So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[rinnie]

I have explained why infant baptism falls short of biblical baptism. Baptism without an acknowledgment of faith on the part of the one being baptized does not conform to what Scripture says. Add to that, no where in Scripture are we commanded to baptize infants.

Therefore, we have no reason to baptize infants. Therefore, we don’t do it.

If it has no scriptural confirmation, then why did Peter say on the day of Pentecost for All to be baptized?

In Acts he said it was spoken through the prophet Joel. It will come to pass in the last days says God says that I will POUR out a portion of MY SPIRIT upon ALL FLESH. Your SONS and DAUGHTERS shall phophesy,

Continue on. What are we to do my brother? Peter said to them Repent and be Baptised EVERY ONE of you for the forgivenss of sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit. This promise is made to YOU and Your CHILDREN and to all those far off.

The reason you cannot comprehend Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is simply you reject that we are all born into sin, Original sin. You don’t understand it or accept that we are all born into given to us by Adam and Eve.

Very few people actually know that Baptism is not only the outpouring of the Holy Spirit but it is for forgivenss of original sin. St Peter tells you Baptism is for forgiveness of your sins. Although we never committed Original sin, we are born into it.

 

[rinnie]

There are scriptures that say faith saves you, without any added works of righteousness lest, any man boast. Plenty. There are also some that say works shall follow (James) and some that say or appear to be needed such as eating Him or being baptized. Why do you insist on eliminating the first scenario (faith quoted by itself that saves) ? I am admitting your scenario of faith with an apparent work. So does the bible contradict ? Or are we to discern assume that when we see faith by itself we must remember the other scriptures that have attachments ? And are those attachments conditional or cause the effect of salvation or a fruit of it…that is what Christendom is split on. It is not just a Catholic/Protestant dialogue. It is my opinion they are not effectual but covenant signs, and not effectual saving works , lest any boast and not go against the scriptures that say we are not saved by works of righteousness. They are effectual only in the obedience, a sign of sealing to the covenant, and still very important…but I understand how one might think they are necessary for actuating salvation…why can’t you see how some think they are signs of an already existing new life brought by faith by itself ?

Because we are Christians, we do not believe we can do anything by faith by ITSELF.

The RCC is Christ centered. not centered on our faith. And do you know why? Because I don’t know very many people in this world, and I know many who have greater faith then I could actually believe who can loose their faith at times, or doubt it.

Saints in this world have gone through life and had week faith at times. We all do.

Everyone at one time or another have a tragedy at times that makes us question our faith at times, if not we would not be human.

But its Grace ALONE, or GOD ALONE, same thing that saves us, It is him and his grace that strengthens our faith that make us go on. Not us and our faith alone or faith by itself as you state it.

That is why we shoot down your thinking everytime.

There is no Faith Alone. If your faith saves you why did you need Jesus on the Cross? You wouldn’t you have your faith.

Why would you need to repent, confess, etc. You would not, its your faith itself right?

You condemn our works, but it is GOD who said to be Baptised, confess, etc. Those are works, and we do not boast because it Christ Alone not faith that make the works possible.

Our faith alone is worthless without grace and works made possible by Christ for us to do.

 

[Telstar]

We don’t discount it. We just don’t agree with you guys on what it means.

There can only be one true interpretation of the Bible. How can you be so sure that yours is the correct one? Or, could Joe Schmuck, down the road, be the one that has the right one? Or, maybe Sally Jones? Can you be sure that you’re not being deceived, or that they are? How can you tell? Is it a ‘feeling’ you have? Or, are you basing it on your own intellect, because you know for a fact that your IQ is higher than theirs? How do you know for sure? Maybe the better question is, are you willing to bet your eternal soul on your decision, based on what you think, or feel, it means, or what someone else told you it means? What if they’re wrong?

What does the Bible say about misinterpreting scripture? What did Jesus think of the Jews’ misinterpretations of scripture and the Law? They were very highly educated and knew scripture, inside and out. But, did they even have an inkling of the what the True Messiah would do when He came? Why didn’t they recognize Him? How could they be so wrong about what scripture actually said?

