If I accept water Baptism is required for Salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter malachi_a_serva
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

malachi_a_serva

Guest
how does one reconcile Acts 10:47?

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?”

As well as Luke 18:14; “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified…” [he did not get baptised]

Seeking some comments. Thx…
 
how does one reconcile Acts 10:47?

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?”

As well as Luke 18:14; “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified…” [he did not get baptised]

Seeking some comments. Thx…
God being God can supply His Grace anywhere He wants. Which is why the Catholic Church says that we are bound to the Sacraments, but God is not. Cano a person be justified without Baptism? Can God supply the Grace of Baptism outside the Sacrament of Baptism? Yes. Remember however that even St. APul how had a recorded personal encounter with Christ, was told to be Baptized before God could send him.
 
The Catholic Church would recognize the possibility of salvation without actual water baptism, but not the possibility of salvation without baptism. Baptism can happen in three ways, the water variety being required normally. In cases where a person is not able to receive water baptism but is martyred, that is known as a baptism by blood.

The third way is known as a baptism by desire, and it occurs when a person, in response to God’s grace, truly desires to be with God and to follow God, but is unable to obtain baptism or does not know that it is required. God does not hold it against the person that he or she cannot obtain or is not aware of the need for baptism, and the person can be saved.

If the person later becomes aware of the need or it becomes possible for the person to obtain baptism and he refuses, this would constitute a grave sin and the person would not be saved, because he would have rejected God’s requirement for salvation. I don’t mean that in the sense as if God had a checklist, I mean it in the sense merely that salvation is on God’s terms, not ours. For example, someone may grow to love God greatly and desire to be with Him in Heaven, but when he learns that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation, the person may say they still love God, but refuse to embrace Christ. That person would be saying they love God, but rejecting salvation on God’s terms and instead expecting to get it on their own terms. If God says baptism is the way that a person is incorporated into Christ’s body, and the person will not get baptised, then that person would similarly be rejecting salvation on God’s terms and rather seeking it on their own.

The key to understanding all of this is that in Catholic theology, all that matters is (truly) loving God. If a person loves God, then they will be saved. Now if a person loves God and can’t get baptism or doesn’t know it’s needed, that person still can be saved because they love God, which is all that matters. On the other hand, a person who knows baptism is necessary but refuses it or does not take the effort to receive it clearly does not truly love God, even if they profess it with their lips. Love is an action, and obviously true love always turns into acts.

To provide a simple example, imagine that a young girl told a suitor, whom professed his undying and committed love for her, that if he were to only ask her to marry him that she would say yes and love him forever. If the young fellow proposed, it would be clear that he loved her. However, assuming there were no other factors involved (such as family strife for instance), if the boy would refuse to ask her, or perhaps put it off for days or weeks or months out of mere laziness, then it would be evident that he did not really love her after all, regardless of what he professed.
 
how does one reconcile Acts 10:47?

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?”

As well as Luke 18:14; “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified…” [he did not get baptised]

Seeking some comments. Thx…
Look at the context: In Luke 18:14, Jesus is talking to people still under the Old Covenant, which was still in effect (until His Passion and Resurrection). Baptism wasn’t a requirement under the Old Covenant.

In Acts 10:47, we have a unique situation where there Peter is sent to a Gentile to preach the Gospel to him and baptize him. Cornelius was the first Gentile convert, so the idea of God granting salvation to a Gentile was pretty shocking (read the whole chapter as well as chapter 11). With Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit in a very evident way, without any action from Peter or anyone else, it was quite apparent to everyone that God intended to include Gentiles in His plan of salvation. Notice that Cornelius is the exception, not the rule, because like another poster noted, even Paul was told be baptized by Ananias, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16) And we have the explicit command of Christ in the Great Commission, “Whoever believes *and is baptized *will be saved. . .” (Mark 16:16)
 
Look at the context: In Luke 18:14, Jesus is talking to people still under the Old Covenant, which was still in effect (until His Passion and Resurrection). Baptism wasn’t a requirement under the Old Covenant.

In Acts 10:47, we have a unique situation where there Peter is sent to a Gentile to preach the Gospel to him and baptize him. Cornelius was the first Gentile convert, so the idea of God granting salvation to a Gentile was pretty shocking (read the whole chapter as well as chapter 11). With Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit in a very evident way, without any action from Peter or anyone else, it was quite apparent to everyone that God intended to include Gentiles in His plan of salvation. Notice that Cornelius is the exception, not the rule, because like another poster noted, even Paul was told be baptized by Ananias, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16) And we have the explicit command of Christ in the Great Commission, “Whoever believes *and is baptized *will be saved. . .” (Mark 16:16)
Some good comments. Your response for Luke would lead me to think that Jesus came because no one could be justified under the law. It was impossible to keep the law therefore (name removed by moderator)ossible to be justified. I understand that all Old Testament Saints were in “Paradise” waiting to go to heaven because their sins were just covered…not taken away. Just some additional thoughts.

I would agree that in Acts - to accept water Baptism is required - than this would have to definately be an exception.
 
