does baptism save debate

[PeterDona]

God has saved us.
God is saving us.
God will save us.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly the point we need to get into what the Bible is talking about in regards to salvation, and a good start is to notice that there are 3 tenses used with respect to salvation.

 

[Winken]

One Lord, One Faith, One Holy Spirit transformation. Romans 10:8-13, SHALL be saved. It has nothing to do with Jewish ritual water baptism in order to prepare for the arrival of the Jewish Messiah.

How can one say that?

No scripture is of private interpretation. Only the Holy Spirit provides interpretation, affirmation, and application. All else is intellectualism originating in the flesh, NOT the Holy Spirit, NOT in the transformed Believer who receives the GIFT of eternal life instantly, embraced by Him forever. The flesh is overwhelmed by the Most Holy Spiritual Nature. Wow! Breathtaking!!

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Baptism alone cannot save. Scriptures state in many verses to "Repent and be baptized." Rather like a one-two punch. Faith with works. Scripture also says faith without works is dead. So you need both, as baptism is a rather type of proof and public declaration of one's faith. This is why the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by Philip after he believed. Baptism is a full immersion in water. Greek text use the word baptizo for baptize. While it uses the word antecho to distinguish sprinkling and is another thing altogether. Funny that someone would in fact mention that, not many people will be chosen, as most people assume that infant baptism qualifies as real baptism, when it doesn't. Babies have no concept of repentance, nor can they distinguish right and wrong, yet this is bypassed through the ritual of confirmation to avoid the compliance. Before Jesus was baptized, what did he say to John??? For thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then John baptized him because Jesus was committing to a righteous act of his own volition. Repent and be baptized. Babies can't do that. I've never heard a baby repent, have you? The act of sprinkling them in to mean that you are baptizing them, would also be to choose for them, and take away their own free will, would it not? A similar spiritual analogy to this teaching was found in the Old Testament when babies were made to pass through the fire, which was an abomination. We are to raise our children to follow the Lord, not do the stuff for them. You can discipline your kids, take them to church, teach them in the ways that they should go; But Only they can be convicted of the Holy Spirit; by the Holy Spirit. You can't walk through that door for them. That has to be on their own. That's between them and God.

 

[Hillsage]

Exactly the point we need to get into what the Bible is talking about in regards to salvation, and a good start is to notice that there are 3 tenses used with respect to salvation.

It would even be better "to note" that there are three baptisms represented in the great commission. ONE in the name of the Father, for repentance and salvation. ONE in the name of the Son, with water representing our appeal to God for a clear conscience. And ONE in the name of the Spirit, for supernatural power.

As Hebrews 6:1,2 teaches, multiple baptism are all part of 'basic/elementary' doctrine we need to know 'before' we can even go on to maturity.

 

[Albion]

Baptism alone cannot save. .

But no one here is saying that Baptism alone can save, and I cannot think of a single denomination that teaches that it can.

 

[FireDragon76]

But no one here is saying that Baptism alone can save, and I cannot think of a single denomination that teaches that it can.

It's just down to an anti-sacramental worldview on their part. Curiously, these folks always seem to emphasize the human response in salvation.

 

[kjw47]

Nobody spends eternity "in heaven". The Christian hope is resurrection and life in the Age to Come in renewed creation.

The 144,000 are not "the little flock" who alone "go to heaven".

What you're teaching here sounds an awful lot like what the JW's believe.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, the JW,s are correct. The teachings of Jesus prove it. Few actually know what he taught. Like this ultra important truth he shared with all--- Matt 6:33-- Therefore, keep on seeking-FIRST- the kingdom and his( YHVH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these other things will be added to you( sustenance, covering, spirituality)
Every true follower knows this truth by heart already.

 

[kjw47]

The Bible very much speaks of salvation in the past tense.

"...you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
"He saved us..." (Titus 3:5)

That it also speaks of it in the present tense and the future tense doesn't nullify that it is also past tense.

God has saved us.
God is saving us.
God will save us.

-CryptoLutheran

One can be in a saved position, now, But they must endure until their end for it to be real. Just because a mortal tells others--you are saved or born again. Does not make it truth.
Example--Joel Osteen tells any watching--If you say 3 lines of prayer with me--you are born again( saved) It is not truth--The only way one gets born again = Ephesians 4:22-24--The tithe seekers-Do not know Jesus.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

But no one here is saying that Baptism alone can save, and I cannot think of a single denomination that teaches that it can.

The title of the original post is Does Baptism Save. I would gather that the premise of baptism alone is the inherent meaning of the question. If the question were expounded any, I gather the question could be rephrased to mean "does baptism grant salvation?" Which is pretty much the question. I was answering the original post in that fashion. And thought to be informative in that regards. I distinguished what true baptism was, and the need for it, along with faith, as the way to salvation. The true purpose of why we discuss such topics.

 

[Blade]

"debate"? Now in Christ day.. they would be asking.. well where is He? Why is He not here debating this? Christ would be out there saving the lost. Carry on.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, the JW,s are correct. The teachings of Jesus prove it. Few actually know what he taught. Like this ultra important truth he shared with all--- Matt 6:33-- Therefore, keep on seeking-FIRST- the kingdom and his( YHVH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these other things will be added to you( sustenance, covering, spirituality)
Every true follower knows this truth by heart already.