I’m glad you’ve read Acts 2:38. I’m still not exactly sure how infant baptism conforms to the command to “repent”, which comes before and alongside the command to be baptized. As for 1 Peter 3:21, that verse has been discussed and debated a lot already on this thread.

Apparently, it still hasn’t hit the mark. The Bible alone doesn’t tell the whole story of what the Apostles were taught, or what they preached. Much of it was only transmitted through their oral and actual traditions. Even John said that the world couldn’t hold all of the books required to convey everything that Jesus had taught them. So, how do you know what else He taught? Where can you find it? Is it even possible that you really don’t know everything that’s necessary for your salvation?

As I’ve said before, “the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” are parallel statements. The Holy Spirit does not need to be renewed, but rather the Holy Spirit renews us. Likewise, regeneration is what washes us from the filth of our sinful lives. We are washed by regeneration (the new birth) and renewed by the Holy Spirit.

We are ‘regenerated’ (born again) to God’s Grace through the actions of the Holy Spirit that are only found in the Sacrament of Baptism. That’s where and how we are washed clean, and ‘renewed’ in the Holy Spirit. We are not restored to God’s Grace just by saying, “Lord, I believe!”. Actions speak much louder than words. The Bible says we must be Baptized in Christ. Why was Jesus Baptized by John if it was only to wash away sin? Do you think Jesus needed that? After He came up out of the water, the Holy Ghost descended upon Him, and His Father proclaimed that He was His Beloved Son. At the moment of His Baptism, Jesus was Anointed by the Holy Spirit, Who even physically descended upon Him. “Matthew [16] And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
“Luke [21] Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened; [22] And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”
Baptism is what also makes us the adopted ‘sons (and daughters) of God’, through our being reborn in Him.

OK. You can argue that “washed” refers to baptism, but it doesn’t have to refer to baptism. It can refer to the “washing of regeneration”, the new birth itself.

All of those things, only come to us through Baptism. We cannot regenerate ourselves. We are only washed clean, confirmed in our faith, and reborn into God’s Grace by showing the sign of our full submission to God’s Will, which is Baptism.

Yes, we were buried with Him in baptism. And we are “also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12). It is by faith and the glory of the Father, as both these verses make clear, that we are raised with Christ to life. This is revealed when we are baptized, but it is still by faith in Christ. Without faith, baptism means nothing.

We cannot be raised with Him unless we enter into His death through Baptism. That’s the whole point of being Baptized, and it’s the only way we can ever be saved. Declaring ourselves to the ‘saved’, because we might have the beginnings of faith, does nothing. It doesn’t matter how strong we feel, or think, our faith might be. That’s not enough. We also need to let God heal us through the only means that Jesus left for us to be able to enter into His Grace. That’s Baptism.

But apparently only one condition to be condemned.

If you don’t believe, then obviously, you would not be baptized. Does it really have to have the same number of conditions?

 

[PRmerger]

There can only be one true interpretation of the Bible.

Perhaps you meant that there cannot be 2 contradictory interpretations of the Bible, for surely there are multiple interpretations of Scripture that could all be true?

That is, we can read the story of the multiplication of the loaves and interpret it to mean that God provides for all of us. Or that it is a precursor to the Eucharist. Both are correct.

We just can’t interpret it to mean, “There is no such thing as God providing for us.”

 

[Telstar]

Perhaps you meant that there cannot be 2 contradictory interpretations of the Bible, for surely there are multiple interpretations of Scripture that could all be true?

That is, we can read the story of the multiplication of the loaves and interpret it to mean that God provides for all of us. Or that it is a precursor to the Eucharist. Both are correct.

We just can’t interpret it to mean, “There is no such thing as God providing for us.”

You’re right. I sit corrected.

Sometimes, there are many different meanings found in certain passages of the Bible. What I should have said, was there is only one Authority that has full power to determine those many meanings. The Catholic Church that Jesus established, and entrusted with the task of bringing the Gospel to the whole world, is that Authority. It was the Church that actually gathered together all of the most important scriptures used in the Church at the time, and presented the Bible to the world in it’s current form. When Jesus commissioned the Church to preach the Gospel, I’m pretty sure He intended for Her to be the only one who actually has His Authority to interpret its meaning. Otherwise, no one would be able to fully understand it.

