take a bath, it probably means I'm going to get wet unless there is some sufficient cause or reason by way of context to know I'm speaking metaphorically or something else. If I said, "I want to bathe in light" you'd instantly recognize the metaphorical use of 'bathe" but if I just say, "I'm going to go bathe" we can probably assume it means I'm going to get wet.

In order to demonstrate that Paul doesn't mean "water baptism" in Romans 6 that will require some sort of demonstration that "baptism" doesn't in its normative sense mean getting wet.



Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς Μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Peter then said to these repent and be-baptized each of you (genitive case) by the name Jesus Christ for release [of] sins and receive the gift of Holy Spirit

I noted that there was only case of "you" (ὑμῶν) in the text, and noticed I was going by the TR here, so I looked and yes, in other variants of the text there is a second "you", the Alexandrian text type has "ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε" whereas the TR/Byzantine text type does not include this second use of ὑμῶν.

Though what I'm noticing is that even going by the Alexandrian text type, the word is in the same case both times. It's ὑμῶν both times (the dative case is used in the following verse, ὑμῖν indicating the possession of the promise, i.e. "promise is for you").

The genitive case, would be "your baptism and repentance" and "your sins" in either event that is what this baptism which is to "every/each your", for the purpose of releasing/forgiving/remitting their (the ones being baptized and repenting) sin. And, as Peter follows it up, "this is for you and to your children and to all who are far off", it's for everyone.



For Lutherans what differentiates baptism from an ordinary bath of water is the fact that the word of God is present in it. It's "water and the word", that word is the promises God has attached to Baptism, it's the Gospel promises of "this baptism which saves you" etc, it's also Christ Himself. It's that word which gives us faith "faith comes from hearing, [etc]".

It's definitely a Lutheran interpretation, but for Lutherans that is very important. We don't believe water accomplishes anything, but water attached to God's word makes it Baptism--which is why we can say that the same gracious word Christ spoke to the thief on the cross which freed him from sin and promise to rest in paradise is the same gracious word which Christ speaks to us in and through Baptism.



You're separating faith and Baptism, the two aren't separated. The two are mutually inclusive, they are united together by the gracious activity of God. As a Lutheran there is no contradiction, to be baptized is to believe, because faith is God's gift to us, created in us by the word of Christ.



Except faith isn't a work. If faith is a work then Paul contradicts himself. There are no works which can justify us or improve our state before God, it is entirely the gracious activity of God that justifies and sets us right with Him which He does freely. The faith through which we are justified is a gift, it comes from God, not ourselves "so that none may boast".



It would require an extreme eisegesis to get to that position, since the author is first offering the flood (which last I checked was quite wet) as analogous/a type of baptism. The issue of water, thus, is essential to the point made; but Peter makes it clear that it's not a matter of removing dirt from the body (it's not a bath), but there is something deeper going on. Saying it's not about normative baptism is, in my frank opinion, a total butchery of the plain statement of the text.



Our baptism is a circumcision without hands. That doesn't mean it's some form of invisible baptism which has zero basis in the text of Holy Scripture.



I think you're struggling with the idea that salvation has to be some strict formula. You must do "X, Y and Z" to be saved--even though you're saying "have faith in Christ's Gospel" that's still a certain thing that must be done in order to accomplish the whole salvation thing. From a Lutheran perspective even that is works, even that is salvation by our own merit rather than relying entirely on the grace of God.

For a Lutheran, Baptism isn't something we do, it's something God does. God saves us in Baptism. Why? Because He has promised to do so, and God keeps His promises. It's not about meriting anything, but about being a passive receiver of God's good things, God doesn't hand us a gift waiting for us to take it, He just gives us the gift and says, "It is yours, I love you"; and this is what Baptism is.

It's not "You must be baptized in order to be saved, there is this one thing you must do" because that's not it. There is nothing we can do, it's all God's thing. Even the faith to believe comes from God apart from ourselves and our will and our strength and our sinfulness.

So we confess that here, in Baptism, is what God has promised. God saves us in Baptism, that's true because God has promised it.think you're struggling with the idea that salvation has to be some strict formula. You must do "X, Y and Z" to be saved--even though you're saying "have faith in Christ's Gospel" that's still a certain thing that must be done in order to accomplish the whole salvation thing.. So if God saves those who are unable to be baptized, He can and has and does (such as the thief on the cross) because He's God and He loves us and is unwilling that any should perish.

