If Baptism could save then there is no need for the shed Blood of Jesus.
- Thread starter GISMYS_7
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Get some help. Pray.
Maybe ask the Lord if He would want you to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of your sins.
It certainly can't hurt to pray about it to determine whether or not our doctrine is from Him.
One thing you can be certain of...receiving such a baptism is not going to put you out of the kingdom.
The Holy Ghost is promised to those who receive it, for crying out loud!
The Holy Ghost is promised to those who receive it, for crying out loud!
That would be salvation by works. If there's exceptions, that you can't support with scripture, you are literally just guessing who can be saved and who can't. Which is why it's so important to understand salvation is not by works. Not by baptism, not keeping the Sabbath, not taking the Eucharist, no work saves you or keeps you.
Believing is a work, a mental work
work
n noun
1 activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
Therefore faith cannot save you according to your criteria.
Nope, wrong. Paul makes a strong distinction between faith and works. It's not about the definition in the dictionary.
You remind me of Catholics saying last rites are necessary for salvation, unless there's no priest available..what? Either they are necessary or they're not. And there's scads of verses telling us that faith is all that is necessary.
Peter sees a comparison between the waters of the flood and the waters of baptism. Verse 21 is the key verse: "And corresponding to that [the water of the flood], baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Now there are some denominations that love this verse because it seems at first to support the view called "baptismal regeneration."
Now the problem with this is that Peter seems very aware that his words are open to dangerous misuse. This is why he qualifies them lest we take them the wrong way. In verse 21 he does say, "Baptism now saves you" - that sounds like the water has a saving effect in and of itself apart from faith. He knows that is what it sounds like and so he adds immediately, "Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
When I speak of baptism saving, Peter says, I don't mean that the water is of any saving effect; what I mean is that, insofar as baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience," (or is "a pledge of a good conscience toward God"), it saves. Paul said in Romans 10:13, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord - everyone who appeals to the Lord - will be saved." Paul does not mean that faith alone fails to save. He means that faith calls on God. That's what faith does. Now Peter is saying, "Baptism is a God-ordained, symbolic expression of that call to God. It is an appeal to God - either in the form of repentance or in the form of commitment.
Nancy
Well-Known Member
Yes, "one" baptism"
Ephesians 4:4-6
""There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
We are baptized into the Trinity IMHO...Father, Son an Holy Ghost. And...only once since the Word say's that there IS only one.
"Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
One could also look at this as confessing before God "and" men your commitment to Christ as Savior.
Yes, in the Trinity; but in a singular NAME; found in Acts of the Apostles 2:38 and in Acts of the Apostles 4:10-12.Yes, "one" baptism"
Ephesians 4:4-6
""There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
We are baptized into the Trinity IMHO...Father, Son an Holy Ghost. And...only once since the Word say's that there IS only one.
"Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
One could also look at this as confessing before God "and" men your commitment to Christ as Savior.
Nancy
Well-Known Member
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
Your argument has already been proven wrong in post #86. Baptism is not done in order to obtain the remission of sins, but is done in regards to/on the basis of the remission of sins received upon repentance. In Matthew 3:11, we read - As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Now was this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance or "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Obviously the latter. Baptizing someone "in order to obtain" repentance makes no sense at all. We must "first repent" and are then water baptized "afterwards."
Once again, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
Acts 10:43 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" *Notice that these Gentiles believed, received the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, which is a spiritual gift that is ONLY for the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) and were saved all BEFORE water baptism.
Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."
Acts 13:39 - and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Acts 15:7 - And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Acts 16:30 - And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Acts 26:18 - to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.
*So once again, the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
Nowhere does Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, claim that we are saved by faith and works. I repeat there are numerous passages of scripture that clearly teach man is saved through believing/faith in Christ "apart from additions or modifications." (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 15:9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8.9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
Once again, you don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture above in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus baptism? Plus works? NO. So then it's belief/faith (rightly understood) IN CHRIST ALONE.
He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).
*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved through water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, only the wicked came in contact with the water and they all perished.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
You are correct.
However Paul does say that our works after conversion will show if we are worthy of salvation to be realized in the end. For many are called, but few are chosen.
If Baptism could save then there is no need for the shed Blood of Jesus.
OP ^
Baptism - as a stand alone word has varied meanings and applications...dependent on Era and Context.
It all hinges on what Knowledge- was given To Whom- and When.
A man- his Body-
(outside) Flesh-
(inside) LIFE (Blood), natural parts (Mind, thoughts, acts, words, organs, etc.)
Man- Both inside and outside - Corrupt- Against God.....and Other men.
•Outside- Visible- Dirty- Impure-
•Inside- Conniving- Selfish-Disease
• And- that which Flows FROM the inside To the Outside- Visible-
(Words, Acts, Intents, Love, Hate, etc).
IOW-
A man's best "Effort" of Washing, cleansing, the Outside...
was "Supposed", To Be, "A Reflection", OF a man's "INSIDE".
