Re-baptized?

[bach90]

So then it's your position that an adult who comes to faith but dies driving to his or her baptism is still not saved? Because they never had the chance to actually be baptized?

As Rev said, the Lutheran teaching on this is clear. Baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary.

That is what he said, and what you're saying, but nobody has offered a) any proof from Scripture or b) how the word necessary can mean something other than, well, necessary. Unless we're just going to be deconstructionists and say words don't actually mean what they mean. Don't mishmash and say it's necessary but not absolutely necessary, that doesn't mean anything. Just say what you really mean which is that Baptism isn't necessary.


Yes, that would be my position, (maybe the person wasn't part of the elect, I don't know for certain, I'm not espousing this 100%, speculation on my part), and the position of Scriptures and the Confessions. Goes to my point how Baptism should never be delayed.

I keep asking for Scripture or a reference in the BoC that supports the Baptist view that somebody can be saved without Baptism, I explained how Mark 16:16 is insufficient, and nobody has shown that John 3:5 or AC IX allow for exceptions. No Christian denied this teaching before the 1500s, that's why babies were baptized the day of or the day after their birth, but then irresponsible parents that put off their child's baptism for months at a time want the church to be more "accepting" and not so "medieval" on this view. AC IX even explicitly goes against what was said about unbaptized babies that are miscarried.

I already asked this, but I'll waste my breath again. If Baptism is the new ark, as Peter says, what happens to those outside the ark?

 

[alexnbethmom]

That is what he said, and what you're saying, but nobody has offered a) any proof from Scripture...

THE THIEF ON THE CROSS.

i believe i already gave proof from scripture.

 

[bach90]

THE THIEF ON THE CROSS.

i believe i already gave proof from scripture.

So you didn't read what I posted? The thief on the cross died before the institution of Baptism (Matt 26 clearly shows that Christian baptism was instituted after the resurrection). Yes the thief wasn't baptized, so what? That's like saying Moses wasn't baptized, or that Daniel wasn't baptized. It's completely irrelevant.

 

[bach90]

And you can't just post a Scripture verse and run away claiming you win; a verse of Scripture quoted without context is not an argument.

 

[DaRev]

So you didn't read what I posted? The thief on the cross died before the institution of Baptism (Matt 26 clearly shows that Christian baptism was instituted after the resurrection). Yes the thief wasn't baptized, so what? That's like saying Moses wasn't baptized, or that Daniel wasn't baptized. It's completely irrelevant.

Using your logic then, everyone of the faithful before the institution of Christian Baptism are damned. The Scriptures disagree with you. Not only the thief on the cross who was saved by grace through faith alone, but also Moses and Elijah who appeared to Christ on the mount of the Transfiguration. Neither of them were baptized, but they are indeed saved.

If you are looking for a single verse from Scripture, I guess you could look at the verse after the one that has the word "Trinity" in it.

From the LCMS:

Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone. The Bible tells us that such “faith comes by hearing” (Rom 10:17). Jesus Himself commands Baptism and tells us that Baptism is water used together with the Word of God (Matt 28:19-20). Because of this, we believe that Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace (another is God’s Word as it is written or spoken), through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart (see Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal 3:26-27; Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). Terms the Bible uses to talk about the beginning of faith include “conversion” and “regeneration.” Although we do not claim to understand fully how this happens, we believe that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. We believe this because the Bible says that infants can believe (Matt 18:6) and that new birth (regeneration) happens in Baptism (John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6). The infant’s faith cannot yet, of course, be verbally expressed or articulated by the child, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., Acts 2:38-39; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim 3:15). The faith of the infant, like the faith of adults, also needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word (Matt 28:18-20), or it will die.

Lutherans do not believe that only those baptized as infants receive faith. Faith can also be created in a person's heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's (written or spoken) Word. Baptism should then soon follow conversion (cf. Acts 8:37) for the purpose of confirming and strengthening faith in accordance with God's command and promise. Depending on the situation, therefore, Lutherans baptize people of all ages from infancy to adulthood.

The LCMS does not believe that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. All true believers in the Old Testament era were saved without baptism. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of Baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God). Still, Baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected, since it is explicitly commanded by God and has His precious promises attached to it. It is not a mere “ritual” or “symbol,” but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins.

