Do sacraments save?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well he contradicts John

No, he doesn't. You do.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A verse.

1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-41, Romans 6:3-4.

That's more that "a verse", why is it that evangelicals are so disinclined to read scripture and let it say what is says? Discussing scripture with evangelicals is like debating with Jehovah's witnesses; everything is contested despite its obvious meaning and some odd doctrine is pushed as if it really does trump scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

No, he doesn't. You do.

1 John 1:7 - the blood of Jesus saves us from sin.
Just what I have said all along. I certainly agree with John.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

St Peter also said that there is no other name given to men by which we must be saved. No. Other. Name.

This is not contested, except perhaps in your mind. I assert that baptism saves and it does so as a means used by Jesus to save his people. The cause is Jesus the means is baptism, it is not the only means either. Communion is another means by which the faithful are saved. Why do you have such a hard time with this concept?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

1 John 1:7 - the blood of Jesus saves us from sin.
Just what I have said all along. I certainly agree with John.

I too agree with saint John, and also with saint Peter. There is not contradiction between the two. Jesus saves, baptism is one means by which Jesus saves his people from their sins. It isn't a difficult concept, why do you resist it so determinedly?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I wouldn't say sacrament save us, but sacraments are a means by which we receive the benefits of salvation.

Outward signs of inward reality.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Outward signs of inward reality.

Agreed, but seemingly even that concept is too difficult for our brethren to agree with; for some it seems it is all an "either/or" either it is Jesus alone or it is salvation by works. It's absurd really. Obviously it is Jesus who saves, he is God, and God alone gives life; yet God chooses to give life by means of things like baptism, the Lord's supper, and numerous other things which he gives too. It is a simple concept - GOD SAVES HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS BY MEANS OF GRACES THAT HE GIVES TO THEM. End of story, right?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Agreed, but seemingly even that concept is too difficult for our brethren to agree with; for some it seems it is all an "either/or" either it is Jesus alone or it is salvation by works. It's absurd really. Obviously it is Jesus who saves, he is God, and God alone gives life; yet God chooses to give life by means of things like baptism, the Lord's supper, and numerous other things which he gives too. It is a simple concept - GOD SAVES HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS BY MEANS OF GRACES THAT HE GIVES TO THEM. End of story, right?

We are physical people. It sure helps to have physical grace.

 

[Strong in Him]

Why do you have such a hard time with this concept?

Because Jesus alone saves, not the sacraments.

If the sacraments saved us, then my youngest nephew, who was baptised and confirmed in a Greek Orthodox church when he was 3 months old - and probably was given communion, I don't remember - would be saved. In spite of the fact that he doesn't go to church and may not even believe in God. No doubt you would agree with the priest who said that he entered the church a sinner (at the age of 3 months!); he will leave a Christian.
If sacraments saved us then not many people would need to become Christians - since many are, or have been, baptised as babies.
If baptism saved us then my husband, who was baptised as a baby and brought up in a non Christian household, would not have needed to "become a Christian." Because he was baptised in an Anglican church, when he decided that he wanted to know more about God, he went to that church to find answers. Did the Anglican church save him? No. God used the Anglican church to put him in contact with other Christians and hear the Gospel. Did baptism save him? No, or he would not have needed to become a Christian.

Supposing Hitler had been baptised? Or Pol Pot? Mugabe? Or any other dictators/criminals/murderers? Would their baptism have saved them? No.

 

[Strong in Him]

I too agree with saint John, and also with saint Peter. There is not contradiction between the two. Jesus saves, baptism is one means by which Jesus saves his people from their sins. It isn't a difficult concept, why do you resist it so determinedly?

Jesus doesn't save through baptism - he saved us on the cross.
He defeated death, reconciled us to God, gave us peace with God and poured out his blood for the forgiveness of our sins. THAT is salvation - we have been saved from eternal separation with God - through, and because of, Jesus.

There are people who HAVE been baptised and don't believe in God or in what Jesus did for us.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because Jesus alone saves, not the sacraments.

Show me the verses that deny that the sacraments save. I know I've asked before and you failed to produce them, and I know that asking again will produce the same result, but I ask in the hope that you will finally admit that it is Jesus who saves by means of the sacraments and by other means also as he chooses. Confessing that Jesus saves does not imply that nothing else plays a role in salvation. Every Christian knows that hearing the gospel plays a role in their salvation. Most Christians know that baptism and the Lord's supper play a role in their salvation. Some Christians deny it, for some reason or other, but not because the scriptures teach them to deny it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus doesn't save through baptism

Since I gave you half a dozen verses that directly or indirectly contradict your claim why do you persist with it? Surely the scriptures "trump" your claim.

