Do you get saved through baptism?

[Zecryphon]

No, you misunderstand what I meant.

If it is indeed the act of being baptized that saves as one person said, then there is no need to preach repentance. There is no need to witness. just go out and baptize people in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and they'll be saved.

Baptism is a means of grace that God uses to deliver all the benefits of Christ's life, death and resurrection to the faithful. But for the benefits of Christ to take hold in the person being baptized, faith needs to be present first. That faith is a gift from God that people respond to with repentance. It's not the result of a choice people make when they ask Jesus into their hearts or when they ask Jesus to be their savior.

When someone repents of their sin, because they have heard the law and gospel of God preached to them by an evangelist, and have been convicted of their sin by the power of the Holy Spirit, they have already been given the gift of faith by God. That's why you need to go out into the world and proclaim the good news. After that is done, then we baptize the faithful.

This is what the LCMS teaches regarding Baptism. From Article IX of the Augsburg Confession as found in the Book of Concord: The Lutheran Confessions.

Note: The Bible teaches that Baptism is a gift of God's grace by which He applies the benefits of Christ's life, death, and resurrection to us personally. Because all people are conceived and born in sin, we all need salvation. Because Baptism is God's way of bringing salvation, infants should also be baptized. During the Reformation, as now, some Christian groups turned Baptism from God's saving activity into an act of Christian obedience. This view of Baptism arises from the denial of original sin and a semi-Pelagian view of salvation, whereby faith becomes the good work we contribute. This article concentrates on what God gives in this Sacrament.

1. Concerning Baptism, our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16) and that God's grace is offered
2. through Baptism (Titus 3:4-7). They teach that children are to be baptized (Acts 2:38-39). Being offered to God through Baptism, they are received into God's grace.
3. Our churches condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the Baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

The way Baptism is usually presented by Protestants as we've seen in this very thread, is as a symbolic act we do of our own free will that shows we belong to God. But if it's symbolic and not an actual Sacrament of God, meaning there is no supernatural element present in the Baptism, like the word of Christ present in and with the water, then any forgiveness that people think they receive during their Baptism, must also be symbolic. If the whole thing is symbolic and there is no forgiveness of sins, then why do it at all? As a work to show others? We are warned in scripture not to do our works before others so that they may see and marvel at us. The only thing I can see a person being left with then is a Baptism that is nothing more than an empty tradition.

And since when is "baptism" restricted to the priests?

Are we not "a royal priesthood"?

That means you and I.

If you're going to go that route, how many people have you baptized? And do you do it right after you witness to them? I don't know about you, but every baptism I've had and every baptism I've seen performed was performed by a man of the cloth.

If the great commission applied to the disciples, and it is our duty to carry on that commission, is baptism not included also?

God Bless

Till all are one.

What do you mean "if the Great Commission applied to the disciples?" Is this in dispute? My point was that to fully follow the command of Christ, we should be baptizing people along with witnessing to them. All the Christians I know, with the aforementioned exception, do not baptize, they just witness to people. That's why I said we're only participating in the Great Commission half-way. If we want to be faithful to the actual command, we would be baptizing people as well.

 

[Zecryphon]

I would like for you to show me in the scriptures where baptism is restricted to "men of the cloth."

In the strictest sense, John the Baptist was nothing more than an evangelist. Yet he was a "baptizer."

In Acts chapter 6, we see the very first "deacons." Yet in Acts chapter 8, we see a "deacon" baptizing.

My statement was anecdotal, meaning it was limited to my experiences in my life so far. How you missed that, I have no idea. My statement was not binding upon anybody as saying, only men of the cloth can baptize.

I take it you practice a "sacerdotal" baptism?

Since I've been baptized twice, both times by men of the cloth, what do you think?

 

[DeaconDean]

Since I've been baptized twice, both times by men of the cloth, what do you think?

Since you have been baptized twice, both times by men of the cloth, you believe that it takes a man to determine whether or not you are worthy of being baptized?

In other words, you have a sacerdotal salvation.