 

[bach90]

Using your logic then, everyone of the faithful before the institution of Christian Baptism are damned. The Scriptures disagree with you. Not only the thief on the cross who was saved by grace through faith alone, but also Moses and Elijah who appeared to Christ on the mount of the Transfiguration. Neither of them were baptized, but they are indeed saved.

If you are looking for a single verse from Scripture, I guess you could look at the verse after the one that has the word "Trinity" in it.

From the LCMS:

Not my logic. Those before Christian Baptism were saved under the Old Covenant. Faith in the promise of Christ given now through Word and Sacrament. I can build a cool straw man too though: Obviously you're saying that non-Christians can be saved if they desire to follow God since Baptism is optional anyways.


Wasn't saying that I need a specific verse, in fact, I've done the opposite. Scripture affirms the absolute necessity of Baptism (John 3:5, 1 Peter 3:20). We don't disagree that Baptism saves, but I'm saying Baptism is absolutely necessary because that's what the Scriptures teach. There's never a single exception to this in the entire New Testament. Not one instance.

And once again my point about the thief on the cross was completely ignored.

As far as an LCMS document, they aren't the Confessions or Scripture. Sometimes the LCMS website is, um, ablaze, with stuff that doesn't quite gel 100% with the Scriptures when they speak on that.

Where in the confessions does it speak against what I'm saying? Nowhere, AC IX is explicit and doesn't allow for any exceptions.

John 3:5 affirms the absolute necessity of Baptism. 1 Peter 3:20-21 affirms Baptism as the ark necessary for salvation. Eph 5:25, only Baptism washes us. People keep using the phrase necessary, but not absolutely necessary. That's hogwash, the word necessary means absolute, logically following, guaranteed. ?unless words aren't going to mean what they mean.

False doctrine always has to use qualifiers though (not absolutely necessary, "we will truly follow Jesus this time", we're going to be a real Spirit led congregation, we're going to be actual Christians). I'm not going to believe some Zwinglian notion that faith comes from the sky, it comes through Word and Sacrament, and any Christian will necessarily be baptized for as Luther said, "Without the sacraments, no one can be a Christian." I'm sticking with the Scriptures, AC, Luther, and the Church fathers on this one.

 

[LilLamb219]

We are all saved in the same way...by grace through faith. Baptism is one mode to bring us faith because it contains God's Word.

You are LCMS...have you spoken with your pastor concerning this?

 

[bach90]

No, it's never come up before. I might try asking my pastor in our next study. I highly respect his knowledge of the confessions and it'd be interesting to hear what he says about it.

 

[DaRev]

Obviously you're saying that non-Christians can be saved if they desire to follow God since Baptism is optional anyways.

I have said no such thing. If you had actually read anything I posted, which by this comment it appears you haven't, you would have seen where I stated that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Now, how does that "obviously" say that non-Christians are saved?? It doesn't.

Again, by your logic (and it is your logic since no one else agrees with you), there are no other means of grace except baptism. Well, sorry, but the Scriptures and the Confessions disagree with your logic.

As far as an LCMS document, they aren't the Confessions or Scripture. Sometimes the LCMS website is, um, ablaze, with stuff that doesn't quite gel 100% with the Scriptures when they speak on that.

FYI, the Ablaze program is over with. I would do what Lambie suggests and talk with your pastor since you won't listen to any other one. If you disagree with what the LCMS holds, teaches, and practices, then why not leave? That's one of the biggest problems in the synod, people who claim to know more than the trained, certified, and ordained clergy. Why don't you go and start your own church where you can be your own authority? Sheesh!!

 

[Luther073082]

If Baptism is absolutely necessary our pastors aught to be willing to quickly baptize anyone who randomly shows up and asks for it, on top of that they should be at every hospital ready to baptize the minute the infant is born lest anyone with faith go unbaptized and lose out by the simple act of not having been baptized on time.

I think scripture is clear, baptism is necessary. Anyone with faith who has not already been baptized would seek to be baptized. But I hardly believe that a person with that faith who dies in a car accident on their way to being baptized is someone that can not receive God's grace.

Their faith makes them secure, now a action of that faith is to be baptized as soon as possible if they havn't already been. Faith drives one to seek the sacraments.

