Do sacraments save?

[Xeno.of.athens]

I've shown you many verses where Jesus says that he saves and gives eternal life, and others, including Peter, say that salvation is inly through him.

I agree, Christ alone is saviour and ultimately God alone saves; yet God in Christ uses means to accomplish the salvation of his people. There is no conflict in saying that Christ alone is saviour and saying that baptism saves and washes away sins. after all the scriptures say both and they cannot lie can they? But you deny the teaching of the scriptures for whatever reasons you have. The Catholic Church embraces what the scriptures say so we affirm that baptism saves and that baptism washes away sins while we affirm that the Lord alone is saviour.

How about you show some verses which say that Jesus is not enough, and needs some help to save us? Or is that too much to ask?

It would be against my faith in God to assert what the scriptures that he inspired contradicts so I shall not attempt to do what you ask for and I do not know why you ask for it since you too affirm that Jesus is our saviour - why do you ask for what you must know is not in scripture? I asked you to show the passages that you rely upon to teach that baptism saves no one and that baptism washes away no sins, while you keep in mind that Saint Peter wrote "That ark which Noah was then building, in which a few souls, eight in all, found refuge as they passed through the waves, was a type of the baptism which saves us now. " and the scripture also says "Come then, why art thou wasting time? Rise up, and receive baptism, washing away thy sins at the invocation of his name."

Clearly it was indeed too much to ask when I asked you to produce the verses that say that baptism saves none and that baptism washes away no sins. You didn't produce them. You cannot.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are the Church, so what you are doing is what the church is doing.
God saves, we either accept or reject His Love in the form of forgiveness (salvation).
When was Christ our example not involved in worship?
When as a modern priest are you not offering yourself up on the altar?

I am not a priest. I haven't been called or ordained by any church. You can't just make yourself a priest. It doesn't work that way. There is nothing in the New Testament to support the notion that a person can ordain themselves without a congregation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the real thing that happened to us when we died with Christ to sin and rose from the dead to new life in Christ.

The real thing? That would be baptism according to Romans 6:1-9. I affirm the teaching in Romans 6. It is a clear affirmation that baptism really does unite the soul of the baptised to the body of Christ in his death and resurrection. Observe what the passage says:
Romans 6:

3 You know well enough that we who were taken up into Christ by baptism have been taken up, all of us, into his death.​

4 In our baptism, we have been buried with him, died like him, that so, just as Christ was raised up by his Father’s power from the dead, we too might live and move in a new kind of existence.​

5 We have to be closely fitted into the pattern of his resurrection, as we have been into the pattern of his death;✻​

6 we have to be sure of this, that our former nature has been crucified with him, and the living power of our guilt annihilated, so that we are the slaves of guilt no longer.✻​

7 Guilt makes no more claim on a man who is dead.✻​

8 And if we have died with Christ, we have faith to believe that we shall share his life.​

9 We know that Christ, now he has risen from the dead, cannot die any more; death has no more power over him;​

10 the death he died was a death, once for all, to sin; the life he now lives is a life that looks towards God.✻​

 

[Jamdoc]

The notion that infant baptism isn't acceptable isn't found in the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are silent on this issue. Therefore, believer's baptism, as you call it, is a tradition.

Acts 8

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

He could have been dunked in the water and gotten wet without believing... but to be baptized, he had to believe.
You get an infant wet, but because they don't believe, they're not baptized.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Acts 8


He could have been dunked in the water and gotten wet without believing... but to be baptized, he had to believe.
You get an infant wet, but because they don't believe, they're not baptized.

This thread isn't about the method of baptism or the proper candidates for baptism.

 

[Jamdoc]

But tracts and street preachers save?

And it's not wine and bread. It's the body and blood of Christ. Bread and wine are merely the outward symbols. We receive both in the sacrament.

Frankly I have no interest in a religion that's just about listening to a Bible lecture by a preacher and singing a few poorly-written songs and calling it "religion". I know far more about religion than most pastors. So unless you do something "religious", I see no reason to be involved in a church. I could as easily sleep in on Sunday mornings or do alot of other more edifying things, besides wasting my time in such a manner.

So sacraments and communal rituals are involved somehow in salvation, or Christianity, as an organized religion, is just a waste of time in an age saturated with lots of other equally compelling images or stories about the world.

Funny, Jesus targeted the most religious people of His day and called fishermen and tax collectors who were into the scriptures to be His disciples.
Jesus wasn't about a religion, Jesus was about a relationship with God Almighty.

