Baptism, non-essential!

[RobNY]

Acts 22:16, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”

**Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart **
Col. 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Ok… the problem here, again, is that you’re interpreting the verse to be symbolic on the ground that it must be symbolic. This verse is just like the verse I asked you to explain-- and indeed, I cited it earlier as proof as well. It’s circular to claim, it is symbolic because it is symbolic.

which means you are already saved, or is it by the blood of Christ?

Heb. 9:14
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!

Rom. 5:9
Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.

Ephesians. 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
** Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus’ name.**

Just back it up a little bit for a moment.

“Obviously it is the blood of Jesus.”

Obviously what is that blood of Jesus?

From the context of what you usually say, I’m guessing you mean, “obviously we are saved by Jesus’ blood.” OK. Fair enough.

So next you say, “and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus’ name.”

Full stop.

You’re just asserting your position again. I ask you to please take a step back and look at this neutrally-- you aren’t explaining the verse.

For example:

Suppose the verse say, “be baptized and forgiven of your sins calling on his name.” It doesn’t-- but if it did, you could say, it says to, “be baptized,” and , “forgiven of your sins calling on his name.” Hence, connecting “forgiven of your sins” and, “calling on his name.”

But what the verse does say is, ‘be baptized and wash away your sins calling on his name.’ So we can either parse it as, ‘be baptized and wash away your sins’ and ‘calling on his name.’ Or we can say, as you want to say, ‘be baptized,’ and, ‘wash away your sins calling on his name.’

The problem is that you aren’t explaining why we should use that grouping-- ‘wash away your sins calling on his name.’ In fact, such a construction makes no sense. What do washing away ones sins and calling on Christ’s name have to do with each other? Why water terminology/imagery for sins? They’re flat out unconnected. It’s far more plausible to connect baptism and ‘wash away your sins’ because baptism involves water, and so does washing.

Please address this specifically, in the context of this verse, and without going on to unnecessary tangents about other verses.

The Catholic position does not deny that we are saved by the merits of Christ’s blood, myfavoritmartin. We affirm it. Nor do I see why you unnecessarily set Scripture against itself in order to try to prove us wrong. You seem to think, for some reason, that the two contradict each other.

So I ask you again, what do you think the Catholic belief in baptism is? Honestly. You need to answer that because it seems apparent to me that you don’t understand what we believe at all.

The devil hopes people rely on their own works, ie baptism for salvation, he knows that Christ’s blood is the “Gospel”…

This is a prime example of your misunderstanding of the Catholic position. A sacrament is not a work that man performs. It is a work that God performs through man. That is why a sacrament, according to Catholic theology, is not hindered by sin on the part of the minister-- because the true minister is not the human who proclaims the word, but Christ Himself who works through the minister. And it is not by man’s merit that sacraments are efficacious, but through the very blood of Christ on the cross outpoured that the sacraments derive their worth.

myfavoritemartin-- you seriously need to explain to use what you think we mean by sacraments, because we need to correct what you falsely think we believe. If we believed that it was by our own works/merits that baptism saved us, then we wouldn’t believe it either!

-Rob

 

[BobCatholic]

Swim on over to the SS camp,. Welcome.

The SS camp doesn’t defend scripture. It defends the man-made tradition of SS

Going against SS is not going against the authority of scripture.

The first is a man-made tradition. The second is inerrant word of God.

 

[BobCatholic]

Show me the apostolic interpretation of this in scripture.

If the Apostolic interpretation of scripture for this verse were in scripture, you would have shown it by now.

But you didn’t. You showed us YOUR interpretation of scripture.

So, I’ll ask you again: How did the Apostles interpret this scripture?

 

[VociMike]

They can be! as baptism has no bearing on salvation.

Ah, this gets interesting. So even though scripture says over and over that one must be baptized, you say that a Christian who deliberately refuses to be baptized (that is, one who rejects the word of God) can still be saved.

This is what easy-believism leads to. One can knowingly reject the word of God and it’s not a problem.

