I just got totally spanked

[Valtiel]

I was in an argument about baptism and tried to show ho wit is required for salvation and this is the responce that I got…

Baptismal regeneration is the belief that a person must be baptized in order to be saved. Christian baptism is an outward testimony of what has occurred inwardly in a believer’s life. It illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (Romans 6:3-4 NIV). The action of being immersed in the water pictures being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures Christ’s resurrection.

Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5) there must be a different interpretation of those verses. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. In Bible times, a person who converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify conversion. Baptism was the means of making a decision public. Those who refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the minds of the apostles, the idea of an un-baptized believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it indicated that he did not have true faith.

If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Corinthians 1:14)? Why would he have said, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Corinthians 1:17)?

In regards to Acts 2:38, the Greek word in this verse that is translated as “for” is “eis”. The root meaning of “eis” is “into”, but this word can have several different senses. It can mean “in order that.” If this were the meaning here, it would mean “be baptized IN ORDER THAT you will be forgiven of your sins.” However, this would be contrary to all of the rest of Scripture which never indicates that baptism is part of salvation. Read the Gospel of John. The reader is instructed over and over again to believe, and never once told to be baptized for salvation (John 1:12; 3:16; 3:18; 3:36; 5:24; 11:25-26; 12:44; 20:31). Another meaning for the word gar is “because of.” If this is the correct meaning, and I believe it is because it agrees with the rest of Scripture, then Acts 2:38 is saying “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins.” Again, this agrees with all of the rest of Scripture where we are told that Faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ is what saves.

First, it is important to remember that Mark chapter 16, verses 9-20 are questionable and should not be used as the basis of doctrine. Please see our article on this issue here: gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html. Second, if Mark 16:9-20 is considered part of the inspired Word of God – and if it is understood as teaching baptism as necessary for salvation, it would be in contradiction to the many Scriptures which teach salvation by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). I do not believe that is the correct understanding of Mark 16:16, however. It reads, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Please notice that the first half of the verse mentions belief and baptism, while the second half only mentions belief. It does not say, “but whoever does not believe or is not baptized will be condemned.” Baptism is an important step of obedience after a person believes in Jesus Christ. See our article here: gotquestions.org/baptism.html. Mark 16:16 is saying that a person is saved by believing, and then that person should be baptized. If a person does not believe, they are condemned.

 

[Valtiel]

1 Peter 3:21 tells us, “and 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. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Baptism represents a complete break with one’s past life. As the Flood wiped away the old sinful world, so baptism pictures one’s break from his old sinful life and his entrance into new life in Christ. Peter now applied to his readers the principle he set forth in verses 13-17 and illustrated in verses 18-20. He exhorted them to have the courage to commit themselves to a course of action by taking a public stand for Christ through baptism. The act of public baptism would “save” them from the temptation to sacrifice their good consciences in order to avoid persecution. For a first-century Christian, baptism meant he was following through on his commitment to Christ, regardless of the consequences.

In regards to John 3:5, baptism is not the meaning of “born of water” that passage. Baptism is nowhere referred to as “born of water” in Scripture. Jesus’ explanation in verse 6 is that He is referring to physical birth. He declares, “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” In other words, there are two types of birth – natural and spiritual. In Jesus’ analogy, then, the natural birth refers to being born of water. During pregnancy the unborn child floats in amniotic fluid in the mother’s womb. During childbirth, this water is expelled. A child is literally born “out of water”. Therefore, the expression “born of water” is used as a figure for physical birth.

Baptismal regeneration is not a Biblical concept. Baptism does not save from sin, but from a bad conscience. Peter clearly taught that baptism was not merely a ceremonial act of physical purification, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is the symbol of what has already occurred in the heart and life of one who has trusted Christ as Savior (cf. Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12). To make the source of salvation perfectly clear Peter added, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Peter 1:3).

