Faith and Baptism

[Sentry]

There seems to be a lot of confusion concerning faith and baptism around here. Many seem to think faith is one thing and baptism another thing and these two are mutually exclusive concepts. They are not.

If you were terminally sick with cancer and a man came to you and said, "There is a great physician who has the cure for your cancer. You can be saved from your disease. Believe the good news. Believe in him to be saved from your disease," what would you expect yourself to do?

On this board people seem to think faith is simply believing the idea to be true. So all you would have to do is believe the message contained in the concept is true and you would be cured of cancer. Absurd. What is expected is that you go to this physician and let him do his work on you and to trust and follow his instructions for renewed health.

And this is how it is with faith and baptism. To believe in Jesus is not simply believing ideas about Jesus to be true. It means going to him for your operation, baptism. And it means trusting his instructions to you to get better from your disease. When Jesus says, "Believe in me," he means the same thing a doctor would mean if he said, "Believe in me." That doctor would mean, "Trust me. When I operate on you it will go well with you. And trust me when I tell you what to do after the operation so you will get better and improve your life." He does not mean "believe the idea that I can cure you and you will be saved." By analogy, the relationship between faith and baptism is exactly the same.

So as you can see, faith and baptism are not two mutually exclusive things. Baptism IS how we go about putting faith in Jesus for salvation.

So when you say "faith not baptism saves" or something to that effect, you are creating a false dilemma.

 

[nobdysfool]

There seems to be a lot of confusion concerning faith and baptism around here. Many seem to think faith is one thing and baptism another thing and these two are mutually exclusive concepts. They are not.

If you were terminally sick with cancer and a man came to you and said, "There is a great physician who has the cure for your cancer. You can be saved from your disease. Believe the good news. Believe in him to be saved from your disease," what would you expect yourself to do?

On this board people seem to think faith is simply believing the idea to be true. So all you would have to do is believe the message contained in the concept is true and you would be cured of cancer. Absurd. What is expected is that you go to this physician and let him do his work on you and to trust and follow his instructions for renewed health.

And this is how it is with faith and baptism. To believe in Jesus is not simply believing ideas about Jesus to be true. It means going to him for your operation, baptism. And it means trusting his instructions to you to get better from your disease. When Jesus says, "Believe in me," he means the same thing a doctor would mean if he said, "Believe in me." That doctor would mean, "Trust me. When I operate on you it will go well with you. And trust me when I tell you what to do after the operation so you will get better and improve your life." He does not mean "believe the idea that I can cure you and you will be saved." By analogy, the relationship between faith and baptism is exactly the same.

So as you can see, faith and baptism are not two mutually exclusive things. Baptism IS how we go about putting faith in Jesus for salvation.

So when you say "faith not baptism saves" or something to that effect, you are creating a false dilemma.

Baptismal regeneration is heresy.

 

[mlqurgw]

While there is no salvation in baptism I would say that anyone who claims to have faith but refuses to be baptized doesn't really have faith. Baptism is an answer of a good conscience toward God. It is a first step of obedience. It is how we publically profess our union with Christ in His death, burial and ressurection.

 

[nobdysfool]

While there is no salvation in baptism I would say that anyone who claims to have faith but refuses to be baptized doesn't really have faith. Baptism is an answer of a good conscience toward God. It is a first step of obedience. It is how we publically profess our union with Christ in His death, burial and ressurection.

I agree. We are not regenerated at the point of baptism, and it is a false teaching to say that we are. Baptism is an act of obedience to the command of Christ, but it is not imbued with any sort of mystical power. Those who believe and are baptised show their faith by obedience, and publicly profess their faith by that obedience. But they were regenerated by God UNTO faith in Him, prior to that act of obedience. It was not the act of obedience that regenerated them, nor was it that act of obedience which actually caused them to become a child of God.

 

[depthdeception]

Baptismal regeneration is heresy.

According to who?

 

[frumanchu]

There seems to be a lot of confusion concerning faith and baptism around here. Many seem to think faith is one thing and baptism another thing and these two are mutually exclusive concepts. They are not.

If you were terminally sick with cancer and a man came to you and said, "There is a great physician who has the cure for your cancer. You can be saved from your disease. Believe the good news. Believe in him to be saved from your disease," what would you expect yourself to do?

On this board people seem to think faith is simply believing the idea to be true. So all you would have to do is believe the message contained in the concept is true and you would be cured of cancer. Absurd. What is expected is that you go to this physician and let him do his work on you and to trust and follow his instructions for renewed health.

And this is how it is with faith and baptism. To believe in Jesus is not simply believing ideas about Jesus to be true. It means going to him for your operation, baptism. And it means trusting his instructions to you to get better from your disease. When Jesus says, "Believe in me," he means the same thing a doctor would mean if he said, "Believe in me." That doctor would mean, "Trust me. When I operate on you it will go well with you. And trust me when I tell you what to do after the operation so you will get better and improve your life." He does not mean "believe the idea that I can cure you and you will be saved." By analogy, the relationship between faith and baptism is exactly the same.

