Water baptism cannot make you right with God

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
upciguy26 said:
Christ’s church revealed the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be that of Jesus Christ.

Paul was told to call on the name of the Lord while being baptized. The name Jesus has been left out of baptism and that name is so SACRED for there is none other name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved! (Acts 4:12)
Click to expand...
When a policeman says, “stop in the name of the law”, he doesn’t give the “name of the law”. He means stop “by the authority of the law”. In the same way, to “call upon the name of the Lord”, means to** call upon the authority of the Lord.** When the scripture says there is none other name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved, it does not mean the literal name, but by the **authority of Jesus **that men are saved. If all we needed was a name, then anyone with the name of Jesus, as those latin americans with the name of Jesus, could save people also. Thus, it is not the name itself, but the person behind the name, the person by whose authority we are saved, and that person is the second person of the Trinity, the person Jesus himself.

Again, the reason Protestants get these basic things mixed up is because Jesus says salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. Jesus did not say salvation comes from believing the bible. Jesus did not say salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles wrote. But Jesus said, “Preach the Gospel to all nations. He who believes and his baptized will be saved.” (mark 16:16). St. Paul says the same thing, “you are being saved IF you hold fast to the Gospel I preached to you.”

But the Gospel the apostles taught and preached is NOT written anywhere in the bible. There is not a single book, not a single chapter, not a single paragraph of the bbile, that claims to be a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. Thus, Protestants CAN’T learn the Gospel by reading the bible. It is impossible.
But anyone can learn this Gospel. How?
The apostles appointed successors to carry on their preaching. And these successors were ALL bishops of the Catholic Church. If anyone can name a single successor of any apostle who was NOT a bishop of the Catholic Church, then I will join that religion.
How did these bishops become Catholic? They learned the Gospel from the apostles. In other words, the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached, that Jesus said was necessary for salvation, was the Catholic Faith.
No one can teach himself the Catholic faith by reading the bible. Thus no one can lean the Gospel by reading the bible. No one can proclaim the Gospel, the Catholic faith to themselves. They must be taught.

That is why Protestants cannot learn the Gospel by reading the bible. The Gospel was handed on by Tradition, by the apostles, just as Jesus handed it on.
Jesus taught and preached, and did not write a word of scripture. Thus Jesus taught entirely by Tradition.

The apostles had to follow His example. Thus, they taught and preached the Gospel entirely by Tradition. There is not a single paragraph of the bible that claims to have a summary of this Gospel they handed on by Tradition, (teaching and preaching).
Later on the Holy Spirit moved some Catholics to write narratives of the life of Jesus, which we call the gospels. These gospels have certain elements of that Tradition that was taught by the apostles. Thus, we can sometimes see Church teachings in the scriptures. But, these teachings originate ONLY in the Gospel the apostles taught and preached and they are complete ONLY in the Gospel the apostles taught and preached.
 
upciguy26 said:
Christ’s church revealed the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be that of Jesus Christ.

Paul was told to call on the name of the Lord while being baptized. The name Jesus has been left out of baptism and that name is so SACRED for there is none other name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved! (Acts 4:12)
Click to expand...
Fortunately Jesus is not left out of Catholic baptism. I am sure you are right about other baptisms.

Can you please show where “Christ’s Church revealed” that we should not conform to the instructions of Jesus to “baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and HS”?
 
tabcom said:
One more time . . .
John 3:4
*Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old ? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”

3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

**To be ‘born of water’ was an idiom. What Jesus is saying is that we have a physical body that was born first. **
Click to expand...
I disagree with your “idiom” speculation. Your speculation has no biblical support whatsoever. Not a single ECF used that interpretation, and they were very well familiar with the cultural idioms of Christ. Born of water is not used anywhere else in Scripture to mean “born of the flesh”. Other terms are used, but NEVER born of water.
In addition, to claim that “born of water” means to be born physically renders the original statement in John 3:5 nonsensical.
There would be no need to include born of water at all. In fact, if it means what you claim, it is more confusing to do so. He would simply have said, “Unless one is born of the Spirit he shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven” That would be the most simple, clear means of eliminating the confusion that Nicodemus had regarding what was meant by “born again”. It means to be born of the Spirit. They both knew they were discussing people and not other life forms so to add “of water” to
“Unless one is born” is, again, a redundancy and simply adds to the confusion of the distinction between the physical birth and spiritual birth.
Lastly, and quite significantly, the term “anothen” does not necessarily mean “again” at all. It can eqyally be rendered as “from above”. “Unless one is born from above…” Such a rendering - which is entirely valid - completely eliminates all your speculations.
Again, nice try. Common sense disagrees with your assessment, the testimony of the baptisms performed by the apostles conflicts with your assessment, and lastly, the ECFs - who all were in a far better postition to judge the contextual cultural idioms employed by Christ - also disagree with you.
I don’t say this to convince you - you do not appear open to considering the possibility that you are wrong. Rather, I refute you for the benefit of those who might be misled by your twisting of Scripture.
 
