Do sacraments save?

[Jamdoc]

How so? The Canon of Scripture was decided at certain Church councils, but that's for a different topic.

What they determined though is that these particular books are God breathed though, while other writings are just men writing things down. The books chosen for the bible have the authority of God behind them, while books not chosen to be part of the bible are determined to not be Inspired and therefore should be considered to have less authority. Why should non Inspired texts be considered to be on the same level as something God-breathed?

Re-baptism is considered anathema in most Christian traditions regardless, not just the RCC.

That doctrine is taught nowhere in scripture, and in fact I showed from Acts 19 where Paul rebaptized some disciples that had been baptized improperly, which is the primary reason any denomination might "rebaptize" they don't consider the first to be valid, particularly denominations that practice believer's baptism, they won't count a "baptism" as an unbelieving baby. They also believe according to scripture, that baptism is immersion, because of it being a picture of Christ's burial and resurrection. They won't consider it rebaptism because the "baptism" before was just getting a baby wet.

Well then, stop calling out Catholics for their atrocities when Protestantism has plenty of their own to go around. See my point??

yeah well, those denominations were killing over the doctrine of infant baptism, and having an unbiblical doctrine against baptizing adults.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What they determined though is that these particular books are God breathed though, while other writings are just men writing things down. The books chosen for the bible have the authority of God behind them, while books not chosen to be part of the bible are determined to not be Inspired and therefore should be considered to have less authority. Why should non Inspired texts be considered to be on the same level as something God-breathed?

That doctrine is taught nowhere in scripture, and in fact I showed from Acts 19 where Paul rebaptized some disciples that had been baptized improperly, which is the primary reason any denomination might "rebaptize" they don't consider the first to be valid, particularly denominations that practice believer's baptism, they won't count a "baptism" as an unbelieving baby. They also believe according to scripture, that baptism is immersion, because of it being a picture of Christ's burial and resurrection. They won't consider it rebaptism because the "baptism" before was just getting a baby wet.

yeah well, those denominations were killing over the doctrine of infant baptism, and having an unbiblical doctrine against baptizing adults.

We tried, but you and your friends are on your own; hatred and all.

 

[Jamdoc]

We tried, but you and your friends are on your own; hatred and all.

You tried what?

I mean let's go down the chain here.
I was asked by a Catholic, if I had only been baptized ONCE.
Which stuck out as an unbiblical doctrine against "rebaptizing" I showed that #1. Paul "rebaptized" in the bible, and #2. That that doctrine against adult baptism was horrible and cost people's lives unjustly and so that doctrine should be discarded. It's not in the bible, nobody should have ever been killed over it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I showed from Acts 19 where Paul rebaptized some disciples that had been baptized improperly,

That's not what happened in Acts 19.

What happened in Acts 19 is that Paul met some, they are referred to as "disciples" but it seems obvious that they aren't Christians (yet)--this is obvious because they said they were only familiar with the work of John the Baptist. Then they say "We haven't even heard of the Holy Spirit"--a very strange remark in itself which begs a lot of questions to be sure. But Paul's response to all of this was to then preach the Gospel, talking about how John was the forerunner for Someone else--Jesus--and that his ministry anticipated the coming of Jesus. And so Paul then baptizes them, not re-baptizes them, they can't be re-baptized if they were never baptized in the first place. And, from a Christian and biblical POV, they weren't baptized at all, which is why they needed to be baptized. Once they are baptized, Paul lays hands on them (this looks like and appears to be Chrismation) and they receive the Holy Spirit.

That's all right there in the text itself.

And here is where I talk about the serious problem that I see time and again on these forums: There appears to be a good many Christians who simply don't understand what John the Baptist was doing, about what his work was about, and what role John has in the context of Jesus and His story.