 

[DaRev]

From Walther's "Law and Gospel":

In Mark 16:16 the Lord says: “He that BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved.” He does not say: “He that is baptized and believeth,” but the reverse. Faith is the primary necessity; Baptism is something to which faith holds. Moreover, the Lord continues: “But he that believeth not shall be damned.” This shows that even if a person could not have Baptism administered to himself, he would be saved, as long as he believed.

 

[bach90]

I have said no such thing. If you had actually read anything I posted, which by this comment it appears you haven't, you would have seen where I stated that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Now, how does that "obviously" say that non-Christians are saved?? It doesn't.

Wow, you cut out the sentence right before which clearly shows I was being facetious.

Again, by your logic (and it is your logic since no one else agrees with you), there are no other means of grace except baptism. Well, sorry, but the Scriptures and the Confessions disagree with your logic.



FYI, the Ablaze program is over with. I would do what Lambie suggests and talk with your pastor since you won't listen to any other one. If you disagree with what the LCMS holds, teaches, and practices, then why not leave? That's one of the biggest problems in the synod, people who claim to know more than the trained, certified, and ordained clergy. Why don't you go and start your own church where you can be your own authority? Sheesh!!

If I wanted to just blindly follow whatever anybody says, I would go back to Rome. Despite what the curia in St. Louis wants to think, we are not an episcopal polity. Pastors don't get to say whatever they want and defend it just by authority. You need the Word of God, which John 3:5 clearly shows the necessity of Baptism. I also know enough to know what the word "necessary" means.

 

[DaRev]

If I wanted to just blindly follow whatever anybody says, I would go back to Rome. Despite what the curia in St. Louis wants to think, we are not an episcopal polity. Pastors don't get to say whatever they want and defend it just by authority. You need the Word of God, which John 3:5 clearly shows the necessity of Baptism. I also know enough to know what the word "necessary" means.

Well, we have shown what the word of God tells us about our salvation. You want to add a work to it. The Scriptures teach otherwise. You can't take a verse here or there out of context and make it say what you want. The Scriptures must be read and applied as a whole.

Pastors say what they say based upon the clear word of God. Pastors study the word in depth and are examined and certified to teach and preach. This is yet another example of the laity publicly deriding the clergy, men who are called by God to teach and preach. I've seen what such behavior does to people.

May I ask, what seminary did you graduate from? It would help to understand your theological education background.

 

[bach90]

Well, we have shown what the word of God tells us about our salvation. You want to add a work to it. The Scriptures teach otherwise. You can't take a verse here or there out of context and make it say what you want. The Scriptures must be read and applied as a whole.

Pastors say what they say based upon the clear word of God. Pastors study the word in depth and are examined and certified to teach and preach. This is yet another example of the laity publicly deriding the clergy, men who are called by God to teach and preach. I've seen what such behavior does to people.

May I ask, what seminary did you graduate from? It would help to understand your theological education background.

The same one as Peter and Paul. Can't imagine why so many people have issues with clerics. Laity read the scriptures too, we're actually told to. The pastorate is not a sacerdotal office that makes one a better Christian than another. Seminary training is an important step to becoming a pastor, it's neither necessary nor sufficient to discuss theology.

So only theology majors can discuss theology? Fine. I guess theology majors should leave the science to those of us with science degrees then, say, next time the church wants to talk about something like, I don't know, evolution.

I've said what I have to say. Forgive me if I'd rather change a long-held belief after discussing it with my pastor, rather than with somebody on the internet, oh great scholar. Feel free to have the last word and make some more irrelevant personal arguments against me.

 

[DaRev]

The same one as Peter and Paul. Can't imagine why so many people have issues with clerics. Laity read the scriptures too, we're actually told to.

The laity should attend Bible studies in order to understand what the Scriptures actually say so they can discuss it accurately. That's what pastors are taught at seminary. It's like a surgeon going to medical school to learn how to do surgery. It takes a little more than reading a book to understand how to do surgery. Pastors are teachers. But there are some who think they know more when it's obvious by their words and actions that they don't. Then we're disrespected when we try to correct our errant brothers.

The pastorate is not a sacerdotal office that makes one a better Christian than another.

No one here has said otherwise.

Seminary training is an important step to becoming a pastor, it's neither necessary nor sufficient to discuss theology.