Is there really a church that calls itself First Waterless Protestant?
 
**This thread has splintered into too many directions. It would take me a week to reply to every post that opposes my claim that the water baptism is done away with. Also, if I did take the time to reply back, what would be the point? I have found that when someone wants to argue with me that they rarely take the time to fully digest what I’m saying and pause . . . before moving on and wanting to argue about something else.

Therefore, I’m going to go back to the very begining. Let’s start with the word Baptism. From where did the word come from?

Baptism; from the greek words baptizo and bapto

Baptizo bap-tid’-zo

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Bapto: bap’-to

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=907

searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=911

**
 
tabcom said:
**This thread has splintered into too many directions. It would take me a week to reply to every post that opposes my claim that the water baptism is done away with. Also, if I did take the time to reply back, what would be the point? I have found that when someone wants to argue with me that they rarely take the time to fully digest what I’m saying and pause . . . before moving on and wanting to argue about something else. **
Click to expand...
Sorry about that. We are all so prejudiced by the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, it is difficult to take anyone seriously who disregards their teachings. It is one of my worst faults 😦
tabcom said:
**Therefore, I’m going to go back to the very begining. Let’s start with the word Baptism. From where did the word come from?

Baptism; from the greek words baptizo and bapto

Baptizo bap-tid’-zo**

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.
searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=907
Click to expand...
This is great! This is what the Church teaches happens in water baptism. I LOVE pickles!
 
Tabcom: When Jesus was baptized was there a force field around him that kept him from getting wet?

Are you OK with obeying Jesus and baptizing people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without water?

Are there many churches that believe in waterless baptism?

I thought I had heard it all, but I had never heard of waterless baptism in my entire life.

I’m afraid to ask any theological question involving pickel juice!
 
tabcom said:
This thread has splintered into too many directions. It would take me a week to reply to every post that opposes my claim that the water baptism is done away with.
Click to expand...
Do you come up with your own theology, or have you read this somewhere?

Has this been taught at anytime in the history of Christianity?

If so, then when and where, if not, then why not?
 
Tabcom:
I was wondering why you would think that water baptism was done away with in light of the Didache which was written from 50 - 120 AD in which the following is written

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
  1. And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. 2. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. 3. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
I am not sure why they would have written this if in fact water baptism had been done away with. In light of what is written here in the Didache it would seem to me that water baptism was still around.

Maybe perhaps they didn’t see your post informing them of this fact. :rolleyes:
 
I’m just glad that after 2000 years someone finally corrects those pesky Apostles and Early Church Fathers. Those guys were out there!

:doh2:

Tongue firmly planted in cheek.

M
 
guanophore said:
I think he has been studying this website. We didn’t know this before, but the Pope is cursed for requiring water baptism!
:eek:
purewords.org/sojourner/html/baptism.htm#a14
Click to expand...
Well, I am not sure then what tabcom is arguing.
Is it that water baptism was done away with, as in we could be baptized with milk if we wanted to, or that baptism doesn’t save you, it is just an ordinance, to show your commitment to Christ?

Maybe he is saying that the water baptism of John actually had the power to wash our sins away, but that power is not needed anymore because of the redemption work of Christ on the cross, and therefore we are born again, not because of baptism, but because we are a new creature in Christ, when we come to believe and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
 
runandsew said:
Well, I am not sure then what tabcom is arguing.
Is it that water baptism was done away with, or that baptism doesn’t save you, it is just an ordinance, to show your commitment to Christ?
Click to expand...
You know, that might not be the site, because he is arguing that the baptism in scripture has nothing to do with water.

