Water baptism cannot make you right with God

[guanophore]

This post was moved from another thread where it was off topic.

I believe your definition of “Original Sin” is a bit watered down. We have inherited a much deeper problem than a “lack of sanctifying grace”. We’ve inherited condemnation (spiritual death). Water baptism cannot make you right with God. It cannot give you spiritual life. Only Faith on Jesus can do that. It is impossible to please God without Faith.

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Hbr 11:6
But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

You seem to think that Baptism somehow occurs apart from faith, which is not the case. If it did, it would not be considered a valid baptism.

 

[estesbob]

This post was moved from another thread where it was off topic.

Mark 16:16 (New International Version)

16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Mark 16:16 (New International Version)

16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Notice carefully that Mk 16:16 leave the question of what happens to those who believe and but not Baptized? From the passage alone they are NOT saved and are NOT condemned. So if you Believe, seek Baptism!!

 

[SyCarl]

Notice carefully that Mk 16:16 leave the question of what happens to those who believe and but not Baptized? From the passage alone they are NOT saved and are NOT condemned. So if you Believe, seek Baptism!!

I agree. If anyone believes they will naturally want to be baptized since Jesus said we should be. If you don’t want to be baptized I would seriously question if you actually believe.

 

[Angainor]

You seem to think that Baptism somehow occurs apart from faith, which is not the case. If it did, it would not be considered a valid baptism.

I don’t like the idea of an “invalid” baptism. It implies God is not able to make baptism effective for some reason. It implies that you cannot be certain your baptism is “valid”, so you cannot be certain God keeps his promises.
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 good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:21

 

[guanophore]

I don’t like the idea of an “invalid” baptism. It implies God is not able to make baptism effective for some reason. It implies that you cannot be certain your baptism is “valid”, so you cannot be certain God keeps his promises.
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 good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:21

I don’t like it either, but in fact they do exist. Jesus taught that we need to be baptized “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Baptism that is done otherwise is not considered valid. Anyone who is not certain can seek direction from the church, which is clear on what type of baptism is valid.

I can be certain that God will keep His promises. God is not bound by baptism. It was given to us as the normative means by which people would become members of His body. However, He may add members to His body however He pleases!

The OP has rejected the teachings of the Church, and the sacramental life:

Originally Posted by believers
Let’s get this straight. I was a cradle Catholic and remained Catholic for 36 years and come from a long line of Catholics. I even attended CCD as a child. I also grew up with Catholics in a state divided into parishes. Please don’t tell me I don’t know Catholicism.

False. Why don’t you finish the verse? 1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, BUT the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Yes, it is about the Holy Spirit. But you must believe and repent to be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Your infant baptism is wrong. Babies cannot believe or repent.

In regards to baptism, it’s not water baptism that saves you. Only baptism of the Holy Spirit which one receives when they believe and repent. That is the only way. You cannot receive the Holy Spirit with water.

 

[guanophore]

What we inherited was condemnation. That means we are guilty of sin. Unless you have faith on Jesus Christ and repent, you are not justified. You still have a sin problem. Water baptism does nothing. John the Baptist said that he baptized UNTO repentance. Jesus said he came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Jesus sent out His disciples in two to preach repentance. Paul preached repentance.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges, believers, with regard to the difference between original and personal sin. However, that is a topic for another thread!

Scripture teaches us that water baptism washes away sin. Only those with repentant faith are baptized, and that is why there is no separation between the washing with water and the Spirit. The convert approaches the font of Baptism (after having repented of one’s sins) and asks to be made part of the Body of Christ. Repentance and profession of faith are part of the Baptism. Regeneration is the result.

 

[jemfinch]

You seem to think that Baptism somehow occurs apart from faith, which is not the case. If it did, it would not be considered a valid baptism.

I don’t think that’s true. A valid baptism requires valid minister (anyone), valid matter (water), valid form (“In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”), and valid intention of the minister (to do what the Church does). The baptism of an unbeliever seems like it would be valid, but certainly illicit. Do you have any reference to show otherwise?

Jeremy

 

[tabcom]

I don’t like (invalid baptism) either, but in fact they do exist. Jesus taught that we need to be baptized “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Baptism that is done otherwise is not considered valid.

**
If baptism by Holy Spirit is valid, then what would be an example of an invalid baptism?

Water.**

 

[jmcrae]

**
If baptism by Holy Spirit is valid, then what would be an example of an invalid baptism?

Water.**

“I baptize you in the name of God” would not be valid, and “I baptize you in the name of the Parent, in the name of the Child, and in the name of the Sanctifier” would not be valid.

Baptism using anything other than water would also be invalid - we cannot baptize using cold coffee or milk or fruit juice, etc.

Not using water would make it invalid. (You can’t say “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” without pouring water over the person’s head, or ducking them under some water.