That's because God's grace is big, really big, so we let it be big. If God saves someone outside of Baptism, then glory be to God. However to say God does not save people in the very means He says He does (Baptism) where is the grace in this? So God has said He saves us in Baptism so glory be to God, and God can and will save whomever He will even outside of Baptism and so glory be to God. But we shouldn't devalue the promises and word of God by devaluing His means, including Holy Baptism. Because Baptism remains Baptism regardless of what we think of it.



Christ is in our Baptism. When we are baptized we are baptized into Christ. You can no more separate Baptism from Christ then you can separate heat from fire.

-CryptoLutheran

You make good arguments. Although I don't agree with the majority of them, they're good. Thanks for that.

The most important thing I saw though is that I didn't explain correctly my view of faith. I didn't mean to say that faith was another work. I meant to say no works can save anyone, but only faith can.
You said, "think you're struggling with the idea that salvation has to be some strict formula. You must do "X, Y and Z" to be saved--even though you're saying "have faith in Christ's Gospel" that's still a certain thing that must be done in order to accomplish the whole salvation thing."
That's not it at all. In fact, that's what I'm arguing against, the idea that we must do something to be saved. It's unfortunate that it may have come off that way.


You say that faith is the same as baptism, and that's mainly where we differ. To me, baptism is a work resulting from faith, just like any good work is a result of faith. Baptism doesn't save, but it was what Christ commanded his followers to do many other things that in themselves doesn't save them. I don't link faith and water baptism together as if they are the same thing.

You said, "So if God saves those who are unable to be baptized, He can and has and does (such as the thief on the cross) because He's God and He loves us and is unwilling that any should perish." Does this mean that one who can get baptized but doesn't will not be saved, even if he believes in Christ?

You said, "You're separating faith and Baptism, the two aren't separated. The two are mutually inclusive, they are united together by the gracious activity of God. As a Lutheran there is no contradiction, to be baptized is to believe, because faith is God's gift to us, created in us by the word of Christ."
Yes, I am separating the two in a way that you would separate a seed from the fruit. One produces the other, but you can't have fruit without the seed. Faith is the seed and good works (baptism, love ect) is the fruit. You said to be baptized is to believe, but I don't see how getting put in water makes you a believer. The faith is what saves first, and then you get baptized. Whether you get baptized or not, you're still saved.

You say that baptism and Christ are the same thing, but I'm not buying it. Jesus said that he was the only way to the Father. That means that everyone who goes to the Father (whether it be the dying theif, unborn babies, or people who believe) go through Jesus Christ. I don't see how you can equate water baptism with Christ.
You said, "It's not "You must be baptized in order to be saved, there is this one thing you must do" because that's not it". You're saying that you don't have to be baptized to be saved, but you previously equated Christ with baptism. I think all Christians (or most who call themselves by the name) agree that you need Christ to be saved. So if Christ=baptism, what you said seems to be a contradiction. It also seems that way in light of the dying thief's salvation without Baptism. To say water baptism equals Christ is to say that the thief got into heaven without Christ. If not, please explain.

You said, "For a Lutheran, Baptism isn't something we do, it's something God does. God saves us in Baptism. Why? Because He has promised to do so, and God keeps His promises." Are you referring to water baptism? If so, then it still doesn't make sense to say that we all will get baptized by water if there's plenty reference of those who were saved without being baptized in water.

You say Christ is baptism, but many other times you say that God can save us outside of baptism. That is the main thing that I disagree with or don't understand what you mean. I understand grace (as much as we humans can understand at least) is what causes us to have faith and be baptized, but baptism and Christ are as much the same as a seed and a fruit.

thanks for your info and arguments!
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,673
4,146
Louisville, Ky
✟993,584.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Just to be clear, the discussion I posed was not the importance of baptism, but whether baptism is what saves a person or not.

To me, baptism, just like any work, is a fruit of the grace of Christ that one receives after believing on Christ. Giving to the poor is a work, but it does not save.Christ is who saves and he makes giving to the poor a fruit of the grace that one has already accepted. It’s the same with baptism. Yes, it’s a spiritual work, but it’s no more spiritual that helping out a neighbor in need out of the love that Christ put in us.
Why do you consider baptism a work, such as our good works. Baptism is a work of God, not man.

