"Be ye baptized, for the remission of your sins"

[guanophore]

Well, you seem to say that it saves us by literally washing our soul clean of sin, whether original or actual sin. Yes or no?

That is what scripture says, yes.

Except we don’t call the Holy Spirit “it”, since we are trinitarians, we refer to HS as “HE”. God washes away our sins, in the waters of baptism. That is why the prophet says to Saul, “arise, and be baptized, washing away your sins”…

 

[Robbinson]

Yes, I agree, but as TruineUnity has stated, these are not considered normative. The normal means of becoming a member of the Body of Christ is baptism. There are other extraordinary means.

Yes - I agree (well said).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Matariel]

Ok, Protestants who don’t believe in Regenerative Baptism, how about a verse-by-verse rebuttal of the OP?

 

[SyCarl]

I do believe that baptism saves us but that statement does not mean the sacrament of baptism. As such a rebutal of each passage in the original post is not necessary as they speak of the true baptism. It is important to realize that God doesn’t change and that He saves those in the Old Testament in the same way as those under the New Testament.

"For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
(Malachi 3:6 NASB)

The Church Fathers also accepted that those under either the Old Testament or the New Testament are saved in the same way, through faith.

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; since there is none other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved; and in Him has God defined unto all men their faith, in that He has raised Him from the dead. Now without this faith, that is to say, without a belief in the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; without faith, I say, in His resurrection by which God has given assurance to all men and which no man could of course truly believe were it not for His incarnation and death; without faith, therefore, in the incarnation and death and resurrection of Christ, the Christian verity unhesitatingly declares that the ancient saints could not possibly have been cleansed from sin so as to have become holy, and justified by the grace of God. And this is true both of the saints who are mentioned in Holy Scripture, and of those also who are not indeed mentioned therein, but must yet be supposed to have existed,— either before the deluge, or in the interval between that event and the giving of the law, or in the period of the law itself,— not merely among the children of Israel, as the prophets, but even outside that nation, as for instance Job. For it was by the self-same faith in the one Mediator that the hearts of these, too, were cleansed, and there also was shed abroad in them the love of God by the Holy Ghost, who blows where He lists, not following men’s merits, but even producing these very merits Himself. For the grace of God will in no wise exist unless it be wholly free.-Augustine (On the Grace of Christ, and On Original Sin, Book 2, Chapter 28)
newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

If the law justifies, Abraham was not justified, since he lived long before the law. Since they cannot say this, they are forced to admit that a man is justified not by works of the law but by faith. And **he compels us to understand that all the ancients who were justified were justified from the same faith. For as we are saved by believing, partly in a past event, that is the first coming of the Lord, and partly in a future one, that is, his second coming, they believed the whole of it, that is, both coming events. **The Holy Spirit reveals this for their salvation.-Augustine, (Epistle to the Galatians,Thomas Oden ed. ., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VIII: Galatians, Ephesians Philippians, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 43.))

If the salvation of the world is in no other but in Christ alone, then the fathers of the Old Testament were saved by the incarnation and passion of the same Redeemer, by which we also believe and hope to be saved. For although the sacramental signs differed by reason of the times, nevertheless there was agreement in one and the same faith, because through the prophets they learned as something to come the same dispensation of Christ which we learned through the apostles as something which has been done. For there is no redemption of human captivity [to sinfulness] except in the blood of him who gave himself as a redemption for all. -Bede (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Francis Martin ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament V Acts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 49.)

The quote from Bede is particularly interesting given that he recognizes that, while the faith in the two periods was one and the same, the sacramental signs were different. The sacramental sign under the Old Testament was circumcision while under the New Testament it is water baptism. However, while the signs were different, the reality was the same.

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

Paul clearly identifies circumcision with baptism.

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 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.
(Colossians 2:9-12 NASB)

It is important to note that Paul does not equate Christian baptism with physical circumcision; he associates it with a circumcision made without hands. In Romans, Paul makes it clear that there are two circumcisions. One circumcision is outward in the flesh while the other is inwardly of the heart. It is clearly the latter that is the important one, not the outward sign.

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
(Romans 2:28-29 NASB)

Circumcision of the heart is referred to several times in the Old Testament.

"So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.
(Deuteronomy 10:16 NASB)

"Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.
(Deuteronomy 30:6 NASB)

“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds.”
(Jeremiah 4:4 NASB)

Note that these statements are made to Israel whose males had already been circumcised. It is clear that Scripture is referring to something separate from physical circumcision and that circumcision of the heart does not take place at the same time as the physical procedure. That there are two separate circumcisions, one physical and the other spiritual, is significant because the New Testament also refers to two kinds of circumcision.

