Does baptism save you?

[Zooey]

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.

:console::byzsoc:

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!

:hug1:

Gees, po, don’t send her there.

Jon

:frighten:

 

[JonathonofOhio]

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?

This is exactly what I am running into nowadays, they are concluding it is not necessary in many of those churches, but require it to join their church. However, they will argue that it is not necessary for salvation, and all you need to do is just believe in Jesus, which is exactly what Satan wants. He wants them to reject baptism because, as Peter points out, it is Baptism through which you are first saved.

And you can figure out why it saves you if you read every single passage about baptism. It removes original sin (making you like Christ) so that you can now also be raised up with Christ and be able to join those who are in heaven awaiting the resurrection of the body. It was not until Christ was raised that anyone could get into heaven, and so when you are baptized you are buried with Him so that you can be raised up like Him (Romans 6:4). It most certainly then is necessary, which is why Peter points out its saving power.

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.

This is exactly what they are doing. Thank God that you can understand this, and that He has opened your eyes so that you can see!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Jesus described two kinds of baptism- one with water, and one that Jesus was responsible for. I will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) which I read as an emphasis on God’s purifying qualities. To my reading of this passage, it’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit who regenerates you and causes you to become a new creation. Here, too, the aspect of cleansing and purification is also alluded to. When neighboring verses are accounted for, baptism with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) is the one that makes more sense of the two.

If there really are two kinds of baptism, then how can a baby be baptized with the Holy Spirit? If the baby is already saved then show us, book, chapter and verse, where the Bible says the baby loses his or her salvation on hitting a certain age and has to be baptized with the Holy Spirit OR ELSE.

It isn’t in the Bible, even though your two-baptism theory depends on it.

Abraham could have done without circumcising Isaac, too. Is it really so worthless, just because it isn’t based on a 13th-century system describing what “graces” are and how/when/why they must be received?

Sigh… it’s that “great apostasy” argument again. Never mind that Jesus said “My words shall not pass away” (Mt. 24:35) and that God’s will is “for all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4)…are you are willing to void the Scripture and assert that God let the Truth disappear from the world for hundreds of years in favor of some “13th-century system” in order to win an argument?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Jesus described two kinds of baptism- one with water, and one that Jesus was responsible for. I will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) which I read as an emphasis on God’s purifying qualities. To my reading of this passage, it’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit who regenerates you and causes you to become a new creation. Here, too, the aspect of cleansing and purification is also alluded to. When neighboring verses are accounted for, baptism with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) is the one that makes more sense of the two.

If there really are two kinds of baptism, then how can a baby be baptized with the Holy Spirit? If the baby is already saved then show us, book, chapter and verse, where the Bible says the baby loses his or her salvation on hitting a certain age and has to be baptized with the Holy Spirit OR ELSE.

It isn’t in the Bible, even though your two-baptism theory depends on it.

Doesn’t that give you just a little bit of pause?

Abraham could have done without circumcising Isaac, too. Is it really so worthless, just because it isn’t based on a 13th-century system describing what “graces” are and how/when/why they must be received?

Sigh… it’s that “great apostasy” argument again.

You are saying that the 1st-century system instituted by Jesus Christ was lost in favor of a “13th century system” until Martin Luther/John Calvin/Henry VIII/Joseph Smith/whoever came along and “rediscovered” the original.

Think about what you are saying. Are you aware that Jesus said “My words shall not pass away” (Mt. 24:35) and that God’s will is “for all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4)? So, are you are willing to void the Scripture and assert that God let the Truth disappear from the world for hundreds of years in favor of some “13th-century system” in order to win an argument?

Isn’t it a lot more likely that Jesus would NEVER allow the 1st-century system to be lost in the first place? Then why is it that it would have to be rediscovered at all? And since the 1st-century system was the ONLY system until the 15th century, doesn’t that mean that the system that existed in the 13th century must have been the same as the one in the 1st century?

 

[po18guy]

Why do so many “independent thinkers” have to challenge Peter’s plain words “Baptism now saves you!” Why does this have to be examined, re-examined, analyzed, discussed, tweaked, modified, altered, disregarded, explained away and otherwise taken for everything except what Peter said IN THE BIBLE!