If one can reject the word of God regarding the need for baptism and still be saved, why can’t one also reject the word of God regarding the need for faith and still be saved? Answer me that critical question.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Ah, this gets interesting. So even though scripture says over and over that one must be baptized, you say that a Christian who deliberately refuses to be baptized (that is, one who rejects the word of God) can still be saved.

One can NOT reject the GOSPEL and be saved!
One can reject your churches incorrect interpretation of the scriptures regarding baptism and still be saved.

 

[JaneFrances]

The devil hopes people rely on their own works, ie baptism for salvation, he knows that Christ’s blood is the “Gospel”…

Baptism is not our work. As it was instituted by our Savior, it is ultimately His work of grace.

And as with so many works of God, such as the Sacraments, he shows His glory, His power, His grace through His creation. The Church is the humble servant of the Almightly Lord who gave us “this Baptism which now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism, thus, is a work of Jesus Christ and is effective because of His resurrection.

I’ve gone over this 1 peter deal a couple times but I’ll do it once more just for you…

  This is the only verse that says that baptism saves.

So, if God only says it one time, it doesn’t count?

But, the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, “and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.”

What about this unfortunate translation: “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto [even] **baptism doth also now save us **(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family? Was it the water or the ark?

I realize that the plain transliteration does not serve your tradition, thus forcing you to seek alternate Greek usages, but your translation and thus your interpretation is still incorrect. I’d be glad to help!

ἀντίτυπος, or antitupos, as you have pointed out can, indeed, mean “copy” or “type.”

The Greek also provided for a meaning which applies directly to this comparison. In biblical usage, as it applies here, “antitupos” means:

1. a thing formed after some pattern

1. a thing resembling another, its counterpart

a) something in the Messianic times which answers to the type, as baptism corresponds to the deluge (1 Pet 3:21)

And so, just as the Greek grammar insists, the ὕδωρ, or deluge of water, is the type for βάπτισμα, or submersion into water. The grammatical relationship is undeniable, especially in the Greek. The flood water corresponds to the water of Baptism.

The comparison is based on the water being an instrument of God’s own cleansing and saving power.

Obviously, it was the Ark

Not so obvious. Noah’s building of the Ark was, in fact, instrumental to his and his family’s safety from the flood waters. He believed God, acted upon his faith, and was saved from the death of the flood. Instead, by his faith and obedience, Noah and his family enjoyed the renewal of the earth brought by the waters of the flood. It was not the Ark which cleansed the earth of sin. It was the work of God in sending the flood waters which brought a new creation to the earth. Thus, it is the work of God in Baptism which brings forth a new creation in the soul of each man.

Like Noah, we believe God. We act upon that faith. And, thus, we find our salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ as we recieve newness of life in the Christian Sacrament of Baptism.

It was the Ark that saved. Noah entered the ark by faith. Baptism here, in my opinion, refers to the Ark, not the waters.

Your opinion is not necessary to understanding the Greek or the traditional Christian interpretation of 1 Peter. You may believe what you will. You may twist linguistics to make them serve your own tradition. But, it still does not change the actual meaning of the Word of God which points to Christian Baptism as a work of God, corresponding to his work of re-creation in the flood.

That is why the rest of the verse says, “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God” which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart.

No, that is why the rest of the verse affirms the Christian tradition that Baptism does not clean the body, but rather the soul toward God.

In the same way, St. Paul’s comparison:

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

points out the spiritual efficacy, not the bodily effects, of His saving work through Baptism.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

myfavoritemartin-- you seriously need to explain to use what you think we mean by sacraments, because we need to correct what you falsely think we believe. If we believed that it was by our own works/merits that baptism saved us, then we wouldn’t believe it either!

-Rob

Help me out here…
Christ died on the cross,
But in hind sight HE figured, well lets see I did my part, but really in order for this to bring about salvation I am going to require that my people sprinkle water over their infants, if not that child is going to HELL!
Gimme a break, this is a works it requires that we do something! and in MY opinion it adds to the denial of the atoning nature of the cross.

