Baptism

[112358]

What do they acknowledge and accept with enthusiasm? It is obviously the fact that we are only saved by faith, not being baptized.

I was saying that I acknowledge and accept the scriptures you submitted for consideration.

Mark 16:16 also emphasizes you must believe to be saved whether you are baptized or not to be saved. I am sure this is a good citation for the argument against infant baptisms.

But it doesn't say "whether you are baptized or not". Is says "He who believes and is baptized". So with only these two verses of scripture we have established that belief and baptism are requirements for salvation. And we haven't even scratched the surface of everything else the NT has to say on the subject.

It says what it says.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I was saying that I acknowledge and accept the scriptures you submitted for consideration.

But it doesn't say "whether you are baptized or not". Is says "He who believes and is baptized". So with only these two verses of scripture we have established that belief and baptism are requirements for salvation. And we haven't even scratched the surface of everything else the NT has to say on the subject.

It says what it says.

Correct. It is not complicated - it is simple.

But when "tradition" overrides Yahuweh's(God's) Word, there is trouble. People are trained and taught to trust and to believe tradition so much, instead of Yahuweh's Word, that they soon cannot tell the difference even when it is pointed out to them.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Good point Yeshua. Tradition is to baptize babies despite the fact they thave no ability to comprehend the existence of a supernatural being (God) or the paradox Jesus is. There is no logical reason pastors should baptize babies. It is only a tradition, not Biblical.

 

[112358]

Someone brought a point to my attention which I thought was quite interesting. Consider the moment God the Father chose to communicate His pleasure with His Son (Matthew 3). It's the only time I am aware of that He did this, and I wonder why it might not have happened at some other time, like at some point after His resurrection, for example. Or even at His ascension perhaps, when His ministry had reached fulfillment and He returned His heavenly throne. Is there significance in the fact that God the Father revealed Himself in this way at the moment Christ was baptized? Should that inform us about anything regarding the significance God places on baptism, or our obedience unto the same, especially in light of what the rest of the NT reveals on the subject?

Not something I had put much thought into until recently. Interested in others thoughts.

Wanted to bring this back to the front of the line...interested in comments?

 

[Albion]

Why do you say that? Any Christian knows the only way to be saved is FAITH ALONE because that is what the Bible teaches.

Any Christian knows the only way to be saved is FAITH ALONE

If you believe water baptism is required for salvation,

It is obviously the fact that we are only saved by faith, not being baptized.

It is obviously the fact that we are only saved by faith, not being baptized.

No matter how often baptism is explained, someone is bound to come back and retort that we are not saved by baptism, even though no one has said we are.

 

[GodLovesCats]

No matter how often baptism is explained, someone is bound to come back and retort that we are not saved by baptism, even though no one has said we are.

People do say baptism is required for salvation when they say that was the case for Paul while ignoring all of the times when only believers were instructed to be baptized.

 

[Albion]

People do say baptism is required for salvation when they say that was the case for Paul while ignoring all of the times when only believers were instructed to be baptized.

How does Paul's experience show us either that baptism saves or that baptism is required for salvation??

 

[GodLovesCats]

It doesn't. That was just an argument somebody made earlier about baptism being a requirement.

 

[112358]

No matter how often baptism is explained, someone is bound to come back and retort that we are not saved by baptism, even though no one has said we are.

To be precise, Peter said exactly that. “There is a like type that now saves us, baptism”

 

[112358]

How does Paul's experience show us either that baptism saves or that baptism is required for salvation??

What did Ananias tell Paul after his encounter with the Lord? Was it not “and now what are you waiting for? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins.”?

Why would he tell him that??

 

[Albion]

Because baptism washes away sin...as contrasted with the Baptistic view of the ordinance which is that it is only a gesture?

Anyway, what you refer me to there shows neither that baptism saves nor that baptism is required for salvation.

 

[112358]

Because baptism washes away sin...as contrasted with the Baptistic view of the ordinance which is that it is only a gesture?

Anyway, what you refer me to there shows neither that baptism saves nor that baptism is required for salvation.

So Paul was saved before his sins were washed away? There was not a requirement that remained after the point at which he obviously believed?

