Posted on 06/14/2005 9:27:50 AM PDT by HarleyD
Actually, I still don't know what you mean by baptismal regeneration - you have not defined it.
If you mean that the sinner is baptized into Christ's death and arises to a new life, then I do believe that because that's what Paul taught about baptism in Romans 6.
In Acts 2, their baptism was not UNTO slavation, but BECAUSE OF salvation.
Here you state exactly the opposite of Peter, who told the Jews to be baptized "for the remission of sins." Note the exact same words applied to Jesus' sacrifice in Matt 26:28 - "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Was Jesus' blood shed BECAUSE OF salvation or UNTO salvation?
Other passages agree that sins are remitted by God, through the power of the sacrifice of Jesus, at baptism (Acts 22:16 ; 1Pet 3:21, etc.)
One can only have a good conscience toward God if one is ALREADY saved.
That's your opinion, and is not in agreement with what scripture says about when the new birth occurs. Again, Paul says in Gal 3:27 and Rom 6:3-4 that a person is baptized into Christ (otherwise you must defend that there is salvation outside of Christ) and rises from baptism with a new life (otherwise you must defend that the regenerated person is buried with Christ and a second new life occurs).
It's not explicitly stated by Jesus, but it is definitely consistent with His statement to Nicodemus that one must be born of water and the Spirit.
So, bottom line, what you believe and what scripture says about baptism are different. You can deny it all you want, but these scrptural truths are self-evident:
You have the cart before the horse if you place any of these results before baptism. You have no scriptural support for your belief and these scriptures prove your belief incorrect.
If the above is what you mean by baptismal regeneration, then I will stand with Paul, Peter, Ananias and my Lord in affirming it.
Suffice it to say, you hold that view from an imperfect understanding of the scriptures. Read the link, and offer a rebuttal to it, if you can.
Chapter on Baptismal Regeneration
taken from Gregory A. Boyd's book Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity
(Gregory A. Boyd is a former Oneness Pentecostal)
Oneness Pentecostals teach that baptism in water is an absolute prerequisite for salvation. This position is commonly called "baptismal regeneration" because it holds that one is "regenerated" only when he or she is baptized. It is not unique to the Oneness movement. It is also taught by the Catholic Church and by the hard-line wing of the Church of Christ.
Let it first be acknowledged that the passages used by Oneness Pentecostals (and other baptismal regererationists) in defense of their position do show that baptism was regarded as an essential aspect of the ordinary saving experience of early believers. In the strongest possible terms, baptism is associated with one's being united with Christ (Romans 6:4-5), with one's "putting on" Christ (Galatians 3:27), with the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and, paralleling the Old Testament practice of circumcision, with one's becoming a member of the New Covenant community (Colossians 2:11-12). There is nothing to indicate that this act was perceived as being in any sense peripheral to the gospel. It was in ordinary cases (with some possible exceptions, cf. 1 Corinthians 1:15-17) the first things Christians did after responding in faith to the gospel message (see Acts 2:38, 8:34-38, 10:45-48). This is not, however, the same as saying that salvation was ever seen as being directly contingent upon baptism. The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and faith alone, that saves a person is itself enough to prove this (e.g., John 3:15, 36, 5:24; Acts 2:21, 10:43, 15:9, 16:31; Romans 1:17, 3:22-30, 4:3, 5, 5:1, 9:30, 10:9-13; Acts 15:9, etc.). At least sixty times in the New Testament, eternal salvation is explicitly tied to faith and/or repentance with no mention of baptism. Relatedly, Paul, who conceives of baptism as paralleled with Old Testament circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12), explicitly argues that Abraham was justified by God before he was circumcised (Romans 4:9-12). As important as circumcision was, it was for Abraham a "sign" and "seal" of the righteousness he had by faith. This seems to be how Paul thought of baptism. The fact that the thief on the cross could be saved without being baptized further corroborates this point (Luke 23:42-43, 18:9-14).
The passages adduced by the Oneness Pentecostals do not prove the contrary. First, the fact that Peter commands the Jews in his Pentecost sermon to be baptized "for [eis] the forgiveness of sins" does not entail that the forgiveness of sins comes as a direct result of baptism. The preposition eis in Greek can simply mean "with a view towards," "in connection with," or "in the light of." If this interpretation is meant, Peter is in this passage simply saying that baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins (cf. Acts 15:9). The act of divine forgiveness renders baptism important and significant. This further makes sense out of the fact that in Peter's next two recorded sermons to unbelievers in Acts, he directly associates the forgiveness of sins with repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (3:17-26, 4:8-12). Paul preaches in a similar fashion (Acts 16:31). Indeed, Paul tells us that he rarely baptized people at all, since this was not his calling (1 Corinthians 1:15-17). It would, I think, be quite impossible to see how this could be if he or anyone else believed there was a direct causal relationship between baptism and divine forgiveness. How could an apostle of Christ not be called to bring people into a forgiven relationship with the Father?
The Oneness understanding of baptism is also difficult to square with the fact that the Holy Sprit, we learn from Acts, is sometimes given in a dramatic fashion before individuals are baptized in water (Acts 10:44-48). Is one thus to suppose that God poured out His Spirit in this fashion upon people whose sins He had not yet forgiven? This reversal of the Acts 2:38 baptism-Spirit order is, I think, enough to tell us that we should not take Acts 2:38 as a sort of ironclad formula to which God is bound. It is also enough, I believe, to teach us that the remission of sins is not causally connected with water baptism. What closes the case on this, however, is the recognition that Luke and Mark use this exact same phrase, "for [eis] the forgiveness of sins," in relation to the baptism of John the Baptist (Luke 3:3; cf. Mark 1:4). Yet John's baptism clearly did not, in any literal sense, wash away people's sins. Why else would his disciples need to believe on Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and be rebaptized (Acts 19:4-6)? The parallel passage in Matthew says that John's baptism was a baptism "with water for [eis] repentance" (Matthew 3:11; cf. Acts 19:4), and this seems to be equivalent with the phrase "for [or unto] the forgiveness of sins." The act of being baptized certainly didn't bring about repentance. Rather, baptism was the result of repentance, and it derived its significance from the act of repentance. In just the same way, the act of being baptized, both for John and Christ's disciples, didn't literally bring about the forgiveness of that had already occurred, and the act derived its significance from this divine act. The other passages used by baptismal-regenerationists are no stronger in proving their case. In fact, far from showing the regenerationist view of baptism, 1 Peter 3:21 can most easily be read to show the opposite. The entire passage reads: ... In it [the ark] only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven ... (1 Peter 3:20-22) The author is here drawing a double analogy: The water of the flood is to baptism what baptism is to our present salvation. That he is here talking symbolically is clear not only from the fact that he explicitly says he is talking symbolically, but also from the fact that he goes on to clarify that he is not talking about any literal washing or "removal of dirt from the body," as though the water had any efficacy in itself, but about baptism as a "pledge of good conscience toward God." The reality that brings forth baptism is the act of repentance and the forgiveness of sins that produces the saint's "good conscience." Turning to John 3:5, there is simply no decisive reason to think that Jesus is referring to baptism when he says that one must be "born of water." It is certainly difficult to suppose that Nicodemus would have understood "water" as referring to the not-yet-existent ritual of Christian baptism. What is more, the subject matter of this entire passage is the activity of the Holy Spirit in contrast to the flesh, and it would be most awkward for Jesus to disrupt this train of thought midstream with a reference to a still-future ritual. Hence it seems most likely that "water" is being used as a metaphorical synonym for "Spirit" in verse 5. What further supports this conclusion is the fact that Jesus speaks in a similar manner, but with a different analogy, three verses later. Here being "born of the Spirit" (no mention of water this time) is likened to the wind blowing (John 3:8). But, clearly, being born of the Spirit and being born by the wind are not two different things. Then why think being "born of water" and being "born of the Spirit" are distinct? In keeping with other sections of John and of other New Testament writings, it seems most reasonable to assume that water here symbolizes the life and purification ("washing") that the Spirit brings, just as the wind symbolizes the freedom by which the Spirit moves (cf. John 4:10-15, 7:38; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; Revelation 22:1). In fact, this religiously symbolic use of water was common in ancient Near Eastern thought, and Nicodemus would have readily picked up on this. The general teaching of Scripture, then, is that those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. Baptism, obedient living, a transformed life, and many other aspects of the Christian life will ordinarily in due time result from this saving faith. But salvation is not itself the result of any of these things. And the few references that some have supposed to teach the contrary, I have shown to be mistaken.
