Does baptism save you?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abrigham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abrigham

Guest
I was baptized as a baby in the Catholic Church. After not going to any church for a very long time, my husband and I were recently rebaptized (he was baptized as an infant as well) at a local Protestant church. They explained to us why our infant baptisms were invalid and that this was necessary to join their church, quoting verse Acts 2:38 which says:

“And Peter said to them, ‘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. …’” (RSV)

They interpret the word “for” in “for the forgiveness of your sins” as “because of” instead of “in order to”. So they see it as you are baptized BECAUSE of your repentance and forgiveness, not IN ORDER TO receive the forgiveness. They see it as a public declaration of faith and nothing more. If that’s the case, why even do it? I could simply stand on their stage and say “I believe in God and Jesus is my savior!” Why baptize at all? And when does the gift of the Holy Spirit come? Before, during or after this declaration of faith?

Another verse brought to my attention by a friend, which she claims also says you do not need to be baptized in order to be forgiven, is 1 Peter 3:21, which says:

“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…” (RSV)

I read this as “Baptism now SAVES YOU” and I’m really not sure how it could be interpreted differently.

I’m sure there are more verses on this topic. I’d love for them to be brought up. But also, how do you interpret the second verse differently to mean that it’s not necessary? I’m just not seeing it. It seems to me people are interpreting these in skewed ways to validate their already formed beliefs so they can say it’s what the Scripture says, rather than using the Scripture to base their beliefs around.
 
Abrigham said:
I was baptized as a baby in the Catholic Church. After not going to any church for a very long time, my husband and I were recently rebaptized (he was baptized as an infant as well) at a local Protestant church. They explained to us why our infant baptisms were invalid and that this was necessary to join their church, quoting verse Acts 2:38 which says:

“And Peter said to them, ‘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. …’” (RSV)

They interpret the word “for” in “for the forgiveness of your sins” as “because of” instead of “in order to”. So they see it as you are baptized BECAUSE of your repentance and forgiveness, not IN ORDER TO receive the forgiveness. They see it as a public declaration of faith and nothing more. If that’s the case, why even do it? I could simply stand on their stage and say “I believe in God and Jesus is my savior!” Why baptize at all? And when does the gift of the Holy Spirit come? Before, during or after this declaration of faith?

Another verse brought to my attention by a friend, which she claims also says you do not need to be baptized in order to be forgiven, is 1 Peter 3:21, which says:

“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…” (RSV)

I read this as “Baptism now SAVES YOU” and I’m really not sure how it could be interpreted differently.

I’m sure there are more verses on this topic. I’d love for them to be brought up. But also, how do you interpret the second verse differently to mean that it’s not necessary? I’m just not seeing it. It seems to me people are interpreting these in skewed ways to validate their already formed beliefs so they can say it’s what the Scripture says, rather than using the Scripture to base their beliefs around.
Click to expand...
The Lutheran reformers probably saved their harshest words for the anabaptists, over this and some other issues. That said, from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [that the divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not alone to the old, but also to children]. It does not, however, pertain to those who are outside of Christ’s Church, where there is neither Word nor Sacraments, because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and Sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ’s command, Matt. 28:19: Baptize all nations. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered. 53] Secondly, it is manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children.
Click to expand...
As for rebaptism, this has been taught against from the early Church and councils onward.

Jon
 
Take a look at the big picture: after receiving the graces associated with Baptism, you have travelled (wandered?) far and wide. Yet, look at the process that you are in now, drawing ever nearer to our Lord, and desiring Him more than ever. Since salvation is a process, and is not completed until your travel on this earth is done, I would say that, yes, Baptism saves you. Amen.
 
I should amend my original question to: is it necessary for salvation? I don’t think anyone believes (though in reality I’m sure someone actually does…) that all you need for salvation is to be baptized.
 
Abrigham said:
I should amend my original question to: is it necessary for salvation? I don’t think anyone believes (though in reality I’m sure someone actually does…) that all you need for salvation is to be baptized.
Click to expand...
From the non-Evangelical Protestant point of view, baptism is not magic. The faith of either the individual undergoing the sacrament or of the parents/guardians of such an individual is required. One cannot simply grab the first person one sees off the street, drench them in water while reciting the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, and declare them a follower of Christ.
 
Abrigham said:
I should amend my original question to: is it necessary for salvation? I don’t think anyone believes (though in reality I’m sure someone actually does…) that all you need for salvation is to be baptized.
Click to expand...
Although in extraordinary circumstances the Church teaches that those who desire or manifestly would have desired baptism but died first may be saved, ordinarily a Trinitarian baptism with water is the only means of salvation. Beyond that, the other sacraments are God’s gift to return us to a state of grace after we sin, and to keep us in it until death.