But it is necessary to accurately teach it. You may think you know all there is about the subject matter at hand in this thread, but it's obvious you don't. I've tried to correct you, but you respond by belittling me.

So only theology majors can discuss theology? Fine. I guess theology majors should leave the science to those of us with science degrees then, say, next time the church wants to talk about something like, I don't know, evolution.

It's not up to me as a pastor to explain science. It's up to me to explain and apply the word of God.

I've said what I have to say. Forgive me if I'd rather change a long-held belief after discussing it with my pastor, rather than with somebody on the internet, oh great scholar. Feel free to have the last word and make some more irrelevant personal arguments against me.

Another sarcastic remark. I'm sure your pastor is so proud. But, of course, you don't think much of him either. He's a called and ordained seminary graduate, too, and we know what you think of people like that. But you still have a lot of growing up yet to do.

 

[bach90]

I apologize if you thought that I was belittiling you, I meant no such thing.

However, when you say stuff like I don't think much of my pastor, respectfully speaking, you have no idea what my relationship is to my pastor. I never said anything about all seminary grads, but I find that some pastors have the tendency to lord over the people their degree, basically pull rank, as opposed to arguing with the facts, as if a layman or even an elder can't know the Scriptures. I found that very common in the RCC (in fact their whole system is built on the ability to pull rank). It's not just theology majors that do that, though, it happens across all academic disciplines.

 

[jonathan1971]

Hey Bach,

What's the stumbling block for you? Is it how the word "necessary" is being used? I see you point about necessary but not absolutly necessary being a contradiction. Most lutherans wont bat an eye at it because they are at home with biblical paradoxes, such as the humanity and divinity of Christ occupying the same space and time but in this case I think they went to far. Changing the meaning of a word does nothing but sew confusion and God is not the author of confusion.

I have an intersting book by A. Andrew Das. It's called Baptized into God's Family, published by Northwestern Publishing House. On page 21, under the sub-heading of the necessity of baptism. He asks the question,"Is baptism necessary? The Scriptures say yes! (John 3:6 and elsewhere.) While in Mark 16:16, it is unbelief that damns." So maybe a better way of saying it is that baptism is necessary but it is unbelief that damns.

As to the thief on the cross,"how can anyone say for sure that this person was not baptized? That would be mere assumption as well, Perhaps the thief on the cross had taken part in John the Baptist's baptism. John 3:22 and 4:12 show that many people were already baptized in the course of Jesus' ministry." The author also reafirms your aurgument about when Christian baptism was instituted.

I hope that helps you, coming from a reformed background and a somewhat scientific one, it has helped me. Sorry for the bad spelling. I couldn't spell check. This forum wants me to download some software which I wont do.

Have a good one

 

[DaRev]

As to the thief on the cross,"how can anyone say for sure that this person was not baptized? That would be mere assumption as well, Perhaps the thief on the cross had taken part in John the Baptist's baptism. John 3:22 and 4:12 show that many people were already baptized in the course of Jesus' ministry." The author also reafirms your aurgument about when Christian baptism was instituted.

Christian baptism wasn't instituted until after Christ's resurrection. Any baptism prior to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection was not the baptism described by St. Paul in Romans 6, which is Christian baptism. Even in early Judaism there was a form of "baptism" whereby a convert was ceremonially cleansed with water, a form of baptism. But it was nit Christian baptism.

 

[Luther073082]

Hey Bach,

What's the stumbling block for you? Is it how the word "necessary" is being used? I see you point about necessary but not absolutly necessary being a contradiction. Most lutherans wont bat an eye at it because they are at home with biblical paradoxes, such as the humanity and divinity of Christ occupying the same space and time but in this case I think they went to far. Changing the meaning of a word does nothing but sew confusion and God is not the author of confusion.

I have an intersting book by A. Andrew Das. It's called Baptized into God's Family, published by Northwestern Publishing House. On page 21, under the sub-heading of the necessity of baptism. He asks the question,"Is baptism necessary? The Scriptures say yes! (John 3:6 and elsewhere.) While in Mark 16:16, it is unbelief that damns." So maybe a better way of saying it is that baptism is necessary but it is unbelief that damns.

As to the thief on the cross,"how can anyone say for sure that this person was not baptized? That would be mere assumption as well, Perhaps the thief on the cross had taken part in John the Baptist's baptism. John 3:22 and 4:12 show that many people were already baptized in the course of Jesus' ministry." The author also reafirms your aurgument about when Christian baptism was instituted.