Let me quote B.H.Carroll again:

The real substance of this contention is this:
(1) It is a salvation by ritual.
(2) It is a sacerdotal salvation, since it requires the presence, the office and performance of another party, the administrator of the ordinances, and thereby securing our salvation, making you responsible, when your salvation is dependent upon somebody else, and on what somebody else does. That is what we call "sacerdotal" -- sacer, a Latin word for priest – a priestly salvation.
(3) This requires competent authority to pronounce on the fitness of the "sacer" (priest) or administrator, and thus makes it an endless question with any man as to whether he is saved until he can prove that the one that baptized him is a qualified administrator, and thereby contradicting the statement of Paul, that God made salvation by faith, is. e., I may repent and believe by myself, just thinking about the Bible, or reasoning about it.

You are indeed saved because you were baptized by a priest whom you know is saved.

Sacerdotal salvation.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The way Baptism is usually presented by Protestants as we've seen in this very thread, is as a symbolic act we do of our own free will that shows we belong to God. But if it's symbolic and not an actual Sacrament of God, meaning there is no supernatural element present in the Baptism, like the word of Christ present in and with the water, then any forgiveness that people think they receive during their Baptism, must also be symbolic. If the whole thing is symbolic and there is no forgiveness of sins, then why do it at all? As a work to show others? We are warned in scripture not to do our works before others so that they may see and marvel at us. The only thing I can see a person being left with then is a Baptism that is nothing more than an empty tradition.

Can you disprove that baptism carries with any salvaic properties?

Dispute what the Greek text clearly says.

What do you mean "if the Great Commission applied to the disciples?" Is this in dispute? My point was that to fully follow the command of Christ, we should be baptizing people along with witnessing to them. All the Christians I know, with the aforementioned exception, do not baptize, they just witness to people. That's why I said we're only participating in the Great Commission half-way. If we want to be faithful to the actual command, we would be baptizing people as well.

Excuse me, if the great commission applied only to the disciples, then why do you see Phillip baptizing?

If baptism is an intrigal part of salvation, why is it that Paul only admits to baptizing 2 converts?

If baptism is an essential part of salvation, then why did Paul refuse to baptize if one cannot be saved without it?

What did Paul do, preach, and let Luke or Barnabus baptize?

How about the typical person who comes to church, gets saved in the morning service, goes home, comes back at the evening service to be baptized, but dies in a car crash before they are baptized.

By your standard, they can't be saved because they haven't been baptized. Remember:

Concerning Baptism, our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16) and that God's grace is offered

How about the man on the road to Jericho? What was it Jesus said to him:

"And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee." -Lk. 18:42 (KJV)

What was it Jesus said to the woman in the Pharisees house?

"And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." -Lk. 7:50 (KJV)

Now I'll readily admit that being baptized is a command Jesus gave, and unless there is anything that prevents one from being baptized they should. But my salvation is not depentant on a priest, it is not dependant on whether or not I have been baptized.

"... know whom I have believed," -2 Tim. 1:12 (KJV)

I'm already assured a place in heaven:

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:" -Jn. 3:36 (KJV)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." -Jn. 6:47 (KJV)

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" -Jn. 11:25-26 (KJV)

I am already born-again, my sins were forgiven when I confessed Jesus Christ.

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." -Rom. 10:9-10 (KJV)

And one minor point, as shown above, I see one fault in your confession of faith.

Concerning Baptism, our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16)

You have church doctrine based on a text that is not in the oldest Greek text.

And I also guess by your standards:

Our churches condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the Baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

You must reject me also. Because Baptists do not recognize, as a general rule of thumb, paedo-baptism.

Nuff said.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Zecryphon]

Since you have been baptized twice, both times by men of the cloth, you believe that it takes a man to determine whether or not you are worthy of being baptized?

Show me where I've said anything like that. I didn't mention anything about a man determining whether or not I'm worthy of being baptized. How about you stop putting words in my mouth? That'd be a good thing for you to do.

In other words, you have a sacerdotal salvation.

I answered that in the last post.

Let me quote B.H.Carroll again:

The real substance of this contention is this:
(1) It is a salvation by ritual.
(2) It is a sacerdotal salvation, since it requires the presence, the office and performance of another party, the administrator of the ordinances, and thereby securing our salvation, making you responsible, when your salvation is dependent upon somebody else, and on what somebody else does. That is what we call "sacerdotal" -- sacer, a Latin word for priest – a priestly salvation.
(3) This requires competent authority to pronounce on the fitness of the "sacer" (priest) or administrator, and thus makes it an endless question with any man as to whether he is saved until he can prove that the one that baptized him is a qualified administrator, and thereby contradicting the statement of Paul, that God made salvation by faith, is. e., I may repent and believe by myself, just thinking about the Bible, or reasoning about it.
​

B.H. Carroll obviously doesn't understand the Lutheran position and obviously, since you value his opinion over what I have plainly told you, neither do you. We do not believe in salvation by works. Go read my post again. I made it perfectly clear in that post that Baptism is God's work, not man's. I'm getting the feeling that you see what you wanna see in people's posts and that you don't read what they actually write.