A purification of sorts- men washing "privately", bathing, cleansing, their body, clothing, removing dust, stink, stains, To be Seen, by other men as an Indication To Other men- IMPLICATION
A man's effort To BE clean on the Outside, that man "seemingly" must exert the Same Effort TO BE, clean on the "Inside".
Baptism "With water", "publically", before the eyes of other men, "was" (and still is), a "public" Implication, the man's Effort of "outside" cleansing...
Is "also", the man publicly, revealing TO other men (as witnesses), of that man's,
Desire, intent, effort, To BE "cleansed" INSIDE.
Witnesses- become the man's "watchdogs" (of sorts)...Reminding, Admonishing, holding the man TO His claimed Effort, Word.
• Jesus- Offered ALL men- a New Better Testament;
• Order- Way- Life- (Inside AND Outside)
Truth....(that Every man, could Freely CHOOSE ... To ACCEPT or REJECT.
• Some men (to this day) Accept His Offering ...
• Many men (to this day) Reject His Offering.
• Some men (to this day) "COMBINE" "MIX", "CONVOLUTE" what "was" with what "is".
• A "personal contentment", of covering All Bases, It seems. (Just in case, Jesus' Offering is not sufficient.)
•Water Baptism- Necessary? IMO No.
•Holy Spirit Baptism- Necessary (FOR the man to be (inside and outside) "With" the Lord God at that moment and Forever?) Yes.
• Exceptions- Yes- (On a mankind's natural ability To choose.)
Glory to God,
Taken
OP ^
Baptism - as a stand alone word has varied meanings and applications...dependent on Era and Context.
It all hinges on what Knowledge- was given To Whom- and When.
A man- his Body-
(outside) Flesh-
(inside) LIFE (Blood), natural parts (Mind, thoughts, acts, words, organs, etc.)
Man- Both inside and outside - Corrupt- Against God.....and Other men.
•Outside- Visible- Dirty- Impure-
•Inside- Conniving- Selfish-Disease
• And- that which Flows FROM the inside To the Outside- Visible-
(Words, Acts, Intents, Love, Hate, etc).
IOW-
A man's best "Effort" of Washing, cleansing, the Outside...
was "Supposed", To Be, "A Reflection", OF a man's "INSIDE".
A purification of sorts- men washing "privately", bathing, cleansing, their body, clothing, removing dust, stink, stains, To be Seen, by other men as an Indication To Other men- IMPLICATION
A man's effort To BE clean on the Outside, that man "seemingly" must exert the Same Effort TO BE, clean on the "Inside".
Baptism "With water", "publically", before the eyes of other men, "was" (and still is), a "public" Implication, the man's Effort of "outside" cleansing...
Is "also", the man publicly, revealing TO other men (as witnesses), of that man's,
Desire, intent, effort, To BE "cleansed" INSIDE.
Witnesses- become the man's "watchdogs" (of sorts)...Reminding, Admonishing, holding the man TO His claimed Effort, Word.
• Jesus- Offered ALL men- a New Better Testament;
• Order- Way- Life- (Inside AND Outside)
Truth....(that Every man, could Freely CHOOSE ... To ACCEPT or REJECT.
• Some men (to this day) Accept His Offering ...
• Many men (to this day) Reject His Offering.
• Some men (to this day) "COMBINE" "MIX", "CONVOLUTE" what "was" with what "is".
• A "personal contentment", of covering All Bases, It seems. (Just in case, Jesus' Offering is not sufficient.)
•Water Baptism- Necessary? IMO No.
•Holy Spirit Baptism- Necessary (FOR the man to be (inside and outside) "With" the Lord God at that moment and Forever?) Yes.
• Exceptions- Yes- (On a mankind's natural ability To choose.)
Glory to God,
Taken
The baptism of John in the Jordan is not the baptism of Acts.
Those that were baptized by John did not qualify for the remission of sins, thus were rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
You doctrine of unnecessary baptism is pre Pentecost.
Yes, and also confession.
So, to believe is a physical work unto salvation and speaking a confession is also.
I think the anti-baptism folks are just trying to get out of work(lazy).
Peter said....
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
So they SAVED THEMSELVES this way...
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Someone on this thread is confusing the WORKS of the Law of Moses with Apostolic commanded works unto salvation.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
So they SAVED THEMSELVES this way...
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Someone on this thread is confusing the WORKS of the Law of Moses with Apostolic commanded works unto salvation.
They ask Peter this....
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Modernists say..,"Nothing!".
Peter says....
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Modernists say, "I won't budge!".
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Modernists say..,"Nothing!".
Peter says....
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Modernists say, "I won't budge!".
That's your opinion but there is no biblical basis for adding alone or only to Paul's words (or any one else's). You are trying to read into scripture your pre-conceived beliefs.