If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ?

If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12).

Deut. 10:16Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer.
Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25,26
Circumcise yourselves to the Lord,
remove the foreskin of your hearts,
O people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,
or else my wrath will go forth like fire,
and burn with no one to quench it,
because of the evil of your doings.

The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will attend to all those who are circumcised only in the foreskin: Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab, and all those with shaven temples who live in the desert. For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.

Ez. 44:7,9in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant with all your abominations.
Thus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.
Acts 2:38; Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
1 Pet. 3:21; And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Tit. 3:5he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
Rom. 6:4; Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
Col. 2:11-12In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[Ilroy]

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

Kind of true…God will never forsake us, but there are many who have and who do forsake God. He will not drag us into heaven against our will. So, yes it is clear in scripture and quite true that many do go to hell.

I suppose you don’t think all the other things Christ told us we must do to be saved aren’t necessary either…you might take a good, open minded, true reading of scripture before you come on here making these claims.

 

[VociMike]

One can NOT reject the GOSPEL and be saved!
One can reject your churches incorrect interpretation of the scriptures regarding baptism and still be saved.

But you just said that a Christian can knowingly and deliberately reject being baptized and still be saved. If refusing to be baptized is not rejecting the gospel, I don’t know what is.

Let’s make sure we’re understanding each other. Can a Christian knowingly and deliberately refuse to get baptized and still be saved?

 

[RobNY]

Help me out here…

Gladly, myfavoritmartin.

Christ died on the cross,

Amen, He did.

But in hind sight HE figured, well lets see I did my part, but really in order for this to bring about salvation I am going to require that my people sprinkle water over their infants, if not that child is going to HELL!

Please be careful about caricatures of our belief. There’s nothing in, “hindsight” about Christ’s decision, nor is it malicious so as to damn infants. Honestly, it’s not helpful to dialogue to do that.

Gimme a break, this is a works it requires that we do something!

But Jesus already requires that we believe in Him and do good works. It is not biblical that we just, “do nothing.” That’s quietism, not Christianity.

and in MY opinion it adds to the denial of the atoning nature of the cross.

Can you explain why you think this is so?

If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ?

Not at all. Baptism is the application of Christ’s merit to the individual believer.

Try to understand this: Jesus died on the Cross, winning superabundant merit for us. However, no one person was saved simply because Jesus died. If that were the case, all would be infallibly saved because Jesus won so much merit, enough to save everyone. People are saved because of the superabundant merit Jesus won and because it has been personally applied to them. If Jesus’ merit is never applied to us, then Jesus’ cross is in vain for us! This is the category which nonbelievers are in.

However, when man associates with God’s saving work and Christ’s merit, this we call justification. Objectively Jesus finished the work of salvation on the cross. Subjectively Jesus applies His finished work to every believer at the time of justification.

What we’re saying is that baptism is that application of the merit of Christ to the individual. It is not in addition to or instead of Christ’s merit-- it is the very instrument through which Christ’s merit is applied to us, and the grace with which we are cleansed in baptism is the grace which Christ won for us on the cross.

So no-- our view is not at all that we are, “adding to Christ’s finished work.”

If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved.

Obviously baptism is a channel of the grace Christ won for us, not something different.

If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

It isn’t in the same sense as, ‘works of the law.’ You greatly misunderstand both what a sacrament is, and the problem with, “works” as Paul describes them. As a result, you split the gospel into pieces and ignore our Lord’s, Paul’s and James’s words on doing good works. The problem is not with doing works of the law, in themselves but in doing them in order to be justified. I can explain this for you if you wish, but I’ll just cut right to the chase on this issue.

If baptism were a work of man by which man tried to obligate God to make himself right (i.e., justify), then indeed it would be hollow, because man cannot obligate God to do anything. But as you keep missing, baptism is not a work of man. Baptism is a work of God, which God promised and gave to us, and which God vivifies with His Holy Spirit. That is why baptism is not a contradiction to the gospel message.

