No Baptism necc

[Mickey]

**“As many as are persuaded and believe what we (Christians) teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father…and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19), they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” **** [AD 151 St. Justin Martyr (First Apology 61)]. **

 

[jmcrae]

Are you arguing that Baptism alone saves? AND since men perform baptism at certain times we can tell where and when the Spirit blows?

Catholics do not say that anything alone saves, except perhaps the grace of God.

The person of faith must be baptized, and once he has been baptized, he must live the Christian life according to his particular vocation, and he must confess his sins, and he must receive Holy Communion, and he must become perfect as God is perfect, and love as Christ loved - all these things, with nothing missing - together with God’s grace, which alone saves but which cannot be gotten without total obedience - it is this that saves.

There is nothing that “alone” can save us. We must have all of the ingredients of salvation - not just one or two of them.

 

[jmcrae]

”

Now **if **water baptism automatically causes regeneration, we **must **say that the wind blows where **man **wishes, because the administration of baptism is very much a matter of the human will.

The same could be said of giving one’s heart to Jesus, since that, too, is an act of the human will.

 

[jemfinch]

John 3:5 Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” We notice immediately that the word “baptism” does not appear in the text. Jesus speaks of being born “of water and the Spirit” and not “of baptism and the Spirit.” You assume that “water” means “baptism.”

No, we don’t assume. We follow the first century Church, the second century Church, the third century Church, the fourth century Church, and so on, all through the centuries, in our understanding the the water referred to is the water of baptism. You follow a new interpretation with no history prior to the 16th century, and you accuse us of assuming? Pah!

But there is no compelling reason why it should be so.

If 1500 years of Christian history, including the very people who received the letters from the hands of the apostles themselves is not compelling, I don’t know what else could be.

Salvation by faith alone is expounded.

That’s why Jesus finishes his speech talking about deeds, right?

That’s why Jesus finishes His speech, goes to Judea, and baptizes people, right?

Jesus speaks of ordinary things like the birth process and the blowing of the wind to illustrate great spiritual realities; why can’t we also understand water in its scriptural symbolic meaning of cleansing and life?

First, because that contradicts the clear meaning of other passages of Scripture. Second, because that’s not how the original recipients of the letter understood it.

Moreover Jesus chides Nicodemus for not understanding that a man must be born of water and the Spirit

He chided Nicodemus for not understanding “that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that hwich is born of the Spirit is spirit” and for not understanding, despite all the history of the Jewish people and the prophecies of Jeremiah and Isaiah, that rebirth is essential.

The new birth is the sovereign work of God the Holy Spirit.

And He accomplishes that through baptism: “He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit”. Christians from the time that letter was written to the time of the Reformation understood “the washing of regeneration” to refer to baptism; what warrant have you to condemn all them?

Man cannot determine when and who will be born again; God regenerates whenever and whoever He wishes.

And the mechanism by which He ordinarily regenerates people is baptism. This is the teaching of Scripture, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and even several Protestant Churches. It’s the view held by the vast majority of Christians throughout hitsory, most importantly, the ones who received the Scriptures from the very hands of their human authors and the ones who studied at the feet of the Apostles.

The new birth is not “according to the will of man.” Now if water baptism automatically causes regeneration, we must say that the wind blows where man wishes, who can tell exactly where it goes because the administration of baptism is very much a matter of the human will.

When I give gifts, I do so not by will of the recipient, but by my own will; but that doesn’t mean that if, in the future, a child of mine were to ask for a gift, my giving it to him wouldn’t be of my own will. The child desires the gift; the Father’s will is what gives it. So it is with Baptism, and so the Bible teaches: Baptism is way we express our desire for regeneration.

Other verses mention baptism in relation to salvation, but none of them remotely prove baptismal regeneration.

Baptism now saves you. Washing of regeneration. If we are buried with Christ in baptism, we will be resurrected by Christ. All us who are baptized are baptized into Christ. All of us who are in Christ are new creations. It’s all throughout Scripture, and for 1,500 years it was unanimously understood by Christians.

It is not enough to show from Scripture that “faith and baptism” or “repentance and baptism” are closely related.

Fortunately, that’s not all we Catholics, Orthodox, and others are showing.

Christians affirm that a person is saved by faith while baptism is the sign of salvation.

