Posted on 11/01/2011 6:08:48 PM PDT by rzman21
Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible?
By COGwriter
Most people realize that the Living Church of God (or any of the true Churches of God) cannot be part of the Roman Catholic Church. However, some do not realize that the Living Church of God is not part of the Protestant reformation movement led by Martin Luther (our history predates Luther, and the actual Roman Catholic Church for that matter, please see the History of Early Christianity).
Regarding the Bible, the Living Church of God believes that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and, and is profitable for doctrine" (II Timothy 3:16, NKJV throughout unless otherwise stated).
Did Martin Luther agree?
Martin Luther publicly taught that only the Bible should be used as doctrine. One of the rallying cries of his movement was sola Scriptura (translated in English as 'the Bible alone'). This is one of the major positions that many professing Protestants respect Martin Luther for.
Although Martin Luther stated that he looked upon the Bible "as if God Himself spoke therein" he also stated,
My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ" (O'Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916--1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204).
[Specifically, what Martin Luther wrote in German was ""Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet" (Luther, 682) - also translated as "I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ's word, so my mouth is His who utters the words"(God's words - the violence of representation. Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/meanings/1.htm, September 25, 2003).]
Did Martin Luther really revere and believe the Bible more than his own opinions? This article will quote Martin Luther extensively to assist the reader in answering that question.
Martin Luther Added to the Book of Romans
The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:
...Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).
Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said,
You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By "papists" he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture.
Perhaps it should also be noted that Martin Luther also claimed that the word for "alone" was needed for a translation into the German language, but that is really only true if one feels that the word alone must be added (according to one person I consulted with who studied German). The truth is that Martin Luther intentionally added a word and many sadly relied on it.
A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having supposed scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine.
He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states,
...because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word 'only' before the term 'wrath' to Romans 4:15 (O'Hare, p. 201).
This presumably was to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law.
Martin Luther Made At Least One Other Intentional Mistranslation
Martin Luther has also been charged with intentionally mistranslating Matthew 3:2, Acts 19:18, and many other scriptures (ibid, p. 200).
Matthew 3:2 states,
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
Martin Luther, in his German translation, according to at least one Catholic source, changed the word 'repent' to 'mend' or 'do better' (ibid, p. 201), presumably to justify his position that one does not need to obey God's laws through repentance. Others disagree on that point and indicate that the German term chosen can or should be translated as repent.
Yet, irrespective of the translation (as I do not know enough German to have a strong opinion), Martin Luther did not seem to teach strong real repentance as he taught,
Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
Martin Luther seemed to overlook what the Book of Hebrews taught:
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:26-27).
The Bible, in Acts 19:18, states,
"And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds..."
Yet according to one source, Martin Luther rendered it, "they acknowledged the miracles of the Apostles" (O'Hare, p. 201).
There are several possible reasons why Martin Luther intentionally mistranslated Acts 19:18, but the point on this article is to show that he did.
Another point to be made is that by making mistranslations of the Bible, Protestants have given Catholics reasons to ignore them (cf. 2 Peter 2:1-3). Here is what one Catholic priest has written:
The proponents of Protestantism made false translations of the Bible and misled people into their errors by apparently proving from the "Bible" (their own translations) the correctness of their doctrines. It was all deceit, lying and hypocrisy. (Kramer H.B. L. The Book of Destiny. Nihil Obstat: J.S. Considine, O.P., Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: +Joseph M. Mueller, Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, January 26, 1956. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 224).
Perhaps I should add that many important Protestant-accepted doctrines would have been understood as false if later Protestant translators also would not have made their own intentional mistranslations of other parts of the Bible, especially in the New Testament. Yet, many who profess sola Scriptura even in the 21st century do not know that some of what they have relied on has been intentionally mistranslated.
Martin Luther Preferred to Change John 1:14
Martin Luther also taught,
And John 1 says: "The Word was made flesh," when in our judgment it would have been better said, "The Word was incarnate," or "made fleshly" (Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ February 27, 1540 conducted by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546 translated from the Latin text WA 39/2, pp. 92-121 by Christopher B. Brown).
This was apparently done to justify his belief that Jesus was fully God and fully human while on the earth.