You are indeed saved because you were baptized by a priest whom you know is saved.

You are indeed misrepresenting my position and what I have plainly said in my posts. When you wanna engage in honest and intellectual debate and not put words into my mouth and attribute statements to me that I have not made, let me know. Until then you're not worth my time.

Sacerdotal salvation.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Till you can be honest, don't post to me again.

 

[DeaconDean]

Show me where I've said anything like that. I didn't mention anything about a man determining whether or not I'm worthy of being baptized. How about you stop putting words in my mouth? That'd be a good thing for you to do.



I answered that in the last post.



B.H. Carroll obviously doesn't understand the Lutheran position and obviously, since you value his opinion over what I have plainly told you, neither do you. We do not believe in salvation by works. Go read my post again. I made it perfectly clear in that post that Baptism is God's work, not man's. I'm getting the feeling that you see what you wanna see in people's posts and that you don't read what they actually write.



You are indeed misrepresenting my position and what I have plainly said in my posts. When you wanna engage in honest and intellectual debate and not put words into my mouth and attribute statements to me that I have not made, let me know. Until then you're not worth my time.



Till you can be honest, don't post to me again.

Setting my Mod duties aside, you have no right to post in that manner to me.

Here you said:

Since I've been baptized twice, both times by men of the cloth, what do you think?

Sacerdotal salvation. That is what that is, plain and simple. I'm sorry if the truth offends you.

And no fun or offense meant, but why were you baptized twice? Did the first one not take? Seriously, I don't understand that.

Here you said:

So it would seem that us lay people who just focus on evangelizing to the lost are only participating in the Great Commission half-way.

I take it that you go out and witness, get the person to make a confession, then get them to church, and there a "man of the cloth" does the baptizing.

Here you said:

B.H. Carroll obviously doesn't understand the Lutheran position and obviously, since you value his opinion over what I have plainly told you, neither do you.

Hey, I also quoted John Broadus and Donald Grey Barnhouse, you gonna fault me for that too?

Just one question brother.

how much time have you spent studying the deep things of God?

As a student in seminary, my major was Systematic Theology. Do you know what Systematic Theology is?

That is getting down to the nitty-gritty of why we believe what we believe.

Since you are offended my my pointing out the "Sacerdotal salvation" aspect, what can I say.

You said:

We do not believe in salvation by works.

Congrats to you brother, neither do Baptists.

But...you obviously believe that salvation is dependant on baptism, a work done by one man on the behalf of another, or as you said "men of the cloth" that makes baptism a "work."

Somebody has to do the "work" of baptizing, it is form of a "works based salvation."

Your salvation is not dependant on the work of Christ on our behalf on the cross, its dependant on:

Baptism is necessary for salvation

That is what you said, plain and simple.

And lets just say Mk. 16:16 is in the original autographs, notice well that it does not say, and indeed nowhere in the NT can it be found that "he that believes and is not baptized, is not saved."

Mk. 16:17-18 goes further to say

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing; it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Does your church practice speaking in tongues?

Does your church practice "snake handling"?

Does your church practice drinking poison?

Does your church practice casting out of devils?

Does your church practice raising the dead?

No, my church are not "snake handlers" nor are we those who purposely drink Strychnine.

I don't have to play with snakes to know they bite, sometimes with deadly results.

I don't have to drink poison to know that it kills.

I don't have to play with snakes or drink poison to show that I have the Holy Spirit.

However, I will honor this:

don't post to me again

If you will extend to me the same courtesy.

The Greek text of what I posted bears witness to the truth.

Dispute that vile piece of truth.

Brother, if your Lutheran beliefs work for, God Bless ya. If I believed that my salvation was dependant on baptism I'd probably be a Lutheran too. If I really believed that, I convert to Catholicism. But I don't. The Bible says he who believes has eternal life. Those are Jesus' words. Mark 16:16 is questionable.

But hey, if it works for you, God Bless ya.