So as you can see, faith and baptism are not two mutually exclusive things. Baptism IS how we go about putting faith in Jesus for salvation.

So when you say "faith not baptism saves" or something to that effect, you are creating a false dilemma.

True saving faith manifests itself in obedience. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever. Our faith is justified (shown forth) by our works. John tells us in his first epistle that the evidences of faith are belief in the Incarnation, love for Him and for one another, and striving for personal holiness. Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ, just as the Lord's Supper is. They are the signs and seals of the Covenant and a means of grace for the believer.

However, the physical act of baptism in and of itself does nothing. Water baptism does not regenerate anyone, nor is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and our sins expiated by the physical act of baptism.

 

[edie19]

Borrowing from my church's website:
Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, gave two sacraments (visible manifestations of the new covenant). One is baptism, the symbolic participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. As Baptist, we recognize the importance of believer baptism and practice baptism by immersion. Baptism is a once and for all rite of initiation into the body of Christ, a sacrament, a ceremonial washing. It signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins, regeneration by the Holy Spirit and adoption into the family of God. It is a sign by which God seals His pledge to the elect that they are included in the covenant of grace. (Acts 22:16, I Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5)

Other references
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 28, paragraph 5 particularly addresses this issue
"Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance; yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."

Then there's Spurgeon:
We will confront this dogma with the assertion, that BAPTISM WITHOUT FAITH SAVES NO ONE. The text says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" but whether a man be baptized or no, it asserts that "he that believeth not shall be damned:" so that baptism does not save the unbeliever, nay, it does not in any degree exempt him from the common doom of all the ungodly. He may have baptism, or he may not have baptism, but if he believeth not, he shall be in any case most surely damned. Let him be baptized by immersion or sprinkling, in his infancy, or in his adult age, if he be not led to put his trust in Jesus Christ—if he remaineth an unbeliever, then this terrible doom is pronounced upon him—"He that believeth not shall be damned."

 

[depthdeception]

Borrowing from my church's website:
Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, gave two sacraments (visible manifestations of the new covenant). One is baptism, the symbolic participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. As Baptist, we recognize the importance of believer baptism and practice baptism by immersion. Baptism is a once and for all rite of initiation into the body of Christ, a sacrament, a ceremonial washing. It signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins, regeneration by the Holy Spirit and adoption into the family of God. It is a sign by which God seals His pledge to the elect that they are included in the covenant of grace. (Acts 22:16, I Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5)

Other references
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 28, paragraph 5 particularly addresses this issue
"Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance; yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."

Then there's Spurgeon:
We will confront this dogma with the assertion, that BAPTISM WITHOUT FAITH SAVES NO ONE. The text says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" but whether a man be baptized or no, it asserts that "he that believeth not shall be damned:" so that baptism does not save the unbeliever, nay, it does not in any degree exempt him from the common doom of all the ungodly. He may have baptism, or he may not have baptism, but if he believeth not, he shall be in any case most surely damned. Let him be baptized by immersion or sprinkling, in his infancy, or in his adult age, if he be not led to put his trust in Jesus Christ—if he remaineth an unbeliever, then this terrible doom is pronounced upon him—"He that believeth not shall be damned."

Do you have anything from which to quote that could be considered ecumenically authoritative? The ones you have quoted--while perhaps denominationally illuminative--are not ecumenically binding upon the conscience of the Christian.

 

[Edial]

There seems to be a lot of confusion concerning faith and baptism around here. Many seem to think faith is one thing and baptism another thing and these two are mutually exclusive concepts. They are not.

If you were terminally sick with cancer and a man came to you and said, "There is a great physician who has the cure for your cancer. You can be saved from your disease. Believe the good news. Believe in him to be saved from your disease," what would you expect yourself to do?

On this board people seem to think faith is simply believing the idea to be true. So all you would have to do is believe the message contained in the concept is true and you would be cured of cancer. Absurd. What is expected is that you go to this physician and let him do his work on you and to trust and follow his instructions for renewed health.

And this is how it is with faith and baptism. To believe in Jesus is not simply believing ideas about Jesus to be true. It means going to him for your operation, baptism. And it means trusting his instructions to you to get better from your disease. When Jesus says, "Believe in me," he means the same thing a doctor would mean if he said, "Believe in me." That doctor would mean, "Trust me. When I operate on you it will go well with you. And trust me when I tell you what to do after the operation so you will get better and improve your life." He does not mean "believe the idea that I can cure you and you will be saved." By analogy, the relationship between faith and baptism is exactly the same.

So as you can see, faith and baptism are not two mutually exclusive things. Baptism IS how we go about putting faith in Jesus for salvation.

So when you say "faith not baptism saves" or something to that effect, you are creating a false dilemma.

