Posted on 06/04/2007 11:17:36 AM PDT by pjr12345
Introduction
I have learned much since my first writing on this subject. I still believe that the content herein, while certainly not inspired, captures the truth closely. However, I reserve the right to change my view based upon further enlightenment.
I made an effort to lend a hand to those arguments that are used in disagreement. After all, the goal is to uncover the Truth, and not to invest oneself in a particular position or idea.
I would like to elaborate further on the “Thief on the Cross” argument often used to dispel the notion of baptism as requisite for salvation.
Taking the position that the thief on the cross demonstrates that baptism is unnecessary for salvation necessitates Jesus’ granting the good thief’s salvation. This is sometimes called “special dispensation”. Jesus – so the argument goes – being the God-man, granted a special, one-time dispensation to the good thief as a result of his having placed his faith in Him.
Those who reject this view do so for the following reasons. First, the Bible is clear that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). The idea that He allowed an exception for any individual from His stated requirements violates His word, and therefore cannot be a valid argument.
Also, basic logic requires that if God exists He must be perfect… perfectly legal and perfectly just. Suspending the rules for any person in any instant is both illegal and unjust, thus God could not have done so.
The argument of special dispensation for the good thief can be argued to violate both scripture and logic, and therefore can be argued as invalid.
A better position begins with understanding that the thief was under the Old Covenant; Jesus had not yet died for our sins. Because of this, he was required to seek forgiveness through the established sacrificial system. The Old Covenant was still intact. This is evidenced biblically by the fact that at the moment of His death, the sky grew dark, the earth shook, graves opened, and the veil of the Holy of Holy was rent from top to bottom (Mat 27:51-52; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). All this signified the completion of Jesus’ work, and His fulfillment of the Old Covenant.
Given that it was the Passover season - the annual time when sacrifices are made for the atonement of one’s sins - the thief was required to seek atonement through the slaughter of an unblemished lamb.
Jesus was God’s own perfect sacrifice, chosen to make atonement for sin, once for all. Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled perfectly and forever the requirement of the Law.
By believing on Jesus, the thief was in full compliance with the Law. He placed his faith in God’s chosen Lamb at the time of the sacrifice. The thief’s action was in accordance with the Law, and perfectly legal according to the Old Covenant which still retained authority at the time of his death.
The Relationship of Baptism to Salvation
The basis of Christian belief starts and ends with God’s Word: The written revelation given by God in Scripture holds ultimate authority. Every doctrinal question must be answered on the basis of Scripture. Consideration of a topic must be independent of (a) the quantity of people holding a like view; (b) the weight given to any individual’s views due to that person’s reputation or stature; (c) the length of time a particular belief has been held.
All that matters is what Scripture teaches. Just as the Bereans in Acts 17:11, we are to be “fair-minded” and “search the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so”. Our responsibility as disciples is to remain humble, thereby teachable, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to change our hearts and minds to conform to the truth of His revelation through the written Word of God.
What then, does the Bible teach concerning our salvation? Here are but a few Scriptures that speak to the matter.
We must believe on Jesus to have everlasting life. John 3:16. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
We must believe in Jesus’ resurrection and confess Him as Lord to be saved. Rom 10:9-10. 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
We must repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. Acts 2:38. 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
We must be believe in Jesus and be baptized to be saved. Mark 16:16. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
We must obey Jesus’ commandments for our salvation. Heb 5:9. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,
The Bible clearly indicates that the experience of salvation has many components; none of which can be taken to be exclusive. That is, if one were to say that belief is sufficient (John 3:16), what about believing and confessing (Romans 10:9-10)? The interpretation of Scripture in isolation cannot avoid direct conflicts. Clearly then, these (and other) salvation-descriptive verses cannot be taken independently. Further investigation is required to identify all the elements which make up the life-changing event we call salvation.
The verses cited above do not stand alone in indicating that the salvation experience is comprised of five key elements: Belief, Repentance, Confession, Baptism, and Obedience. The focus in this document is the relationship of baptism to the salvation experience.
The case for baptism as a requirement for salvation rests not on a single verse of suspect interpretation. On the contrary, the concept is widespread throughout the New Testament. No single conversion under the New Covenant is communicated without the inclusion of baptism. One might argue that the thief on the cross is the exception (Luke 23:43). However, Jesus had not yet died for our sins when He saved this man. Hence the thief cannot be considered as under the New Covenant written in His blood.