I don't see it that way.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tonks]

If it is indeed the act of being baptized that saves as one person said, then there is no need to preach repentance. There is no need to witness. just go out and baptize people in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and they'll be saved.

Only for those that misplace faith in some sort of forensic justification, Dean.

 

[Tonks]

The responses to the OP are almost unaminous in thought.

That's refreshing. Just a casual observation.

Given that most of the responses have been protestant it is not really much of a surprise. It is, however, a distinct minority opinion if one looks at Christians worldwide.

 

[Nadiine]

Given that most of the responses have been protestant it is not really much of a surprise. It is, however, a distinct minority opinion if one looks at Christians worldwide.

meaning....... we're wrong, that baptism doesn't save.?

The bible doesn't say baptism saves in the Greek language when you look closer
into it.

Either we are saved by what GOD did for us, or our own efforts have saved us
(which Eph 2 clearly states that none of our works save - baptism is a literal work/
ritual that we do in obedience just as the OT rituals/works didn't 'save' them either).

I guess those poor folks that make deathbed conversions are just outta luck becuz they couldn't crawl to a nearby puddle or bathtub?

NOTHING God creates is necessary for salvation - that's the point of it; it's easy enough for all to be able to convert; no matter where they are or when - s alvation is ALWAYS available to people of ALL walks of life and hardships & restrictions.

That's the beauty of God's plan of salvation.

 

[Secundulus]

If you could read the Greek texts, you would see that in the oldest, most complete manuscript we have of the NT, you would see that Mark chapter 16 actually ends at verse 8.

It actually was added sometime later.

Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantin Tischendorf in a convent at the foot of Mount Sinai around 1862. Under study, it was discovered that it pre-dated the Codex Vaiticanus. Why is this tyext important? It contains the entire Greek Bible, plus the Epistle of Barnabas and most of the Shepherd of Hermas (early Christian writings which were widely used in teaching).

If you were to place the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaiticanus side-by-side, you would see the difference.

The Codex Siniaticus shows that Mark 16 indeed does end at verse 8.

As B.H. Carroll says, I will not preach or develop doctrine on scriptures where there is doubt if they were part of the original text.

So we'll set aside Mark 16:16.

Codex Siniaticus was written around the middle of the fourth century.

However, In the second century, Irenaeus quoted the text claimed to have not existed until over 200 years later.

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;”http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xi.html

Compare this to the biblical text that theoretically did not yet exist:

"So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19, NASB95)

The only logical conclusion is that these verses that some claim not to have existed until after the fourth century actually existed not later that the second century.

If we want to base conclusions on the earliest available evidence then the conclusion is that the Mark 16:8-20 is the original ending.

Basing a theological precept on the elimination of Mark 16:16 does not seem to be such a good idea.

 

[Zecryphon]

Setting my Mod duties aside, you have no right to post in that manner to me.

Here you said:



Sacerdotal salvation. That is what that is, plain and simple. I'm sorry if the truth offends you.
You were instructed to not post to me again. This post is now harassment. You, as a mod, should know that better than anyone. What I said to you is not a violation of any rule in this forum, if you think it is, do something about it. Now, we'll try this again. Do not post to me again.

 

[Zecryphon]

Nadiine, unless I've been misreading your posts on this ever since I came to this forum, you don't believe Baptism saves. You believe it is symbolic only. It's something we do to show that we have been made alive with Christ. That is not what the majority of Christians believe. If you believe it's symbolic only and something you do as a way of being identified with Christ then Baptism does become a work. But it's not a work for salvation, because you don't belive baptism is a means of grace which God can use to deliver the rewards of Christ's finished work to the believer. Now there are other verses besides Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38-39, that command baptism. 1 Peter 3:21 is a verse that commands Baptism and John 3:5 is another one, where Jesus Himself says that unless you are born of water and the spirit you can not see the kingdom of God. What is this water? To the Lutherans, it's actual water, not a symbolic reference to Christ or the amniotic fluid that is present at birth, I've seen people say that too. The water is water that has God's word attached to it and it is God's word that makes Baptism what it is. Now, as to your deathbed conversion scenario, what happens if someone is not able to speak but they wish to be saved? They can't make a proclamation of faith, that all Protestants feel is essential before being baptized, so what means of grace is available to them? Or are they out of luck? For those people Baptism is a way for God to cleanse them of their sin and to deliver the promises of Christ to the believer. But none of that is going to happen if they do not have faith in Christ first. I'm not advocating an either/or scenario here. Like if you have faith you don't need Baptism, which is the very situation your deathbed scenario sets up. I'm saying have both. But realize what Baptism actually is. When we say God can not save through Baptism, we are limiting God, and elevating our own understanding above what His word teaches and above what Jesus Himself has said. You know, heresy.