The two links I have provided, one of which is quoted in its entirety here, offer more than ample proof that baptismal regeneration, and the belief that one is not born again or saved until one is baptized, and that baptism is what places us in Christ, is not only bad doctrine, it is heresy. It should be obvious that a person doesn't have to be a Oneness Pentecostal, or a Church of Christ member, or a Catholic, to believe this wrong doctrine. Disclaiming association with any of the various churches who believe these things does not divorce anyone from the doctrine itself.
Let the Word of God be True, and every man a liar.
"...the first things Christians did after responding in faith to the gospel message. This is not, however, the same as saying that salvation was ever seen as being directly contingent upon baptism. The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and faith alone, that saves a person is itself enough to prove this."
If "it is faith" that saves (I'm not arguing that it's not) then salvation is conditioned upon an act obedience by man (you've already agreed that scripture says faith is a work).
Additionally, please quote the only verse you can find that uses the phrase "faith alone".
Obviously the author has some misunderstanding of works of faithful obedience seeking grace vs. works seeking to earn salvation apart from grace.
"At least sixty times in the New Testament, eternal salvation is explicitly tied to faith and/or repentance with no mention of baptism."
Wait a minute! I thought the last quote said faith only. You mean it takes repentence, too? Is repentance a work?
"The fact that the thief on the cross could be saved without being baptized..."
I've already addressed this invalid point. The thief was saved under the old covenant.
"First, the fact that Peter commands the Jews in his Pentecost sermon to be baptized "for [eis] the forgiveness of sins" does not entail that the forgiveness of sins comes as a direct result of baptism. The preposition eis in Greek can simply mean "with a view towards," "in connection with," or "in the light of." If this interpretation is meant, Peter is in this passage simply saying that baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins.
There are 2 Greek words for the English word "for": gar=because of & eis=unto, in order to.
|
What does "for" (Greek: "eis") mean in Acts 2:38 |
||||
|
Passage |
Action |
because of |
in order to |
Result |
|
Mt 26:28 |
blood shed |
|
X |
remission of sin |
|
Rom 10:10 |
Believe |
|
X |
righteousness |
|
Acts 11:18 |
Repentance |
|
X |
life |
|
Rom 10:4 |
Confess |
|
X |
Salvation |
|
Acts 3:19 |
Repent & converted |
|
X |
sins blotted out |
|
Acts 2:38 |
Repent & baptized |
|
X |
remission of sins |
"baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins"
Huh? There's that pesky repentance (not faith only) bringing about the forgiveness of sins. How can that be? Was Christ's work on the cross not sufficient?
"in Peter's next two recorded sermons to unbelievers in Acts, he directly associates the forgiveness of sins with repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism."
Peter's sermon in Acts 4 was interrupted by his arrest. Not only is there no mention of baptism in this abbreviated sermon, there is also no mention of souls being added to the church by God, as there is in Acts 2.
"Paul tells us that he rarely baptized people at all, since this was not his calling."
In 1Cor 1, Paul is dealing with people who claimed a schismatic allegience to a preacher instead of to Christ. He says he did baptize some of the Corinthians, but he was glad he didn't baptize many so they wouldn't say they were baptized in his name (vs 15). But notice: he does indicate they were all baptized (vs 13).
If Paul was not sent to baptize, did he sin in baptizing Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:14, 16)? If Paul had been sent to baptize, would this mean baptism is essential to salvation?
Those under the "Great Commission" were sent to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20). Is the baptism of the "Great Commission" essential to salvation? Did Paul labor under this "Great Commission"?
Paul never alludes to the meaning of baptism, but to the insignificance of the person who did the baptizing. Christ is the important one in the matter, not the person who dunked them. They were baptized in the name of Christ, not Paul, or Apollos, etc. One searches the scriptures in vain if he seeks to find conditions, or qualifications laid upon the person who baptizes. It matters not. Whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or me, or Adam, or Noah, or Judas, it does not change what takes place, nor does it alter to whom the credit should be given.
Paul says that his purpose is to preach the gospel. If Mark 16:15-16 means anything, it means that believing and being baptized are both part of the gospel Paul preached and are equally necessary for salvation: "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves shall be condemned."
"The Oneness understanding of baptism is also difficult to square with the fact that the Holy Sprit, we learn from Acts, is sometimes given in a dramatic fashion before individuals are baptized in water (Acts 10:44-48). Is one thus to suppose that God poured out His Spirit in this fashion upon people whose sins He had not yet forgiven? This reversal of the Acts 2:38 baptism-Spirit order is, I think, enough to tell us that we should not take Acts 2:38 as a sort of ironclad formula to which God is bound."
There is no indication that those in Acts 10 upon whom the Holy Spirt fell were saved when that happened. It's just not there. This was God's way of letting the Jewish Christian present know and prove that God had accepted Gentiles for salvation in Christ. They were saved when they obeyed the gospel.
To claim otherwise is to claim salvation for Balaam's donkey, who also spoke miraculously in a foreign tongue. It was Jehovah who opened the mouth of that creature (Nu 22:28).
And note this part of Peter's recounting of the story of Cornelius in Acts 11:13-14 -- "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, `Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'"
So by what was Cornelius saved? A direct action of the Holy Spirit or through the preaching of the gospel which they would believe and obey? The words of Peter included an order for them "to be baptized."
This also begs another question: Why did Cornelius need all this preaching and outpouring in the first place. He's described as a devout and God-fearing man. To hear you tell it, that's proof he's already saved. The angel tells him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God." But the angel also says to send for Peter who will speak words by which Cornelius will be saved.
The only thing we should take away from the pouring of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius is the same conclusion the apostles made: God accepts Gentiles on the same basis he accepts Jews. The outpouring had no bearing on the condition of Cornelius' soul - he still needed to be baptized for the remission of his sins.
"What closes the case on this, however, is the recognition that Luke and Mark use this exact same phrase, "for [eis] the forgiveness of sins," in relation to the baptism of John the Baptist (Luke 3:3; cf. Mark 1:4). Yet John's baptism clearly did not, in any literal sense, wash away people's sins. Why else would his disciples need to believe on Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and be rebaptized (Acts 19:4-6)?"
So, if John's baptism was all that was needed "for the remission of sins" then why were people whose sins had already been remitted in need of Jesus' baptism "for the remission of sins"? Why did Paul rebaptize John's disciples in Acts 19? Could it be that their baptism looked forward to a future remission of sins in Christ?
Paul explains John's baptism in Acts 19:3 -- "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." John's baptism did point forward to repentance and remission in Christ.
RE: 1Pet 3:21 - "The reality that brings forth baptism is the act of repentance and the forgiveness of sins that produces the saint's "good conscience."
The author may want it to, but 1Peter 3:21 says no such thing about a "good conscience". Is forgiveness of sins a prerequisite to having a "good conscience"? Paul declared (Acts 23:1) "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." Paul was lost in rebellion against Christ, yet had a good conscience. So a "good conscience" is not an indicator of salvation - it is only an indicator of desire.