-Rob

 

[JaneFrances]

Help me out here…
Christ died on the cross,
But in hind sight HE figured, well lets see I did my part, but really in order for this to bring about salvation I am going to require that my people sprinkle water over their infants, if not that child is going to HELL!
Gimme a break, this is a works it requires that we do something! and in MY opinion it adds to the denial of the atoning nature of the cross.

If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ?

If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

Is obedience to God necessary for salvation? Yes or No.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Simon, why don’t you credit your copy and paste to CARM where you got it?

Their use of the uncircumcised heart as their premise is faulty since it in no way addresses the fact that the New Testament does indeed tell us that unless one is born of water and the Spirit that he can’t see the Kingdom of Heaven. (John 3:5)

Also their “covenant sign” doctrine fails because even if it were true, just as circumcision was a covenant sign, it was still necessary to entering the community of faith as a Jew, therefore, baptism would follow in the very same way, hence it is necessary to salvation.

Furthermore, they misinterpret the writings of St. Paul when he points out that he was not sent to baptize but to preach. He was an evangelist but not a pastor, nor even a bishop (so far as I can see, even though we know he was an apostle born out of time).

They misinterpret Acts 22:16 which says “16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’” This of course follows the command of Our Lord “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” which is indeed that calling on His name. I have to wonder if their failure to consider this is deliberate, in which case they have not dealt with this topic objectively or honestly.

Our Lord Himself gave us the following command and commission did He not? “19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20) Notice that the command is to baptize, and nowhere is that command abrogated. (Except among many n-C churches.) If baptism is not necessary to salvation then why did Our Lord command it like that?

 

[JaneFrances]

Help me out here…
Christ died on the cross,
But in hind sight HE figured, well lets see I did my part, but really in order for this to bring about salvation I am going to require that my people sprinkle water over their infants, if not that child is going to HELL!

And for the record, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the Rite of Christian Baptism. It does not require sprinkling water over infants. Baptism is a Sacrament for everyone and sprinkling is in no way required. Do your homework if you intend to contest this ancient Biblical and Christian Sacrament!

Gimme a break, this is a works it requires that we do something!

In Christian charity, I remind you, you actually are required to “do something.” For more information, please see the Bible. You may find an unabridged version at most libraries and at all Catholic Churches.

Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace.

This is a very helpful definition. I am very glad to know that non-Catholics are defining their dogma, too!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Is obedience to God necessary for salvation? Yes or No.

It is the result of salvation!

 

[Church_Militant]

It is the result of salvation!

Really? Yet without obedience to the call of Christ through the Holy Spirit then one does not even come near to the Kingdom of God. So you are wrong about this…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Please be careful about caricatures of our belief. There’s nothing in, “hindsight” about Christ’s decision, nor is it malicious so as to damn infants. Honestly, it’s not helpful to dialogue to do that.

An unbaptised infant based on the CC theology is damned! isn’t it?

 

[Church_Militant]

An unbaptised infant based on the CC theology is damned! isn’t it?

No it is is not. The Church expresses faith that such children are dealt with in the mercy of God.

We leave that to the Almighty to judge.

However, why would any believer not want their child to be baptized if they intend to raise them in a believing home?

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **JaneFrances** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2480380#post2480380) 				
  		*Is obedience to God necessary for salvation?  Yes or No.*

It is the result of salvation!

I think Adam and Eve would beg to differ.

 

[RobNY]

An unbaptised infant based on the CC theology is damned! isn’t it?

Church Militant made an adequate response.

I’m more interested in a response to what I said about baptism. That is where our potential for dialogue to continue remains.

-Rob

EDIT: Besides, comments like these can easily be turned on their heads-- are all who are too young to believe damned? But isn’t faith necessary like you keep saying? Isn’t it? Wait, are you saying that without faith in Christ people can be saved?