One other example is often cited against baptism as a requirement for salvation. Acts 10:44-48 states that Cornelius and his household experienced the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. Although a more compelling example than the thief on the cross, this account cannot be taken to conclude that the people were saved at the time the Holy Spirit fell upon them. There are other scriptural records of God’s Spirit using those outside His chosen people, or His will. For example, Balaam could not curse the children of Israel, but blessed them instead (Numbers 22-24); Saul prophesied even while trying to kill David (1Samuel 10:10-11, 18:10). The point is that God can work through the fallen or unsaved. In this encounter Peter recognizes the signs of the Holy Spirit as confirmation of the vision he had received - that God is also Savior of the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-35). It is of specific interest that his first reaction was to command that they be baptized.
Other Scriptures lend support to baptism as requisite for salvation. Acts 22:16, has Paul declaring that his baptism washed away his sins. Galatians 3:27, states that we are baptized into Christ. Romans 6:3-5, goes into length on being baptized into Christ’s death so that we can partake in newness of life. Colossians 2:11-15, is a direct allusion to baptism being our equivalent to Christ’s death and resurrection. 1 Peter 3:18-22, compares Noah’s salvation through water to ours through baptism.
One cannot get around the volume of scriptural support of water baptism as integral to salvation. The weight of material to be explained away or simply ignored is substantial.
The more fundamental argument is one of faith versus works. The current, longstanding belief is that salvation is through faith alone, and that any human work adds to the once-for-all, finished work of Christ on the cross. This belief holds that baptism is a work, and therefore cannot be requisite in salvation.
The problem with this idea lies in the fact that Jesus clearly states that belief, itself, is a work (John 6:29). Thus the “faith not works” position disqualifies even belief from salvation. Considering the idea, it is easily arguable that not just belief, but love/obedience, repentance, confession, and yes, baptism are all works, and thusly prohibited for salvation.
Clearly the “faith not works” concept is incomplete. If a person truly has free will, he must "do" something to be saved. Yet we know the finished work of Christ is sufficient (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 9:12, Jude 3). There must be something more to this than simply faith versus works.
A Variety of Works
The Bible distinguishes between works of the Law, works of the flesh, works of evil, works of(by) God, and works of Faith. After Jesus, no man can be justified by the Law (Hebrews 10:26). Similarly, works of the flesh (pride) will not save (Ephesians 2:8-9). Works of evil needs no explanation. Works of(performed by) God - the greatest being the atoning sacrifice of His Son on the cross - offer man opportunity, and man must respond (Hebrews 5:9). That leaves the concept of works of Faith.
Works of Faith
James’ epistle includes a very direct correction regarding the relationship between faith and works. His writings demonstrate that even within the early Church there was confusion surrounding this relationship. James summarily rejects the faith-only argument (James 2:14-26). He concludes his argument in James 2:24, “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only”. An honest reading of James cannot discount the place of works, but what kind of works?
Certainly not the works of the flesh; Paul is very clear in Ephesians 2:8-9 on this subject. Then works of faith described by James must be a different sort of work than what Paul described. James, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews use the example of the father of faith, Abraham. In Romans 4, Paul uses the faith of Abraham to show that he was justified according to his faith, not by works. But which works? The works of the Law! (Remember, Abraham lived before Moses and the Law.) Every comment by Paul on this subject was written to the Jews for the purpose of dispelling the notion that one must be under the Law (e.g. circumcision) before one can access the salvation through Christ. Paul is not discussing all works, but the specific class of “works of the Law”.
The writer of Hebrews describes a different sort of work in Hebrews 11. He uses the example of Abraham, and others. The point he makes in each example is one of faithful obedience to God. His point is that certain “works of faith” must demonstrate faith; that faith does not exist outside of the works that demonstrate it. So, the person who says he believes but does not obey does not truly believe. Hence the works of faith are one with faith, inseparable.
James 2:21 points out that Abraham was justified by a work of faith in offering Isaac on the altar. Had Abraham simply believed, and had not followed through in obedience, then his belief would have been in vain. Similarly, had Abraham concocted the idea on his own, and actually followed through with the killing, then it would have been a work of his flesh, unacceptable by God. Neither of these is the true story. The truth is that God commanded Abraham, and Abraham obeyed God. This is a work of faith accounted to him as righteousness.
In exactly the same way, baptism is a work of faith; faithful obedience to the Lord. The act of baptism alone means nothing. It is an act of faithful obedience to God, no different than that of Abraham’s. It does not add anything to the finished work of Christ; it simply allows us access to the grace that came as a result of His work (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27), through the washing away of our sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:18-22).
The washing away of our sins occurs as a result of our faithful obedience to the commandment of God that we should be baptized. God could have established any work of faith for this purpose. He chose baptism. Our responsibility is to perform the works of faith He has prescribed for our salvation: Believe, Repent, Confess, be Baptized, and continue in Obedience.