All we have to do is look through the many posts on this forum to see the diversity of interpretations we can find for the same verses. The trick is in figuring out which of them are correct, and why.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re right. I sit corrected.

Sometimes, there are many different meanings found in certain passages of the Bible. What I should have said, was there is only one Authority that has full power to determine those many meanings. The Catholic Church that Jesus established, and entrusted with the task of bringing the Gospel to the whole world, is that Authority. It was the Church that actually gathered together all of the most important scriptures used in the Church at the time, and presented the Bible to the world in it’s current form. When Jesus commissioned the Church to preach the Gospel, I’m pretty sure He intended for Her to be the only one who actually has His Authority to interpret its meaning. Otherwise, no one would be able to fully understand it.

All we have to do is look through the many posts on this forum to see the diversity of interpretations we can find for the same verses. The trick is in figuring out which of them are correct, and why.

 

[dronald]

You’re right. I sit corrected.

Sometimes, there are many different meanings found in certain passages of the Bible. What I should have said, was there is only one Authority that has full power to determine those many meanings. The Catholic Church that Jesus established, and entrusted with the task of bringing the Gospel to the whole world, is that Authority. It was the Church that actually gathered together all of the most important scriptures used in the Church at the time, and presented the Bible to the world in it’s current form. When Jesus commissioned the Church to preach the Gospel, I’m pretty sure He intended for Her to be the only one who actually has His Authority to interpret its meaning. Otherwise, no one would be able to fully understand it.

All we have to do is look through the many posts on this forum to see the diversity of interpretations we can find for the same verses. The trick is in figuring out which of them are correct, and why.

I agree with you, but did Jesus really establish a “Catholic Church” and if so, aren’t we in it?

I have troubles finding words like Catholic and Eucharist in the Bible; not because they’re not there, but because they aren’t translated into English.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with you, but did Jesus really establish a “Catholic Church” and if so, aren’t we in it?

Let me ask you: if a stranger comes to your town and asks, “Where’s the nearest Catholic Church”, which church are you going to point him towards?

Yours?

I really don’t think you would.

And if you did, no one would blame him if he came back hopping mad to you telling you you had directed him to the wrong church.

Everyone knows what we mean by the Catholic Church, even if everyone seems to want to be part of it.

They just don’t want to be part of the “hard sayings” of the CC, and thus want to create a religion that matches their own palates, rather than what Christ actually commanded and demanded.

 

[dronald]

Let me ask you: if a stranger comes to your town and asks, “Where’s the nearest Catholic Church”, which church are you going to point him towards?

Yours?

I really don’t think you would.

And if you did, no one would blame him if he came back hopping mad to you telling you you had directed him to the wrong church.

Everyone knows what we mean by the Catholic Church, even if everyone seems to want to be part of it.

That wasn’t my point. My point is the claim that Jesus founded one “Catholic” Church; as in, the word Universal was said in Greek, which sounded like “Catholic” and instead of translating it through the languages they kept the word Catholic in English. “Catholic” is now an English word, but it really does have a translation.

If a different person went up to you and asked, “Do you know where the Universal Church of Christ is?” Would you question him or immediately point him to your Church. Would you be that confident he meant your Catholic Church?

They just don’t want to be part of the “hard sayings” of the CC, and thus want to create a religion that matches their own palates, rather than what Christ actually commanded and demanded.

You’re speakin to the wrong fella on this one. Evangelicals and Catholics are very close on the hard issues; so much so that we protest at abortion clinics.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re speakin to the wrong fella on this one. Evangelicals and Catholics are very close on the hard issues; so much so that we protest at abortion clinics.

I give all Evangelicals high marks on that.

However, let me ask you this, because it is, on a personal level, one of the “hard sayings” that I find, well, really “hard”: will your Evangelical church marry someone who’s been divorced and wishes to re-marry (someone else)?

 

[PRmerger]

That wasn’t my point. My point is the claim that Jesus founded one “Catholic” Church; as in, the word Universal was said in Greek, which sounded like “Catholic” and instead of translating it through the languages they kept the word Catholic in English. “Catholic” is now an English word, but it really does have a translation.