I will pray for your journey home. I would talk to a priest about this, but I believe you will have to confess your re-baptism as the Church has always condemned the practice.

God bless.
 
All sins are forgiven into the waters of baptism. There’s a reason why people in the first ages didn’t let themselves be baptised up until their last hours, see Constantine the Great.
 
In a sola Fide church, why do they feel the need to baptize?

I am upset with myself that I went along with this. I could feel in my chest it wasn’t right for me and I didn’t believe what they believed. I can not and will not defend what I did. I have asked for the Lord’s forgiveness and most will definitely confess and ask for His forgiveness again.
 
Abrigham said:
In a sola Fide church, why do they feel the need to baptize?
Click to expand...
For the remission of sin, of course, just like confession/Absolution, and the Lord’s Supper.
There’s nothing in the doctrine of sola fide that says we exclude what Christ has commanded us to do, including good works, for that matter.
I am upset with myself that I went along with this. I could feel in my chest it wasn’t right for me and I didn’t believe what they believed. I can not and will not defend what I did. I have asked for the Lord’s forgiveness and most will definitely confess and ask for His forgiveness again.
Click to expand...
Then rest this in His forgiveness and mercy, and move forward.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
For the remission of sin, of course, just like confession/Absolution, and the Lord’s Supper.
There’s nothing in the doctrine of sola fide that says we exclude what Christ has commanded us to do, including good works, for that matter.

Then rest this in His forgiveness and mercy, and move forward.

Jon
Click to expand...
All of your responses make me think my church is crazier and crazier. 🙂 They claim to be sola Scriputura and sola Fide and are nothing like what you describe here or have in other posts. I apologize for being so ignorant, my only experiences with this type of church are apparently much more extreme than I originally realized. I appreciate your insight!
 
Abrigham said:
In a sola Fide church, why do they feel the need to baptize?

I am upset with myself that I went along with this. I could feel in my chest it wasn’t right for me and I didn’t believe what they believed. I can not and will not defend what I did. I have asked for the Lord’s forgiveness and most will definitely confess and ask for His forgiveness again.
Click to expand...
Have a look at what has happened to Christian doctrine on Baptism (never mind the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ!) since the bible became the “sole rule”…

carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation
 
po18guy said:
Have a look at what has happened to Christian doctrine on Baptism (never mind the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ!) since the bible became the “sole rule”…

carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation
Click to expand...
The final paragraph reads,

“One last thought: 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?”

As JonNC demonstrated earlier in the thread, Martin Luther and his earliest colleagues believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. I wonder whether the author of this article holds that the founder of Protestantism was likely damned?
 
I agree that what this church did was wrong, and I would urge you to be careful in continuing without a better understanding of what you believe.

But, I would also recommend that you look upon the people of this church kindness even though they are misguided, for whatever they have done, it sounds like the played a part in your continued journey to God. Continue that journey, and with time, and perhaps you’ll be ably to look back on experience to help others toward God.

I used to be an agnostic, and I look back on my own misguided self with a bit of happiness and joy now that my own misguided experiences help me reach others.
 
I note that Matt Slick does not save us. I suspect that he will be shocked on that Day. Maybe not lost, but certainly shocked at the truth. And, he uses the bible as the sole rule of faith. The doctrine is entropic in nature and its fruits are division.
 
Trebor135 said:
The final paragraph reads,

“One last thought: 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?”

As JonNC demonstrated earlier in the thread, Martin Luther and his earliest colleagues believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. I wonder whether the author of this article holds that the founder of Protestantism was likely damned?
Click to expand...
Well, he believed in the real presence (and in some ways, adoration), confession/Absolution, etc., too. So…

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Well, he believed in the real presence (and in some ways, adoration), confession/Absolution, etc., too. So…
Click to expand...
So, it turns out the guy who initiated the Reformation wasn’t Christian, but an idolatrous pagan: what a revelation!

If Luther was wrong on such a critical issue as sacramentalism, Matt Slick should acknowledge that Calvin may just have been wrong about TULIP as well.

Off to found my own Bible church… I’ve decided the trinity and deity of Christ are heresies, and the Bible is full of other grave errors. How a Bible church can operate without a Bible, CAF, CARM, and the rest of the world will just have to wait and see! 😃
 
Oh goodness gracious…It’s in the Bible :banghead:

If Baptism doesn’t work, then why do the Apostles say the exact opposite of that every time they talk about baptism?

Instead of me getting upset, I’m gonna have a laugh.

Saint Paul’s Baptism Oopsie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top