Baptism, non-essential!

[runandsew]

We have a dilemma here, one Christian says that the bible teaches that baptism is non-essential, and other Christians say that the bible teaches that baptism is essential.

How do we determine who is right?

Maybe we can throw dice, or maybe play paper - rock - scissors, or maybe we could just vote on the issue?

I would say that both Catholic and Protestant believe that the bible is the inspired truth of God.
Well, I am confused, is there more than one truth of God?
Is the truth that baptism saves you, and the truth is that baptism doesn’t save you?

You know Martin Luther’s quote:
“Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scripture or since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”

Well maybe. just maybe, Martin Luther was wrong.
Maybe we do need to look to the Church to teach the proper interpretation of scripture, even if it goes against our natural reasoning, and our conscience which was taken captive by God’s word.

Acts 8:30-31
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. Do you understand what you are reading? Philip asked. How can I, he said, unless someone explains it to me? So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Maybe we could look back to the church fathers and see how the church has viewed baptism from the very beginning, even if it contradicts our personal view of baptism.

Protestant denominations have split on this issue, is that the unity that Christ prayed for?

John 17: 20-22
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one

 

[bilop]

We have a dilemma here, one Christian says that the bible teaches that baptism is non-essential, and other Christians say that the bible teaches that baptism is essential.

How do we determine who is right?

Maybe we can throw dice, or maybe play paper - rock - scissors, or maybe we could just vote on the issue?

I would say that both Catholic and Protestant believe that the bible is the inspired truth of God.
Well, I am confused, is there more than one truth of God?
Is the truth that baptism saves you, and the truth is that baptism doesn’t save you?

You know Martin Luther’s quote:
“Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scripture or since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”

Well maybe. just maybe, Martin Luther was wrong.
Maybe we do need to look to the Church to teach the proper interpretation of scripture, even if it goes against our natural reasoning, and conscience which was taken captive by God’s word.

Acts 8:30-31
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. Do you understand what you are reading? Philip asked. How can I, he said, unless someone explains it to me? So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Maybe we could look back to the church fathers and see how the church has viewed baptism from the very beginning, even if it contradicts our personal view of baptism.

Protestant denominations have split on this issue, is that the unity that Christ prayed for?

John 17: 20-22
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one

I agree with you, and I trust in the Catholic Church myself. But, I can not expect a Protestant to do likewise. In this case, much as in the Real Presence, the Bible is clear, yet Protestants seem to go to great lengths to avoid the most natural conclusions.

God Bless

 

[NotWorthy]

Dean, I admit I was a little surprised by this thread, for I know you are well aware of what you are talking about.

But I think you glossed over Peter’s quote in Acts:
"Repent and be (a)baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ (b) for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will (c) receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

You see, when you look at it in context of Ezekiel, you see that Baptism is an INTEGRAL part of our Salvation:
*** I will (a) sprinkle clean water upon you (b) to cleanse you from all your impurities**, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and (c) place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts.*You can dance around Peter’s quotation if you want to (even though I’m not buying it), but Ezekiel makes the connection very clear:

A) Baptism
B) Cleanses us of our sins
C) and we receive the Holy Spirit.

Period.

 

[prodigal-sun]

After reading all the evidence given I really don’t understand how anyone, especially a bible only protestant!

Peace.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I agree with you, and I trust in the Catholic Church myself. But, I can not expect a Protestant to do likewise. In this case, much as in the Real Presence, the Bible is clear, yet Protestants seem to go to great lengths to avoid the most natural conclusions.

God Bless

If you so choose to believe the CC interpretation of the water gospel, what do you do with the many many many verses I’ve showed that speak not of water but faith.

 

[RobNY]

Martin. I have another idea, which perhaps may bear some fruit. I’d like to ask you some questions, sort of, “cross-examine” you, and see how you answer them. Since I know that you are confident in the truth of the gospel as you see it, I see no harm in agreeing.

Please answer either agreeing or disagreeing (i.e., yes or no).

My first question is this:

1. One is either under the law or under grace, right?

 

[bilop]

If you so choose to believe the CC interpretation of the water gospel, what do you do with the many many many verses I’ve showed that speak not of water but faith.

I never said water Baptism was sufficient for salvation, I said it was necessary (barring extreme circumstances). We clearly need faith, it is also indispensible.

God Bless

 

[BobCatholic]

Scripture is clear that if you are born of the spirit you’ll not be forsaken.

Really? Where does it say this?

I want the scripture verse for this tradition.

In the meantime, I’ll just cite John 3:5 which says one must be BORN AGAIN of both WATER and the SPIRIT, which contradicts your tradition.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Dean, I admit I was a little surprised by this thread, for I know you are well aware of what you are talking about.

But I think you glossed over Peter’s quote in Acts:
"Repent and be (a)baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ (b) for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will (c) receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

.

John,
It would be repetitiive of me to get into the multiple greek possible meanings behind “eis”. Needless to say if you wish to hang your hat on this one verse, which when compared to the whole of scripture is contradictory…By all means do so.
With a regenerate Christian such as yourself it is neither here nor there. Blessing my friend!
Simon

 

[BobCatholic]

If you so choose to believe the CC interpretation of the water gospel, what do you do with the many many many verses I’ve showed that speak not of water but faith.

Why should we accept your interpretation of scripture when we can accept the interpretation of the Twelve Apostles?

 

[NotWorthy]

John,
It would be repetitiive of me to get into the multiple greek possible meanings behind “eis”. Needless to say if you wish to hang your hat on this one verse, which when compared to the whole of scripture is contradictory…By all means do so.
With a regenerate Christian such as yourself it is neither here nor there. Blessing my friend!
Simon

But I didn’t hang my hat upon one verse. You simply ignored Ezekiel who prophecied that exact phenomenon.