 

[Albion]

Baptism forgives sin. That is not the same as a guarantee of salvation, OK?

But we also may say that baptism is a confirmation of the remission of sin or, as some people say, a reassurance of that fact.

I'm not a Catholic, but this is similar to Catholics going to confession. It is not that the priest works a miracle and gets them eligible for heaven because of the act the two of them are engaging in. The contrition of the penitent does that and the priest simply pronounces the absolution (on behalf of God, if you want to put it that way).

Does this matter? Yes. There are many people, some of whom I have had personal contact with and others who have posted here on CF, who say that although they think they have done what they are supposed to do in order to be right with God...they just don't feel it/they don't know if it (whatever) was adequate/they have not heard back from God and so are worried. Even tormented.

The sacraments are for our benefit; that's why Christ instituted them and why they use visible, tangible, physical components in order to make us understand the act in a way that resonates more than words alone do.

 

[112358]

Baptism forgives sin. That is not the same as a guarantee of salvation, OK?

OK! Yes! I never said anything about a guarantee...I only said it is a requirement according to scripture.

I'm not a Catholic, but this is similar to Catholics going to confession. It is not that the priest works a miracle and gets them eligible for heaven because of the act the two of them are engaging in. The contrition of the penitent does that and the priest simply pronounces the absolution (on behalf of God, if you want to put it that way).

Does this matter? Yes. There are many people, some of whom I have had personal contact with and others who have posted here on CF, who say that although they think they have done what they are supposed to do in order to be right with God...they just don't feel it/they don't know if it (whatever) was adequate/they have not heard back from God and so are worried. Even tormented.

The sacraments are for our benefit; that's why Christ instituted them and why they use visible, tangible, physical components in order to make us understand the act in a way that resonates more than words alone do.

I would definitely agree that part of the purpose is to illustrate both a physical (symbolic) component and a spiritual (quite literal) component of baptism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If you believe water baptism is required for salvation, you deny the very clear message in John 3:16 (and other verses) that faith alone is what saves us. What do you think "whosoever believes in Him" means if baptism in water is necessary?

The doctrine of Sola Fide has been perverted and corrupted in modern times by turning faith into a work that we must do in order to merit salvation. Where Sola Fide is actually the teaching that God by His grace grants faith to our hearts and appropriates to us Christ's work, thereby saving us.

As such John 3:16 does not teach that we can save ourselves by our works, but rather that there is assurance and hope of salvation in Christ on account of faith. Hence, "whosoever trusts in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life"; this is the promise of God, in Christ, for us, which is ours through faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

OK! Yes! I never said anything about a guarantee...I only said it is a requirement according to scripture.

Very well, and I appreciate the follow-up about that. We have read so many posts saying that baptism is thought by whomever to save a person, period...that I thought from your post that you were in that camp of critics speaking against such a view.

I would definitely agree that part of the purpose is to illustrate both a physical (symbolic) component and a spiritual (quite literal) component of baptism.

There we part company, but I tried to explain in my most recent post the customary or standard view of the matter, so I probably shouldn't go through all of that again here.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So Paul was saved before his sins were washed away? There was not a requirement that remained after the point at which he obviously believed?

Of course. Salvation comes from faith, not saying, "I will sin no more."

 

[Albion]

To be precise, Peter said exactly that. “There is a like type that now saves us, baptism”

Not really. This source covers that topic fairly well.

Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

 

[112358]

Not really. This source covers that topic fairly well.

Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

I guess we will agree to disagree here. There is little in this commentary that aligns with the whole of scriptural evidence regarding the necessity of baptism for salvation. Particularly the conversion of Cornelius and his household.

 

[112358]

Of course. Salvation comes from faith, not saying, "I will sin no more."

I'm not sure I follow your thought process. I think you are saying that Paul was saved before his sins were washed away, which is nonsense. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all...it literally does not make sense. It is illogical.

Also, what does baptism have to do with saying "I will sin no more"? Not sure where that came from, but it sounds more like repentance (also a requirement for salvation, coincidentally) than something to do with baptism. Maybe I am misunderstanding and you can help clarify?