He says it has been done away with completely, because the old law with it’s ordinances was nailed to the cross, and he thinks that Jews were baptized. He still has not said why Jesus was baptized or why He taught and commanded His Apostles to baptize.
runandsew said:
Maybe he is saying that the water baptism of John actually had the power to wash our sins away, but that power is not needed anymore because of the redemption work of Christ on the cross, and therefore we are born again, not because of baptism, but because we are a new creature in Christ, when we come to believe and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
Click to expand...
No, John’s baptism was part of the old Jewish ritual that was set aside.
 
guanophore said:
You know, that might not be the site, because he is arguing that the baptism in scripture has nothing to do with water.
He says it has been done away with completely, because the old law with it’s ordinances was nailed to the cross, and he thinks that Jews were baptized. He still has not said why Jesus was baptized or why He taught and commanded His Apostles to baptize.
No, John’s baptism was part of the old Jewish ritual that was set aside.
Click to expand...
Well that’s strange, I thought that it was circumcision that was done away with (nailed to the cross), and it was replaced with baptism. I thought that St. Paul was making reference to that very point in Colossians.

Colossians 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Also what about these facts:

Baptism was commanded “for the remission of sins”
  • Acts 2:38
    And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Baptism was done to “wash away sins”
  • Acts 22:16
    And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
Baptism involved “water”
  • Acts 8:36-38
    And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
  • Acts 10:47-48
    “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days
Baptism was done “immediately”, with no delay even if after midnight
  • Acts 16:25-33
    But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and every one’s fetters were unfastened. When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.
Baptism is a ‘washing’ and ‘regeneration’.
Titus 3:4-7
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 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, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

Baptism saves us
1 Peter 3:20-21
who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 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

Heck, not only was Baptism with water something done in the New Testament Church, it is also necessary for salvation.
 
guanophore said:
Sorry about that. We are all so prejudiced by the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, it is difficult to take anyone seriously who disregards their teachings. It is one of my worst faults 😦
Click to expand...
**guanophore . . . apology accepted.

I really do want to discuss every reply within this thread.

However, due to the limitations of communicating through a forum – without the benefit of speaking with my mouth, it is very difficult to do so in an orderly, and more importantly, intellectually meaningful fashion.

I’m learning that the most effective way to communicate within a forum is to stay focus on one topic and don’t get side tracked. I have not mastered that skill, but I’m getting better at it.

Therefore, because the Original Topic is ‘Water baptism cannot make you right with God’ – (I still agree with) – and is pretty much wide open to disccussion, I’m going to start a new thread and call it ‘Baptism and its meaning’ first. It may take several weeks to cover that topic along. Afterwards, I’d very much like to move.

As for this thread, I will no longer be posting. However, I do hope to have the opportunity in the future to resume each and every verse presented within it – in separate threads.

One final footnote, I printed out and read the church fathers quotes supplied by savedsinner (thank you). I would like to reply to it as well at some point in the future. For I don’t agree with their theology, in part, because there is at least one citation that doesn’t even quote John 3:5 correctly. But that is for another topic.

I hope you all will join me at the new thread, ‘Baptism and its meaning’

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2444106#post2444106

Regards,
tabcom

**
 
guanophore said:
You have an incomplete understanding of the teaching of Christ and the Apostles about Baptism. The Rite of Baptism is not an “outwordly public ritual” except for protestants that don’t understand the Teachings. It is a sacrament that both represents and enacts the grace it symbolizes. It is an act of obedience, yes, but also a great event of impartation of the HS, regeneration fo the heart, freedom from the bondage of original sin. I think, if you could just “pretend” that water baptism was what Jesus had in mind, and look at all that passages from that frame, you could see that.
Click to expand...
This protestant holds water baptism as a necessity according to the early apostolic church teachings. We cannot separate water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ from faith. It simply cannot be done. If you have faith in Jesus Christ, then that faith takes you to be baptized for the remission of sins.
 
mlldrl said:
I’m just glad that after 2000 years someone finally corrects those pesky Apostles and Early Church Fathers. Those guys were out there!

:doh2:

Tongue firmly planted in cheek.

M
Click to expand...
Their baptism used the shorter formula. Why does the church disacknowledge that?
 
upciguy26 said:
This protestant holds water baptism as a necessity according to the early apostolic church teachings. We cannot separate water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ from faith. It simply cannot be done. If you have faith in Jesus Christ, then that faith takes you to be baptized for the remission of sins.
Click to expand...
forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2446218&postcount=15

I copied my answer to your post to the other thread.
upciguy26 said:
Their baptism used the shorter formula. Why does the church disacknowledge that?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what this means. It does not make any sense to me. How could the church “disacknowledge” baptism? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top