Through faith, we present ourselves to God and he recreates us as a new creation. He gives us his Holy Spirit. We are dead and reborn into the body of Christ. We are saved from the darkness and are brought into the light of Jesus Christ.

You just do not understand what baptism really is.
 
Upvote 0
May 26, 2011
44
2
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private

Baptized by water or the Holy Spirit?

Also why do those who think you have to be baptized to be saved (a "work") bad mouth those who keep God's commandments claiming "we are under grace, not the law" ?

From what I'm learning, they don't all bad mouth those people. I'm talking about water baptism.
 
Upvote 0
May 26, 2011
44
2
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Why do you consider baptism a work, such as our good works. Baptism is a work of God, not man.

Through faith, we present ourselves to God and he recreates us as a new creation. He gives us his Holy Spirit. We are dead and reborn into the body of Christ. We are saved from the darkness and are brought into the light of Jesus Christ.

You just do not understand what baptism really is.

Thanks for your reply. To be clear, we're talking about water baptism throughout this whole discussion.

No matter how one explains it, its still another work that we do in the service of God. Yes, He's doing something for us while we're being water baptized, but is He also not doing something for us when we do any of the other good works?

"Through faith, we present ourselves to God and he recreates us as a new creation. He gives us his Holy Spirit. We are dead and reborn into the body of Christ. We are saved from the darkness and are brought into the light of Jesus Christ.". I agree, but faith comes before baptism. Water Baptism and Christ are not the same thing, or else you'd have to say that the dying thief didn't receive. We know that we can only be saved through Christ, so to see someone in scripture who was saved without baptism shows us that baptism and Christ aren't the same thing.
Yes, I believe something spiritual happens at baptism, but water baptism isn't what saves us.

Thanks for presenting your view point. I've learned a lot. Shalom and God bless!
 
Upvote 0

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟27,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Might be best to deal with some of your specific questions, so I apologize if your post has been cut up as I address it.

Does this mean that one who can get baptized but doesn't will not be saved, even if he believes in Christ?

If Baptism is available, why wouldn't someone who says they believe Christ avoid it? That's a more significant question I think. But no, I don't believe God's graciousness is rigid, it's vast and flexible and goes into and fits into all the nooks and crannies of our lives to reach us.

You said to be baptized is to believe, but I don't see how getting put in water makes you a believer. The faith is what saves first, and then you get baptized. Whether you get baptized or not, you're still saved.

You say that baptism and Christ are the same thing, but I'm not buying it. Jesus said that he was the only way to the Father. That means that everyone who goes to the Father (whether it be the dying theif, unborn babies, or people who believe) go through Jesus Christ. I don't see how you can equate water baptism with Christ.

Not equating. But Christ is in our Baptism, we are clothed with Christ,

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." - Galatians 3:27

When we went into the water we are baptized into Jesus Christ and clothed with Him and His righteousness, dying to sin and dying with Jesus and then rising together with Him into new life, thus being new creations in Christ. So we can't separate Baptism from Christ because He's the One in our Baptism, the one clothing us, making us new, drowning us to the world and raising us to new life.

You said, "It's not "You must be baptized in order to be saved, there is this one thing you must do" because that's not it". You're saying that you don't have to be baptized to be saved, but you previously equated Christ with baptism. I think all Christians (or most who call themselves by the name) agree that you need Christ to be saved. So if Christ=baptism, what you said seems to be a contradiction. It also seems that way in light of the dying thief's salvation without Baptism. To say water baptism equals Christ is to say that the thief got into heaven without Christ. If not, please explain.

See my above comments, I'm not saying Baptism=Christ, I'm saying Christ is in Baptism, He's the One we are being baptized into.

You said, "For a Lutheran, Baptism isn't something we do, it's something God does. God saves us in Baptism. Why? Because He has promised to do so, and God keeps His promises." Are you referring to water baptism? If so, then it still doesn't make sense to say that we all will get baptized by water if there's plenty reference of those who were saved without being baptized in water.

Baptism always means with water unless qualified otherwise, such as "Baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire" which refers to what happened on Pentecost and in Cornelius' house as fulfillment of Joel's prophecy that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh.