And all other are non-Christians, eh? I guess there were no Christians until the 16th century, then.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Noticed that the Bible says that Jesus never baptized anyone but he did say that whoever believes on him has eternal life.

Really?

“After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.”

Forgot about that one, I guess Or maybe it just didn’t fit into your theological mold

Jeremy

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus chides Nicodemus for not understanding that a man must be born of water and the Spirit: **“Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?” ****Are we to believe that Nicodemus was rebuked for not comprehending Christian baptism which had not yet been introduced?**But he’s questioning Jesus’ next statement that you have below. Yes, he doesn’t understand Baptism, although Ezekiel does give him a clue, if he had eyes to see…

The new birth is the sovereign work of God the Holy Spirit. “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

And again, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

And what is the Will of God? Jesus states it rather clearly in John 3:5.

Man cannot determine when and who will be born again; God regenerates whenever and whoever He wishes. The new birth is not “according to the will of man.” Now **if **water baptism automatically causes regeneration, we **must **say that the wind blows where **man **wishes, because the administration of baptism is very much a matter of the human will.

No, Baptism is the will of the Father.

Are you arguing that Baptism alone saves? AND since men perform baptism at certain times we can tell where and when the Spirit blows?

No, I’m not saying Baptism Alone saves us. No one on this thread has made that claim. Baptism opens up our soul to receive the Holy Spirit to dwell within it. We are in a state of Grace until we choose to commit mortal sin.

Baptism alone does not save us, but it is necessary, as indicated by Jesus.

 

[Verita]

Man cannot determine when and who will be born again; God regenerates whenever and whoever He wishes. The new birth is not “according to the will of man.” Now **if **water baptism automatically causes regeneration, we **must **say that the wind blows where **man **wishes, because the administration of baptism is very much a matter of the human will.

When God promises that something will happen when something is done, then he is bound by that promise. The wind does not blow where man wishes, it blows where God promised it would.

 

[jemfinch]

The auguement that there had to be infant children present does not hold water

Pun intended?

Anyway, I’m not arguing that there had to be children present. I don’t need to make that argument.

Here’s my argument, and read closely, because you missed this in my previous post:

1. The word used for “household” includes children, if there are children in the household.
2. The first-century recipients of the Scriptures understood that this word (oikia, iirc) would include children, if there were children in the household.
3. The first-century recipients of the Scriptures would have baptized their own children, if they were following the Scriptural model and there were children in their households.
4. If the Scriptures wanted to prohibit the baptism of infants and young children, it would have to state so explicitly, in order to prevent household baptisms from including infants.
5. Scripture contains no such prohibition.
6. Therefore, infant and small children may be baptized as members of a believing household.

Do you understand the argument? I don’t there were children in the three households baptized in the Bible; you, likewise, don’t know there weren’t. The recipients of the Scriptures wouldn’t have known either: all they would have known is that the Greek word used for “household” included children **if there were children in the household.****. If they followed the Scriptural model and had their whole household baptized, they would baptize their infants. If infant baptism is as bad as you claim it is, Scripture would have included some sort of prohibition against it, because of the understood meaning of a whole household being baptized; since it does not, infants and small children are to be baptized along with their households.

Please don’t argue against a strawman; by all means, present your argument against what I’m actually saying.

And by the same token we can also assume that there were no infants in those household.

By what token? Any first-century hearer of the stories in Scripture would have understood that the “household” included infants and small children. Tell me, by what “token” do you assume that these households do not?

Not every household has infant childern In fact not every household has children.

No one ever even made that argument. Again, we don’t need to. All we need to show is that oikia includes children.

Jeremy**

 

[jemfinch]

When God promises that something will happen when something is done, then he is bound by that promise. The wind does not blow where man wishes, it blows where God promised it would.

I’ll ditto this, and make sure to emphasize that the grace resulting form God’s promises is, itself, derived from the will of God: His will to make the promise in the first place.

Jeremy

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Pun intended?

Anyway, I’m not arguing that there had to be children present. I don’t need to make that argument.