As Martin Luther correctly pointed out, John 1:14 states that "the Word was made flesh", yet John 1:14, combined with Philippians 2:6-7 show that Jesus 'emptied Himself' (the proper Greek translation; see Green JP. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 3rd ed., 1996, p. 607) of His divinity while on the earth.
If not, He could not have been tempted as we are, which He was,
"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" Hebrews 4:15-16).
This is discussed more in the article on Binitarianism.
Martin Luther Stated Jesus Meant the Opposite of What He Said
The Bible, in Luke 10:28, states,
"And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (KJV).
Yet Martin Luther taught,
To do means to believe-to keep the law by faith. The passage in Matthew: Do this and thou shalt live, signifies Believe this and thou shalt live. The words Do this, have ironical sense, as if our Lord should say: Thou wilt do it tomorrow, but not today; only make an attempt to keep the Commandments, and the trial will teach thee the ignominy of thy failure (O'Hare, p.205).
Although Martin Luther mentioned Matthew's account (which is in Matthew 19:16-21), the quote in question is actually from Luke 10:28. It is because of such misinterpretations of what the Bible states that many Protestants have tossed out the necessity to keep the ten commandments, even though scholars agree that they were kept by the early Christians (please see the article The Ten Commandments and the Early Church).
Martin Luther's comments clearly suggest that he felt that Jesus meant the opposite of what He said in Matthew 19:16,
"But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments".
Two articles of related interest may include What Did Jesus Teach About the Ten Commandments? and Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants
Martin Luther Taught Certain Books of the Bible Were Questionable
Martin Luther had different views of various books of the Bible. Specifically, he had a fairly low view of the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:
As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse (Reid, George J. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik Canon of the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Martin Luther himself was the obvious reason why, as he wrote,
Up to this point we have had the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation. In the first place, the fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle (Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546).
Regarding the New Testament Book of Hebrews Martin Luther stated,
It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw (O'Hare, p. 203).
He also wrote,
St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).
and
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
Interestingly the Epistle of James is the only place in the Bible to actually use the term 'faith alone':
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24).
One would have to assume that the fact that James 2:24 contradicted Martin Luther's sola fide teaching would have been a major reason that he discounted this book of the Bible.
Protestant scholars have recognized that Martin Luther handled James poorly as they have written:
The great reformer Martin Luther...never felt good about the Epistle of James...Luther went to far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament.
(Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107)
Martin Luther taught,
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle…Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
To me, Jude does not sound that similar to 2 Peter, but if even it is, should it be discounted? Maybe Martin Luther discounted it because it warns people:
...to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). And this, sadly, is not something that Martin Luther really did (though he did sometimes make some efforts towards that).
Perhaps none of Martin Luther's writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote,
About this book of the Revelation of John...I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning,
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).
Martin Luther took away from this book through his comments about it, and this is the same Martin Luther who (as shown previously in this article) added words to the Bible that were not there.
Martin Luther's Comments on Books of the Old Testament Show A Hate for Things Jewish
As the following quotes show, Martin Luther did not care for several books in the Old Testament either:
"Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book."…
"Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it...Solomon did not, therefore, write this book."…
"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."
"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." (as quoted in O'Hare, p. 202).
Furthermore, Martin Luther had little use for the first five books of the Old Testament (sometimes referred to as the Pentateuch):
Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses" (Ibid, p. 202).
Martin Luther hated the Jews, which may be why he was against Esther, the first five books of the Bible, and other parts of the Hebrew scriptures.
Notice that Martin Luther advised his followers,
...to burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and to throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; to destroy their homes; to confiscate their ready money in gold and silver; to take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; and if that did not help matters, to hunt them of the country like mad dogs (Luther’s Works, vol. Xx, pp. 2230-2632 as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.99).
Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch (Martin Luther (1483-1546): On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543 as quoted from Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268293).
More on Martin Luther and the Jews (as well as some of his other doctrinal positions) can be found in the article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong.
Martin Luther Claimed that John Was the Only True Gospel
Although Martin Luther decried John for penning the Revelation of Jesus Christ, he did like John. According to Martin Luther,
The first three speak of the works of our Lord, rather than His oral teachings; that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred above the others. In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels (O'Hare, p. 203).