Baptizing yourself would also be invalid - another person has to baptize you. (I mention this because I have run into a local fad among our more eccentric population, where people are jumping into the river and saying, “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Sorry, guys - this doesn’t work.)

Back later - I am being interrupted.

 

[Genesis315]

We have inherited a much deeper problem than a “lack of sanctifying grace”. We’ve inherited condemnation (spiritual death).

Having no sanctifying grace (supernatural life bestowed by God) does mean one is spiritually dead.

 

[tabcom]

Baptism using anything other than water would also be invalid

Not using water would make it invalid.

**The ritual of dipping in water has been done away (Col. 2:14).

John The Baptist also stated that water baptism is over . . .

Mr 1:8 -
“I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Mt 3:11 -
"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

pneumati - spirit
puri - fire

Pneuma and Pur had an exact meaning to a Hellenized culture. It dates several hundred years earlier and started with Zeno, the founder of the Stoics.

Pneuma and Pur, in the simplist terms, ment life.

Also, what type of baptism is Jesus talking about in Mr 10:38?

Mr 10:38 -
But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Mr 10:39 -
They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized

Being dipped in water?

**

 

[Jerry-Jet]

They baptized entire household in Acts and part of the members of some of those households were infants.

The infants didn’t have to profess fith and yes the Baptisms were valid and yes they did wash away all temporal punishment due ot original sin.

So yes Water Baptism did make those infants right with God!

The infants faith ws not required. What was required was the faith of their parents.

After the age of reason those infants would be held accountable for profesing or not professing their own personal faith in Jesus.

Everyone is lost before they are found. We are born of original sin. We are baptized as infants or some of us are baptized after the age of reason.

Some are baptized before they profess their faith in Jesus and some are baptized after they profess their faith in Jesus but all are born again by Water and the Spirit.

The sequence does not matter.

Catholics are truely born again!

 

[tabcom]

They baptized entire household in Acts . . . .
So yes Water Baptism did make those infants right with God!

**
If you would be so kind as to be more specific as to where in Acts you are referring to AND show that water baptism was preformed, I’d like to discuss this point further.**

but all are born again by Water and the Spirit.

You are not going to find that doctrine in the bible.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus siad you must be born of water and the spirit.

If Jesus’ own words aren’t enough to establish doctrine–what is?

As for entire households being baptized in Acts read Acts 16:14-15, Acts 16:30-33, and Acts 18:8.

What part of entire households baptized in the inerrant word of God in Acts do you not understand?

 

[jmcrae]

**The ritual of dipping in water has been done away (Col. 2:14). **

It says, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” which has nothing at all to do with baptism - he is not discussing rituals of any kind in this passage, but rather, the accusations of the Devil against the human race.

Backing up a bit, in verse 12, St Paul says, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” So, obviously, Christian baptism was important to St. Paul - he was encouraging them to remember their baptism, recognize that when they were immersed in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, their sins, along with all of the Devil’s accusations against them, were washed away, and that therefore they should not be discouraged by the Devil’s accusations against them.

John The Baptist also stated that water baptism is over . . .

 

[jmcrae]

You are not going to find that doctrine in the bible.

He is quoting directly from John 3:5, where Jesus says to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This is a direct reference to Christian baptism.

 

[Ceil-1]

What difference do any of your opinions make? Jesus told the apostles to baptize people. The apostles, as the foundation of the Church had the power to loose and bind. They gave the stipulations according to their priveleged status and inside knowledge of the Savior’s intentions. It is up to them to say what’s up. It is our job to be obedient to that, becasue obedience to them is equivalent to obedience to God. You debate to your own detriment.

God to Noah:

“How long can you tread water?”

–Bill Cosby

 

[tabcom]

(Col. 2:14) says, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” . . . he is not discussing rituals of any kind in this passage,

**Footnote from the New American Bible, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The elaborate metaphor here about how God canceled the legal claims against us through Christ’s cross depicts not Christ being nailed to the cross by men but
the bond . . . with its legal claims being nailed to the cross by God.

The original greek word for ‘handwriting of ordinances’ is the word dogma.

Paul gives an example of the ritual of circumcision (v. 11) that is done away with.**

Backing up a bit, in verse 12, St Paul says, “Buried with him in baptism,”

So, obviously, Christian baptism was important to St. Paul

Agreed.

• he was encouraging them to remember their baptism, recognize that when they were immersed in water

**No.

Remember when they were immersed in water? Paul was preaching to a gentile church. Water baptism was a ritual of the Jews. Why would Paul put the yoke of water baptism on a gentile church when the Jews included it as one of their rituals and God turned away from them?**

He meant that Christian baptism would include the Holy Spirit

IMHO, Christian baptism is the Holy Spirit

 

[tabcom]

He is quoting directly from John 3:5, where Jesus says to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This is a direct reference to Christian baptism.

:tsktsk:

**The water being referred to is the water from a mothers womb. **