In his book How Can I Get To Heaven? Robert Sungenis says that Paul used the word faith over 200 times but not once did he couple it with alone or only. He also pointed out that Paul used the word alone more frequently than any other NT writer. He says: "Many of these instances appear right alongside the very contexts that contain teaching on faith and justification. Thus it is obvious that even while Paul was teaching about the nature of justification he was keenly aware of the word alone and it's qualifying properties. This would lead us to expect that if Paul wanted to teach clearly that man was justified by faith alone, he would have utilized that phrase, since it would have made his point undisputable."
The Holy Spirit inspired Paul not to connect faith to alone. He did inspire James to connect the two but that a man is not justified by faith alone.
I have not claimed that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. It is the normative way that God has given us. Of course God can make exceptions in special cases but they are at God's discretion not ours. To refuse baptism when it is possible is disobedience and disbelief.
You are missing the point of Peter's analogy. Sure they were saved from the flood by the Ark but that is not the point Peter was making; not the being saved he was referring to.
The word translated in most Bible as through is Strong 1223 "A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through....."
The water was the means by which they were saved so Peter is therefore not referring to their salvation from the flood but a different salvation in which water was the means, the channel.
Immediately before God tells Noah to build the Ark he explains what he is doing:
“In the eyes of God the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness. When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals led depraved lives on earth, he said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth.” (Gen 6:11-13)
The water (the flood) destroyed the world with all it’s sin and iniquity. It was this that those in the Ark were saved from by means of water.
And as in other examples in the OT the pre-figuring was physical, in the NT the anti-type (baptism) is spiritual.
And it saves us in a similar way, by clearing out the sin and iniquity in us. As Peter goes on to say it is an appeal to God for a clear conscience - because our sins are forgiven.
Paul makes a distinction between faith and a certain class of works.
He writes much about salvation (justification) and works in his letter to the Romans. A key text is Rom 3:19-28, and a key phrase that Paul uses in this is “works of the law”
20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
(He also uses the phrase works of the law in Gal 2:1, 3:2, 5 & 10)
This implies that Paul recognises two classes of “works” – works of the law and works that are not works of the law. We’ll come to the latter later. But let us concentrate on what Paul means by works of the law.
In Romans 2 he writes
25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
And in Gal 3:10
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them."
Clearly by works of the law Paul is referring to the Jewish law.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary helpfully gives a definition of this class of works - “such activity as a means of earning income”.
It is in this sense of earning something that Paul uses the word in Rom 4:4 when he writes:
“Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.” (Rom 4:4)
Works done under the law are those done under some sort of legal contract that try to put an obligation on God – to make salvation our due. We try to earn our salvation
If we work, as for an employer, expecting wages as our due then we will be judged under that Law and will always be found wanting and will be condemned.
That is why we can only receive salvation as a gift. It cannot be earned.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
There is another class of works – works that are not works of the law.
The third definition in Concise Oxford English Dictionary is helpful here – “Theology, good or moral deeds”
Doing “good works” give us merit in the sight of God because they are done out of love and do not attempt to put God under any obligation to reward us.
One definition of merit from the Collins Concise English Dictionary is:
“a deserving or commendable quality or act.”
Note: in Catholic theology, merit means rewardable. It does not imply earn.
When we do something out of love and not as a contract under Law we do a deserving or commendable act and God will graciously reward us.
“love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35)
“I the Lord search the mind and try the heart, to give to every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.” (Jer 17:10)
“Whoever does good has his reward, which each receives according to his deeds.”(Sir 16:14)
We could give examples of these three definitions of work as follows:
1. – Digging my garden (general definition).
2. – Digging someone else’s garden for a wage (work as earning income)
3. – Digging an elderly neighbour’s garden out of charity (work as a good deed and meritorious – a commendable act)
Paul writes: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast”. (Eph 2:8-9)
Whereas James writes: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (Jas 2:14)
These two are not contradictory if we understand that Paul is referring to works of the law and James is referring to good deeds, meritorious acts, just as in the examples he gives in the following verses:
“If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?”
These are the type of works Jesus refers to in Mt 25:31-45 and Mt 10:41-42
Further, from my examples of digging a garden we can see that it is not the act itself that is good or bad but the cause of the act, the motive. If the act is motivated by love then it is meritorious and God will reward us. If it is driven by other motives (e.g. to get admiration from others) then we may get no reward, at least from God.
“Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven…….” (Mt 6:1 & following verses)
Finally whatever good acts we do are God’s actions in us not just our own. Catholics believe that grace comes in two kinds, sanctifying grace and actual grace. Actual grace is the prompts and help that God gives us to do good deeds. When we do a good deed it is God working in us.
Or, as St. Augustine said "when you crown our merits, you crown your own gifts,"
The Catholic you spoke to was wrong. That is not Church teaching.
And it does.
Of course Peter was not saying that water in itself saves you. Nor was he saying that faith is not required.
They are just straw men you are raising to knock them down.
Similar threads