Here’s part of the problem: the phrases “As I read it” and “To me, it says…” indicates that there are so many who have no authoritative Church to teach, lead and guide them. As well, when one looks no further than a few verses ahead or behind, that eliminates the entire rest of the bible!

Just as all roads lead to Rome, it seems that all doctrinal disputes stem from sola scriptura.

 

[Trebor135]

Why do so many “independent thinkers” have to challenge Peter’s plain words “Baptism now saves you!” Why does this have to be examined, re-examined, analyzed, discussed, tweaked, modified, altered, disregarded, explained away and otherwise taken for everything except what Peter said IN THE BIBLE!

Amen, well said!

Go challenge Matt Slick to a series of debates on the sacramental principle, the seven sacraments, salvation by faith and works, sacred tradition, and a visible church… and I’ll be among the first in line to watch you smash this dude’s misconceptions and misrepresentations. Slick denies that you and I, and indeed Martin Luther, are even Christian, so his position richly deserves to be refuted.

 

[po18guy]

Amen, well said!

Go challenge Matt Slick to a series of debates on the sacramental principle, the seven sacraments, salvation by faith and works, sacred tradition, and a visible church… and I’ll be among the first in line to watch you smash this dude’s misconceptions and misrepresentations. Slick denies that you and I, and indeed Martin Luther, are even Christian, so his position richly deserves to be refuted.

It is the difference between confidence and arrogance.

 

[Trebor135]

It is the difference between confidence and arrogance.

What is? (Forgive me if I’m being dense.)

 

[po18guy]

What is? (Forgive me if I’m being dense.)

The confidence that we can place in our Church, versus the arrogance of those who believe that they alone know the truth.

 

[Trebor135]

The confidence that we can place in our Church, versus the arrogance of those who believe that they alone know the truth.

Confidence in apostolic Christianity (since I’m leaning toward Eastern Orthodoxy) is something we can agree on. May God save us from the arrogance of the misinformed and protect us from being in that category, haha*.

*This is not a subtle knock against your Catholic faith.

 

[JonNC]

Amen, well said!

Go challenge Matt Slick to a series of debates on the sacramental principle, the seven sacraments, salvation by faith and works, sacred tradition, and a visible church… and I’ll be among the first in line to watch you smash this dude’s misconceptions and misrepresentations.** Slick denies that you and I, and indeed Martin Luther, are even Christian,** so his position richly deserves to be refuted.

I always get this warm, fuzzy feeling when a guy like this puts me in the same condemned category as my Catholic siblings.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

I always get this warm, fuzzy feeling when a guy like this puts me in the same condemned category as my Catholic siblings.

Jon

You just know that you’re doing something right!

 

[Trebor135]

I always get this warm, fuzzy feeling when a guy like this puts me in the same condemned category as my Catholic siblings.

This evening I’ll make sure to pack an enormous cooler with as much bottled water and ice cream as possible, so as to keep these necessities always at the ready until old age. This way, we sacramentalists–Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, et al–who depart into the next world at the same time can together survive the boiling temperatures we’re bound to face in hell for “adding to the finished work of Christ” by our “unbiblical” doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

You just know that you’re doing something right!

Gotta be. lol

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This evening I’ll make sure to pack an enormous cooler with as much bottled water and ice cream as possible, so as to keep these necessities always at the ready until old age. This way, we sacramentalists–Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, et al–who depart into the next world at the same time can together survive the boiling temperatures we’re bound to face in hell for “adding to the finished work of Christ” by our “unbiblical” doctrine.

Perhaps a case or two of that beverage made with hops and barley might nice around the, err, “campfire”, too.

Jon

 

[Trebor135]

Perhaps a case or two of that beverage made with hops and barley might nice around the, err, “campfire”, too.

Haha!

And though I myself prefer Caribbean rum and Dutch eggnog liqueur, I’ll be sure to include good beer, as you’ve requested, and fine wine as well.

Cheers!
T.