 

[MrS]

before you start the verse-throwing game with someone who may be on a possible anti-Catholic agenda… see the tracts on Baptism at the CA homepage. They will give you a basic grounding in the concept of baptism…

 

[Valtiel]

MrS:

before you start the verse-throwing game with someone who may be on a possible anti-Catholic agenda… see the tracts on Baptism at the CA homepage. They will give you a basic grounding in the concept of baptism…

yeah those were the ones I first off cited…

 

[MrS]

Baptism is the symbol of what has already occurred in the heart and life of one who has trusted Christ as Savior

Sounds a bit like he or she is claiming that their salvation is based on what they did (trusted), instead of what God does… in baptism and in all the sacraments.

 

[asteroid]

I confess I’ve only read the first paragraph of the non-regenerational baptism response. That said:

Baptismal regeneration is the belief that a person must be baptized in order to be saved. Christian baptism is an outward testimony of what has occurred inwardly in a believer’s life. It illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (Romans 6:3-4 NIV). The action of being immersed in the water pictures being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures Christ’s resurrection.

Now, excuse me for being thick, but where does Romans 6:3-4 say that it is just a “picture” representing Christ’s death and resurrection? Is this really a good 2 verses to use to say that baptism isn’t regenerational?

We are baptised into his death.
We are buried with him through baptism
Why? So that we may live a new life.

This doesn’t just picture Christ’s death. It represents, symbolizes and actually is our own “death”, dying into the death of Christ. Rising into the resurrection of Christ, born again as new creations in Christ.

We truly are buried with him through baptism. We’ve got to take that seriously. Scripture doesn’t say “we are not buried with him through baptism but the imagery is nice”. And this is truly so that we may live a new life. Scripture doesn’t say “we already live a new life, baptism doesn’t do anything but coming out of the water is a pretty image of the new life we already lead”. Yes, these verses say we are baptised in order that we may live a new life. They don’t say we live a new life and so as a result get baptised as an outward sign of it.

This isn’t a testimony of something that has already occurred in our lives. This is something new, personally entering into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. There is no talk of “pictures” here.

However, I’ve just read the second paragraph. This view of mine (and catholics everywhere) isn’t going to be welcomed by this person since he believes “salvation is by faith alone”. So perhaps any argument or dialogue about the meaning of baptism will be fruitless until dialogue about salvation happens. It’s true, if salvation is “by faith alone” then baptism can have nothing to do with regeneration. Trouble is, I (and catholics everywhere!) don’t believe that.

Anyway, on the subjects of baptism and faith and salvation there are plenty of people round here better qualified than me to give answers.

Time to shut up - I got a little carried away! It’s easy to develop strong feelings about this. I used to be a deacon and lay preacher in a baptist church and feel sad in many ways about what as a baptist I believed about baptism.

 

[DianJo]

Valtiel:
Just quickly, I noticed an error in his “quoting” of 1 Peter 3:21. The verse says, 21 “This prefigured baptism, which saves you NOW.” Not ALSO as quoted above. The verse does speak of a clear conscience but not in the context he is speaking. The context is that you can be sure your sins have been forgiven in baptism and therefore your conscience is clear. We are not baptised because we want a clear conscience which is how I read what he quoted.

The verses 13-22 focuses on the fact that by His suffering and death, Christ, the righteous one, saved the unrighteous (18) by His ressurection He received new life in the spirit, which He communicates to believers through the baptismal bath that cleanses their consciences from sin. As Noah’s family was saved through water, so Christians are saved through the waters of baptism (19-22). Commentary on verses 13-22 NAB.

It was also a command of Jesus, for He says we must be born of water and spirit. That has nothing to do with amniotic fluids or real birth! That’s ludicruos! The verse says what it says and has been believed to mean that we are justified by baptism since the very beginning of the Church. This belief did not surface until the 1600’s well after the Reformation began. Even Martin Luther and the other reformers believed in baptismal regeneration. The concept was foreign to the early church just as it is now.