God being God can supply His Grace anywhere He wants. Which is why the Catholic Church says that we are bound to the Sacraments, but God is not. Cano a person be justified without Baptism? Can God supply the Grace of Baptism outside the Sacrament of Baptism? Yes. Remember however that even St. APul how had a recorded personal encounter with Christ, was told to be Baptized before God could send him.
I understand your point - and I am not trying to judge GOD. But if GOD is “just” would that not entail a fair playing field for everyone? If not than it is leaning towards a Sgt. Augustine/Calvinistic point of view.

Yes, GOD can do as he wills and wishes.
 
how does one reconcile Acts 10:47?

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?”
This is just a statement of the fact, which both Catholics and Protestants believe, that one cannot even have faith, desire God, unless God first grants the grace to have that faith, that desire. God always makes the first move, to which we may then respond. Read it with that understanding and it makes perfect sense.
 
This is just a statement of the fact, which both Catholics and Protestants believe, that one cannot even have faith, desire God, unless God first grants the grace to have that faith, that desire. God always makes the first move, to which we may then respond. Read it with that understanding and it makes perfect sense.
Hello VociMike, thank you for the response.

I agree that GOD needs to soften our hearts and lead us to his son Jesus. But their, they already received the Holy Spirit - before water baptism.

As I understand it this is an exception. Like the thief on the cross (however yes I understand he had another Baptism - Baptism of desire).

I just think to say “water baptism is essential for salvation”…EXCEPT WHEN…proves the nonnessecity of it. Just my 2 bits.
 
Hello VociMike, thank you for the response.

I agree that GOD needs to soften our hearts and lead us to his son Jesus. But their, they already received the Holy Spirit - before water baptism.
But I think the critical question is, is receiving the Holy Spirit the one and only thing that baptism accomplishes?
As I understand it this is an exception.
Yes it is clearly an exception, for the “circumcised believers” were amazed. And then what did they do? They immediately baptized them. Why would they do that, when it was clear to one and all that they had received the Holy Spirit? What could it possibly prove or avail?
Like the thief on the cross (however yes I understand he had another Baptism - Baptism of desire).
I just think to say “water baptism is essential for salvation”…EXCEPT WHEN…proves the nonnessecity of it. Just my 2 bits.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it is essentially saying “well, if God can behave differently than so can I”. We should not presume that we can follow the same paths that God follows.

But most of all, I wonder why the need to find a loophole regarding baptism. Christians should be baptised. They are required to be baptised. So why spend time and energy arguing “yes, but…”? What is the purpose?
 
But most of all, I wonder why the need to find a loophole regarding baptism. Christians should be baptised. They are required to be baptised. So why spend time and energy arguing “yes, but…”? What is the purpose?
Yes good point, I guess from my point of view, relying on anything other than or in addition to Jesus’ atonement and sacrifice on the Cross - the shedding of his blood - would have someone put their faith in something else and that could negate his salvation. Ulternatively, if water baptism is need for salvation, someone without a duly preformed baptism would/could suffer as well.

I hear what point you are making. I guess my initial question was and has been answered…how are those verses reconciled with the fact that they did not receive water baptism before receiving the Holy Ghost and/or being justified.
 
Yes good point, I guess from my point of view, relying on anything other than or in addition to Jesus’ atonement and sacrifice on the Cross - the shedding of his blood - would have someone put their faith in something else and that could negate his salvation. Ulternatively, if water baptism is need for salvation, someone without a duly preformed baptism would/could suffer as well.

I hear what point you are making. I guess my initial question was and has been answered…how are those verses reconciled with the fact that they did not receive water baptism before receiving the Holy Ghost and/or being justified.
Really what baptism does is *apply *the redemption Jesus accomplished on the Cross – it doesn’t “add” to it. Jesus is still the object of our faith and the source of our salvation, because the grace received in baptism that saves us comes from Christ.
 
But… Jesus commanded us to baptize and be baptized. It’s in the Great Commission. It’s part of the first sermon ever preached after Pentecost. It’s all kinds of places, and we pretty clearly have to do it. For salvation.

Now, what we have to do, and what God decides to do, are two different things. We are the laborers in the vineyard who showed up early, and our job is to do what we’re told and not whine, “But Looooorrddd, those guys came late and you just, like, gave them salvation! Without baptism, even! What a rip! I could have blown you off and skipped baptism, then!”

Well, sure, we could’ve skipped baptism and presumed upon God’s kindness, as opposed to fulfilling God’s command. Yeah, let’s just gamble on that, 'cause we are totally okay with burning in lakes of eternal fire should we guess wrong, or should God not hold with people trying to presume on His mercy and patience with people who long to do their least for him.

Christians must baptize people for their salvation, to make them part of the Body of Christ, to allow them to die in Christ and be born again through water and the Holy Spirit. If we don’t do this, the results will be on our heads, because we will have defied Christ’s extremely clear command.

Christ can save however He blessed well pleases, because He is God. The King makes exceptions and grants favors that are not written in His laws; that’s part of the job of a King.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top