A conscience must be informed by truth in order to compel one to a proper action to conform with truth. Peter simply states that one who has a good conscience will appeal to God's saving power by responding positively to His command to be baptized. This is the sense in which baptism saves - not just going through the motions, but in obedience to a command of Christ. As Heb 5:9 states, "He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation."
I believe my previous post regarding Nicodemus stated that "born of the water" was consistent with Rom 6 which states the new life begins upon rising from the waters of baptism. If water in John 3 is referring to the Spirit, no voilence is done to my position. Rom 6 says the new life given by the Spirit begins at baptism.
Even if “faith only” were true, isn’t belief in God an action on the part of man - a condition? The pure Calvinist would say it is not, teaching instead that man’s faith is an act of God. While it is true that without anything in which to believe, belief is impossible. So in the sense that He is the source of the thing believed, God may be referred to as the source of our faith. But, it is man who does the believing or rejecting.
Jesus said in John 6:29, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Faith, Jesus says, is a work. But we know salvation is not of boasting works - it is by God's grace.
But is man saved by grace only, apart from any obedience on man's part? What does the bible say?
We are
SAVED by faith (Rom 3:28)
SAVED BY grace (Eph 2:8)
SAVED BY repentance (Acts 3:19)
SAVED BY confession (Rom 10:10)
SAVED BY baptism (1Pet 3:21).
We are not saved by anything “only”. In fact, in James 2:24, the only passage in which the words “faith only” appear together in scripture, we learn that “by works a man is justified and not by faith only.” Small wonder that Martin Luther wanted to expunge the entire book of James from scripture. Is James teaching that we can earn our salvation by works? How can we harmonize Paul’s declaration that we are saved by faith and not of works with James’ statement about works and faith?
James is discussing a human opinion that one can have faith without works (or that faith and works can be had independent of each other). James begins his discussion of faith and works in 2:18 by stating, “A man may say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works.” The faith which God commands is a faith that includes works. James is demonstrating that there is really no such thing as faith without works.
Is Paul in disagreement with James when he says in Romans 3:28, “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”? Paul’s argument in Romans is that man cannot merit salvation by keeping commandments. Instead, the law condemns us since we do not keep it. Even if we use our own innate sense of right-and-wrong as a guide, we still do not live up to the standard (see Romans 1 & 2). Paul is showing in Romans the universality of man's guilt. He is not discussing whether God has laid down certain conditions in the gospel for the forgiveness of man’s sins.
“Not of works” cannot be construed to mean that the sinner can be saved without submission or obedience to Christ; such a construction would violate the plain teaching of scripture:
Christ is the “source of salvation to all who obey him” - Heb 5:9
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father.” - Matt 7:21
God “does not show favoritism” but “accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.” - Acts 10:34-35
God will punish those who “do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” - 2Thess 1:7-9
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved...” - Mark 16:15-16
Requiring a sinner to obey Christ is not the same thing as seeking to be saved by law or works of law. An obedient faith does not nullify the grace of God. A conditional salvation does not nullify the sovereignty of God. After the sinner submits in obedience to Christ, it is still by grace that he is saved.
The question in Acts 2:37, “What must I do?” has an answer.
In conclusion, my own quotation...
“Calvinism...is objectionable because it posits a strange view of man - a conception untenable both because it is unbiblical per se and because it contradicts the nature of God as defined in the Scriptures. ‘God is love,’ and love must have an object. God, who ‘so loved the world’ created man in his own image for companionship (Rev 21:3), and the fulfillment of his purpose requires that man be other than the totally passive automaton predicated by Calvin’s theology. The love of God demands a response in kind, if not in degree: “We love him because he first loved us.”
Plastic figures in a wax museum may be made altogether lifelike and, in our technological age, may be animated and programmed to speak, to sing and to “worship.” But in their performance there would be neither companionship nor worship for their creator. Friendship, love, worship - these predicate volition, for they must and only can be voluntary.
In the context of a moral universe, in which alone love and worship can exist, angels fell and man sins. Because man can sin, he can also worship. In the circumstance of a moral universe peopled by moral beings, God now seeks men who will worship him, men who can worship because they have the faculty of choice.
Men who worship God in their own free and authentic response to his grace, who love him because he first loved them, will enjoy his love and be his companions forever in the everlasting Kingdom.
‘Calvin’s exegesis, in a word, is theologically oriented,’ writes John Murray in his introduction to the Eeardmans edition of the Institutes. This is true - in a sense which Murray did not intend. The pity is that Calvin’s theology was not more precisely exegetically oriented. Instead, the Bible has been accommodated to theology.”
- Robert Shank, Elect In The Son, pp. 225-227
If you will reread my posts, you'll find that I never professed ignorance of the term "baptismal regeneration." What I did profess ignorance of was your definition of baptismal regeneration. I have heard the term before, but I think it means different things to different people. Kind of like the terms "trinity" and "legalism". They aren't biblical terms so they can sometimes be loaded. I'd be a fool to say, "sure I believe in baptismal regeneration" without knowing your definition, friend.
I asked you to define the term twice and I don't think you have. You've denied the following:
Is that what you mean by "baptismal regeneration." Again, it is not my term and I've never claimed it, so you need to define it if you're going to bring it up. Since you're so dead set against it, I assume you know what you intend when you use it.
Please define your understanding of the term "baptismal regeneration".
Also, please answer these questions:
I am honestly trying to gain a complete understanding of your view of Christian baptism.
On the other hand, I truly was ignorant of the term "Oneness doctrine." You did define your intent in that terminology, and I stated that I do not hold to such a view.
Why can't it be like a death row inmate who is incarcerated (dead in his sins but able to be influenced through the bars by the unincarcerated) and rightly condemned to death. The Governor has the authority to pardon the inmate and set him free. However the inmate still has a choice to accept the pardon or refuse it. Being a perfect Gentleman, the Governor will allow the man to go to his death if he rejects the pardon.
As with Moses and the brass serpent, the individuals that were bitten could refuse to look at the brass serpent, which would lead to their death. And yet the brass serpent was effective for all, not discriminating.
As with the Hebrew house during the passover. Any Egyptian who wished to save his firstborn would have done so by entering a house whose doorpost was covered by the lambs blood. The blood was not discriminating in any way, but was effective for all who chose to partake of it's covering.
The message of the Bible is that man is incapable of doing anything to get himself out of the pit of sin. Only God can save him by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
The entire Old Testament speaks to man's inability to save himself.
The New Testament, the New Covenant, tells us that from before the foundation of the world God has purposed that Christ, God Himself, would become the sacrifice for the sins of the elect, and thus man, dead in sin, can only be resurrected exactly the same way Christ was resurrected, by the hand of God.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." -- Jer. 13:23
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin." -- Romans 6:1-7
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." -- John 1:11-13
Born again by the will of God alone.
If "it is faith" that saves (I'm not arguing that it's not) then salvation is conditioned upon an act obedience by man (you've already agreed that scripture says faith is a work).
You would have to do a lot of searching to find where I say faith is a work. I have repeatedly said that saving faith is a gift from God, imparted to the listener by means of hearing the Word of God with spiritual ears that are opened by Him. Couple that with the clear fact that Jesus Himself said, "No man can come to Me unless he is drawn by My Father." What becomes clear is that salvation is not dependent upon any act of man, but solely upon God. So, your argument and point collapses right from the outset, because you have erected a straw man.
Additionally, please quote the only verse you can find that uses the phrase "faith alone".
Show me the verrse that states God is a Triune Being, consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in eternal equality and union.
Obviously the author has some misunderstanding of works of faithful obedience seeking grace vs. works seeking to earn salvation apart from grace.
Obviously you suffer from that same confusion.
"At least sixty times in the New Testament, eternal salvation is explicitly tied to faith and/or repentance with no mention of baptism." Wait a minute! I thought the last quote said faith only. You mean it takes repentence, too? Is repentance a work?