"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.
(Matthew 3:11 NASB)

“I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
(Mark 1:8 NASB)

John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
(Luke 3:16 NASB)

"I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’
(John 1:33 NASB)

It is important that the distinction between baptism in water and baptism in the Holy Spirit is one of the few things that all four Gospel writers thought significant enough to mention. It is correct to speak of baptismal regeneration but which baptism causes the regeneration, the visible ceremony of water baptism or the invisible baptism by the Holy Spirit. The passage quoted from Colossians 2 would indicate that the important baptism is the one that takes place inwardly, not outwardly as Paul equates baptism with the spiritual circumcision. We would circumcision made without hands equate with physical baptism which is done by hands through the immersion or sprinkling with water? The Romans 2 could be looked at as allowing us to say “For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly, nor is baptism that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Christian who is one inwardly; and baptism is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

A distinction between the outward sign and an inward spiritual reality would clarify Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus.

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “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.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
(John 3:5-10 NASB)

Nicodemus indicates that he does not understand what Jesus is talking about. Jesus says that he should be able to understand it as a teacher of Israel. This would indicate that Jesus was not speaking of some new teaching but something that Nicodemus should have already been aware of as a Pharisee. Water baptism is not something taught in the Old Testament and Nicodemus would not have been expected to know of it as a Jewish teacher. He would, however, be expected to understand the inward circumcision of the heart that had been referred to in the Old Testament. If Jesus was speaking of there being a new birth through water baptism, why would He have spoken about the Spirit in reference to the wind and not knowing where it comes from and where it was going? If the actual rebirth took place with the water baptism it would be absolutely possible to know where the Spirit was acting since it would act on the person being baptised in water. However, if the rebirth is separate from the actual sacrament of water baptism, it would be true to say we would not know who the Spirit would regenerate.

Jesus’ language in John 3, appears to refer specifically to Ezekiel 36 where God says He will sprinkle us with clean water and give a new heart and spirit. It should be remembered that the working of the Holy Spirit is often compared to water.

"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. "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. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
(Ezekiel 36:25-27 NASB)

Removing our heart of stone would equate with the spiritual circumcision of the heart. It would also link with the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31, where God promises to write the law on our hearts.

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
(Jeremiah 31:31-34 NASB)

It would also fit with David’s prayer in Psalm 51 where he asks God to blot out his sins, give him a clean heart and renew his spirit.

Hide Your face from my sins And blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
(Psalms 51:9-10 NASB)

The recognition of a distinction between outward water baptism and inward spiritual baptism corresponding to the same distinction between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart, would allow for the reality that people under the Old Testament were saved in the same way that we are under the New Testament. Each of us experiences an inner rebirth through the Spirit even though different sacramental signs are used. Some, such as Cornelius and his household, are saved by receiving the Holy Spirit before the sacrament of baptism, just as Abraham was before he was circumcised, and some after the sacrament, just as Scripture says that those who had already had there flesh circumcised would later have their hearts circumcised. It would seem clear that the physical act of circumcision is not the relevant point of consideration under the Old Testament. If it was then now women would have been saved under the Old Testament and neither would Gentiles since neither group would have received physical circumcision.

It appears to some extent that the Catholic Church recognizes, at least implicitly, that someone can receive spiritual baptism without water baptism. It would justify the recognition of both the Baptism of Blood and the Baptism of Desire where someone is recognized as having received the benefit of baptism even without the sacrament. They have already received the spiritual baptism upon believing. It would also deal with the case of adults who are baptised without actually believing. If an unbelieving adult is baptised it is recognized that the sacrament they received cannot save them since they don’t believe. However, since they have already received the outward sign, if they do become believers they do not receive the sacrament again. In such a case can it really be argued that it is the water baptism that has saved them? On belief they receive the true spiritual baptism. Placing the emphasis on spiritual baptism through belief would also explain why Paul told the Corinthians that he was not sent to baptise since the important thing was preaching so they could believe.

If the Sacrament of Baptism is not required, does that mean we should not receive it? Of course not since Jesus and Scripture tells us to receive the sacrament. If we are unwilling to do so then have we truly believed? Please note also, that as a Prebyterian I accept infant baptism as it claims the covenant promises for our children.

 

[allischalmers]

Acts 8:36 The eunuch asks Philip what stops him from being baptized. Philip answers, If you believe you may! The eunuch says, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then is baptized.

Believers Baptism

 

[Matariel]

Acts 8:36 The eunuch asks Philip what stops him from being baptized. Philip answers, If you believe you may! The eunuch says, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then is baptized.

Believers Baptism

Well of course-- he was an adult convert!
Even today, if you, as an adult, were never baptized and join the Catholic Church, you have to believe!

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. 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.

Universal Baptism

At any rate, this thread is not for debating Universal/Believer’s Baptism, it’s for debating Symbolic/Regenerative Baptism.

Let’s keep it on subject.

 

[guanophore]

It is correct to speak of baptismal regeneration but which baptism causes the regeneration, the visible ceremony of water baptism or the invisible baptism by the Holy Spirit. The passage quoted from Colossians 2 would indicate that **the important baptism is the one that **takes place inwardly, not outwardly as Paul equates baptism with the spiritual circumcision.

The Apostles and their disciples did not distinguish between the two. Those persons who have received the Apostolic Teaching as they gave it do not separate them either. I agree, it is not “dunking in water” that saves, but the HS active during baptism that cirucumcises the heart of the believer. There is only ONE BAPTISM, and not two separate ones.