Martin Luther's position on this, and some of his other matters, appear to be blasphemous and in contraction to II Timothy 3:16.
Martin Luther' German Translation of the Bible
Perhaps it should be mentioned, that while some have credited Martin Luther with being the first person to translate the Bible into German, this was not the case.
The first translation of the Bible into Teutonic (old German) was apparently by Raban Maur, who was born in 776 (O'Hare, p.183). Actually, by 1522 (the year Martin Luther's translation came out) there were at least 14 versions of the Bible in High German and 3 in Low German (ibid).
However, it is true that Martin Luther's translation, became more commonly available, and possibly more understandable (in a sense)--even though it did include his intentional translating errors.
Martin Luther Preferred to Change a Commandment
Martin Luther seemed to believe that the Sabbath command had to do with learning about God's word, as opposed to rest, as he wrote about it,
What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1986, p. 10).
"We sin against the Third Commandment when we despise preaching and the Word of God...What does God require of us in the Third Commandment? A. We should hold preaching and the Word of God sacred" (Ibid, p. 68).
The Lutheran Confessions admit:
As we study Luther's expositions of the Decalog, or the Ten Commandments, we find that he does not quote the Third Commandment in its Old Testament form: 'Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy', but rather in the spirit of the New Testament: 'Thou shalt sanctify the holy day' (Mueller, John Theodore. The Lutheran Confessions. Circa 1953, p.10).
In another place, Martin Luther wrote,
Now follows the Third Commandment: "Thou shalt hallow the day of rest." (Luther, M. A treatise on Good Works together with the Letter of Dedication, published 1520. In Works of Martin Luther. Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915, Vol. 1, pp. 173-285).
It should be noted that Lutherans (and Roman Catholics) consider the Sabbath to be the Third, not Fourth, Commandment. The order that Martin Luther chose to accept was an order changed by Augustine (please see the article Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Church of God?) and not the order from the Bible or that as understood by the early Church (please see the article The Ten Commandments and the Early Church). Sadly, Martin Luther often accept Roman Catholic changes instead of believing what the Bible actually taught (and of course, he came up with other teachings that neither the Bible nor the Roman Church supported).
Martin Luther Preferred to Teach Doctrines That Did Not Have Proper Scriptural Support
Martin Luther apparently decided that he could not understand God, but that he should teach the unbiblical doctrine of the trinity. Notice what one Protestant scholar wrote:
For Luther, as for the German mystics, God is Deus absconditus, the "hidden God," inaccessible to human reason...
By emphasizing the sole authority of Scripture and downgrading the work of the church fathers and the decisions of the ecumenical councils, Luther created a problem for his followers. One the one hand, Luther wanted to affirm traditional theology with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ, but on the other those doctrines are not explicit in Scripture. They are the product of church fathers and the councils (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 314).
It should be noted here that NONE of the so-called "church fathers" prior to the end of the second century espoused any trinitarian position (more can be found in the article Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?).
A French Protestant named Rabaud declared,
Luther has no fixed theory of inspiration: if all his works suppose the inspiration of the Sacred Writings, all his conduct shows that he makes himself the supreme judge of it (Rabaud, Histoire de la doctrine de l inspriaation dans les pays de langue francaise depuis la Reforme jusqu a nos jours Paris, 1883, p.42 as quoted in O'Hare, p. 203).
Thus even Protestant scholars realize that Martin Luther considered Prima Luther to be of more importance than Sola Scriptura--those interested in doing God's will should heed the Bible, and most should read the article The Bible and Tradition.
Martin Luther held many doctrinal positions that did not have biblical support, as well as some that did (please see the documented article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong.
Martin Luther Declared That Part of Three Days Equaled Three Days and Three Nights
The Catholic-supporting Augustine declared through an odd calculation that three days and three nights equaled thirty-six hours as ratios of twelve came to thirty-six (please see the article What Happened in the Crucifixion Week?).
Martin Luther, who had been a Roman Catholic, also did not accept that Jesus was in the grave for three days and three nights as he wrote,
How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that be was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true Sabbath. On the third day, which we commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that be rose on the third day (Luther M. Of Christ's Resurrection from volume II:238-247 of The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI). It was originally published in 1906 in English by Lutherans in All Lands Press (Minneapolis, MN), as The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. 11).