See? Already you're confused. And the statement stands as true. Baptism is not mentioned as often as it would be if it were necessary for one to be saved. And, there is no true saving faith without repentance, because repentance is the natural response of a man's heart, once quickened to spiritual ability by the monergistic work of God, so that he can hear the Word and receive faith in his heart to believe the Gospel, the Gospel that convicts him of sin and his need to repent, which he does freely and willingly, because he sees his need. Until God quickens that man's heart, he will NEVER repent, and NEVER believe savingly on Christ.
"The fact that the thief on the cross could be saved without being baptized..." I've already addressed this invalid point. The thief was saved under the old covenant.
And he was saved under the new covenant as well, because he trusted in Christ, as did all the Old Testament Saints. They were saved by Faith. Baptism is not what saves, faith is what brings salvation. Baptism is a witness to that fact, not the cause of it.
"baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins" Huh? There's that pesky repentance (not faith only) bringing about the forgiveness of sins. How can that be? Was Christ's work on the cross not sufficient?
You show that you really don't understand the nuts and bolts of salvation.
"in Peter's next two recorded sermons to unbelievers in Acts, he directly associates the forgiveness of sins with repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism." Peter's sermon in Acts 4 was interrupted by his arrest. Not only is there no mention of baptism in this abbreviated sermon, there is also no mention of souls being added to the church by God, as there is in Acts 2.
pretty weak argument. How do you know that Peter's "interrupted" sermon had no results? Oh, I know, because he didn't mention baptism, right? Give me a break!
"Paul tells us that he rarely baptized people at all, since this was not his calling." In 1Cor 1, Paul is dealing with people who claimed a schismatic allegience to a preacher instead of to Christ. He says he did baptize some of the Corinthians, but he was glad he didn't baptize many so they wouldn't say they were baptized in his name (vs 15). But notice: he does indicate they were all baptized (vs 13). If Paul was not sent to baptize, did he sin in baptizing Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:14, 16)? If Paul had been sent to baptize, would this mean baptism is essential to salvation?
Paul did not sin in baptizing those people, and you know it. You're grasping at straws, because the two links I posted completely undermined your position and showed clearly your error. Those under the "Great Commission" were sent to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20). Is the baptism of the "Great Commission" essential to salvation? Did Paul labor under this "Great Commission"?
We are sent to preach the gospel, baptizing those who believe. Every Christian is able to baptize a believer. But, you want to say that baptism is necessary to believe. That is not accurate. There is no record of any minister being sent ONLY to baptize. So your question is meaningless, and another straw man.
Paul never alludes to the meaning of baptism, but to the insignificance of the person who did the baptizing. Christ is the important one in the matter, not the person who dunked them. They were baptized in the name of Christ, not Paul, or Apollos, etc. One searches the scriptures in vain if he seeks to find conditions, or qualifications laid upon the person who baptizes. It matters not. Whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or me, or Adam, or Noah, or Judas, it does not change what takes place, nor does it alter to whom the credit should be given.
That is not the issue here. This statement is a red herring. We're not talking about qualifications for the one doing the baptizing, what we're talking about is your mistaken and erroneous idea that one is not saved UNTIL they are baptized, and that without baptism, they cannot be saved. Like it or not, that is what you've been saying. It is the logical and reasonable conclusion of your whole argument. And it's wrong.
Paul says that his purpose is to preach the gospel. If Mark 16:15-16 means anything, it means that believing and being baptized are both part of the gospel Paul preached and are equally necessary for salvation: "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves shall be condemned."
Your logical skills are not good. Belief (faith) is what makes the difference between salvation and being lost, NOT baptism. Baptism is for Believers, not the unsaved. A baptized sinner is a wet sinner, but he's still a sinner. A baptized believer was dry before he was baptized, wet afterwards, but the whole time he is a Believer. Baptism does not save. Faith does.
"The Oneness understanding of baptism is also difficult to square with the fact that the Holy Sprit, we learn from Acts, is sometimes given in a dramatic fashion before individuals are baptized in water (Acts 10:44-48). Is one thus to suppose that God poured out His Spirit in this fashion upon people whose sins He had not yet forgiven? This reversal of the Acts 2:38 baptism-Spirit order is, I think, enough to tell us that we should not take Acts 2:38 as a sort of ironclad formula to which God is bound." There is no indication that those in Acts 10 upon whom the Holy Spirt fell were saved when that happened. It's just not there. This was God's way of letting the Jewish Christian present know and prove that God had accepted Gentiles for salvation in Christ. They were saved when they obeyed the gospel. To claim otherwise is to claim salvation for Balaam's donkey, who also spoke miraculously in a foreign tongue. It was Jehovah who opened the mouth of that creature (Nu 22:28).
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the Word. And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, Can anyone forbid water that these, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we, should not be baptized? (Act 10:44-47)
Notice that they were heard magnifying God in other languages. The same as happened to Peter and the other Apostles on the day of Pentacost, and to those who received Christ on the day of Pentacost. Peter's own words imply that baptism is for believers, and therefore not part of the process of salvation itself. Would Peter forbid water for baptism if they were not believers? The implication is, yes. By the fact that they spoke in tongues, magnifying God, it was evident to Peter that they were as saved as he himself was when the Holy Ghost fell on him on the day of Pentacost. You really need to learn to read what the words actually do say, rather than twisting them into what you want them to say. By the way...show me the verse where the Apostles were baptized.
And note this part of Peter's recounting of the story of Cornelius in Acts 11:13-14 -- "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, `Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'" So by what was Cornelius saved? A direct action of the Holy Spirit or through the preaching of the gospel which they would believe and obey? The words of Peter included an order for them "to be baptized."
Cornelius was saved by the preaching of the Word, brought to him by the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to Peter to send him to Cornelius. Why? Because God chose to save Cornelius, and placed within him the hunger for God.
This also begs another question: Why did Cornelius need all this preaching and outpouring in the first place. He's described as a devout and God-fearing man. To hear you tell it, that's proof he's already saved. The angel tells him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God." But the angel also says to send for Peter who will speak words by which Cornelius will be saved. The only thing we should take away from the pouring of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius is the same conclusion the apostles made: God accepts Gentiles on the same basis he accepts Jews. The outpouring had no bearing on the condition of Cornelius' soul - he still needed to be baptized for the remission of his sins.
You read your wrong theology into everything, don't you? Cornelius and his house could not have received the Holy Spirit unless they had FIRST believed, and that belief brought salvation, and the forgiveness of sins. Baptism was the outward sign of the already accomplished fact, that his sins were forgiven. Baptism didn't wash away his sins, the Blood of Christ washed away his sins. "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission."
"What closes the case on this, however, is the recognition that Luke and Mark use this exact same phrase, "for [eis] the forgiveness of sins," in relation to the baptism of John the Baptist (Luke 3:3; cf. Mark 1:4). Yet John's baptism clearly did not, in any literal sense, wash away people's sins. Why else would his disciples need to believe on Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and be rebaptized (Acts 19:4-6)?" So, if John's baptism was all that was needed "for the remission of sins" then why were people whose sins had already been remitted in need of Jesus' baptism "for the remission of sins"? Why did Paul rebaptize John's disciples in Acts 19? Could it be that their baptism looked forward to a future remission of sins in Christ? Paul explains John's baptism in Acts 19:3 -- "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." John's baptism did point forward to repentance and remission in Christ.
This undercuts your whole argument. Why? Because you run right back to the wrong use of the greek word, "eis", insisting that it can ONLY mean FOR (as in in order to bring about). Greek and English don't translate word for word. You are interpreting a translation of the Greek through your current day understanding and usage of the word "for". The Greek has far more subtleties of meaning and usage.
It was never stated that Jophn's baptism "was all that was needed for remission of sins", as you wrongly state. You start off with a falsely stated question, and then attempt to prove your view as true from that falsely stated question, thereby destroying your entire argument.