On the one hand, this baffles me. Perhaps it's because I had the good fortune of being raised with the Bible, with a Christian education going back to my early childhood, where reading the Bible and learning from and about the Bible was routine. Even though, as an adult, I came to reject a number of theological ideas which I had been raised with and ultimately found myself in a different theological tradition, I still had that basic foundation of biblical literacy. Perhaps I take that for granted too often. Because even as a child it was made very clear that the role of John in Jesus' story is that John was doing what he was doing because he was calling people to repentance, he was doing that because he was the one who was in the desert saying, "Prepare the way for the Lord", and then the Lord came, He came to the banks of the Jordan River and said to John that He wished to be baptized. John protested, "It is You who should baptize me!" for John knew that the One who was coming after him was One whose sandal straps he wasn't even worthy of tying. John's role came to a close, for he says, "He must increase and I must decrease", he understood that his time had reached its course, and now the whole reason for his ministry had come: Jesus Christ.

John's baptism, therefore, isn't Christian baptism. I honestly don't know how this couldn't be more obvious to those who read the Bible.

John's baptism: for repentance, to anticipate the coming of the Messiah and the healing of the nation through the Messiah.
Christian baptism: by the authority of Christ, in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, for the remission of sins.

And I know that this can't be down to mere denominational differences, because I learned these things at the Baptist school I attended for eight years, and Sunday School at two different churches (non-denominational and Pentecostal).

Is this simply, then, about a shift in teaching in certain churches since I was a child? I'm not that old, I'm only 41. But maybe this does reflect a growing rate of biblical illiteracy. All I really know is that this is something I keep seeing again and again, where really blatantly obvious, and explicit statements in the Bible are ignored, not understood, or explained away.

I find this troubling and worrisome.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

You tried what?

I mean let's go down the chain here.
I was asked by a Catholic, if I had only been baptized ONCE.
Which stuck out as an unbiblical doctrine against "rebaptizing" I showed that #1. Paul "rebaptized" in the bible,

And that's false.

and #2. That that doctrine against adult baptism was horrible and cost people's lives unjustly and so that doctrine should be discarded. It's not in the bible, nobody should have ever been killed over it.

And that's guilt by association (or poisoning the well, or both), and is a form of ad hominem.

An idea is to be argued on its own merits or demerits. The moment one introduces a poisoned well or guilt by association argument they have ceased to engage in good faith debate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jamdoc]

And that's false.



And that's guilt by association (or poisoning the well, or both), and is a form of ad hominem.

An idea is to be argued on its own merits or demerits. The moment one introduces a poisoned well or guilt by association argument they have ceased to engage in good faith debate.

-CryptoLutheran

Not guilt by association, just pointing out a poisonous unbiblical doctrine

as to the "that's false"

Acts 19

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

They were Baptized by John the Baptist.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Paul points out that John was baptizing for repentance but also pointing them to Jesus. Apparently they had not gotten that aspect of John's message.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

so he "rebaptized" them. Because the first baptism had not been right. They had not believed on Him that came after John the Baptist.

 

[ViaCrucis]

so he "rebaptized" them.

No, he baptized them. Did you happen to notice that word there in Acts 19:5? "they were baptized", not "rebaptized". They were baptized.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jamdoc]

No, he baptized them. Did you happen to notice that word there in Acts 19:5? "they were baptized", not "rebaptized". They were baptized.

-CryptoLutheran

Same context. Baptists and others who practice Believer's Baptism do not consider it a rebaptism. They consider it a baptism, because your "baptism" on infants with sprinkling or pouring, isn't a baptism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Same context. Baptists and others who practice Believer's Baptism do not consider it a rebaptism. They consider it a baptism, because your "baptism" on infants with sprinkling or pouring, isn't a baptism.

And who should we believe? God, who makes His promise to us in the waters of baptism, and who declares that His word cannot and will not ever fail? Or the mere opinions and traditions of men who deny the word of God?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And who should we believe? God, who makes His promise to us in the waters of baptism, and who declares that His word cannot and will not ever fail? Or the mere opinions and traditions of men who deny the word of God?