However, Jesus clearly said He would be in the grave for three days AND three nights and this would be the sign religious leaders should pay attention to:
An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:39-40).
Jesus being the Messiah was to be proven by Him being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth like Jonah was in the belly of the great fish.
Should we believe the Bible or human tradition? Does anyone really believe that ratios of 12 are how Jesus expected His words to be understood?
Notice what the Book of Jonah states:
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17).
Does any one really feel that Jonah was only in the belly of the fish for less than three days and three nights?
(Most Protestant commentators hedge on this and claim that parts of days is acceptable so 49 hours is possible--see The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press. Of course the problem with this is that even with 49 hours, it is not possible that Jesus was buried before sunset, about 6:00pm, on Friday and rose prior to sunrise, about 6:00am, on Sunday as that only adds up to 36 hours. Furthermore, if one takes the fact that Jesus died about 3:00 pm, as opposed to the time He was buried, that only makes 39 hours. Hence there is no way that any who actually believes the scriptures over personal interpretation can agree with Martin Luther.)
Conclusion
This author cannot agree with Martin Luther's assessment of the books of the Bible, nor Martin Luther's personal changes.
It appears that Martin Luther truly preferred the concept of prima Luther (the primacy of Luther) and not sola Scriptura when it came to doctrine.
Those of us in the Living Church of God believe that all 66 books of the Bible are inspired and profitable for doctrine (II Timothy 3:16). Because we also believe that we are not allowed to add or subtract from the Bible (see Revelation 22:18-19), we cannot follow the teachings of Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther—who changed or diminished the importance of at least 18 of them (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation).
For a more complete background on the history of the Living Church of God, please request its free booklet God's Church Through the Ages or read it online at http://www.lcg.org/files/booklets/gca/default.htm.
For more information on how the Living Church of God differs from Protestantism, please read the article, Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differs from most Protestants. To understand the the relationship between the Bible and tradition, please read Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings.
For specific information regarding the teachings of Martin Luther, please see the article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert Armstrong.
Back to home page www.cogwriter.com
Thiel B., Ph.D. Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible? www.cogwriter.com (c) 2003/2006/2007/2008/2009/2011 1024
Also, Paul and the other Apostles clearly denoted bishops and elders as ministerial priests among the priesthood of all believers
you missed the point. they were considered Scripture by the local Corinthian Church. once the Roman persecution ended in the early 4th century, Christians knew just as there is only One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Eucharist and One Church, there can only be One Canon of Scripture. they also knew only one authority on earth had the power to declare the canon, The Church. so the Church met in Councils and declared 73 books to be canonical. this went unchallenged until the 16th century, when certain sects arose and tossed 7 books from the OT, but retained the Catholic 27 book NT.
you have no divine mandate to decide the canon and i don’t either. only the One Church, evidenced by apostolic succession has this authority. we must accept this authority as this pleases the Lord.
no actually the Epistle proves Clement as Bishop of Rome and successor to Peter, had the authority to admonish and instruct the Corinthians. the Bishop of Jerusalem or Antioch had no such authority. the Corinthians obviously recgonized the authority, since they read the letter in the churches as Scripture for over 100 years.
grace, faith and good works are gifts from God.
wrong, wrong and wrong.
at least you are consistent!
Mat 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Mar 1:8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Luk 3:16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
Jhn 1:33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
Act 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Act 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
Act 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Act 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.
Act 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Act 11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Rom 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit
Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Tts 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit
We also read:
“Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)” - John 4
Interesting. The disciples of Jesus baptized with water...but Jesus Himself did not. Ever wonder why?
if Baptists were always part of the “true faith”, they should be able to trace their group from Jesus Christ thru today.
everyone knows they can’t do this, since no one believed what they do before the 16th century.
mormons make the same cliam you do about the baptists, but can only go back to the 19th century, so at least baptists can say they were here 300 years longer than the mormons.
the Catholic Church has been here since 33ad, deal with it.
faith “alone” is not mentioned in the two Scriptures you referenced ( in fact it’s not mentioned anywhere in the Bible )
in addition, James teaches exactly the opposite.
it’s hard dealing with such ignorance or outright lies.
no one thinks God becomes a piece of bread.
where did you learn Catholic doctrine, from a comic book?