RE: 1Pet 3:21 - "The reality that brings forth baptism is the act of repentance and the forgiveness of sins that produces the saint's "good conscience." The author may want it to, but 1Peter 3:21 says no such thing about a "good conscience". Is forgiveness of sins a prerequisite to having a "good conscience"? Paul declared (Acts 23:1) "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." Paul was lost in rebellion against Christ, yet had a good conscience. So a "good conscience" is not an indicator of salvation - it is only an indicator of desire.
Again, you twist what Peter said. Peter said, in effect, baptism saves you because it is the answer of a good conscience toward God, signifying the resurrection of Christ, and you with Him. No man whose sins are not forgiven can have a good conscience toward God, when faced with the Truth of the Gospel. It is the forgiveness of sins which brings the good conscience toward God, so it cannot be baptism which causes that forgiveness, but faith in Christ, repentance of his sins, bringing assurance of forgiveness by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a response of obedience to Christ, AFTER the man is forgiven. Water baptism is the answer of a good (or clean) conscience toward God, saying that he wants to obey this command because he IS saved, not in order to GET saved.
A conscience must be informed by truth in order to compel one to a proper action to conform with truth. Peter simply states that one who has a good conscience will appeal to God's saving power by responding positively to His command to be baptized. This is the sense in which baptism saves - not just going through the motions, but in obedience to a command of Christ. As Heb 5:9 states, "He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation."
Your statement is built on assumptions. Baptism is not an appeal to God's saving power, it is the proof (via obedience) that one HAS ALREADY BEEN saved. ONLY in that sense can it be said that baptism saves you.
I believe my previous post regarding Nicodemus stated that "born of the water" was consistent with Rom 6 which states the new life begins upon rising from the waters of baptism. If water in John 3 is referring to the Spirit, no voilence is done to my position. Rom 6 says the new life given by the Spirit begins at baptism.
Rising from the waters of baptism is a type of the resurrection of Christ. He rose to newness of Life, after laying down His physical life to satisfy the requirements of the Law for sin, i.e. death. We died with Him, were buried with Him, and rose with Him, in actual fact, through our union with Him in spirit, which baptism signifies in type, not actuality. That is where you miss it. The reason we are forgiven is because of what Christ did, not because of what we do. Being united with Him in spirit, we partake of all that He did, and we went where He went, and are where He is, in spirit. When He died, we died. And when He rose from the dead, we rose with Him, freed from the penalty of sin, because it had already been paid, in Him. Baptism is only a type of the spiritual reality, done as a witness to God, and to us, that we are untied with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.
Even if “faith only” were true,
Careful, you said you weren't saying that it wasn't. Have you changed your mind?
isn’t belief in God an action on the part of man - a condition? The pure Calvinist would say it is not, teaching instead that man’s faith is an act of God. While it is true that without anything in which to believe, belief is impossible. So in the sense that He is the source of the thing believed, God may be referred to as the source of our faith. But, it is man who does the believing or rejecting.
Well, you also show that you don't understand Calvinism either, but that's no surprise. True, man does the believing, but only as he is enabled by God. Rejecting is man's natural unregenerate response. He needs no help with that.
Jesus said in John 6:29, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Faith, Jesus says, is a work. But we know salvation is not of boasting works - it is by God's grace. But is man saved by grace only, apart from any obedience on man's part? What does the bible say? We are SAVED by faith (Rom 3:28) SAVED BY grace (Eph 2:8) SAVED BY repentance (Acts 3:19) SAVED BY confession (Rom 10:10) SAVED BY baptism (1Pet 3:21). We are not saved by anything “only”. In fact, in James 2:24, the only passage in which the words “faith only” appear together in scripture, we learn that “by works a man is justified and not by faith only.” Small wonder that Martin Luther wanted to expunge the entire book of James from scripture. Is James teaching that we can earn our salvation by works? How can we harmonize Paul’s declaration that we are saved by faith and not of works with James’ statement about works and faith?
You are ranging far and wide, trying to find traction. We are saved by Grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is a gift of God. Grace emcompasses faith and repentance, given by God. Confession as shown in Romans 10 is saying out loud that Jesus is Lord, not confessing sins. Confessing sins is part of repentance. We've already dealt with Peter's verse on baptism. Your little list is flawed, and you're separating things to false conclusions.
James is discussing a human opinion that one can have faith without works (or that faith and works can be had independent of each other). James begins his discussion of faith and works in 2:18 by stating, “A man may say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works.” The faith which God commands is a faith that includes works. James is demonstrating that there is really no such thing as faith without works.
More correctly stated, True faith produces works naturally. False faith does not. The only true evidence of true faith is works done by and in that faith.
Is Paul in disagreement with James when he says in Romans 3:28, “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”? Paul’s argument in Romans is that man cannot merit salvation by keeping commandments. Instead, the law condemns us since we do not keep it. Even if we use our own innate sense of right-and-wrong as a guide, we still do not live up to the standard (see Romans 1 & 2). Paul is showing in Romans the universality of man's guilt. He is not discussing whether God has laid down certain conditions in the gospel for the forgiveness of man’s sins.
Yet you place a work as a condition for forgiveness of sins (baptism), and do not realize that if man is justified by faith apart from works ( as Paul plainly teaches), then his justification cannot rest on a work, i.e. baptism.
“Not of works” cannot be construed to mean that the sinner can be saved without submission or obedience to Christ; such a construction would violate the plain teaching of scripture: Christ is the “source of salvation to all who obey him” - Heb 5:9 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father.” - Matt 7:21 God “does not show favoritism” but “accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.” - Acts 10:34-35 God will punish those who “do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” - 2Thess 1:7-9 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved...” - Mark 16:15-16 Requiring a sinner to obey Christ is not the same thing as seeking to be saved by law or works of law. An obedient faith does not nullify the grace of God. A conditional salvation does not nullify the sovereignty of God. After the sinner submits in obedience to Christ, it is still by grace that he is saved. The question in Acts 2:37, “What must I do?” has an answer.
You place a requirement for forgiveness of sins that God does not place. Baptism does not cause forgiveness of sins, nor does it cause salvation. It does not "activate" them, either. It is the answer of a good (clean, forgiven) conscience to God, an act of obedience , saying, "as Christ died, went to the grave, and rose again from it, I go into the water to be buried, and rise again with Him". The pupil is not greater than his master.
In conclusion, my own quotation... “Calvinism...is objectionable because it posits a strange view of man - a conception untenable both because it is unbiblical per se and because it contradicts the nature of God as defined in the Scriptures. ‘God is love,’ and love must have an object. God, who ‘so loved the world’ created man in his own image for companionship (Rev 21:3), and the fulfillment of his purpose requires that man be other than the totally passive automaton predicated by Calvin’s theology. The love of God demands a response in kind, if not in degree: “We love him because he first loved us.” Plastic figures in a wax museum may be made altogether lifelike and, in our technological age, may be animated and programmed to speak, to sing and to “worship.” But in their performance there would be neither companionship nor worship for their creator. Friendship, love, worship - these predicate volition, for they must and only can be voluntary. In the context of a moral universe, in which alone love and worship can exist, angels fell and man sins. Because man can sin, he can also worship. In the circumstance of a moral universe peopled by moral beings, God now seeks men who will worship him, men who can worship because they have the faculty of choice. Men who worship God in their own free and authentic response to his grace, who love him because he first loved them, will enjoy his love and be his companions forever in the everlasting Kingdom. ‘Calvin’s exegesis, in a word, is theologically oriented,’ writes John Murray in his introduction to the Eeardmans edition of the Institutes. This is true - in a sense which Murray did not intend. The pity is that Calvin’s theology was not more precisely exegetically oriented. Instead, the Bible has been accommodated to theology.” - Robert Shank, Elect In The Son, pp. 225-227
Ah, end with a slap at Calvinism, because that is the true source of your problem, hatred of Calvinism. Funny how Arminians and non-Calvinists always feel like they have to justify their position ultimately by trying to take a swipe at Calvinism. Maybe you should examine just why Calvinism bothers you so much, that you must take shots at it. A good place to start to learn about Calvinism would be with Calvin himself, then the Canons of Dordt.