Here’s my argument, and read closely, because you missed this in my previous post:

1. The word used for “household” includes children, if there are children in the household.
2. The first-century recipients of the Scriptures understood that this word (oikia, iirc) would include children, if there were children in the household.
3. The first-century recipients of the Scriptures would have baptized their own children, if they were following the Scriptural model and there were children in their households.
4. If the Scriptures wanted to prohibit the baptism of infants and young children, it would have to state so explicitly, in order to prevent household baptisms from including infants.
5. Scripture contains no such prohibition.
6. Therefore, infant and small children may be baptized as members of a believing household.

Do you understand the argument? I don’t there were children in the three households baptized in the Bible; you, likewise, don’t know there weren’t. The recipients of the Scriptures wouldn’t have known either: all they would have known is that the Greek word used for “household” included children if there were children in the household.****. If they followed the Scriptural model and had their whole household baptized, they would baptize their infants. If infant baptism is as bad as you claim it is, Scripture would have included some sort of prohibition against it, because of the understood meaning of a whole household being baptized; since it does not, infants and small children are to be baptized along with their households.

Please don’t argue against a strawman; by all means, present your argument against what I’m actually saying.

By what token? Any first-century hearer of the stories in Scripture would have understood that the “household” included infants and small children. Tell me, by what “token” do you assume that these households do not?

No one ever even made that argument. Again, we don’t need to. All we need to show is that oikia includes children.

Jeremy
Guys,

Not trying to be annoying or anything but, could we please get back onto the original question. We can cite scripture all night long showing the Necc. of Baptism but, it doesn’t make the other passage go away. It would make it seem like a contradiction. Which can’t happen which means it is a false line of reasoning. I just can’t figure it out. Could anyone please help me with this line?

Saying that circumcision dosen’t count as anything to Jesus (Gal. 5:6) and scince Baptism was the new circumsision (Col. 2:11,12), baptism isn’t necc.

 

[NotWorthy]

Guys,

Not trying to be annoying or anything but, could we please get back onto the original question. We can cite scripture all night long showing the Necc. of Baptism but, it doesn’t make the other passage go away. It would make it seem like a contradiction. Which can’t happen which means it is a false line of reasoning. I just can’t figure it out. Could anyone please help me with this line?

Thanks and God bless.

Remember, Montie, ALL OT Typology is an incomplete shadow of it’s NT counterpart.

Did the Mosaic Law save you? No. Does the NT Law save you? Yes!!!

What did the first Adam do? He didn’t trust in the Lord and brought our damnation. What did Jesus, the 2nd Adam do? He trusted in the Lord and he brought our Salvation.

The Hebrews ate the Manna in the desert. Did they live? No, they died. Christians eat the Bread of Life. Do we live? Yes, we have eternal life.

So Yes, circumcision is a Type of Baptism, as Paul states. But does circumcision save you? No, it’s part of the (name removed by moderator)erfection of the Old Covenant. Does Baptism save you? Of course, it’s part of the completion of Jesus’ Covenant.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Not everyone. Peter in his discourse on Pentecost said that “the promise was to you and your children” Acts 2:39. What promise was that? It was the one made to Abraham in Genesis. Therefore, when Peter said to come up and be baptized, he did not mean just the adults. The adults did not just leave their small children behind. They were used to having the family do everything the father did. If the father converted, the whole household did the same, both children and slaves.
Matthew’s Gospel had Jesus saying “let the children come to me” and “whoever receives one such as these in my name…”. The words “in My Name” are important because one tenth of the commandments have to do with his Name. Baptism, like circumcision before, enters us into the New Covenant (I baptize you IN THE NAME OF) which the name of Christ is used in the formula. Hope this helps. There is much more on the subject.
mdcpensive1

 

[Verita]

Guys,

Not trying to be annoying or anything but, could we please get back onto the original question. We can cite scripture all night long showing the Necc. of Baptism but, it doesn’t make the other passage go away. It would make it seem like a contradiction. Which can’t happen which means it is a false line of reasoning. I just can’t figure it out. Could anyone please help me with this line?

Thanks and God bless.

I think an important thing to look for when reading the Bible is what the author intended to say when he wrote a particular passage. You cannot ask an author to address something he did not intend to address. Paul is not talking about Baptism in that Galatians passage. If you read the whole section you can clearly see that Paul is talking about the necessity of following the Old Covenant Laws, specifically circumcision. We all know what a strong view Paul had on this issue. And Paul is often given to strong language. In Gal 5:6 he is trying to make a point. He is saying all of those old rules and regulations have no bearing on your salvation anymore. Circumcision will avail you nothing.