“Denominations making up their own theology is unscriptural.”
You’re sounding a bit Baptist, there. I know of a number of Baptist churches that refuse to agree to any confession or ‘statement of faith’, on the basis that scripture determines truth.
When councils meet and vote, they give their opinion - not unlike individuals. But that opinion cannot overturn scripture.
Obviously, Catholics don’t believe their theology does. At an individual level, we need to decide what we believe God would have us do, for we are judged by God as individuals. If I were to follow Catholic doctrine, contrary to my own conscious, because I respect Cronos, would I not be guilty?
Do Not Pass Judgment on One Another
1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Do Not Cause Another to Stumble
13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
read Acts 2:38 to find out what baptism is for.
how many baptisms are there according to Paul?
My grandkids think I'm older than dirt.
Neither Henry the VIII nor the Pope killed him.
“Neither Henry the VIII nor the Pope killed him.”
The Inquisition did.
thank you for proving the following points:
1. there is only one baptism according to Paul
2. the term “water baptism” is not found in the Bible
3. the term “spirit baptism” is not found in the Bible
4. the Bible teaches we are saved by baptism
5. the Bible teaches baptism is for the remission of sins
6. the Bible teaches baptism is for receiving the Holy Spirit
7. the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit baptizes using the Church to administer the Sacrament.
8. the Bible does not mention baptism is first act of obedience or a public display of what has happened already.
the Christian Church has understood what baptism is for 2,000 years. that some sect arose in the 16th century called Baptists that started teaching “two baptisms”, doesn’t affect the Bibilical truth of what baptism is.
A Defense of Baptismal Regeneration
They start off by quoting on one side the Catechism which shows the Roman Catholic view of the necessity of Baptism. One thing I noticed very quickly is that they neglect to show the numerous scriptural verses that are quoted in the Catechism that show that this view is indeed found in the bible. On the other side they quote Bible verses which supposedly show that Baptism is not salvific.
Using the King James Bible (the only true Bible according to that site, which I believe is ridiculous as the Bible is abridged and cuts out 7 books, but that is another issue), what does scripture actually say about baptism and salvation?
They quote from the Catechism “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte ‘a new creature,’ an adopted son of God, who has become a ‘partaker of the divine nature,’ member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.” (Pg.354, #1265)”. Why did they forget that the Bible teaches this? See Mark 1:6, Acts 2:38-39, Gal. 3:27, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11. Perhaps because it proves Catholicism true.
They quote the Catechism again :”Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, and are incorporated into the Church...” (Pg. 342, #1213).” Then on the other side they quotes verses that supposedly disprove this. I ask why they did not quote Gal. 3:26-27, which says through faith AND baptism one becomes a son of God. Perhaps because it proves the Catechism true.
They quote the Catechism again: “By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.” (Pg. 353, #1263. see also pg. 279, #985). Then they quote verses along the other side that supposedly disprove this. I ask why they did not quote Col. 2:12-13, Acts. 2:38-39, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Rom 6:1-11, etc? Perhaps because it proves the Catechism true.
Here is a clear scripture that proves baptismal regeneration: John 3:3-5: 3 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
What does the context of John show us? One must be born again, as stated in John 3:3; however, what does that phrase mean? Nowhere does the Bible say what I was taught that in order to be born again, you must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Jesus explained in John 3:5 what he meant in John 3:3. You must be born of water and spirit, that is baptism. How do we know that is what he meant? First, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, who knew the Old Testament background to the meaning of water and spirit. In talking about the New covenant, Ezekiel in 36:23-29, writes about clean water being sprinkled, and God cleansing his people from all filthiness, in tandem with his Spirit being poured out, giving people a new heart, giving people the ability to walk in his statutes. Isaiah 44:3 also talks about the Holy Spirit being poured out with water and many blessings to follow. In John 1:29-34, Jesus is baptized, and the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus. John promises that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. What does Jesus do after he tells Nicodemus in 3:5 about being born of water and spirit? He goes out baptizing in John 3:22. This is the only time that Jesus and the disciples baptize in the gospels, emphasizing even more that being born of water and spirit means baptism (besides John 4, immediately following this). What does John do? He baptizes other people. In the context of baptism, John uses the same term “anothen” in 3:31, as was used in John 3:3 and 3:5. It can interchangeably be translated as “born again” or “begotten from above.” It would strain credulity to say that all this is a coincidence. All Christians until the 16th century thought that born again meant baptism. On the other hand nothing here or anywhere else in the Bible does being born again mean accepting Jesus as Lord in your heart.
