Baptismal Question for Protestants

[zach_dunn]

The physical act that joins a husband and wife together is done by mutual consent. When I was baptized as an infant, there was no consent on my part – I was baptized without faith, knowlege or consent. That makes all the difference!

The consent of the parents is substituted for the consent of the infant, just as in the case of the man in the bed:

Luke 5:18-20
And behold, men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him in and lay him before Jesus; but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”

In this case, the faith of the men was the reason the man was forgiven, not because of the man’s faith. The same reasoning applies to infant baptism. This belief becomes even stronger when you believe that all humans are “infected” (for lack of a better word) with Original Sin from birth. I’m not sure if you do believe Original Sin to be true, but even if you don’t I’m sure you can understand why we practice infant baptism. For we (Catholics) believe that our souls need to have Sanctifying Grace (spiritual life) in them to gain entrance into heaven [cf. CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1266”]1266], and we define Original Sin precisely as the lack of Sanctifying Grace in our souls when we are born [cf. CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 404”]404]. We also believe that baptism is the way to “wash away” Original sin [cf. CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 405”]405], thus giving us the ability to enter into heaven.

Now after this long explanation, can you — at the very least — understand why we practice infant baptism? I mean, why would any parent not want their child rid of the curse of Original Sin as soon as possible? Here is another interesting bit of Scripture for you to chew on:

Luke 18:15-17
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Here we see that Christ wishes the infants to be brought to Him. He also informs us that the kingdom of God belongs to infants! How can we keep from baptizing infants while baptism itself is the doorway to the kingdom [Jn 3:5]?

It’s right next to that verse that explicitly says that Mary was born without the stain and never experienced death.

I haven’t seen a Catholic Bible that contained a verse about Mary never experiencing death yet! It’s because it doesn’t exist.

 

[Rocket_Man]

The consent of the parents is substituted for the consent of the infant, just as in the case of the man in the bed:

Luke 5:18-20
And behold, men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him in and lay him before Jesus; but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”

In this case, the faith of the men was the reason the man was forgiven, not because of the man’s faith. The same reasoning applies to infant baptism. This belief becomes even stronger when you believe that all humans are “infected” (for lack of a better word) with Original Sin from birth. I’m not sure if you do believe Original Sin to be true, but even if you don’t I’m sure you can understand why we practice infant baptism. For we (Catholics) believe that our souls need to have Sanctifying Grace (spiritual life) in them to gain entrance into heaven [cf. CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1266”]1266

], and we define Original Sin precisely as the lack of Sanctifying Grace in our souls when we are born [cf. CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 404”]404]. We also believe that baptism is the way to “wash away” Original sin [cf. CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 405”]405], thus giving us the ability to enter into heaven.

Now after this long explanation, can you — at the very least — understand why we practice infant baptism? I mean, why would any parent not want their child rid of the curse of Original Sin as soon as possible? Here is another interesting bit of Scripture for you to chew on:

Luke 18:15-17
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Here we see that Christ wishes the infants to be brought to Him. He also informs us that the kingdom of God belongs to infants! How can we keep from baptizing infants while baptism itself is the doorway to the kingdom [Jn 3:5]?

While there are many instances of those with faith having interceded for others that were sick and Christ forgiving sin and healing as the result of their faith, I align these acts much more with the command in James 5 and 1 John 5 where we are instructed to intercede in a like manner rather than a justification for infant baptism.

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

 

[wmscott]

I question Catholic law, when it is not supported by scripture, or when it adds to scripture. I have found that I cannot reconcile Catholic teaching with what I read in scripture. Baptism is merely one issue…there are many others, each of which would require an additional thread.

Unlike some here, I am not able to turn off my brain, and just trust the Catholic Church about baptism or anything else. They say you can know someone is a Christian by their fruit. Frankly, the Catholic Church has not borne good fruit through the centuries.

So, in short, I trust in Christ because of what he has done for me. I do not trust the Catholic Church.

If you really wish to properly understand Baptism here you go, complete with Sacred Scripture.

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

Full text here LINK

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Full text here LINK

 

[Nicea325]

“Coming to Christ” for me assumes that He first called through grace, but not until I was twenty none. How could I had been His adopted son as a child and not known my Father in heart? If regeneration were present in infant baptism, then the fruits of the Spirit would have been evident in my life? Isn’t this new covenant a better one than that given to Israel?