You're dancing. Simply put, the term "baptismal regeneration" is the belief that one is regenerated at the point of baptism, in other words, that they become born again when they rise from the waters of baptism. In essence, that is saying that baptism is the means by which one is saved, which is totally unbiblical.
I asked you to define the term twice and I don't think you have. You've denied the following: that one arises from baptism with a new life (Rom 6; Col 2) that one is baptized into Christ (Gal 3) that baptism has anything to do with forgiveness of sins (Acts 2; Acts 22) that baptism has anything to do with salvation (Mark 16; 1Pet 3:21) Is that what you mean by "baptismal regeneration." Again, it is not my term and I've never claimed it, so you need to define it if you're going to bring it up. Since you're so dead set against it, I assume you know what you intend when you use it.
Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death , we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection; knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin. (Rom 6:3-6)And you are complete in Him, who is the Head of all principality and power, in whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in whom also you were raised through the faith of the working of God, raising Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:10-14)
Did you miss the words, "in the likeness of"? That clearly shows that baptism is a type, a representation, of the reality, and not the reality itself, which it would need to be in order to have any regenerating power. Paul clearly teaches that baptism is a representation of the common experience we all share, those of us who are true believers, that of being joined to Christ in His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. It is not the literal event, but a representation of it, the same as the Lord's Supper is a representation of the partaking of Christ's flesh and blood. Bread is not flesh, and wine is not blood, neither is water dirt or a tomb. The one represents the other, as a type, the same as the blood of bulls and goats represented the Blood of Christ, the perfect sacrifice. The benefits are obtained by faith, not by the doing of the work itself.
Also, please answer these questions: Do you believe in repentance regeneration?
What is that? If by that you mean that repentance regenerates, then my answer is no, it does not. Repentance is turning from sin.
Do you believe in faith regeneration?
Regeneration precedes faith in Christ. No one can exercise faith in Christ while they are still dead in sins, dead to spiritual understanding, and possessing the cold, stony, dead heart of the unregenerate sinner. They must first be regenerated by God to spiritual life, in order that they may be able to hear the Word, receiving faith, and then being able to believe on Christ, to the forgiveness of their sins and justification by God.
that baptism has anything to do with forgiveness of sins (Acts 2; Acts 22)
Baptism does not cause or bring about forgiveness of sins. You interpret wrongly the English translation of the Greek. Baptism is an act of obedience by believers, to signify the common experience of death, burial and resurrection they share with Christ, having been ALREADY joined to Him in spirit, by faith in His completed work on the Cross. Baptism does not itself bring about that joining with Him, nor does it bring about forgiveness of sins. It is an act of obediences signifying an already accompished fact.
Is one required to "say the sinner's prayer" to be saved? If not, why do so many preachers tell people to do that? Is there any biblical support for such?
The sinner's prayer is not some magical incantation, that once said, forever seals the speaker as a Christian. It is presented that way many times, and many understand it to be that, although they may not really know that is what they believe about it. Those who teach it take it from Romans 10:9. Paul wasn't teaching this as a formula, he was indicating that those who confess Jesus as Lord and believe in their hearts will be saved, because that is the natural response of the truly saved. Just saying the words doesn't make it so.
Is infant baptism of any efficacy toward salvation? If yes, please provide scriptural support. Can baptized infants still be lost?
I have not taken any position on infant baptism, but I personally am inclined to be a credo-baptist, believing that baptism is a conscious act of obedience to the already accomplished fact of having obtained salvation and forgiveness of sins. Not all Calvinists believe the same regarding infant baptism.
If a professed believer refuses to be baptized, is that a sure sign they are not really a believer and thus not really saved?
It certainly raises the question. As to the actual condition of that persons heart, only God knows. It is certainly a signal that they need to be taught concerning baptism. and by that I mean what the Bible says, not this wrong idea that baptism itself saves anyone, or causes forgiveness of sins, which is what you're pushing.
On the other hand, I truly was ignorant of the term "Oneness doctrine." You did define your intent in that terminology, and I stated that I do not hold to such a view.
The Church of Christ denomination and the Oneness Pentacostals hold very similar views regarding baptism, and often hold very similar views regarding the nature of the godhead, and Christ. They are both wrong, as I have amply demonstrated in these posts.
Wonderful post, NBF.
And everything you wrote sure leads me to believing that infant baptism is the Scriptural norm.
Here's what Calvin says, which is the most lucid, Biblical and precise rendering I've read on the topic:
John Calvin's Argument for Infant Baptism
"...The perfection of baptism, which extends even to death, is improperly restricted to one moment of time..."
To say that any ceremony, incantation, action or oath confers salvation is reminiscent of certain secret societies and their membership requirements.
Same old, same old.
Infant baptism is a sign and seal that our children will be raised according to Scripture by righteous parents, aided and strengthened by the Christian community of believers, led by the Holy Ghost to life everlasting through God's gift of faith in Jesus Christ.
Saved by grace alone.
All to the glory of God.
You are correct - upon rereading past posts I see that it was another who said this. So if faith is not a work, what did Jesus mean when he said it was a work?
I understand why you refuse to quote the only verse you can find that uses the phrase "faith alone".
"You show that you really don't understand the nuts and bolts of salvation."
Nuts and bolts have to be put on in the right order to work.
Mark 16:16 - "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Which comes first - belief or saved?
Rom 10:9 - "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Which comes first - belief or saved?
Rom 10:14-16 - "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?...So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Which comes first - belief or hearing the word?
Acts 2:38 - "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Wich came first - baptism or receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit?
"How do you know that Peter's "interrupted" sermon had no results?"
I don't and neither do you. That's why it is not a proof text for either of us.
Re 1Cor 1: "This statement is a red herring...There is no record of any minister being sent ONLY to baptize. So your question is meaningless, and another straw man....We're not talking about qualifications for the one doing the baptizing"
What is a red herring is that this passage was raised by you as a proof text for your false teaching about what baptism is.
Paul is talking about the one doing the baptism in 1Cor 1. That's why it is in no way a proof text for understanding the meaning and purpose of baptism. It was you who raised 1Cor 1 as a proof text that baptism wasn't unto salvation. 1Cor 1 says no such thing and doesn't even address the meaning of baptism. Paul, as an apostle of Christ, preached the gospel, which included baptism.
"Your logical skills are not good. Belief (faith) is what makes the difference between salvation and being lost, NOT baptism....Baptism does not save. Faith does."
It's simple language, friend. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." Let's parse that.
BELIEVE + BAPTIZED => SAVED
You simply don't accept Jesus at his word. Then you say "belief is what makes the difference between salvation and being lost." Hold on...I thought you said a person was born again before belief? So which is it? Belief is the difference or a subjective, better-felt-than-told warmth within the breast that's the difference between salvation and being lost. You know what? I'll go with Jesus..."BELIEVE + BAPTIZED => SAVED" Can't go wrong with Him.
"Grace emcompasses faith and repentance, given by God. Confession as shown in Romans 10 is saying out loud that Jesus is Lord, not confessing sins. Confessing sins is part of repentance."
To get around the biblical contradictions to your "faith only" or "grace only" claims, you say faith and repentance (and, I suppose, confession of Christ) is part of that grace and faith. I am being "tongue in cheek" here, but why can't we lump baptism into that same faith and grace? I mean, why is it the bible says we're saved by grace, faith, repentance, confession, baptism, and the only bit you chomp at is baptism? Why not repentance or confession? Why don't you just take Jesus at his word: BELIEVE + BAPTIZED = SAVED.