I hope that helps you, coming from a reformed background and a somewhat scientific one, it has helped me. Sorry for the bad spelling. I couldn't spell check. This forum wants me to download some software which I wont do.

Have a good one

John the Baptist's baptism was with mere water. It is Christ's baptism that baptizes with water and the spirit. Since he was dying at the same time as Christ, any baptism he received prior to that would have ment nothing spiritually speaking.

 

[bach90]

Hey Bach,

What's the stumbling block for you? Is it how the word "necessary" is being used? I see you point about necessary but not absolutly necessary being a contradiction. Most lutherans wont bat an eye at it because they are at home with biblical paradoxes, such as the humanity and divinity of Christ occupying the same space and time but in this case I think they went to far. Changing the meaning of a word does nothing but sew confusion and God is not the author of confusion.

I have an intersting book by A. Andrew Das. It's called Baptized into God's Family, published by Northwestern Publishing House. On page 21, under the sub-heading of the necessity of baptism. He asks the question,"Is baptism necessary? The Scriptures say yes! (John 3:6 and elsewhere.) While in Mark 16:16, it is unbelief that damns." So maybe a better way of saying it is that baptism is necessary but it is unbelief that damns.

As to the thief on the cross,"how can anyone say for sure that this person was not baptized? That would be mere assumption as well, Perhaps the thief on the cross had taken part in John the Baptist's baptism. John 3:22 and 4:12 show that many people were already baptized in the course of Jesus' ministry." The author also reafirms your aurgument about when Christian baptism was instituted.

I hope that helps you, coming from a reformed background and a somewhat scientific one, it has helped me. Sorry for the bad spelling. I couldn't spell check. This forum wants me to download some software which I wont do.

Have a good one

Thank you for your response.

My issue is with the word necessary. It's been brought up in this thread that you can't know the fate of unbaptized stillborn children or infants. However, AC IX specifically addresses this issue and condemns as an Anabaptist heresy that children can be saved without Baptism. As to adults, I would point out the with Philip the Deacon, he seemed to not have a problem with Baptism right away, neither did Paul in Acts 19.

I know that Mark 16:16 says unbelief damns (getting beyond the issue that Mk 16:16 is not part of the original text), but it shows that faith and baptism (which are profoundly interconnected) saves. I'm saying, just in terms of logic, that you can't infer that that means lack of Baptism doesn't damn. True faith in Christ is always accompanied by Christian Baptism, there's no reason to really delay this and the Bible knows of no such practice, that's one of the reasons Confirmation developed in the early church, so that a man who had been baptized could make confession of Christ and Him crucified for himself.

I doubly agree with you about the thief on the cross. That's why when people try to bring him up as an example of Baptism not being necessary, it's invalid. It's just like arguing that Daniel or Jeremiah wasn't baptized, well, duh, Christian baptism wasn't instituted yet.

My argument is simply that: "Baptism is necessary for salvation." And "necessary" means "necessary." There's been a dangerous trend not just in the Lutheran church but in other churches that teach the Biblical doctrine of Baptismal regeneration. The RCC, to given an example, has even systematized it into something called "Baptism of desire" after Vatican II, people that would want baptism already have it. That's why most RCC bishops and even the pope make these completely heretical statements that non-Christians and unbaptized people can be saved. Now, if the Baptists are right, and Baptism is just a token, or a symbol, or a representation of faith already given to a man, then sure, Baptism isn't necessary for salvation. But if Baptism actually does something, and the Scriptures make it obvious that it does, then it has to be necessary for salvation. It's not optional. It's why I have no problem telling someone that isn't Baptized, "No, you're not a Christian." There's really no middle ground here, either it's necessary or it's not.


"Necessary for salvation" means "necessary for salvation." Just like when I tell the reformed "is" means "is" or when I mention to my RCC friends "not by works" means "not by works." I'm a simple man, I let the words of the Bible and the Confessions mean what they say, no need to qualify them in light of 20th century liberalism and 15th century Anabaptism. Not saying that those who hold otherwise are Anabaptists or liberals, but that's where that view comes from. Christians before the 15th century are unanimous that Baptism is necessary for salvation.