Epilogue
Does this mean that if one has been baptized under the premise that it is “an outward sign of an inward change of heart”, he must be re-baptized for the remission of his sins? When God granted me the understanding I communicated above, I could not help but consider Acts 19:1-7. Here Paul and Apollos encounter a group of disciples who had been baptized by John, but not into Jesus. Paul immediately re-baptized them. Also, I considered the idea that, just maybe, the gospel which does not include baptism as a required work of faith might be a “different gospel” (Galatians 1:6). My decision was to be re-baptized for the remission of my sins immediately upon being fully convinced of the truth. Outside of my personal conviction and decision, I leave the matter between each person and God as to what action, if any, a person ought to take.
I have no notion of “always saved”. The Bible clearly requires continuation in obedience to the Gospel. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus is always available to cleanse one from all unrighteousness, but we have to “come and get it” (so to speak). If we fail in our duty to fight the good fight, run the race, then we have no access to the blessings of (and through) Christ.
As to RCC Baptism. I don’t agree that Scripture supports the idea of “original sin”. If I did, then I’d be in full support of infant baptism (it is logical extension from the idea of original sin). Rather, baptism requires a person to have heard and believed the Gospel, and then move forward in obedience, beginning with full immersion water baptism. A person who is incapable of rationality cannot rightly make such a decision.
Finally, the idea that one of your “priests” can dispense forgiveness on behalf of God is ludicrous.
You see, I’m not so close after all! ;)
Good Point. I still don't agree with your argument though.
I was saved on December 8, 2004 in the sleeper of my truck in a rest area on I-80. I believed on Him and confessed my sins to Him. I then ask Him to take over every aspect of my life. I didn't get baptized until April or May of 2005. Are you saying that I did not have salvation until I was immersed in water?
In Christ
Matthew 3:11 `I indeed do baptize you with water to reformation, but he who after me is coming is mightier than I, of whom I am not worthy to bear the sandals, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,
Luke 3:15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ. 16 John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
It’s not what I say that matters, it’s what God says through His Word. I encourage you to undertake the same study I did, and let the Word speak for itself. It truly changed my view.
A few more Scriptures:
2Corinthians 5:7 — 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.
Hebrews 11:1 — 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Acts 17:11 — 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Are you supposing that this statement excludes the possibility that Jesus performed water baptisms, too?
If so, more speculation. Not unreasonable, mind you, but still...
Some were followers of John the Baptist and would have been baptized by him.
I don't understand are you guys saying that John the Baptist or Christ baptized in the name of the Father, Son an Holy Ghost?
That is my belief. They where still in the Old Testament until Jesus was put on the alter. I don't believe you will find many who will disagree with that even in the Church of Christ. He could not baptized in the name of the Trinity until the Coruscation, the way I see it.
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.
And I disagree for the following reasons.
John’s baptism was from heaven, he having been filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother’s womb.
John baptized for the remission of sin.
John required his believers to believe on Jesus.
exactly what you teach now.
These 12 men met these requirements, Luke even calls them diciples and believers. The only thing they lacked was the Holy Spirit as John didn’t pass that out.
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.
Verses 4 and 5, when not separated, shows that those men were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus at the time John spoke.
All Paul did was lay hands on them.
“Into John’s baptism.” Which was for the remission of sin.
God dispenses the forgiveness. Guess you haven't ever read the words of absolution. Here they are for you:
 |
1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:
|
Sorry, theology is not based on statistics, but on Biblical truth. I am not impressed with the numbers. I believe a billion Roman Catholics are very wrong about the veneration of Mary - ascribing to her the status of Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix. Numbers mean nothing!
Other wise the atheist would be right. :)
AMEN!!! You are absolutely correct!
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
16:16 doesn't say, "...he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned."
Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
I don't know what else to say to you. Baptism is a work! If I can be saved by that work, I can be saved by any of my "good works" and the death, burial, and resurection of Jesus Christ as an atonement for my sins is in vain...AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. I was baptized, but it was out of submission and obedience to Jesus, not for my salvation. Do you believe that a soldier in a foxhole can't be saved, get shot, die, and have received salvation for his sins...without being dipped in water? I just don't get it. What other works do you do that makes you "good enough" to get into heaven?
I don't mean to get so sarcastic, but these are the same arguments...
In Christ, Wiley
You used the term "minority report," remember?
Point taken...doesn’t change the fact that I believe “baptismal regeneration” is not biblical.
How many times must it be said that those two titles aren't dogmatic???
How many times does it need to be said that the veneration of Mary...in all its forms...is unbiblical?
Ah, a common cop-out, answering a question with a question.
That is double talk. The Roman Catholic Church is doing everything it can to make those titles dogmatic. And there are many RC's who believe they are now. This forum is a case in point...there have been a large number of threads on those very topics, as well as others that elevate Mary far above anything justified by Scripture.
I believe your question was rhetorical. Can you tell me how many times?
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.