To reiterate: 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-41, Romans 6:3-4.

 

[Strong in Him]

Since I gave you half a dozen verses that directly or indirectly contradict your claim why do you persist with it? Surely the scriptures "trump" your claim.

So answer my questions about my nephew and my husband, then.
Explain to me how my aunt has been apparently saved (when she was baptised), yet she doesn't believe in God and is a humanist - i.e. the human is the highest power that there is.
Why does anyone who was baptised as a child - including murderers etc - need to become a Christian?

 

[Valletta]

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.
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?

We are saved through Baptism and continue to be saved.

 

[Strong in Him]

So answer my questions about my nephew and my husband, then.
Explain to me how my aunt has been apparently saved (when she was baptised), yet she doesn't believe in God and is a humanist - i.e. the human is the highest power that there is.
Why does anyone who was baptised as a child - including murderers etc - need to become a Christian?

Actually, I'll let you off the hook; don't bother. This argument is going round in circles and not getting anywhere.
You asked in your OP why some Christians would say that baptism doesn't save. You have been told why - over, and over again. Yet instead of saying "I understand now, thank you for telling me", you have argued.

The bottom line is, whatever anyone says, you are not going to disagree with, or even question, what the Catholic church has told you to believe.
That is fine - your faith, your decision.
But some of us disagree.

And I do have better, and more edifying, things to do than argue in circles.
Enjoy.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So answer my questions about my nephew and my husband, then.

Why do you want to me to answer this question when it is clearly a question for God in prayer?

Explain to me how my aunt has been apparently saved (when she was baptised), yet she doesn't believe in God and is a humanist - i.e. the human is the highest power that there is.

People make choices and they may change their minds about God, this is not an explanation but it is a fact. I cannot delve into your aunt's mind so I offer not explanation for her state. However baptism does save, it is a means by which Jesus saves, but baptism cannot save without the will and purpose of Jesus to save the baptised person. I will not attempt to delve into Jesus mind, that would be a blasphemy, but I will point to the facts and to the scriptures, both of which I have done. You may believe the scriptures or you may choose to contradict them as your posts have thus far.

Why does anyone who was baptised as a child - including murderers etc - need to become a Christian?

No child is a murderer as far as I am aware, do you intend to ask me why baptism saves when the person baptised may at some later time become a murderer? The only answer I can give is why does faith save if at some later time the person expressing faith may become a murderer? These are not questions for a chat forum, they are questions for God in prayer.

 

[Strong in Him]

Why do you want to me to answer this question when it is clearly a question for God in prayer?

You should be able to defend, and explain, your beliefs.
Non Christians may ask you the same thing.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You should be able to defend, and explain, your beliefs.
Non Christians may ask you the same thing.

They do, and have, and the answer I gave is what I have given to you in my pervious post. In summary, people can change their mind; one who believes fervently today may deny Christ at some later time and that does not mean his previous faith wasn't real, it means he changed his mind. My belief is easy to defend when the person who asks will read and listen. Baptism saves like faith saves and it can be thwarted like faith can be thwarted. The rest is a matter for asking God in prayer.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

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.

Like I said, Peter is not talking about water baptism. He is talking about our baptism into Christ through participating with Him in His death and resurrection. You are projecting your own beliefs into what he is saying. Same goes for your view of Romans 6. So no, just because he uses the word "baptism" does not mean he was talking about water baptism.

Was Jesus speaking of water baptism when He said, "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!" (Lk 12:50)? No. He was speaking of bearing our sins that would make Him one with sin... the death part of His death and resurrection.

Was John the Baptist speaking of water baptism when he said, "He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (Mt 3:11)? No. He was contrasting water baptism and the Holy Spirit's baptism.

Was Paul speaking of water baptism when he said, "Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink." (1 Co 10:1–4)? No. He was talking about cloud and sea baptism.

Was Paul speaking of water baptism when he said, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Co 12:13)? No. He was talking about the Holy Spirit's baptism.

Was Paul speaking of water baptism when he said, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Ga 3:26–27)? No. He was talking about the Spirit of God coming to live in our hearts, making us first generation offspring of the living God through the Holy Spirit's baptism.

So no, you have not made the case that Peter (in 1 Peter) or Paul (in Romans 6) were taling about water baptism.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

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"?

I'm glad you brought that in. This is another pointer to something real. He is not saying you get life from a sacrament. He is saying that unless you receive me into your heart, you will not have life.