Baptism is for everyone, as St. Peter said, the promise is "for you and your children and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call", that God can, has and may save outside of Baptism doesn't negate what Baptism is for and what God has promised to do in Baptism.

You say Christ is baptism, but many other times you say that God can save us outside of baptism. That is the main thing that I disagree with or don't understand what you mean. I understand grace (as much as we humans can understand at least) is what causes us to have faith and be baptized, but baptism and Christ are as much the same as a seed and a fruit.

Again, not the same, but cannot be separated from. One cannot separate Baptism from Christ, but Christ can be found outside of Baptism. Christ is free to be wherever He wants to be, saving, justifying, changing lives and healing the broken places of the world, because He's Lord, He's Savior, He's our God and King. But one place He has promised explicitly to be is in Baptism, He is always there, available, freely, graciously, for us sinners. I can find food in lots of places, but one place I can always find food is the supermarket, because that's the purpose of a supermarket; likewise Christ can be found wherever He will be found because He's good and kind to all, but He is always found in His Word and Sacraments, in Baptism.

thanks for your info and arguments!

No problemo. :)

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟27,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why is it "silly" ? Those who die before birth are not "born again" maybe they automatically go to heaven ? or maybe they get a "do over" at life?

Because Jesus is talking to post-born people. What happens to the pre-born is outside the scope of conversation. It makes no sense to tell people who are outside of the womb that they must be outside of the womb in order to enter God's kingdom.

Whatever happens to those who never get to experience life out of the womb, that's up to our gracious and merciful God who loves everyone, so we can entrust them to His capable and caring hands.

But as far as what Jesus is talking about to Nicodemus, I think it's silly and redundant to say to post-born people that they need to be outside of the womb. So, yes, I regard equating "water" in "water and Spirit" with amniotic fluid to be silly and absurd.

Perhaps the baptismal interpretation is wrong, which would be fair enough, but I think the amniotic fluid argument is just plain untenable.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
May 26, 2011
44
2
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Might be best to deal with some of your specific questions, so I apologize if your post has been cut up as I address it.



If Baptism is available, why wouldn't someone who says they believe Christ avoid it? That's a more significant question I think. But no, I don't believe God's graciousness is rigid, it's vast and flexible and goes into and fits into all the nooks and crannies of our lives to reach us.



Not equating. But Christ is in our Baptism, we are clothed with Christ,

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." - Galatians 3:27

When we went into the water we are baptized into Jesus Christ and clothed with Him and His righteousness, dying to sin and dying with Jesus and then rising together with Him into new life, thus being new creations in Christ. So we can't separate Baptism from Christ because He's the One in our Baptism, the one clothing us, making us new, drowning us to the world and raising us to new life.



See my above comments, I'm not saying Baptism=Christ, I'm saying Christ is in Baptism, He's the One we are being baptized into.



Baptism always means with water unless qualified otherwise, such as "Baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire" which refers to what happened on Pentecost and in Cornelius' house as fulfillment of Joel's prophecy that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh.

Baptism is for everyone, as St. Peter said, the promise is "for you and your children and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call", that God can, has and may save outside of Baptism doesn't negate what Baptism is for and what God has promised to do in Baptism.



Again, not the same, but cannot be separated from. One cannot separate Baptism from Christ, but Christ can be found outside of Baptism. Christ is free to be wherever He wants to be, saving, justifying, changing lives and healing the broken places of the world, because He's Lord, He's Savior, He's our God and King. But one place He has promised explicitly to be is in Baptism, He is always there, available, freely, graciously, for us sinners. I can find food in lots of places, but one place I can always find food is the supermarket, because that's the purpose of a supermarket; likewise Christ can be found wherever He will be found because He's good and kind to all, but He is always found in His Word and Sacraments, in Baptism.



No problemo. :)

-CryptoLutheran


Thanks you. I've gained a better understanding of how Lutherans (or you at least) view Baptism. Now that I understand more I agree with it to an extent. Christ is present in Baptism, but he can also save without it. I was under the impression that some people view baptism as an absolute necessity in order to be saved (and some probably do), which is why I asked for clarification. Roman Catholics view it the same way?

Thanks, I appreciate it!
 
Upvote 0