Other passages proving baptismal regeneration include: 1 Peter 3:20-21. 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts 2:38-39 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
Mark 16:16 He that BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
1 Cor. 12:12-13. 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Colossians 2:11-13 - 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in PUTTING OFF THE BODY OF THE SINS of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Romans 6:3-4. 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 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.
Galatians 3:26-27. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST HAVE PUT ON CHRIST.
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
There are other references to the necessity and saving power of baptism, but if you take God’s Word seriously, and look at the above verses, you must admit that Baptism has salvific power. Quoting other verses do not cancel out these verses. Nowhere in these scriptures are Spirit baptism separated from water baptism. They are one and the same thing. Even if there was only one scripture (like Baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21) that shows baptism is salvific) it would be enough to settle the issue, but we have proved the point with much scripture. Not only that, but there are numerous other scriptures not even alluded to that likewise proves the saving power of baptism. Trying to explain away verses that are so blatantly Catholic is something that all Protestants must do in order to avoid Catholic truth, but it is dishonest to say one loves the bible, and then ignores what it so plainly teaches. So, unless one blinds him/herself to the plain meaning of scripture, one can only conclude that baptism saves, as the Catholic Church teaches, exactly as scripture and the Catechism states.
BAPTISM CLEANSES FROM SIN
They quote the Church belief that baptism cleanses from original sins, and washes sins away. They again ignore the scriptural foundation for this belief and quote other scriptures that supposedly prove that baptism does not cleanse from sin. Just a few to show that Baptism does wash away sins:
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.
Romans 6:3-4. 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 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.
Other references Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:11-13, 1 Cor 6:11, see above for quotation.
In prophesying about the New Covenant, Ezekiel reveals how God is going to cleanse one from sin. Does he write, well, one needs to say a salvation prayer, as long as you really mean it, and make an emotional decision to follow Christ? (Salvation prayers, altar calls, etc. are more manmade, Protestant traditions) nowhere found in the bible. On the contrary, Ezekiel concludes 36:25-27: 25 “Then will I sprinkle CLEAN WATER upon you, and ye shall be CLEAN: FROM ALL YOUR FILTHINESS, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a NEW SPIRIT will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”
We see again that in the New Covenant that one will be cleansed exactly by water (it also mentions sprinkling) and Spirit. They are not separated.
They quote: “Whom [Jesus] God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past... Romans 3:25.” So here they say that what provides the remission of sin is Christ’s blood, and since it does this, Christ’s blood is salvific. So what remits sins is the means of salvation. Of course the Catholic church could not agree with them more. So let us see if they are consistent in interpreting the remission of sins as the cause of salvation:
Acts 2:38-39. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. For more info on why it is Biblical to baptize babies click here
OK, they said that Christ’s blood is salvific because it causes the remission of sins. What does baptism do here? The remission of sins!!!! So I take it then, that they now agree that they were wrong in saying that baptism is not the means of salvation. In order to be consistent, they must admit that baptism is the means of salvation.
We next see that when they mentioned all the verses that show that Christ’s blood is the means of salvation, they thus dig themselves deeper into problems in their attack on Catholic theology by inadvertently proving another Catholic doctrine.
EUCHARIST
They quote several verses that show the efficacy of the blood, and how it brings the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, 1 John 1:7) (as the Bible showed that baptism does as well). I wonder if the Bible says that you get the efficacy of Christ’s blood when you say a ‘salvation prayer’ and accept Jesus into your heart as Lord and Savior.’ Nowhere is that stated in the Bible that they supposedly follow. But yet again, they do a very selective quotation of the New Testament scriptures. I wonder why? Let us look at elsewhere in the New Testament as it relates to blood, and forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:28: For this is my BLOOD of the New Testament, which is shed for many for THE REMISSION OF SINS.