But God is not matter and confined to time. Age is not revelant to God,only to humans.God calls people at different times and it is up to the person to accept it or reject His call. I was baptized and confirmed as an infant and started working for the RCC in my early 30’s. Does that I mean rejected His fruits during my teens and 20’s?

 

[wmscott]

I question Catholic law, when it is not supported by scripture, or when it adds to scripture. I have found that I cannot reconcile Catholic teaching with what I read in scripture. Baptism is merely one issue…there are many others, each of which would require an additional thread.

Unlike some here, I am not able to turn off my brain, and just trust the Catholic Church about baptism or anything else. They say you can know someone is a Christian by their fruit. Frankly, the Catholic Church has not borne good fruit through the centuries.

So, in short, I trust in Christ because of what he has done for me. I do not trust the Catholic Church.

Since you trust in the Bible that the Catholic Church gave the world, your statement “I trust in Christ because of what he has done for me. I do not trust the Catholic Church” is kind of contradictory isn’t it? And saying “I have found that I cannot reconcile Catholic teaching with what I read in scripture” and since Catholic teaching is rooted in Sacred Scripture, I would expect you to cite specifics. However since this is about baptism we will not wander off and derail this thread. Please cite any unbiblical beliefs and or practices that the Catholic Church teaches where it relates to Baptism.

As far as your statement “the Catholic Church has not borne good fruit through the centuries”. It is the sinners within that are the ones who bore bad fruit on occasion, not the Body of Christ. Please tell me that your particular denomination is spotless and without sin, that it has borne only good fruit. Are the ones who make up your denomination without sin? If so by all means be the one to cast that first stone.

 

[Rocket_Man]

But God is not matter and confined to time. Age is not revelant to God,only to humans.God calls people at different times and it is up to the person to accept it or reject His call. I was baptized and confirmed as an infant and started working for the RCC in my early 30’s. Does that I mean rejected His fruits during my teens and 20’s?

As you say, age is relevant to humans, but not to God. In His earthly ministry, when Christ healed it was immediate, not delayed in time. If infant baptism did contain God’s healing, and the priest was acting as the agent of Christ in time, then we would expect the lame to rise and walk or the dead man to come out of the grave at His command. That wasn’t the case with me. Whether it was with you only you can answer.

 

[guanophore]

While there are many instances of those with faith having interceded for others that were sick and Christ forgiving sin and healing as the result of their faith, I align these acts much more with the command in James 5 and 1 John 5 where we are instructed to intercede in a like manner rather than a justification for infant baptism.

this is true. Catholics do not use any Scripture as “justification” for the doctrine of the faith. Our faith comes from the Apostles, including the baptism of infants. What we see in scripture is a REFLECTION of our faith. We do not extract our doctrine from Scripture.

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

These are references to the sacrament of the annointing of the sick and to confession.

It is clear in all cases, God gives His grace through the faith of others.

 

[Nicea325]

As you say, age is relevant to humans, but not to God. In His earthly ministry, when Christ healed it was immediate, not delayed in time. If infant baptism did contain God’s healing, and the priest was acting as the agent of Christ in time, then we would expect the lame to rise and walk or the dead man to come out of the grave at His command. That wasn’t the case with me. Whether it was with you only you can answer.

Are you claiming infant baptism is void? If so, would you apply the same to Jesus’ being circumcised after 8 days? Do you consider it meaningless since he was an infant?

 

[jbelokur]

Are you claiming infant baptism is void? If so, would you apply the same to Jesus’ being circumcised after 8 days? Do you consider it meaningless since he was an infant?

Not only Jesus but all the males of Israel! If you take it to it’s natural conclusion what does this say about the Mosaic Law? God works with us by the same means He created us to live, i.e. both in the physical and spiritual world. Denying that God works in and uses the physical is really just a form of gnosticism at it’s roots. It is a basic denial of the goodness of creation. A notion contradicted by mainline protestant theology which ways that the most basic form of revelation is General Revelation, or that in viewing creation we see the goodness of God. If it is completely fallen then it would not reflect God at all. This is why I say that in the Catholic Church I find that I am living a more fully human life because I am growing towards living 100% in the physical world and 100% in the Spiritual just as we were created to do.