If a different person went up to you and asked, “Do you know where the Universal Church of Christ is?” Would you question him or immediately point him to your Church. Would you be that confident he meant your Catholic Church?

Well, yeah. I would point him to my Catholic Church.

 

[Porknpie]

That wasn’t my point. My point is the claim that Jesus founded one “Catholic” Church; as in, the word Universal was said in Greek, which sounded like “Catholic” and instead of translating it through the languages they kept the word Catholic in English. “Catholic” is now an English word, but it really does have a translation.

If a different person went up to you and asked, “Do you know where the Universal Church of Christ is?” Would you question him or immediately point him to your Church. Would you be that confident he meant your Catholic Church?.

Do St Ignatius’ words nearly 2,000 years ago reflect today’s Catholic Church or a protestant denomination that believes itself to be catholic? Which bishops and deacons have valid succession from this Catholic Church? Which Church, Catholic or protestant has a “proper Eucharist”?

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

St Irenaeus refers to this Catholic Church as possessing the one and same faith. This faith that they believed includes : salvation by faith and works, salvific baptism and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 200 years later, this same Catholic faith professed to a canon of scripture consisting of 73 books.
“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

St Cyril calls this Catholic Church the pillar and ground of the Truth, reflecting Christ’s words to St. Peter, that he would build his Church upon him, and lead his Church to all truth.
“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

St. Augustine refers to the Christian religion and Catholic Church being one. Even the enemies of the Church refer to her as Catholic.
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).

I don’t see another Church or denomination anywhere. And certainly no invisible church that Christ established.

PnP

 

[Telstar]

I agree with you, but did Jesus really establish a “Catholic Church” and if so, aren’t we in it?

I have troubles finding words like Catholic and Eucharist in the Bible; not because they’re not there, but because they aren’t translated into English.

Jesus only established one Church, and all Christians are called to be ‘one with Him’ in His Church. All Christians share a special bond as members of the Body of Christ. Even though non-Catholics don’t actually belong to the Catholic Church, they are still considered to be members of the Body of Christ. So, for that reason they are still seen as our ‘separated brethren’, that we all hope and pray will, eventually, come back ‘home’.

The reason the Church uses the same name, “Catholic”, in every language, is so it will always be recognizable to anyone that might visit a foreign land, that needs to find a place to attend Mass. It is called ‘universal’ because it was meant to spread to the whole world.

The term “Eucharist” is simply explained on New Advent as:
"The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine.

Other titles are used, such as “Lord’s Supper” (Coena Domini), “Table of the Lord” (Mensa Domini), the “Lord’s Body” (Corpus Domini), and the “Holy of Holies” (Sanctissimum), to which may be added the following expressions, and somewhat altered from their primitive meaning: “Agape” (Love-Feast), “Eulogia” (Blessing), “Breaking of Bread”, “Synaxis” (Assembly), etc.; but the ancient title “Eucharistia” appearing in writers as early as Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus, has taken precedence in the technical terminology of the Church and her theologians. The expression “Blessed Sacrament of the Altar”, introduced by Augustine, is at the present day almost entirely restricted to catechetical and popular treatises."
~ emphasis mine ~

 

[benhur]

Sure.

We just don’t believe that Faith Alone saves you.

Baptism saves, too.

As well as the Eucharist.

And the Church.

And works such as feeding the poor and clothing the naked.

And does repentance.

And praying.

And…

by works of righteousness no one is justified, otherwise people might boast and say lord let me in for I was baptized said a sinners prayer belonged to your church etc etc…but hey I am with you OT and nt saints will have done plenty of righteous works

 

[PRmerger]

by works of righteousness no one is justified, otherwise people might boast and say lord let me in for I was baptized said a sinners prayer belonged to your church etc etc

Very Catholic, this!

That’s why Catholics don’t believe in any “Alone” theology, such as Faith Alone or the Bible Alone or Reason Alone , except for this:

We are saved by Christ Alone and through His Body, the Catholic Church Alone.