There's no reason to believe that the 144,000 of Revelation ch. 7 are some special group who "go to heaven". There are 144,000 sealed listed among the 12 Tribes of Israel, and then a great multitude from every nation, this great multitude "who no one could count" are described as before God's throne--these are the holy martyrs, as the text says, "These are those who came out of the great tribulation"

The JW's are not correct here, their doctrine has no biblical support. Several places speak of the holy martyrs before God's throne, here in Revelation 7, and also earlier in Revelation 6. And the text speaks of two groups of 144,000, the first group is described as consisting of the 12 Tribes of Israel, the second mentioned in ch. 14 describes them as the redeemed from the earth.

There's A) No reason to believe the numbers are literal and B) nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are some special group who get to "go to heaven".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

'does baptism save' and 'is baptism necessary to be saved' are two totally different questions.

which one are you asking?

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

If circumcision could not save when the punishment for uncircumcision was being "cut off" from one's people, how can baptism save when there is no such punishment for un-baptism described?

Baptism, like circumcision, symbolises what has been done to the heart.

 

[Albion]

Those two views are not in conflict with each other.

Most Christian denominations believe that: 1) Baptism is no guarantee of salvation but 2) Baptism is not merely a gesture or symbol. It IS efficacious.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

Those two views are not in conflict with each other.

Most Christian denominations believe that: 1) Baptism is no guarantee of salvation but 2) Baptism is not merely a gesture or symbol. It IS efficacious.

I'm not sure that's true, as most Christian denominations accept that the thief on the cross was saved without (physical) baptism.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure that's true, as most Christian denominations accept that the thief on the cross was saved without (physical) baptism.

If they do--and if he was--what I wrote in the previous post is verified, not rebutted.

Most Christian denominations believe that: 1) Baptism is no guarantee of salvation

All people baptized as young children must make a decision for the Lord at some time or other in later life. Baptism is important and beneficial but it does not replace faith or make salvation certain. I've heard people say that the churches which baptize young children are saying that they're 'home free' forever as a result, but that's not what they do teach and believe.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

If they do--and if he was--what I wrote in the previous post is verified, not rebutted.

Not really. What would be verified is that baptism is not required for salvation (i.e. one was saved, who wasn't baptised). That baptism is no guarantee of salvation would be proved by one who was not saved, who was baptised.

 

[Albion]

I realized the fuller point you were making only after I posted my message. Then I modified it accordingly. Take a look at it now, please.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not sure that's true, as most Christian denominations accept that the thief on the cross was saved without (physical) baptism.

Right, which is an example of baptism not being absolutely necessary for salvation; not that baptism isn't efficacious. Baptism is still Baptism and God's promises attached to Baptism are still true.

Ordinarily a child is born vaginally. But there are cases where a child is born via cesarean. The extraordinary doesn't negate the ordinary. Both a child born vaginally and a child born via a cesarean are equally born.

The example of the thief on the cross doesn't negate what Baptism exists for; just Baptism as the ordinary means of God appropriating the work of Christ to us doesn't mean the thief on the cross isn't saved.

These sorts of absolutist ways of thinking aren't very helpful, because reducing salvation to a kind of formula doesn't work--salvation is God's work to rescue us, and He has revealed to us that salvation is found in Christ alone through His death and resurrection, and that through the preaching of the Word and the Sacraments the God acts to appropriate Christ's work to us; but salvation isn't formulaic. Some people were born into the faith, receiving baptism as infants, and have grown up as believing Christians. Some people became Christian late in life when they heard the Gospel preached to them. Some people heard the Gospel preached to them while young, but it did not take root until much later in life.

Scripture is clear that Baptism is efficacious--it does what it signifies. This, however, does not mean that merely not being baptized is a guarantee that one is damned, nor does it mean that simply having been baptized that one will always hold fast to the faith which they were given. There will be people who received baptism and then walk away from the faith; and there will be people who heard the Gospel but never had the opportunity to be baptized (either they were unaware of its importance to no fault of their own, or perhaps their life is tragically cut short before receiving it).

This is why we must understand that Baptism is Gospel, not Law. Baptism is about God's grace, not God's harsh commandments; Baptism isn't salvific because it is an act of obedience on our part, Baptism is salvific because God graciously takes hold of us in Baptism and unites us to Christ and adopts us as children. It is God who is at work in His Sacraments, not us. Just as it is God who is at work in the preaching of the Word, not us. For it is by grace alone that we are saved, through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[kjw47]

There's no reason to believe that the 144,000 of Revelation ch. 7 are some special group who "go to heaven". There are 144,000 sealed listed among the 12 Tribes of Israel, and then a great multitude from every nation, this great multitude "who no one could count" are described as before God's throne--these are the holy martyrs, as the text says, "These are those who came out of the great tribulation"

The JW's are not correct here, their doctrine has no biblical support. Several places speak of the holy martyrs before God's throne, here in Revelation 7, and also earlier in Revelation 6. And the text speaks of two groups of 144,000, the first group is described as consisting of the 12 Tribes of Israel, the second mentioned in ch. 14 describes them as the redeemed from the earth.

There's A) No reason to believe the numbers are literal and B) nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are some special group who get to "go to heaven".

-CryptoLutheran

The great multitude receive this promise--Matt 5:5--Psalm 37:9-11,29)
Yes standing before the throne on earth--The throne will be ruling all of creation at that point. No matter where one stands they will be before the throne. Gods kingdom rule will be the only ruling power( Dan 2:44)
Prov 2:21-22--Matt 24:22--says they do not leave the earth.
THe reason the little flock( Luke 12:32) is called something different from the great multitude=[ separate promise. They are one flock, 2 different covenants. The little flock are promised heaven. The great multitude is promised earth.