 

[Nicea325]

Not only Jesus but all the males of Israel! If you take it to it’s natural conclusion what does this say about the Mosaic Law? God works with us by the same means He created us to live, i.e. both in the physical and spiritual world. Denying that God works in and uses the physical is really just a form of gnosticism at it’s roots. It is a basic denial of the goodness of creation. A notion contradicted by mainline protestant theology which ways that the most basic form of revelation is General Revelation, or that in viewing creation we see the goodness of God. If it is completely fallen then it would not reflect God at all. This is why I say that in the Catholic Church I find that I am living a more fully human life because I am growing towards living 100% in the physical world and 100% in the Spiritual just as we were created to do.

Precisely! The whole notion or belief baptism is strictly for age-reasoning adults/believers is a fallacy. Now that is not to say an adult cannot accept Jesus and follow Him. My whole point is that baptism is not for adults only or those who can be held accountable.

 

[Rocket_Man]

this is true. Catholics do not use any Scripture as “justification” for the doctrine of the faith. Our faith comes from the Apostles, including the baptism of infants. What we see in scripture is a REFLECTION of our faith.

Seems that Luke might have had a different understanding of “REFLECTION”

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Are you claiming infant baptism is void? If so, would you apply the same to Jesus’ being circumcised after 8 days? Do you consider it meaningless since he was an infant?

For many, other than the elect, the circumcision was meaningless.

 

[jbelokur]

For many, other than the elect, the circumcision was meaningless.

On what grounds? Please support your statements with sound reasoning if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

[Araninski]

To answer OP’s question:

A Marital Act is something physical, that bonds a couple. So you are saying that Baptism bonds us to God right? (Forgive me if I didn’t understood.)

You have a different situation here in my opinion. Bonding a man and a women is something, both whom are flesh and blood, but God isn’t flesh and blood neither Jesus (thought Jesus used a body to fulfill the Scriptures). When Jesus resurrected He had a new body:

Luke 24:39
Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

This is a new body here, pay attention, He has a body which is a ghost (spirit) but he also says it has flesh and bones, like a new type of “physical body”.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

So when one converts to the Lord and surrenders to Him, that person “spiritually” bonds to God. When getting baptized, that it is a sign that greatly leads to someones spiritual growth, which is not optional if you have the chance to do it. Infants and children are of the Lord (Matthew 18). Everyone needs to grow up to know if he/she wants to be with the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:50
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

I do not claim to know how is Heaven going to be , we all know this place is certainly wonderful, beautiful, magnificent , perfect, etc. But I don’t know how this place is going to be exactly, I am sure though that our bodies we use here won’t be with us anymore.

The kind “physical” act I guess you are looking for is the one that it is coming, the new Jerusalem as describe in the bible is a bride, the Bride of the Lamb of God. A bride is a woman just married or about to be married according to Merriam Webster. Either we are just married or about to be married, we haven’t yet seen the like, equivalent “physical” marital act.

I just like to think Heaven is just out of our mind’s imagination, is just impossible to know how Heaven is going to be like, is a present the Lord has for his Bride.

We are bonded to the Lord spiritually yet not “physically”. It makes sense to me before bonding physically to someone you need to know that person well, to make sure in the future nothing goes bad. Here on Earth we are the Bride of Christ, getting everything cell by cell perfected through Christ, on Heaven the Bride of Christ is going to be perfect no need for more struggles or tests because through Christ we are going to be perfected.

Praise the Lord for He has great thing for us, Hallelujah!

Peace of Christ brothers, continue in God’s grace.

 

[jbelokur]

To answer OP’s question:

A Marital Act is something physical, that bonds a couple. So you are saying that Baptism bonds us to God right? (Forgive me if I didn’t understood.)

You have a different situation here in my opinion. Bonding a man and a women is something, both whom are flesh and blood, but God isn’t flesh and blood neither Jesus (thought Jesus used a body to fulfill the Scriptures). When Jesus resurrected He had a new body:

Luke 24:39
Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

This is a new body here, pay attention, He has a body which is a ghost (spirit) but he also says it has flesh and bones, like a new type of “physical body”.