Re Cornelius: "Would Peter forbid water for baptism if they were not believers?"
I think he would forbid water for those who did not believe. I also challenge you to prove these were saved while believing and before baptism. You cannot because the state of their souls at the time of the outpouring of the H.S. just isn't mentioned.
And don't confuse this act of the H.S. with the "gift of the H.S." promised in Acts 2. Miraculous gifts of the Spirit were not tied to men's salvation. You can see this in Acts 8, where the Samaritans believed and were baptized, yet the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were not given to them until the apostles came down from Jerusalem. Your unsupported assertion that "Cornelius and his house could not have received the Holy Spirit unless they had FIRST believed" makes me wonder what you think of Balaam's donkey. Again, belief / salvation and the miraculous influence of the H.S. have no correlation.
"Well, you also show that you don't understand Calvinism either, but that's no surprise."
I wrote, "The pure Calvinist would say [belief] is not [an action on the part of man - a condition], teaching instead that man’s faith is an act of God. What about this statement is not an accurate portrayal of Calvinism? You stated earlier that faith is not a work. Are you here making a distinction between "acts of men in obedience to God" and "works".
"It was never stated that Jophn's baptism "was all that was needed for remission of sins"
Acts 19 tells of men who were baptized in the name of Jesus after having received John's baptism. The whole point here is why they needed to be rebaptized. Your post said that the statement that John's baptism was for repentance meant that they had already repented, and coupling that with your claim that the new birth precedes faith and faith precedes repentence, here - according to your logic - we have born again, faithful, repentant men being told to be baptized. Why?
I'll help. Because they weren't saved, they still needed their sins washed away and the baptism of Jesus was the only way to get that done. Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
"Ah, end with a slap at Calvinism, because that is the true source of your problem, hatred of Calvinism...A good place to start to learn about Calvinism would be with Calvin himself, then the Canons of Dordt."
Well, I don't know what the Canons of Dordt are, but I can see all kinds of places where the canons of the New Testament disagree with Calvinism.
So, let's go to Calvin and see what he says about this direct, enervating action of the H.S. Will you accept Calvin in this?
The Discipline of the United Methodist Church calls Calvinism a “most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” No doubt, for those who believe they are unconditionally chosen for salvation and that they cannot do anything to lose salvation is very comforting. Or is it? Consider the following quotation from John Calvin, the father of this “wholesome doctrine”:
“experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that, even in their own judgment, there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange that by the apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them....
"Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate...When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith so that they persevere even to the end...
"I deny that the reprobate ever advance so far as to penetrate to that secret revelation which Scripture reserves for the elect only...In short, as by the revolt of the first man the image of God could be effaced from his mind and soul, so there is nothing strange in his shedding some rays of grace on the reprobate, and afterwards allowing these to be extinguished.”
- John Calvin, Institutes
Calvin’s words are anything but “full of comfort”. Bottom line, Calvin is telling us that one can think he is saved, act like he is saved, even be the recipient of an “inferior operation of the Spirit” which dupes him into having confidence in his salvation, but in reality, this one is just as condemned to hell as he ever was!
If our confidence is based on nothing more than a subjective feeling, and if the Spirit operates on some to give them a false confidence, then no one can know they are saved!
But thanks be to God who has given us an objective standard by which we can truly know we are saved. “By this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” (1Jn 2:3). “But whoever keeps his word, in him is the love of God perfected: by this we know that we are in him. He that says he abides in him ought to walk as he walked” (1Jn 2:5). “If you know that [God] is righteous, you know that everyone who does righteousness is born of [God]” (1Jn 2:29). “Let us not love in word only, but in deed and truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him” (1Jn 3:18-19). “We know we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren...By this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God and keep his commandments” (1Jn 4:14; 5:2). “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2Jn 9).
So, yes, I do hate Calvinism, as I hate all false teaching. I pay for those who labor in vain under it, that they will see their error and obey the simple gospel of Christ: "He that believes and is baptized will be saved."
I believe Romans 6:4 "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."
You don't.
"Did you miss the words, "in the likeness of"? That clearly shows that baptism is a type, a representation, of the reality, and not the reality itself, which it would need to be in order to have any regenerating power."
In the likeness of what? Likeness of His death and resurrection.
But nowhere does scripture say it is a likeness of our death and resurrection. "Were buried with Him by baptism into death." That's "were", not "like when we were". "Were baptized into Jesus Christ." That's "were", not "like when we were".
Your wranglings cannot avoid the simple message in this passage. Notice, and this is important: outside of Christ --> baptism --> inside of Christ. What is the condition of those who are not in Christ?
"They must first be regenerated by God to spiritual life, in order that they may be able to hear the Word.
But it is the word which is the seed planted in the heart. 1Pet 1:23 - "you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God."
You have it all backward. Life does not preceed the planting of the seed. This is the N.T. pattern for salvations, set forth by God.
HEAR THE WORD --> BELIEVE --> REPENT --> CONFESS --> BE BAPTIZED --> NEW LIFE
I've shown you several passages where this is proven: Rom 10, Rom 6. You just refuse to accept the simple truth because of your Calvinistic bias.
"Baptism does not itself bring about that joining with Him."
You know, I am reminded of the garden where the addition of one word - "not" - was the difference between the truth "you shall surely die" and a lie "you shall not surely die".
nobdysfool - "baptism does not bring about that joining" with Him
Paul - "we were baptized into Christ Jesus"
nobdysfool - "Baptism is not what saves"
Peter - "Baptism saves you"
nodysfool - "Belief (faith) is what makes the difference between salvation and being lost, NOT baptism."
Jesus - "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."
nobdysfool - "Baptism does not cause or bring about forgiveness of sins"
Ananias - "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
"baptism is a conscious act of obedience to the already accomplished fact of having obtained salvation and forgiveness of sins."
Baptism is obedience to a fact? How do I obey a fact? Baptism is obedience to a command. And if one refuses to obey Christ's command, what does the bible say about such a one?
"Not all Calvinists believe the same regarding infant baptism."
In scripture, it's the believer who is baptized for the remission of sins. Are you prepared to say that pedo-baptists views are unscriptural and therefore that infant baptism is not of Christ? I am.
Oh, I believe that alright, just not the way you do. So don't say I don't believe it. You seem to think that baptism, the actual going into the water and coming back out, does something in the spiritual realm. That's mysticism. Baptism represents a spiritual reality. It does not cause it, or make it happen. Baptism is a physical act which represents a spiritual reality which has already taken place by faith. The same as the Lord's Supper. The bread and wine REPRESENT the Body and Blood of our Lord. Jesus said, "This do in REMEMBRANCE of Me". It is obvious that the Lord's Supper is a representation of spiritual reality, and is also commanded. Baptism is the same. It is a representation of spiritual reality, and not the reality itself.
In the likeness of what? Likeness of His death and resurrection. But nowhere does scripture say it is a likeness of our death and resurrection. "Were buried with Him by baptism into death." That's "were", not "like when we were". "Were baptized into Jesus Christ." That's "were", not "like when we were".
Yes, in the Likeness of HIS death and resurrection. Can't you understand this? Baptism is in the likeness of HIS death and resurrection. HIS, not ours. Likeness means it represents it. Likeness = type. Representation. Commemoration. HIS death and resurrection are the reality. Baptism represents, by our participation, the spiritual reality that we died, were buried, and rose again with Him, BECAUSE OF and THROUGH our spiritual union with Him, which is by FAITH in Christ. We are united with Christ by faith, and that happens BEFORE we are baptized. You cannot find one example of an unsaved, lost, unregenerate sinner going into the waters of baptism and coming up out of the water saved, regenerate, and united with Christ, BECAUSE OF the act of baptism. If a sinner is baptized, he becomes a wet sinner. Baptism does not confer salvation. Faith in Christ does. Baptism is an act of obedience to a command of Christ. Baptism is for believers, not unbelievers.