 

[adventistnomore]

This “faith alone” argument is grounded upon the broadest (but still inconsitent) definition of "works. Baptism is not a work as Paul would understand it – it is an act, expression, and seal of faith. That is why Romans, which is so strong on "faith alone,’ speaks of Bapismal regeneration as Catholics understand it. They are one in the same. If your oppenents consistently appled ther mistaken defnitions, wouldn’t the mere intellectual exercise of faith (such as they believe brings salvaton) a work? They would better be Calvinists, denying that we can even mentally choose whom we will serve, unless that were a saving work. (Double Absolute Predestination)

 

[On_my_way]

Your friend might be confused. Most Fundamentalists confuse the Baptism of John with the Baptism of Jesus. John’s baptism was only a symbolic washing. In Mt 3:11 John says that Jesus’ baptism would give the Holy Spirit, where as his baptism did not. Most protestants reject baptism as a Sacrament of Regeneration because it does not fit with their new and unorthodox notion of justification by faith alone.

One more thing. Jesus would not have made baptism a condition for entering heaven if it were only symbolic. Early writings of the early Church Fathers showed that they all taught that water baptism regenerates. Baptism became only symbolic washing with the Reformation cnturies later.

I’ve read all the passages your friend used in his/her defense, and find it funny that most of it was about Faith Alone a very common protestant Defense.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi Valtiel,

You didn’t get spanked partner, they just played by their own Sola Fide/ Sola Scriptura rules. The only way that one can come to the conclusion that your friend did is if you choose to interpret the passages in question as he does…which is out of context and also forces the interp onto the scriptures by selective context as opposed to the total context of the scriptures.

Also look at the messed up version of 1 Peter 3:21 that he used on you as opposed to the DRV.

21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And the RSV: 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,

You didn’t lose Valtiel…you just got a really good lesson in n-C doctrine and apologetics.
Pax tecum,

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5) there must be a different interpretation of those verses. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. In Bible times, a person who converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify conversion. Baptism was the means of making a decision public. Those who refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the minds of the apostles, the idea of an un-baptized believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it indicated that he did not have true faith.

Interesting to note what occurs in this paragraph. Let me illustrate:

(1) First there’s an *admission * that scripture indicates baptism is necessary for salvation;
(2) BUT the protestant can’t accept that because he believes salvation is by faith ALONE (which is stated nowhere in the Bible);
(3) So, given the “truth” of sola fide as the launching point, there must - for the protestant - be another explanation for the passages which clearly call for baptism unto salvation - to avoid the “contradiction” with Sola Fide;
(4) thus begins a long and tortured rationalization that reinterprets scripture to support Sola Fide at the expense of the sacrament of baptism.
(5) Sola Fide is the foundation of the argument, and Sola Fide is not biblical.

 

[michaelgazin]

So you are conversing with the people at GotQuestions.org? I hope so, because the person you are discussing this with copied verbatim this page gotquestions.org/baptism-salvation.html

This website certainly has anticatholic sentiments, which may not be as visible in this particular response, but see what they have to say specifically about Catholicism here gotquestions.org/catholicism.html

This is a few quotes:

“Catholicism is a false religion in that if a person believes what the Catholic Church teaches, he will not be saved.”

“Are Catholics saved? This is a different issue. There are believers who attend Roman Catholic Churches. However, they are believers despite what the Catholic Church teaches, not because of what it teaches.”

So, if the person you are debating doesn’t work for that website, he is nothing but a copy and paster.

 

[MarkPerz]

I’ve seen two other threads on this subject and I’m so amused by it because it’s really silly.

Think about it. Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be born anew to see the kingdom of God. To be “born anew”, Jesus states two conditions. 1) To be born of water, and 2) to be born of the Spirit.

Question. What are the alternatives?

For condition #2, obviously if one does not receive the Spirit, it will be difficult for one to find God’s presence.

For condition #1, if you weren’t born, you can’t be born again.

Obviously! That makes sense! Yessiree, Bob !

It makes me wonder about people who believe this, what is their view on abortion?

Anyway, my two cents.