Then you stack it up with the non-contradictory story of the Eunuch, and Peter’s “Baptism now saves you”, and Annia’s, washing, and John 3:5 (or is it 6).

 

[NotWorthy]

One other thing I think you may be overlooking Simon, is circumcision.

How did a Jew enter the Covenant? By being circumcised.

How does a Christian enter into the New Covenant? By being baptized. The author of Hebrews (I believe) explains this when he says that “this (baptism) replaces circumcision” (paraphrasing).

Although Baptism will not in and of itself bring you straight to heaven (except under extra-ordinary means, i.e. instant death and what-not), it does bring someone into the Covenant, where there participation into that Covenant will determine their final Destination (and of course, the Grace of God!!!).

 

[NotWorthy]

Also, look at the final line of that scene:

"Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day."

Baptism is the seal of (or the inititiation into) the New Covenant. When the Apostles instituted the New Covenant 3000 souls were added. Just as when Moses instituted the imperfect Mosaic Covenant, 3000 souls were lost due to the rejection of the Covenant.

 

[Philthy]

By chopping up the verse too finely you do damage to its meaning. What Peter is saying is this: “a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.” It is “this” which prefigured baptism. Not the water by itself, not the ark by itself, etc. It is, “a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.” I say this in such a way so as to be inclusive of everything in the verse. So when it says, “this prefigured baptism” he clearly means, “a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water” prefigured baptism. Hence, a few persons being saved through water prefigured baptism which saves you now, quite clearly the context teaches-- because in baptism we are also, “saved through water.”

Your interpretation of the concluding part about, “not the removal of dirt from the body” is equally unconvincing. This cuts very clearly against a view of baptism as a mere ordinance and not a sacrament. Peter is affirming that baptism is not a mere ritual sprinkling which only has the power to clean our body, hence its purpose is not for, “the removal of dirt.” It is a sacrament which cleanses our conscience before God and makes us right in His sight. Verily, “an appeal to God for a clean conscience.”

Your explanation completely dodges the question of, “in what sense does baptism save?” You go 360 degrees and conclude that baptism doesn’t save.

But I’d also be interested in hearing your interpretation of Ananias’s comment to Paul… be baptized and have your sins washed away. This is completely reconcilable with my interpretation of Peter’s verse, and completely at odds with yours. Baptism literally, “washes your sins away.” Precisely because it is not for, ‘the removal of dirt’ from the body, but, ‘for a clean conscience,’ which it truly effects. It is the bath of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit for our justification by grace (Titus 3:5-7).

-Rob

Good job, Rob! You saved me from having to type very much
for point 1 on chopping up the context
for point 2 on the ordinance issue
for recognizing the inherent dodge
for “have your sins washed away” and the titus 3:5 reference

Unfortunately it is not logic or rebuke which moves the hearts of men - that is the job of the holy Spirit. We can only hope that the seeds which you plant will be fruitful in the lives of others.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

In the meantime, I’ll just cite John 3:5 which says one must be BORN AGAIN of both WATER and the SPIRIT, which contradicts your tradition.

FIRST…CONTEXT>

*“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit,” (John 3:3-8).

Let’s look at five basic interpretations to this section of scripture in reference to water.

The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.
** The first option **looks to the context of Jesus’ words dealing with being born “again” (3:3). Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4). Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (3:6). The implication is that the first birth is the natural birth and the second birth is the spiritual birth. In other words, the water refers to the water of the womb – the first birth. This seems to have support in the understanding of Nicodemus about entering into the womb to be born a second time. However sadly, this view is not the most commonly held view.

** The second option** holds that the water is referring to the Word of God. Eph. 5:26 says, “that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.” Some believe that the washing of water is done by means of the Word of God.
The third option says that the water refers to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps Nicodemus was reminded of Ezek. 36:25-27, “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” Certainly, Jesus’ own words are applicable here when He says in John 7:37-39, “Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.’” 39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
** The fourth view **holds that the water is in reference to the water baptism of repentance taught by John the Baptist. Matt. 3:1-6 describes John’s ministry in the desert, his teaching about repentance, and baptizing people into that repentance. Contextually, the first chapter of John mentions John the Baptist in verses 6-8 and 19-36. Certainly, John and his ministry is in view here. If this is the case, then Jesus would have been speaking of the “baptism” (the initiatory ordinance) of repentance preached by John the Baptist.
** The fifth view **is the one held by churches that require baptism in order to be saved. They state that the water is referring to baptism and that it is essential to salvation.

 

[Philthy]

You quoted
John 3:5, "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.’"
Some say that water here means baptism. But that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn’t yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism isn’t necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced.

Unless Christ is speaking prophetically - then his comments are still valid that “born of water” refers to the baptism which was born of Christ’s ministry.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

How does a Christian enter into the New Covenant? By being baptized. The author of Hebrews (I believe) explains this when he says that “this (baptism) replaces circumcision” (paraphrasing).

.

John I don’t believe you’ll see any association with water baptism in Hebrews, the author speaks of spiritual baptism.
Circumcision of the heart, John (born again).

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Baptism is a covenant sign and is not essential for salvation, in fact I think satan licks his chops at this verse (acts 2:38) in that many people think that being baptized is the necessary factor in salvation.

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I am sure Satan rejects anything that comes from the mouth of apostles in the name of Jesus to the Glory of God the father because Satan hates us. Don’t be fooled.

 

[NotWorthy]

Simon, in your view that Nicodemus understood Jesus, I think your incorrect. Nidodemus completely mis-understood Jesus words, which necessitated the correction. Also, being born “of water” is redundant, for what human is NOT born of water (in your definition “from the womb”)?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Unless Christ is speaking prophetically - then his comments are still valid that “born of water” refers to the baptism which was born of Christ’s ministry.

Is that your contention?