So in the context of instituting the Eucharist, Jesus says that this blood is for the remission of sins. Remember they had written that the remission of sins means salvation. Well, according to Jesus, what effects the remission of sins? His blood in the eucharist!!! I wonder why they did not mention that!!! By the way, no mention of the eucharist as a symbol, (just like no mention of baptism being a symbol).
Mark 14:24 : And he said unto them, This is my BLOOD of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Luke 22:20 : Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD, which is shed for you.
So how do we partake of this blood? Do we partake it by saying a salvation prayer, as long as you really mean it? No? Salvation prayers are nowhere found in the Bible and is another tradition of men. That is a tradition of men begun in the 19th century with no hint of it in the bible. Partaking of this blood is partaking in the eucharist (Mk 14:24, Luke 22:19-20, Mt. 26:27) which he commanded the apostles to do.
John 6:53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his BLOOD, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my BLOOD, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my BLOOD is drink indeed. 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my BLOOD, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
I wonder why this was left out of their description of blood. Jesus says whoever drinks his blood has eternal life. Whoever does not, does not have eternal life. Jesus reiterates the literalness of his flesh and blood despite the disbelief of not only the Jews who rejected him (v. 52) but also the disciples who left him (v. 67). Not once did Jesus say, oh, don’t go away, I was only talking symbolically. BTW, if they try to quote v. 63 which talks of spirit and life, not one time in the Bible does spirit ever mean “what I was talking about was only symbolic.” God is Spirit (John 4:24). Does that mean God is symbolic? Of course not, God is real, just as the eucharist that Christ promised. I choose to stay with following Jesus as Peter did, not as the disciples and disbelieving Jews did. His flesh is true food, his blood is true drink!!! Nowhere does Jesus say, oh well folks, I did not really mean I will give true flesh and true blood.
Only now does Jesus add that we must also drink his blood. Six times in this paragraph Jesus reasserts the necessity to “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, six times! Do you think he was trying to tell us something? Non-Catholics are fond of quoting John 3:3 “Except you be born again..” Why is it that ‘except’ is so important, and this ‘except’ isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, we must be consistent when interpreting Gods’ word.
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the BLOOD of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Paul says that the cup is communion of the blood of Christ. I wonder why this was left out of their analysis of blood and salvation.
1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me... 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
The new covenant is in his blood, the eucharist yet again. Does Paul see it as symbolic? Whoever unworthily eats this is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus!!!! How could something symbolic, be guilty of the body and blood of Jesus? And even further, we see that if one partakes of this blood unworthily, one drinks DAMNATION to himself, because they don’t discern the Lord’s body!! This makes absolutely no sense for the Protestant. However, this fits in perfectly with the Catholic view. The eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, as so clearly written by Paul. It is a holy sacrament to be treasured, not blasphemed.
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
We have seen what the blood of the covenant (it is the same Greek word, and in King James English covenant has the same meaning as testament) is. It is the eucharist. And their site loves to mock it. In fact, they called it a hated thing. Unless they repent, their punishment is stated very succintly in the above sentence. I pray that they do not mock what Jesus gave to his church.
BACK TO BAPTISM:
They quote Eph. 1:13 saying that the Holy Spirit is the seal, not baptism. Again they make an artificial distinction between the two. Every single person who studied the Bible for 1500 years did not see the seal as being a contest between baptism against the Holy Spirit. Every single one saw the seal being the Holy Spirit given through water baptism. Remember, Jesus said Except you be born of WATER AND SPIRIT. When Jesus was baptized, he was baptized in the water AND Spirit (John 1:34). Baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16). Baptism is how we are sealed by the Spirit (also, compare Romans 4:13 where circumcision is called the seal of faith, with Col. 2:11-13, where baptism is called the new circumcision, thus confirming again that baptism is the seal of the Holy Spirit).
They then quote that Paul did not come to baptize, but to preach (1 Cor. 1:12, 17). The fact that Paul did not baptize everybody refutes what the Bible said earlier about baptismal regeneration? I think not. Yes, Paul did not baptize, but he let other people do the baptisms. Just as Jesus let others baptize (John 4:2) immediately after declaring the necessity of baptism (John 3:5). Paul did not write that baptisms are only valid through him, so the quotations of 1 Cor. 1:17, and 1 Cor. 1:12 are irrelevant. Paul did not write, ‘oh, this cancels out what I taught earlier’ in Gal. 3:26-27, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11, Romans 6:1-4, etc. If he taught baptism was not salvific, as they say, he would contradict himself.