-CryptoLutheran

This.^^^

Same context. Baptists and others who practice Believer's Baptism do not consider it a rebaptism. They consider it a baptism, because your "baptism" on infants with sprinkling or pouring, isn't a baptism.

No, sir, you are wrong.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Same context. Baptists and others who practice Believer's Baptism do not consider it a rebaptism. They consider it a baptism, because your "baptism" on infants with sprinkling or pouring, isn't a baptism.

What about Eastern Orthodox who do immerse infants three times? I find it so strange that Baptists care about the method of baptism but that baptism has no benefit.

 

[Jamdoc]

And who should we believe? God, who makes His promise to us in the waters of baptism, and who declares that His word cannot and will not ever fail? Or the mere opinions and traditions of men who deny the word of God?

-CryptoLutheran

let's spin that around.
Who should we believe? God? who gave us the scriptures which had belief in Christ as a prerequisite to baptism, or the traditions of men, who "baptize" infants without immersion which doesn't even make the biblical picture of being buried with Christ and resurrecting with Him work?

 

[Jamdoc]

What about Eastern Orthodox who do immerse infants three times? I find it so strange that Baptists care about the method of baptism but that baptism has no benefit.

View attachment 335257

I didn't say it didn't have a benefit, it strengthens the relationship and is obeying Christ. To not be baptized after believing Christ is to disobey Him, it's sin.

But done properly the picture makes sense.
Done improperly the picture doesn't work and you turn baptism into something else.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Done improperly the picture doesn't work and you turn baptism into something else.

Like turning it into a meaningless ritual where it's about you looking good in front of the congregation instead of being about the grace and love of God and Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the dead?

What do the Scriptures say? And when I say "say" I don't mean what you change their words into to conform to your false doctrine, I mean what do they actually say using their own words?

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." - Romans 6:3-4

Did you catch that? Did you notice that it doesn't say "it is a picture of our being buried with Jesus as an act of obedience"? Instead it says "we were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead ... we too might walk in newness of life"

Romans 6:4
συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν

Therefore buried with Him by baptism into death, so that even as Christ was raised from death by the glory of the Father and thus we walk in newness of life.

And if that weren't clear enough, the Apostle continues,

"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" (Romans 6:5)

Where and how were we united with Him in death? And therefore united with Him in resurrection?

It's right here, in the text,

"Therefore buried with Him by baptism into death"

We died with Christ in the waters of baptism. That actually happened. It's not some worthless getting wet ritual where we play pretend and put on a spectacle.

Something actually happens here, we are actually buried, actually have died, actually have new life. United to the death of Jesus we are united to the resurrection of Jesus.

We entered into the baptismal font as the old man, and afterward there is a brand new man.

"We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin." (Romans 6:6)

"our old self"

ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος

"The old humanity of ours"

The old Adam, the dead, sinful humanity of Adam is brought to the baptismal font and what happens? It was crucified, it was nailed to the cross with Jesus Christ--with all its sins it was nailed to the cross and put to death, and what happened? We were buried, the old man was put to death and buried with Jesus. And what happened then? We were raised up with Christ, a new man happened, a new humanity of Christ.

That's what the text is saying verbatim.

Remove the devil's blinders from your eyes and see what the word of God says, believe it, and be confident not in your own power but in the power and grace of God who pours Himself out upon you in baptism.

Baptism is not a human spectacle, it is Divine grace, it is Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection right here in that water.

Why persist in unbelief? Why deny the Scriptures? Why fight against God's grace and word? Believe the Good News, you are set free from the bondage of sin in the waters of baptism because here is Christ crucified and raised from the dead--and you with Him. You, therefore, by the power of God who gives you faith, are new in Jesus Christ. That's baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

let's spin that around.
Who should we believe? God? who gave us the scriptures which had belief in Christ as a prerequisite to baptism, or the traditions of men, who "baptize" infants without immersion which doesn't even make the biblical picture of being buried with Christ and resurrecting with Him work?