**Christ is setting up s contrast here. The quote, “a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” is both an empirical question and the answer he intends you to arrive at. So you could rephrase the quote as saying, “Do ghosts have bodies? No! Therefore, I am not a ghost as you can see that I do have a body.” He is not saying that he is a ghost with a special body. **

1 Corinthians 15:45
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:50
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

I do not claim to know how is Heaven going to be , we all know this place is certainly wonderful, beautiful, magnificent , perfect, etc. But I don’t know how this place is going to be exactly, I am sure though that our bodies we use here won’t be with us anymore.

What is the purpose of the resurrection? Trying to ignore the final resurrection of our bodies from scripture is going to be tricky because it pops up everywhere in the NT.

The kind “physical” act I guess you are looking for is the one that it is coming, the new Jerusalem as describe in the bible is a bride, the Bride of the Lamb of God. A bride is a woman just married or about to be married according to Merriam Webster. Either we are just married or about to be married, we haven’t yet seen the like, equivalent “physical” marital act.

But the way that Paul often speaks is in an already but not yet frame of mind. in this case we are not going to be more of a bride of Christ in the New Jerusalem than we are now. We will finally know Him perfectly, but we are truly His bride now. This is accomplished through the sacrament of Baptism.

I just like to think Heaven is just out of our mind’s imagination, is just impossible to know how Heaven is going to be like, is a present the Lord has for his Bride.

We are bonded to the Lord spiritually yet not “physically”. It makes sense to me before bonding physically to someone you need to know that person well, to make sure in the future nothing goes bad. Here on Earth we are the Bride of Christ, getting everything cell by cell perfected through Christ, on Heaven the Bride of Christ is going to be perfect no need for more struggles or tests because through Christ we are going to be perfected.

Again, are we or are we not now the bride of Christ? Scripture is more than clear about this issue, the Church is the bride of Christ presently and into eternity.

 

[Nicea325]

For many, other than the elect, the circumcision was meaningless.

Meaningless? Elaborate on that view,please.

 

[Araninski]

jbelokur, you forgot to read the passage below your explanation, remember He didn’t say blood, this is why I said I don’t know it everything with clarity, I meant our bodies won’t be the same.

Remember also that the Bride of Christ , are the believers and every single one has his/her own part, we are like body /parts/organs/cells , we cannot live without the other, and every believer is a part.

I agree with you in everything you said, you are just asking something that is obvious.

BTW Is this guy part of the Bride of Christ?

39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[f]”

43Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

I know Paradise is not the same as Heaven, but only the ones who Jesus saved can go to the Paradise, which is the place I think where the souls are waiting until the Judgment Day.

 

[InstallMe_Dan]

As most of you know the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and some Protestant denominations believe that we are saved through the sacrament of baptism which was instituted by Christ. This basic concept is reflected in the point being made by Peter in the passage of 1 Peter 3:13-22 and Peter’s answer to the Jews in Acts 2:37ff. as well as others. But beyond that, I was think about the fact that most protestants believe that the marital act is not just a physical act signifying what God has done but that it also spiritually binds the couple together in the eyes of God. Now, one of the most common analogy that Paul makes between Christ and the Church is that of a bride and Groom, and in the Old testament we constantly read that God speaks of Israels’ unfaithfulness as adultery. My question is, if God uses a physical act to join together a man and a woman as husband and wife why would he not also use a physical act to join us to himself as his bride?

This is a very good question concerning the nature of Baptism and salvation. On my first read through this passage I can easily see why some hold that baptism has some effect in the process of salvation.

I have spent a little time reviewing the passage, comparing other scripture verses, and I cannot in clean conscience say that this passage teaches that baptism saves us.

First, the major teaching of the passage is not about baptism, but about the efficacy of Christ’s death for salvation. Look at how much emphasis God places on the death of Christ in this passage and having Christ as LORD.
[15] But in your hearts set apart Christ as LORD.
[18] For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison [20] who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while th eark was being built.

Baptism is now brought into the scope of the argument as a corrolation to the flood and the ark.

God, through Peter, is very careful to explain that this ‘baptism’ does not mean the physical baptism that we experience but our ‘baptism’ into Christ through regeneration. Verse 21 says that this “water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”

When the power of verse 18 is effective in our lives, when we have accepted that Christ has died for our sins and was raised again on the third day, it is then we have the Spirit living in us, as a pledge of a good conscience toward God. Ephesians echos this teaching of the Spirit being the seal of our salvation, the pledge if you will.