You did not clarify whether you mean water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[nobdysfool]

According to who?

According to nearly every Protestant Denomination, and the Baptists, who are not Protestant according to the strict definition of the term. Baptismal Regeneration is taught by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and by the Lutherans. Some cultish pseudo-Christian sects also teach it.


The Westminster Confession of Faith specifically holds that Baptism (the act itself) does not confer regeneration. It is the opinion of the majority of non-Catholics that baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the Beleiver, signifying an already accomplished work by God in the Believer, prior to the act of baptism, and this is supported by scripture, taken as a whole. The so-called "problem" scriptures do not support Baptismal Regeneration when viewed in the light of the Whole Counsel of God.

 

[Bulldog]

Do you have anything from which to quote that could be considered ecumenically authoritative? The ones you have quoted--while perhaps denominationally illuminative--are not ecumenically binding upon the conscience of the Christian.

Perhaps the poster does not take such a view of authority?

 

[edie19]

Perhaps the poster does not take such a view of authority?

I know a number of denominations that reference the Westminster, which is why I used it instead of my denominations London Baptist Confession. While I didn't include the Scripture references cited by the Westminster, I did include Scripture references regarding baptism with the quote from my church.

And to be honest, if there was something ecumenically binding I don't think we'd be discussing this topic so I admit to being a little confused as to why depthdeception is asking.

edie

 

[depthdeception]

According to nearly every Protestant Denomination, and the Baptists, who are not Protestant according to the strict definition of the term.

Allright. So how does a Protestant disagreement with Catholic and Orthodox doctrine constitute "heresy?" Back to my original question, upon what authority is this charge of "heresy" being made? Not ecumenical authority, that's for sure.

The Westminster Confession of Faith specifically holds that Baptism (the act itself) does not confer regeneration. It is the opinion of the majority of non-Catholics that baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the Beleiver, signifying an already accomplished work by God in the Believer, prior to the act of baptism,

That's fine, and these are free to believe however they wish. I still do not understand upon what ecumenically authoritative basis the charge of "heresy" can be made...

and this is supported by scripture, taken as a whole. The so-called "problem" scriptures do not support Baptismal Regeneration when viewed in the light of the Whole Counsel of God.

Well, supported by certain groups' interpretation of the Scriptures. It can hardly be objectively proven that the Scriptures--per se--"do not support BR."

So the issue comes back to the original question--upon what authority is the charge of "heresy" made? On the "authority" of a certain group's interpretation of Scripture? This is insufficient. On the concensus of Protestantism? As the P church only comprises less than half of the universal Church, such a pronouncement can hardly be considered authoritative as it lacks the ecumenical approval of the other major branches of Xianity (RC and EO) which are in a better position (per proximity to the ancient tradition) to speak authoritatively.

No, the boundaries of orthodoxy are quite well established (and are not likely to change in the near future). Whether the Protestant Church likes it or not, baptismal regeneration is clearly within the parameters of what the historic, ecumenical Church has considered right belief.

 

[Bulldog]

Allright. So how does a Protestant disagreement with Catholic and Orthodox doctrine constitute "heresy?" Back to my original question, upon what authority is this charge of "heresy" being made? Not ecumenical authority, that's for sure.

The criteria for heresy is different depending on one's epistimological views.

 

[depthdeception]

The criteria for heresy is different depending on one's epistimological views.

So orthodoxy and heterodoxy are based upon one's subjective epistemic grasp of reality? With such a definition, the categories of orthodox and heterodox are vacated of any meaningful and applicable value.

To be accurate, though, the criteria for heresy is the ecumenical creeds and confessions of the ancient ecumenical Church.

 

[Bulldog]

So orthodoxy and heterodoxy are based upon one's subjective epistemic grasp of reality? With such a definition, the categories of orthodox and heterodox are vacated of any meaningful and applicable value.

No, it would be based on an objective standard, but by nature one's understanding of such a standard can only been subjective.

 

[depthdeception]

No, it would be based on an objective standard, but by nature one's understanding of such a standard can only been subjective.

Hence the need for parameters of belief, so that orthodoxy and heterodoxy are not based upon individualistic understandings of the "objective standard" (whatever this is supposed to mean).

 

[Sentry]

Baptismal regeneration is heresy.

I noticed that you completely failed to address the original post and had to resort to such childish games as this.

 

[Bulldog]

Hence the need for parameters of belief, so that orthodoxy and heterodoxy are not based upon individualistic understandings of the "objective standard" (whatever this is supposed to mean).

There can only be "individiualistic understandings" of an objective standard." Let me give you an idea of what I mean:

If ecumenical councils are infallible, then what they proclaim is objective truth. However, one's understanding of them can only be subjective because you will always have to determine for yourself what exactly they meant.

 

[frumanchu]

Can somebody have true saving faith and be saved without being baptized?