 

[benhur]

Very Catholic, this!

That’s why Catholics don’t believe in any “Alone” theology, such as Faith Alone or the Bible Alone or Reason Alone , except for this:

We are saved by Christ Alone and through His Body, the Catholic Church Alone.

What, you are not justified by your baptism, confirmation or other sacraments ? Did you miss the first part of my post that said that ? You responded very catholic, unless you got excited when I said heaven is filled with righteous work doers and meant only that is very catholic…yes Catholics persevere,are ultimately saved thru the church/ sacraments. Somehow P’s do also but without those sacraments for perseverance etc or sacraments for after baptism,confirmation.

 

[PRmerger]

What, you are not justified by your baptism, confirmation or other sacraments ?

These sacraments are salvific, to be sure.

Did you miss the first part of my post that said that ? You responded very catholic, unless you got excited when I said heaven is filled with righteous work doers and meant only that is very catholic…yes Catholics persevere,are ultimately saved thru the church/ sacraments. Somehow P’s do also but without those sacraments for perseverance etc or sacraments for after baptism,confirmation.

Your response above is a little sloppy so I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying but if you’re saying that Protestants can be righteous, well, that’s very Catholic.

They are just righteous because of their imperfect and distant union with His Body, the Catholic Church.

 

[andrewstx]

I think there is an unsurmontable differerence that can not and will not be resolved no matter how many pages we take up with our arguing.

To traditional apostolic Christians the sacraments especially baptism is vital to becoming Christian and having your sins forgiven. That is non-negotiable for us.

But to Evangelical Christians it all seems to be mental, or spiritual. All one needs to do it seems is to say a mental prayer “from the heart” and one instantly becomes a Christian and is forgiven. No physical action seems to be needed by EsandFs. To me it seems that for Evangelicals anything that is done sacramentally is a “work”. It does not seem to occur to Evangelicals that the sacraments are indeed works, but not works of our own but works of GOD.

We have posted repeatedly the verses in Acts, 1st Peter, and the gospels that state outright that baptism “with water” forgives sins AND is not done after sins are forgiven by 'getting saved".

I think that some of the Evangelicals go by and read their basically Calvinist theology first and instead of reading the bible honestly. Read the bible with that theology in mind search out ‘proof texts’ to back their preconceived theology.

In fact many Evangelicals do not even believe in the sacraments and call them powerless ‘ordinances’ instead. I suppose so they can perhaps keep it all mental and ‘spiritual’.

 

[ltwin]

There can only be one true interpretation of the Bible. How can you be so sure that yours is the correct one? Or, could Joe Schmuck, down the road, be the one that has the right one? Or, maybe Sally Jones? Can you be sure that you’re not being deceived, or that they are? How can you tell? Is it a ‘feeling’ you have? Or, are you basing it on your own intellect, because you know for a fact that your IQ is higher than theirs? How do you know for sure? Maybe the better question is, are you willing to bet your eternal soul on your decision, based on what you think, or feel, it means, or what someone else told you it means? What if they’re wrong?

What does the Bible say about misinterpreting scripture? What did Jesus think of the Jews’ misinterpretations of scripture and the Law? They were very highly educated and knew scripture, inside and out. But, did they even have an inkling of the what the True Messiah would do when He came? Why didn’t they recognize Him? How could they be so wrong about what scripture actually said?

I could ask you the same question. How do you know the claims the Catholic Church makes is true. At the end of the day, both of us are acting on faith, striving to obey our Lord as we understand them.

That is not to say that both of us are right. It’s just to say that we’re all making determinations on trust. You tell me I have a problem because my church doesn’t have a magisterium, and I simply have to wade through the morass of doctrine on my own encountering many dangers and traps and delusion. But in the end of the day, you have to do the same thing. You just choose to give that responsibility to the Catholic Church and submit to its determinations. You’re still operating on trust–trust that Jesus Christ personally established the Catholic Church and personally made the Pope his Vicar on earth. What if you’re wrong??? I trust in Jesus Christ and his Word illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Apparently, it still hasn’t hit the mark. The Bible alone doesn’t tell the whole story of what the Apostles were taught, or what they preached. Much of it was only transmitted through their oral and actual traditions. Even John said that the world couldn’t hold all of the books required to convey everything that Jesus had taught them. So, how do you know what else He taught? Where can you find it? Is it even possible that you really don’t know everything that’s necessary for your salvation?

