Faith and Baptism

[prodromos]

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

Yes, but they are the exception and not the rule (thief on the cross).

John

 

[depthdeception]

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.

Actually, the ecumenical councils have pretty explicitly defined what the parameters for right belief are. While there may be a small measure of openness in applying these doctrines pastorally, the nature of the Trinity and the definition of Christ's divine and human nature are perfectly clear. There is nothing to "determine for oneself" and divergence from the ecumenical standards based upon "subjective indeterminency" is nothing more than epistemological belligerence.

 

[prodromos]

Baptismal Regeneration is taught by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and by the Lutherans.

These make up the vast majority of christians around the world.

 

[depthdeception]

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

No.

 

[frumanchu]

No.

So you don't believe that any of the people who may have come to faith in Christ in the World Trade Center four years ago will be in Heaven, correct?

You don't believe it is worthwhile to visit the dying and preach the Gospel to them, right?

 

[edie19]

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

absolutely - I'm sure there are multiple situations where folks have been regenerated and pass away before they can be baptized. Or, they might have a situation similar to mine.

I was baptized as an infant, don't consider that had anything to do with regeneration - it was covenental on my parents' part. I did not have "true saving faith" between birth and 18 years of age when God converted me. My church practices believer baptism and I was baptized as an act of obedience to Scriptural instruction in 2002. I waited until after my mother passed away to be baptized as a believer - to do otherwise would have been disrespectful to my mother's beliefs and practices. However, I had true saving faith from the time I was 18 (in 1974) until 2002.

 

[Edial]

No.

If by "saved" you mean eternity on heaven and by "baptized" you mean a water baptism, my question is - why "no"?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Schroeder]

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 know if you read your idea correctly you are correct. because we put faith in the doctor to do the surgery. we do not take what he says and do it ourselves. So yes we have Faith in that Christ did the one act of righteousness and obediance for us because we could never do the surgery on our selves. that is christ baptism whom john said would replace his. Rom 5,john 4 says that rivers of living water would flow from us that would bring us salvation, he said this to the women at the well. in John 7 he says this again and explains that it is the Spirit. HIS BAPTISM which he could do after he was glorified. So faith in christ obediance and sacrifice allows him to give his Baptism of the Spirit to us so we may have eternal life. JUST AS HE TOLD US.

 

[depthdeception]

So you don't believe that any of the people who may have come to faith in Christ in the World Trade Center four years ago will be in Heaven, correct?

No, I fully believe that if they have faith in Christ, they will have eternal life with God.

You don't believe it is worthwhile to visit the dying and preach the Gospel to them, right?

Wrong.

 

[depthdeception]

If by "saved" you mean eternity on heaven and by "baptized" you mean a water baptism, my question is - why "no"?

Thanks,
Ed

By "baptism" I do not mean "water baptism."

 

[frumanchu]

By "baptism" I do not mean "water baptism."

That was all the clarification I needed. You and I are in agreement to the extent you have explained your position thusfar. I mistook your earlier comments to have been made in light of water baptism.

 

[depthdeception]

That was all the clarification I needed. You and I are in agreement to the extent you have explained your position thusfar. I mistook your earlier comments to have been made in light of water baptism.

Sorry. I did not mean for that correlation to be made.

 

[frumanchu]

Sorry. I did not mean for that correlation to be made.

Not your fault at all. My fault for not seeking clarification as Ed did.

 

[edie19]

That was all the clarification I needed. You and I are in agreement to the extent you have explained your position thusfar. I mistook your earlier comments to have been made in light of water baptism.

As did I.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

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.

Exactly, a point that many of us have tried very hard to get across to the EOs, RCs and others who subscribe to Scripture + Tradition, holding tradition, magesterial dogma and ecumenical rulings over Scripture.

I hope they get it this time.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Actually, the ecumenical councils have pretty explicitly defined what the parameters for right belief are.

Really? Then which one was right concerning icons? They bounced back and forth on that one.

Was the last one right or the first one?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

No, I fully believe that if they have faith in Christ, they will have eternal life with God.

Until they fall away from grace anyway, right?

 

[depthdeception]

Really? Then which one was right concerning icons? They bounced back and forth on that one.

Was the last one right or the first one?

The seventh Ecumenical council determined that icons should be displayed and preserved as objects of reverence, not of worship. The determination of council is as follows:

"We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands." http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8071.asp

After this council, there was not another in which the whole of the Church (Eastern and Western) participated. Therefore, this is the final truly ecumenical council.

Moreover, there is nothing within this proclamation concerning icons which Protestants could meaningfully disagree. Protestants, after all, still use icons--albeit impersonal ones.

 

[depthdeception]

Until they fall away from grace anyway, right?

It is impossible to "fall away from grace." Grace is not so inept that it misplaces the subjects of its efficacy. However, it is entirely possible to reject grace.

 

[Sentry]

It is impossible to "fall away from grace." Grace is not so inept that it misplaces the subjects of its efficacy. However, it is entirely possible to reject grace.

You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4).