2 Corinthians 11

1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

What's Paul preaching a religion, or a relationship? He calls it the simplicity that is in Christ. It's not a complex religion it's loving Christ, relating to Him, in particular, as a wife to a husband. Now that does mean acting in obedience, acting in respect, deference. But it's not so much about the hoopla and religious rituals.
The trappings of religion, men do to try to interact with an invisible creator that is distant from them, trying to appease Him. But religion is ultimately a symptom of fallenness, mankind at his worst. Sinners trying to earn God's favor.

 

[Jamdoc]

This thread isn't about the method of baptism or the proper candidates for baptism.

I was responding to a question regarding believer's baptism in scripture vs it just being a tradition, which it is in scripture.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

The real thing? That would be baptism according to Romans 6:1-9. I affirm the teaching in Romans 6. It is a clear affirmation that baptism really does unite the soul of the baptised to the body of Christ in his death and resurrection. Observe what the passage says:
Romans 6:

3 You know well enough that we who were taken up into Christ by baptism have been taken up, all of us, into his death.​

4 In our baptism, we have been buried with him, died like him, that so, just as Christ was raised up by his Father’s power from the dead, we too might live and move in a new kind of existence.​

5 We have to be closely fitted into the pattern of his resurrection, as we have been into the pattern of his death;✻​

6 we have to be sure of this, that our former nature has been crucified with him, and the living power of our guilt annihilated, so that we are the slaves of guilt no longer.✻​

7 Guilt makes no more claim on a man who is dead.✻​

8 And if we have died with Christ, we have faith to believe that we shall share his life.​

9 We know that Christ, now he has risen from the dead, cannot die any more; death has no more power over him;​

10 the death he died was a death, once for all, to sin; the life he now lives is a life that looks towards God.✻​

We can hop all over the Bible from passage to passage on baptism, but none will teach salvation through physical baptism. Romans 6 is another clear passage that points us to the real thing that Jesus did when He died on the cross and rose again.

3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Ro 6:3–11)​

There is not the slightest hint whatsoever that this passage is talking about water baptism. It is clearly a reference to the real thing that Jesus went through when He died on the cross for our sins and rose again, and to the real thing that happened in our lives when we died with Him (setting us free from sin) and rose from the dead with Him (making us alive to God). Only through a rose-colored lense does one see this passage as promoting water baptism as the means by which a person is reconciled with God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

none will teach salvation through physical baptism

1 Peter 3:21

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

1 Peter 3:21

I already shot that one down (post #78). You didn't address the arguments in that post, you just went to another passage (Romans 6). Now, you're not addressing the arguments in this post, you're just pointing back to 1 Peter again.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I already shot that one down (post #78). You didn't address the arguments in that post, you just went to another passage (Romans 6). Now, you're not addressing the arguments in this post, you're just pointing back to 1 Peter again.

You can't shoot down holy scripture unless you dismiss it as uninspired.

 

[Jamdoc]

You can't shoot down holy scripture unless you dismiss it as uninspired.

He's shooting down your interpretation, not the scripture itself.

try using the context of the scripture, Peter is giving illustrations

1 Peter 3

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

It is the Holy Spirit that produces regeneration, not water

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Did the flood save Noah? No, Noah was saved from the flood, by the grace of God which led him to build the ark. Noah was not a perfect man morally either (he was perfect in his generations, which is.. something of debate regarding the sons of God and Nephilim in Genesis 6), as even after the flood, he sinned. He got saved from the flood... and then sinned. Understand how profound that is, it is not Noah's own righteousness that saves him, but I digress.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

"the like figure", that is, Peter is giving an illustration, Peter even says, that baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh, Peter is comparing baptism to two things, like the flood of Noah, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You go down into the water, like the flood of Noah, like death, like being buried, and then are raised up out of it, like being resurrected like Jesus Christ. Peter is using baptism as a picture.
Not saying it saves you. The resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are what regenerates you.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

You can't shoot down holy scripture unless you dismiss it as uninspired.

Obviously, I'm not shooting down the Scriptures. It is the interpretation of Scripture that I am shooting down. I have offered from both the 1 Peter and Romans passages you quoted that the context clearly shows that baptism is in the context of us joining in with Jesus' death and resurrection. Colossians 2 has the same context, and it is absolutely clear there that it is not physical but spiritual. What other than tradition do you have to support your position that physical baptism saves people?

 

[Strong in Him]

I agree, Christ alone is saviour and ultimately God alone saves; yet God in Christ uses means to accomplish the salvation of his people.

God has saved us from eternal death by sending his Son who gives eternal life.
God has reconciled mankind to himself by sending Jesus who laid down his life for us; whose blood cleanses us of sin and was poured out so that we might be forgiven.

God uses different means to draw people to himself and bring them to a place where they might hear the Gospel, yes.
But we are saved ONLY through Jesus, our Saviour.