The teaching that Baptism is required for salvation is also in error according to the words of Christ. For on the cross when the penitent thief asked to be remembered, Christ did not say get down and be baptized. Instead he said ‘Today you will be with me in paradise.’ If Christ does not put a prerequisite of baptism as part of the salvation process then neither should we add to His words.

 

[jbelokur]

This is a very good question concerning the nature of Baptism and salvation. On my first read through this passage I can easily see why some hold that baptism has some effect in the process of salvation.

I have spent a little time reviewing the passage, comparing other scripture verses, and I cannot in clean conscience say that this passage teaches that baptism saves us.

First, the major teaching of the passage is not about baptism, but about the efficacy of Christ’s death for salvation. Look at how much emphasis God places on the death of Christ in this passage and having Christ as LORD.
[15] But in your hearts set apart Christ as LORD.
[18] For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison [20] who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Baptism is now brought into the scope of the argument as a correlation to the flood and the ark.

God, through Peter, is very careful to explain that this ‘baptism’ does not mean the physical baptism that we experience but our ‘baptism’ into Christ through regeneration. Verse 21 says that this “water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”

When the power of verse 18 is effective in our lives, when we have accepted that Christ has died for our sins and was raised again on the third day, it is then we have the Spirit living in us, as a pledge of a good conscience toward God. Ephesians echos this teaching of the Spirit being the seal of our salvation, the pledge if you will.

Let’s deal with verse 21. You need to use a proper translation or the original text. The Greek work for symbolize is not there. However, what is there is the word, “antitupon” (transliterated of course) which is translated “corresponding”. I want the put the text back into this response. [21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

21a)“Baptism, which corresponds to this,” This phrase directs us to what has just been said. Peter is speaking of the fact that God was patient waiting for the people to respond to him during the construction of the ark. But is was only eight who were saved, “through (or by means of) water”.

21b)“now saves you” This baptism which we now know corresponds to the salvation of Noah’s family through water, is now also our means of salvation. There is nothing in the text that should make us think that Peter was not speaking specifically of physical water baptism in this passage, or that the recipient of this letter would have read is as anything else either.

21c)“not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience.” The effect of the water baptism is not physical like a normal washing, but rather, a spiritual washing way of sin, resulting in a clear conscience. Peter is speaking of the sacramental nature of baptism. This temporal/physical means carries with it and eternal/spiritual effect. He is saying that what is going on here is far beyond what your eyes can see.

21d)“through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Is this magic? No! it is the power of Christ’s death and resurrections which gives this sacrament it’s true power.

The teaching that Baptism is required for salvation is also in error according to the words of Christ. For on the cross when the penitent thief asked to be remembered, Christ did not say get down and be baptized. Instead he said ‘Today you will be with me in paradise.’ If Christ does not put a prerequisite of baptism as part of the salvation process then neither should we add to His words.

You cannot take a scriptural exception and make it the norm.

 

[InstallMe_Dan]

You cannot take a scriptural exception and make it the norm.

You are correct, a single verse should not stand out as a standard. I apologize for not eloborating.

However, the scripture clearly teaches that the only thing required for salvation is repentance. In scripture baptism always follows repentance. It is not the exception, it is the clear doctrinal teaching of the early church (prior to Origin). Paul taught that eternal life is a free gift from God, not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). Baptism is simply a outward response to the work of regeneration in a man’s heart.

How was Abraham saved? Scripture says he believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness. He was not saved by baptism. Now you may argue that Christ had not been crucified yet and thus baptism was not a sacrament yet. However, scripture in the NT reflects this same pattern.

This happened in the case of Peter in Acts 3 and 4. He preached Christ crucified, and repentance of sin. There is no mention of baptism here for conversion.

Philip in Acts 8 is divinely transported to meet with the Ethopian eunuch. The eunuch is obviously already a ‘spiritual’ man, or at the very least interested in spiritual things. This is evidenced by his reading of Isaiah when Philip arrives.

Philip then explains how the scripture is a reference to Christ. He preaches Christ to this man. After some time the eunuch and Philip are passing by some water; the eunuch asks what prevents him from being baptized. There is no hesitation in Philip’s response. And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” It is after Philip’s teaching and his confession of faith that he is baptized.

There are many more examples and clear teaching from scripture. This is why we should not take any singular scripture passage without comparing it to other scripture as you indicated in your response.

In Christ,
Dan