 

[Nadiine]

Just in briefly reading your post Zec, I've always said baptism is an
emphatic command, it's no suggestion.

It's wrong when people downplay it or give it too much "power" as if literal water "saves" someone.
& I do claim it's real water - not any literal birthing sort of thing that everyone goes thru to exist here.

More later =)

 

[ReformedChapin]

Has anyone brought up the theif on the cross yet or not? I haven't read through this whole thread and I love seeing how Lutherans explain this one...

 

[Secundulus]

Has anyway brought up the theif on the cross yet or not? I haven't read through this whole thread and I love seeing how Lutherans explain this one...

I imagine that Lutherans would explain it the same as Anglicans would explain it the same as Catholics would explain it the same as the early Church would explain it.

This would be the Baptism of desire as would martyrdom in the absence of water baptism be the Baptism of Blood.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XVII
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

 

[ARBITER01]

John the baptist pointed towards the immersion in the The Holy Spirit as better than water, as well as Jesus,..

Act 1:4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me:

Act 1:5 for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

The immersion "into" The Holy Spirit is what cleanses us from sin. Water was only symbolic of the spiritual event we were to experience from The Holy Spirit. IE the tangibly felt born-again "experience."

 

[ReformedChapin]

I imagine that Lutherans would explain it the same as Anglicans would explain it the same as Catholics would explain it the same as the early Church would explain it.

This would be the Baptism of desire as would martyrdom in the absence of water baptism be the Baptism of Blood.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XVII
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

Yeah but you Anglicals and RCs relay on the churches magisterium, I wanna see how Lutherans strech scripture.

 

[Nadiine]

K back...

does it help to ask why JESUS got baptized?
If He did it, are we doing it for the same purpose He did it?

If not, what's the difference in reasons? My thinking is He got baptized to prophecy
(display) His future death and raising in newness.

Ours is that we're following the same example in identifying that we're dying and raising in Him in newness of life....

???

 

[Secundulus]

Yeah but you Anglicals and RCs relay on the churches magisterium, I wanna see how Lutherans strech scripture.

We are in accordance with the early Church. It is you who believes something new and different than the ancient faith passed to us by the Apostles.

Chapter XVI.—Of the Second Baptism—With Blood.
We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, “I have to be baptized with a baptism,”not given in full. when He had been baptized already. For He had come “by means of water and blood,”just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side,in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood.etc. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing.

Tertullian

 

[Zecryphon]

Hi, RC. I think someone did mention the thief on the cross earlier in this thread. But I'd love to know exactly what there is to explain in regards to Baptism with him. It's only an assumption that he was never baptized. We know very little about the thief. For instance, we don't know his name, we don't know where he's from, we don't know what crime put him on that cross, but everyone who brings him up as a defense against being baptized is certain he never was. How is that possible? The following are excerpts from an article from my Archaelogical Study Bible, which is written from a Protestant perspective and says: 'Baptism comes to us from a Jewish cleansing ritual. In the OT, rituals of immersion in water were associated with maintaining ritual purity, esp. for priests. (Lev. 15; 16:4,24. Baptism was also practiced by the Essenes at Qumran. It was a symbolic act by which one was made holy by the waters of repentance. (1QS 3:9). Purification through immersion in ritual baths was required for all Jews in order to preserve that state of purity without which they could neither enter the temple of participate in its services during the major festivals. (Num. 9:10; Jn. 11:55; Acts 21:24-27; Josephus, Wars, 1.16). A number of Jewish baths or miqvuots, have been excavated in Jerusalem, Jericho & elsewhere.'I think, even though it's not stated in scripture, that it's likely that both of the thieves on the cross had this cleansing ritual. But why do we always focus on the one thief? There were two there. Whatever happened to the other one? Did he go to Hell because he had no faith in Christ and just wanted Jesus to use His supernatural powers to get him out off his most recent predicament? I don't mean to start a debate on this, it's just something to think about.