Anything is possible, but I find it hard to believe that the divinely inspired writers left out crucial information, relying on oral tradition alone (which I suppose Catholics mean the information contained in the Church Fathers???). The writers, in fact, repeat the theme of salvation over and over and over again. It was not an afterthought but everything they talked about.

We are ‘regenerated’ (born again) to God’s Grace through the actions of the Holy Spirit that are only found in the Sacrament of Baptism. That’s where and how we are washed clean, and ‘renewed’ in the Holy Spirit. We are not restored to God’s Grace just by saying, “Lord, I believe!”. Actions speak much louder than words.

I don’t believe saying “I believe” saves. Anyone who believes that is deceived. There maybe churches who only care about affirmations of faith, but that is simply replacing one kind of sacramentalism with another. There is no magical formula that can save us. Anyone who teaches that is a false teacher. Jesus himself teaches us that the demons believe. Mere “belief” is not what saves and anyone who makes that the issue is setting themselves up for failure.

The Bible makes it clear that salvation is contingent on faith and repentance. Where there is faith, there is also repentance. The only reason that people can have true faith and true repentance is because of the convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit:

And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged (John 16:8-11).

The Holy Spirit normally does this through the preaching of the Good News, Romans 10:17.

The Bible says we must be Baptized in Christ. Why was Jesus Baptized by John if it was only to wash away sin? Do you think Jesus needed that? After He came up out of the water, the Holy Ghost descended upon Him, and His Father proclaimed that He was His Beloved Son. At the moment of His Baptism, Jesus was Anointed by the Holy Spirit, Who even physically descended upon Him. “Matthew [16] And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
“Luke [21] Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened; [22] And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”
Baptism is what also makes us the adopted ‘sons (and daughters) of God’, through our being reborn in Him.

I have no problem saying the Holy Spirit is present in power for those who are baptized in faith. Yet, just as outward circumcision alone could not make one a Jew, neither does outward baptism alone make someone a son or daughter of God.

 

[ltwin]

All of those things, only come to us through Baptism. We cannot regenerate ourselves. We are only washed clean, confirmed in our faith, and reborn into God’s Grace by showing the sign of our full submission to God’s Will, which is Baptism.

No one says you can regenerate oneself. What I’m saying is that regeneration is made possible by Christ’s atonement and God’s grace through the power of the Holy Spirit with the Word from which comes the gift of faith and new life. This is how we are washed clean and reborn. As far as baptism being a confirmation of our faith and a sign of full submission to God, I agree with you.

We cannot be raised with Him unless we enter into His death through Baptism. That’s the whole point of being Baptized, and it’s the only way we can ever be saved. Declaring ourselves to the ‘saved’, because we might have the beginnings of faith, does nothing. It doesn’t matter how strong we feel, or think, our faith might be. That’s not enough. We also need to let God heal us through the only means that Jesus left for us to be able to enter into His Grace. That’s Baptism.

I agree that baptism can be healing to many people. It is the funeral service of the old man. Like the drowning of pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea, baptism can be a drowning of the sin from our old life that still tries to cling to us.

I would take issue with the rest of this paragraph. I didn’t “declare” myself saved. On the contrary, I base my salvation in Christ on that which is promised in Scripture. I don’t base my salvation on “the beginnings of faith”. On the contrary, faith led me to fall on my face, confessing my sins. Faith in Christ led me to the cross and to repentance and forgiveness. Faith in him led me to his Word. It led me to baptism. And my faith and trust in Christ continues to lead me to sanctification, the crucifixion and cutting away of the flesh.

If you don’t believe, then obviously, you would not be baptized. Does it really have to have the same number of conditions?

Obviously, there are a ton of reasons for someone to convert to one religion and only one of them is genuine belief. Persecution, for instance. “Christians” throughout history have shown time and time again their ability to coerce people into converting.