 

[SyCarl]

The Apostles and their disciples did not distinguish between the two. Those persons who have received the Apostolic Teaching as they gave it do not separate them either. I agree, it is not “dunking in water” that saves, but the HS active during baptism that cirucumcises the heart of the believer. There is only ONE BAPTISM, and not two separate ones.

How were those under the Old Testament saved? In baptism does the Holy Spirit work on someone who doesn’t believe? If not, why not if it is the physical sacrament that does the cleansing? What happens then if they eventually do believe? What has happened to cause a change?

 

[TriuneUnity]

How were those under the Old Testament saved?

The same as in the new; by faith in the coming Messiah. The question needs to be asked; How was this faith communicated to Israel? The same as in the New Testament; by Word and by Sacrament. While we wouldn’t call circumcision a Sacrament in the same sense as the NT does, it was the Old Testament means of grace.

 

[SyCarl]

The same as in the new; by faith in the coming Messiah. The question needs to be asked; How was this faith communicated to Israel? The same as in the New Testament; by Word and by Sacrament. While we wouldn’t call circumcision a Sacrament in the same sense as the NT does, it was the Old Testament means of grace.

So were no women or Gentiles saved during the Old Testament period? After all they would not have been physically circumcised.

 

[allischalmers]

Well of course-- he was an adult convert!
**Even today, if you, as an adult, were never baptized and join the Catholic Church, you have to believe! /**QUOTE]

Are you now saying that baptism does no save us or is it just believing that saves.

 

[ckempston]

So were no women or Gentiles saved during the Old Testament period? After all they would not have been physically circumcised.

Like all Old Testament “types” and “analogies” circumcision is not a perfect parallel to baptism, just as Moses and Joshua are not a perfect parallels of Jesus, the sacrifice of animals is not a perfect parallel to Jesus’ sacrifice, and the Temple is not a perfect parallel to the Church. These things/people were all shadows of the thing to come, therefore, you cannot reasonably expect them to be identical in all parts.

Therefore, your objection on the basis that this reasoning leads us to conclude that women could not be saved, for instance, because they couldn’t be circumcised, holds no water (no pun intended).

 

[guanophore]

How were those under the Old Testament saved?

The same way we are under the New Covenant, by grace through faith.

In baptism does the Holy Spirit work on someone who doesn’t believe?

Faith is required for a valid baptism. Otherwise, it is just a simulation.

If not, why not if it is the physical sacrament that does the cleansing?

Christ joined the HS to the waters of Baptism when He entered them. He taught his disciples to baptize, and commanded them to baptize. The work of the HS is not separated from the ritual of baptism, since there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM.

What happens then if they eventually do believe? What has happened to cause a change?

I don’t understand this question.

 

[guanophore]

Are you now saying that baptism does no save us or is it just believing that saves.

Water baptism is the normative means by which members are added to the Body of Christ. In baptism, we are “born again” of water and the Spirit. We are sealed for the promise of our salvation by the HS, and our sins are washed away by the regeneration of the HS.

 

[VWcrazy]

[QUOTEI was just reading a book titled 'Believer’s Baptism, Sign of the New Covenant in Christ" by Thomas Schreiner and Shawn Wright.
They dealt with every one of those verses and very Biblicily proved their point… We are not saved by baptism.]

I didn’t realize Baptists had popes - namely Thomas Schreiner and Shawn Wright!

Why bother reading this book if you are a ‘bible alone’ type of person? Sounds hypocritcal to say the least.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So were no women or Gentiles saved during the Old Testament period? After all they would not have been physically circumcised.

But no one is claiming that circumcision was necessary for salvation. It was a means of grace that was regenerative for those to whom it was applied. One means of grace is in no way superior to another. Women in the OT were regenerated by receiving the Word. Just as Baptism is not strictly necessary for salvation. It is normative now because its application is universal.

 

[ckempston]

I was just reading a book titled 'Believer’s Baptism, Sign of the New Covenant in Christ" by Thomas Schreiner and Shawn Wright.
They dealt with every one of those verses and very Biblicily proved their point… We are not saved by baptism.]

Yeah, hmmm…

Shawn Wright & Thomas Schreiner: baptism doesn’t save you.

Peter, the Apostle: baptism does save you.

Wonder who I should believe???

 

[SyCarl]

The same way we are under the New Covenant, by grace through faith.

Faith is required for a valid baptism. Otherwise, it is just a simulation.

Christ joined the HS to the waters of Baptism when He entered them. He taught his disciples to baptize, and commanded them to baptize. The work of the HS is not separated from the ritual of baptism, since there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM.

I don’t understand this question.

I am asking what happens if a non-believer is baptized and then becomes a believer later. The original sacrament did not save him because he didn’t believe. When he believes he is saved but is not baptised again. What has saved him unless at that point he has experience circumcision of the heart or spiritual baptism?

What happens if someone in Saudi Arabia believes and because Christianity cannot be publically practiced there he can’t find someone to baptize him? Is he saved? The Catechism limits the Baptism of Desire to catechumens. And about Baptism of Desire, is it not true they are really saved because they were regenerated before baptism? What would that be but baptism by the Spirit?