Jesus criticized the Jews because they followed the Laws but they lacked faith. Faith is not something newly introduced with Christianity. The Old Covenant was begun because of faith and was supposed to be followed through faith. But faith wasn’t enough. They also had to follow the commandments that God set down for them. Yet all of this was supposed to be done through faith. Somewhere along the line faith became less important to them than the Law. For this Jesus rebuked them. The two are supposed to work together.

Paul was emphasizing faith, because it was something that people then struggled with. It was easier for them to just blindly follow all the rules without thinking about it too much. Without considering what a Covenant really is, a relationship with God. But this doesn’t mean that faith is everything. If Paul really meant that all you need is faith then countless statements throughout the New Testament would be just plain wrong, or at best very misleading. The simpler and more logical explanation is that Paul was using strong language to make a specific point, that following the old laws just won’t work anymore.

 

[prv]

Read 1 Peter 3: 20-21 - God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.

Good quote, especially that last sentence. I’ve never noticed that one until now.

 

[prv]

Guys,

Not trying to be annoying or anything but, could we please get back onto the original question. We can cite scripture all night long showing the Necc. of Baptism but, it doesn’t make the other passage go away. It would make it seem like a contradiction. Which can’t happen which means it is a false line of reasoning. I just can’t figure it out. Could anyone please help me with this line?

Thanks and God bless.

This is why we need the Holy Church to interpret scriptures—so that we don’t (mis)interpret them for ourselves. But that is an entirely different discussion.

 

[kaycee]

I think an important thing to look for when reading the Bible is what the author intended to say when he wrote a particular passage. You cannot ask an author to address something he did not intend to address. Paul is not talking about Baptism in that Galatians passage. If you read the whole section you can clearly see that Paul is talking about the necessity of following the Old Covenant Laws, specifically circumcision. We all know what a strong view Paul had on this issue. And Paul is often given to strong language. In Gal 5:6 he is trying to make a point. He is saying all of those old rules and regulations have no bearing on your salvation anymore. Circumcision will avail you nothing.

Jesus criticized the Jews because they followed the Laws but they lacked faith. Faith is not something newly introduced with Christianity. The Old Covenant was begun because of faith and was supposed to be followed through faith. But faith wasn’t enough. They also had to follow the commandments that God set down for them. Yet all of this was supposed to be done through faith. Somewhere along the line faith became less important to them than the Law. For this Jesus rebuked them. The two are supposed to work together.

Paul was emphasizing faith, because it was something that people then struggled with. It was easier for them to just blindly follow all the rules without thinking about it too much. Without considering what a Covenant really is, a relationship with God. But this doesn’t mean that faith is everything. If Paul really meant that all you need is faith then countless statements throughout the New Testament would be just plain wrong, or at best very misleading. The simpler and more logical explanation is that Paul was using strong language to make a specific point, that following the old laws just won’t work anymore.

Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

**The Spirit was recieved by believing!**

3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

   **Paul considers the sign of circumcision, human effort**.

4 Have you suffered so much for nothing–if it really was for nothing? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

   **Again by Faith thru belief.**

Rom 3:29
Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Rom 4:8
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." 9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? **We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! **11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all **who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. **

Mt 28:19
**Therefore go and **make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

     **Make disciples or believers first, then Baptize them as a sign of the new covenant!**

Water Baptism is the outward sign of what GOD alone has done. clearly those who believe recieve the Holy Spirit, THEN get Baptized.

John 3:8
** “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”**

We cannot command the Holy Spirit to enter anyone during water Baptism.

 

[Mickey]

We cannot command the Holy Spirit to enter anyone during water Baptism.

Exactly! The Holy Spirit enters the individual on it’s own–not by the will of man.

Christ was baptized and so we imitate our Savior (The Son)–and the dove descends on us (the Holy Spirit)— and our Father is well pleased.

Don’t be deceived my friend. Be watchful.

 

[Verita]

**The Spirit was recieved by believing!**

Absolutely. The Spirit can be received in many ways.

Paul considers the sign of circumcision, human effort.