Your wranglings cannot avoid the simple message in this passage. Notice, and this is important: outside of Christ --> baptism --> inside of Christ. What is the condition of those who are not in Christ?
You make a big show of making people believe that you are the one believeing what the words say, but you don't understand what you're saying. You imbue a physical act with a false idea of spiritual power, claiming that unless one performs the physical act, the spiritual reality will not take place. Do you believe that if anyone says the words of the sinner's prayer, by the very saying of the words, they are saved? If you do, then you believe in magic and incantations. That points to a much deeper problem. You completely miss the intent and purpose of baptism. You think it actually causes one to be united with Christ, that it actually saves a person, that it actually confers forgiveness of sins on a person. That is mysticism, and a belief in magic.
You have it all backward. Life does not preceed the planting of the seed. This is the N.T. pattern for salvations, set forth by God. HEAR THE WORD --> BELIEVE --> REPENT --> CONFESS --> BE BAPTIZED --> NEW LIFE I've shown you several passages where this is proven: Rom 10, Rom 6. You just refuse to accept the simple truth because of your Calvinistic bias.
Hearing, you do not hear, and seeing, you do not see. Jesus said, "Unless a man is born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God." See means to perceive, to understand. A man must be born again (regenerated) in order to perceive the Kingdom of God. No man can embrace and believe what he cannot understand or perceive. Perception and understanding of the Kingdom of God is spiritual, it happens in the spirit, and a spiritually dead man cannot perceive spiritual things. He must be made spiritually alive for him to be able to perceive and understand spiritual things.
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Co 2:14) The reason you believe regeneration happens at the end of the process is because you believe that man, by an act of his own will, without any help from God, can decide to accept Christ, and decide to repent of his sins. In so believing, you deny the sinfulness of man, you deny the depravity which sin has brought in man, and you deny scriptures which plainly teach that in order for a man to come to Christ, the Father must draw him, that a man cannot come to Christ unless it is given to him by the Father, and that man is incapable of God-pleasing acts while yet dead in his sins. It is you who has the irrational bias, because of your hatred of Reformed doctrine, commonly known as Calvinism. By your own admission, you don't really know what Calvinism teaches, you've just been told by biased sources that it is bad, and you haven't got the gumption to investigate and research it for yourself.
You know, I am reminded of the garden where the addition of one word - "not" - was the difference between the truth "you shall surely die" and a lie "you shall not surely die". nobdysfool - "baptism does not bring about that joining" with Him Paul - "we were baptized into Christ Jesus" nobdysfool - "Baptism is not what saves" Peter - "Baptism saves you" nodysfool - "Belief (faith) is what makes the difference between salvation and being lost, NOT baptism." Jesus - "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved." nobdysfool - "Baptism does not cause or bring about forgiveness of sins" Ananias - "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
If your false accusation wasn't so blatantly wrong, it would be insulting. You are trying to draw a line between me and Satan, and plant the idea that I am speaking as the serpent in the Garden. You misrepresent what I have said, and will not deal with what I have said, but rather repeat you mantra that baptism saves, baptism forgives sins, baptism unites a person with Christ. If baptism does all that, who needs faith? You don't have to believe anything, just get dunked and voila! You're saved! You're forgiven! You're united with Christ!
Now who's telling lies?
Baptism is obedience to a fact? How do I obey a fact? Baptism is obedience to a command. And if one refuses to obey Christ's command, what does the bible say about such a one?
You know very well what I meant. You're just trying to pick apart anything I say, because you're losing ground and you know it. You keep trying to contrast obedience with disobedience. You believe that unless we view baptism as you do, even obedience is disobedience. What twisted reasoning!
In scripture, it's the believer who is baptized for the remission of sins. Are you prepared to say that pedo-baptists views are unscriptural and therefore that infant baptism is not of Christ? I am.
Until you have studied out the issue, you shouldn't be hasty to make a declaration,. You already confess an ignorance of Reformed doctrine. Don't compound it by making a statement until you know for sure that you're right. Your view of baptism in general is unscriptural, so any conclusion you make about paedo-baptism is just about 100% guaranteed to be wrong.
It is obvious that you hold to the Dispenational view. Unfortunately, the Bible, and God's dealings with men are Covenental. Dispensationalism is error. Did you read the link Dr. Ecklburg posted regarding paedobaptism? My guess is that you didn't, because you believe you know it all already. I read it. And I'm digesting it, because I don't view God's Word as static and one-dimensional, but having depths of meaning and teaching that are not evident until one begins to dig in and search out the wisdom of God.
"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent". -- John 6:27-29
Faith in the Son is the work of the Father. Scripture couldn't be much clear.
So, yes, I do hate Calvinism, as I hate all false teaching.
Your loss.
Most of us Calvinists once believed like you do. Then, by the grace of God, He opened our eyes to the fact that everything, life, death, faith, salvation, is all of God and none of man. Our job is to be grateful for the unmerited gift of Christ's sacrifice for our sins, to repent and live a life that brings praise to His name, to raise strong children who bow to none but Christ, to work diligently to make the earth into a garden to reflect His glory, to preach God's word to all nations and races so that those whom Christ came to gather will hear the word and return safely home, and to remain forever secure in the knowledge that He will lose none of us. You and me both.
That's Calvinism, the faith of the Bible, the faith of the Reformation.
I, like most Calvinists, (and unlike you) do not hate your faith. I feel sorry that you are like I once was because I now know the deeper security that comes with believing God is sovereign over all.
Though none of us knows the names of the elect, if you possess Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, I believe you are most likely among His flock, because God told us that is the measure of our salvation.
I simply think it was God's mercy alone that gave you that faith, whereas you think you had some part in giving yourself His most perfect gift.
As God wills.
"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.
"It is a great thing to begin the Christian life by believing good solid doctrine. Some people have received twenty different "gospels" in as many years; how many more they will accept before they get to their journey's end, it would be difficult to predict. I thank God that He early taught me the gospel, and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it, that I do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is sure loss. If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a year, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to store the apples. When people are always shifting their doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental doctrines which the Lord has taught in His Word. Why, if I believed what some preach about the temporary, trumpery salvation which only lasts for a time, I would scarcely be at all grateful for it; but when I know that those whom God saves He saves with an everlasting salvation, when I know that He gives to them an everlasting righteousness, when I know that He settles them on an everlasting foundation of everlasting love, and that He will bring them to His everlasting kingdom, oh, then I do wonder, and I am astonished that such a blessing as this should ever have been given to me!..."
I hope you keep reading.
The message of the Bible is that man is incapable of doing anything to get himself out of the pit of sin. Only God can save him by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
A prisoner cannot leave his cell in pursuit of the Governor's pardon, but they can be approached by a free person (led by the Holy Spirit) with news of their pardon. Their pardon came by way of a paid ransom.
A convicted prisoner on death row has zero chance of saving himself, and has no chance of redeeming himself with good works in jail. That is our condition apart from Jesus Christ.
As Christians, we are commanded to relate the Gospel to those people who are locked behind the bars in hopes they will not blaspheme the Holy Spirit's testimony of Christ regarding the pardon that God's grace has extended to them.
Logically if we are to share the Gospel with every creature, the Holy Spirit uses that to reach the Satanically imprisoned slaves to sin. If the Lost were dead in the sense that you portray, we would be foolish to share the Gospel. It is clear that they can hear through the prison bars, and that the words we share are seeds for the Holy Spirit to bring fruit in their hearts.
A pardon is an exhibition of grace by the one with the authority to provide it. Clearly a death row inmate has no authority at their disposal (dead in their sins).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.