There is no conflict in saying that Christ alone is saviour and saying that baptism saves and washes away sins.

Scripture also says that is is his blood that washes away sins - which fits with him being the only One who can forgive, and save, us.

But you deny the teaching of the scriptures for whatever reasons you have.

I'm not denying the teaching of the Scriptures; I quoted the many verses which say that forgiveness, eternal life, reconciliation with God and salvation are through Christ alone.
Obviously Scripture cannot contradict itself. If it appears to, it is more than likely that it is we who have misunderstood it. Either that, or you have to admit there is a contradiction.

It would be against my faith in God to assert what the scriptures that he inspired contradicts so I shall not attempt to do what you ask for and I do not know why you ask for it since you too affirm that Jesus is our saviour - why do you ask for what you must know is not in scripture?

If you are saying that Jesus + baptism save and wash away our sin, you are saying that Jesus is not able to do this alone; that he is not enough.
If you are saying that that latter teaching - that Jesus is not enough - is not Scriptural; you are correct.
So Jesus is our Saviour, Jesus forgives and saves us and it is not Scriptural to say that this, or he, is not enough.
So why insist that baptism - and other sacraments - save?

Clearly it was indeed too much to ask when I asked you to produce the verses that say that baptism saves none and that baptism washes away no sins. You didn't produce them. You cannot.

No - but I can produce, and have produced, many verses which say that Jesus is our Saviour and the only way to God and the only one who reconciles us to God, gives life and forgiveness.

So either, these are correct and he does forgive and save us but he requires baptism to wash away our sins - which means that his blood was insufficient and contradicts 1 John 1:7. Or, baptism does save and wash away our sin, and the verses you quoted - plus your own statement that Christ alone saves - are incorrect. Or, the verse you keep quoting from Peter means something else and HAS been quoted out of context.

Which is it?
Salvation = Jesus + baptism?
Salvation = Jesus alone?
The Bible contradicts itself?
The Bible cannot contradict itself and the verse from Peter means something else?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It is the interpretation of Scripture that I am shooting down.

Since it is saint Peter who explicitly states that baptism saves it is not an interpretation that presents the words "baptism saves" but the apostle himself in the scripture passage.

You will need to do better than claim it is interpretation that you shoot down when you contradict what the apostle wrote. You need to explain why you contradict his words. That means you must find a credible exegesis of the words that allows the interpreter to dismiss "baptism saves" in the passage.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

God uses different means to draw people to himself and bring them to a place where they might hear the Gospel, yes.
But we are saved ONLY through Jesus, our Saviour.

Yet Saint Peter says that baptism saves and Jesus himself says that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. What passage says that baptism does not save and what passage says that eating the flesh of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ do not give life? Or is your contention that saint Peter's words and Jesus' words should be ignored so that a doctrine can be created that says "baptism doesn't save nor does the Lord's supper give life"?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No - but I can produce

The "no" is sufficient, the excuses for failure are taken as read. You didn't produce the verses requested because no such verses exist. On the other hand there really is a verse that says "baptism saves" and there really is a verse that says "I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." And that ends the dispute. Excuses do not "trump" scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yet Saint Peter says that baptism saves

Well he contradicts John - and others - then who say that it is Jesus, and the blood of Jesus, which saves.
You, yourself, have agreed that Christ is our Saviour (i.e. one who saves) and that ultimately it is God alone who saves.

Salvation is;
a) through Christ alone
b) through baptism alone
c) through Christ and baptism.

If a) is true, then b) and c) can't be.

 

[Strong in Him]

The "no" is sufficient, the excuses for failure are taken as read. You didn't produce the verses requested because no such verses exist.

I never said they did.
I simply quoted verses which pointed to Jesus as Saviour - a lot of which were his own words, and with which Peter, Paul, John etc, agreed.

On the other hand there really is a verse that says "baptism saves"

A verse.
What is your explanation for the fact that you quote A verse which says one thing, and I have quoted many others which say something different - i.e. that Jesus saves?

And that ends the dispute. Excuses do not "trump" scripture.

So read, learn and inwardly digest all the verses which say that JESUS forgives, saves, reconciles us to God and through whose blood we have forgiveness. And that Jesus, not baptism, gives us eternal life.

 

[Strong in Him]

Since it is saint Peter who explicitly states that baptism saves it is not an interpretation that presents the words "baptism saves" but the apostle himself in the scripture passage.

St Peter also said that there is no other name given to men by which we must be saved. No. Other. Name. Not the name of baptism, communion or any sacrament (nor Mary, come to that; but that's another subject.) The apostle said that Jesus alone saves - and you even agree that God alone saves.