It was a human effort after the New Covenant was established. But why would you equate that with Baptism which was instituted as a sacrament by Christ himself?

It is important to keep things in context. Circumcision only became a work of man after the New covenant was established. In the Old Covenant circumcision was a sacrament. It brought the Jewish people into a relationship with God. However, the New covenant has it’s own sacraments. The old ones don’t work anymore.

Mt 28:19
**Therefore go and **make disciples ****of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

     **Make disciples or believers first, then Baptize them as a sign of the new covenant!**

Water Baptism is the outward sign of what GOD alone has done. clearly those who believe recieve the Holy Spirit, THEN get Baptized.

There is no “first this then this” in that verse, you are reading that interpretation into it. Just because one follows the other in a sentence does not mean one follows the other in life. In fact, the wording more clearing indicated that the two “making disciples” and “baptizing them” are equal or happen together. A better interpretation is that the disciples are made through baptism.

John 3:8
** “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”**

We cannot command the Holy Spirit to enter anyone during water Baptism.

You still don’t get it. No one is commanding anything. Rather, we are trusting on the promises of God just as you do. You trust that when you believe you will receive the Holy Spirit. This is because it is promised in the Bible. We are doing the same. God made the promises therefore we can trust that certain things will happen when we are Baptized as long as we are doing it as he instructed us to.

 

[NotWorthy]

Kaycee, read Acts Chapter 19, verses 1-6 and let’s go through what happens:

While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

These guys were believers. Did they have the Holy Spirit yet? No. Not until AFTER they were baptized in the name of the Lord.
Hmmmmmm…

 

[jemfinch]

Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

**The Spirit was recieved by believing!**

And in John 3 we see that disobedience is the opposite of the belief that saves: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” In Galatians 3, Paul is clearly talking about the ceremonial Mosaic law, not obedience to Christ.

3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

   **Paul considers the sign of circumcision, human effort**.

And indeed, circumcision is. But baptism isn’t: baptism is the way God chose for men to ask Him for salvation. Just as you, I’m sure, have sinners who come to you pray a prayer asking God for forgiveness, we biblical Catholics insist that they ask God in the way He designated, by baptism. “Baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a clear conscience.”

4 Have you suffered so much for nothing–if it really was for nothing? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

   **Again by Faith thru belief.**

A faith that includes obedience; a living faith. Faith without works is dead.

Rom 3:29
Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

The faith that justifies is formed faith, faith formed in love, which includes obedience. The opposite of living, salvific faith is not mere disbelief, but disobedience, that’s what John 3 and James teach us.

Rom 4:8
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." 9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

And again, Paul preaches about the inability of circumcision to make a man righteous. But no one preaches today that circumcision makes a man righteous! It is baptism, the fulfillment of circumcision, that makes a man righteous, by “washing away sins,” (as it did to Paul) and by regenerating the person (as Paul’s letter to Titus proclaims).

Mt 28:19
**Therefore go and **make disciples ****of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

     **Make disciples or believers first, then Baptize them as a sign of the new covenant!**

Now you’re adding to Scripture: there is no sequence in that passage. The phrase, “baptizing them…” is how a person becomes a disciple, not a subsequent act.

Water Baptism is the outward sign of what GOD alone has done.

And it’s a sign that actually accomplishes what God has done. It’s the means by which God does it.

clearly those who believe recieve the Holy Spirit, THEN get Baptized.

The crowd in Acts 2:38 already believed. They were cut to the heart. Their belief caused them to ask, “What shall we do?” Peter sponded, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit is ordinarily given in baptism; the Bible teaches this, the Church has always taught this, and it is those who wish to teach otherwise who presume to tell God when and where He can dispense His graces.

John 3:8
** “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”**

You’ll note that it doesn’t say, “So it is with everyone’s birth in the Spirit,” but it says, "So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. It’s not talking about their birth; it’s talking about how they behave after they’ve already been born in the Spirit. Baptism was given to us by God to be an efficacious sign of rebirth in the Spirit so that we may be confident that we have been reborn.

We cannot command the Holy Spirit to enter anyone during water Baptism.

But you can during the Sinner’s prayer, eh? At those of us who preach baptismal regeneration have the Bible and all of Church history in our defense.

Jeremy