Too much spinning around makes one dizzy.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I didn't say it didn't have a benefit, it strengthens the relationship and is obeying Christ. To not be baptized after believing Christ is to disobey Him, it's sin.

But done properly the picture makes sense.
Done improperly the picture doesn't work and you turn baptism into something else.

So, you do not see it as a means of Grace; no forgiveness is imparted as a result, and it is not tied to salvation. All of these are clearly stated in Scripture. Too much spinning.

 

[RileyG]

When I was baptized as an infant, grace was poured into my soul and I believed! I never had to be re-baptized because my first baptism was valid. No sin there.

 

[Jamdoc]

Like turning it into a meaningless ritual where it's about you looking good in front of the congregation instead of being about the grace and love of God and Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the dead?

What do the Scriptures say? And when I say "say" I don't mean what you change their words into to conform to your false doctrine, I mean what do they actually say using their own words?

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." - Romans 6:3-4

Did you catch that? Did you notice that it doesn't say "it is a picture of our being buried with Jesus as an act of obedience"? Instead it says "we were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead ... we too might walk in newness of life"

Romans 6:4
συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν

Therefore buried with Him by baptism into death, so that even as Christ was raised from death by the glory of the Father and thus we walk in newness of life.

And if that weren't clear enough, the Apostle continues,

"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" (Romans 6:5)

Where and how were we united with Him in death? And therefore united with Him in resurrection?

It's right here, in the text,

"Therefore buried with Him by baptism into death"

We died with Christ in the waters of baptism. That actually happened. It's not some worthless getting wet ritual where we play pretend and put on a spectacle.

Something actually happens here, we are actually buried, actually have died, actually have new life. United to the death of Jesus we are united to the resurrection of Jesus.

We entered into the baptismal font as the old man, and afterward there is a brand new man.

"We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin." (Romans 6:6)

"our old self"

ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος

"The old humanity of ours"

The old Adam, the dead, sinful humanity of Adam is brought to the baptismal font and what happens? It was crucified, it was nailed to the cross with Jesus Christ--with all its sins it was nailed to the cross and put to death, and what happened? We were buried, the old man was put to death and buried with Jesus. And what happened then? We were raised up with Christ, a new man happened, a new humanity of Christ.

That's what the text is saying verbatim.

Remove the devil's blinders from your eyes and see what the word of God says, believe it, and be confident not in your own power but in the power and grace of God who pours Himself out upon you in baptism.

Baptism is not a human spectacle, it is Divine grace, it is Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection right here in that water.

Why persist in unbelief? Why deny the Scriptures? Why fight against God's grace and word? Believe the Good News, you are set free from the bondage of sin in the waters of baptism because here is Christ crucified and raised from the dead--and you with Him. You, therefore, by the power of God who gives you faith, are new in Jesus Christ. That's baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

The simplest scriptures on salvation boil it down to faith in Christ. If you tack anything else on as necessary, it makes those other passages lies, for the passages that have other things tied to salvation, faith is involved in all of them. So the thing that saves is faith.

Otherwise you have a bible that contradicts itself, in some passages requiring faith alone, other passages tacking on baptism, others tacking on communion, others tacking on good works, etc, etc.

If faith wasn't enough, then Jesus would have been lying to the "thief" on the cross next to Him.

That is what colors interpretation of other passages. That if more is required than faith, then Jesus is a liar, and there's no salvation in Him at all.

 

[RileyG]

A huge difference here is some Baptism do not use the term Sacrament, they prefer the term ordinance and don't see Baptism and Communion as means of grace, but means of obedience. The liturgical Churches view the Sacraments as means of grace that save the soul.

 

[Jamdoc]

So, you do not see it as a means of Grace; no forgiveness is imparted as a result, and it is not tied to salvation. All of these are clearly stated in Scripture. Too much spinning.

Because John 3:16, John 5:24, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9, etc, etc, etc. If you make baptism a requirement you make Jesus, John, and Paul liars