They again quote selective scriptures (they do tend to be quite selective) that show that belief only is the means of salvation. Well, I could quote Acts 22:16 which shows that Paul had his sins washed away not when he believed but when he was baptized. I could quote Matthew 19:16-17 in which Jesus is asked what one must do to enter eternal life. He in fact doesn’t even say you must believe. He says that in order to enter life, one must KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS. So using their logic, since these verses do not mention belief, can I say that belief is not necessary for salvation? Why also would they leave out Matt. 25:31-46, Rom. 2:4-13 and James 2:14-26 which specifically disprove the faith alone idea of salvation? The Catholic church puts all the verses together, and says, that belief, keeping the commandments (that can only be done by God’s grace) baptism, and the Eucharist (as already proven) are the means of salvation. Why quote verses that stress belief but exclude other verses when the very subject of salvation is the issue? What Christ did on the cross must be applied to our lives in a real way.
They write “•Water baptism symbolizes the believers death, burial and resurrection with Christ (Rom 6:12, Col. 2:12), symbolizes washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), and the answer of a good conscience towards God (I Peter 3:21).”
This article could not find one verse that says baptism symbolizes washing away sins. It is unbelievable that they quote those verses because they exactly prove the Catholic Church right again on baptism!!! He said arise, be baptized and wash away sins (Acts 22:16). Not a thing about symbol. In fact, Paul had already believed yet his sins were only washed away by baptism in Acts 22:16. Paul was not told, arise, get baptized to symbolically wash away their sins. He said, arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins. Col. 2 says that the new circumcision, baptism does not symbolically put off the body of sins, but actually does, Col. 2:12-13. A reminder in regards to 1 Peter 3:21, is that baptism does not symbolically save, it says ‘baptism doth now save you’..
Unbelievably they quote Acts 8:36-37 in support supposedly of faith alone, with no need of baptism. The Ethiopian Eunuch incident they say proves that “•Water baptism comes AFTER one believes on Jesus Christ. Water baptism always follows salvation:”
Let us see the context of which they write:
Acts 8:30-39: 30 “And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Actually, their citation of this scene shows two things that disprove their theological view. First, it shows that a person who reads scripture on his own needs an interpreter to explain the meaning. No sola scriptura here. Phillip had been appointed earlier by the apostles Acts 6:5-7. The appointed apostle thus had the authority to teach authoritatively. Thus when the Eunuch came to him, he did not say, ‘well, ask the Holy Spirit and he will guide you into it.’ Phillip had the authority to guide the Eunuch into the truth. He explained the doctrines that had to be believed in order to be saved. By the way, it does not say he became saved only when he believed. Second, notice what it does say. The Eunuch, after hearing this teaching on salvation said take me to the water. It is apparent to anybody reading this story that baptism is absolutely essentially to the process of salvation. First, for adult believers, one must believe (and Catholics also believe that adults must believe before getting baptized). Then, immediately after hearing Philip’s teaching, he gets baptized. If baptism was symbolic, why did the Ethiopian decide that he had to get baptized then and there? The only obvious answer is that Philip had explained that baptism was a part of salvation and the Eunuch had to be baptized in order to be saved. Philip was present, heard Peter’s message that in order to get sins remitted, one must repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38-39). If it was symbolic, and one just did it to show to the world that one had already been saved by just believing, the Eunuch would have been told to wait, until he could demonstrate this to other people. Immediately after the baptism is when the Spirit comes. Now true, it came upon Philip, but it is significant that at the time of baptism is when the Spirit came. He would not have rejoiced unless it was at this point that the Spirit came upon the eunuch as well. This is a fulfillment of Jesus’ saying that one must be baptized of water and Spirit.
Their attempts to separate baptism from salvation fails in another quotation: They write: “In Acts 18:8, Crispus believed and was then baptized, “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, BELIEVED ON THE LORD with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” They again reiterate that one must believe before being baptized. Those who are of age are indeed required to be believed. But also, his whole house (which includes children who are not of the age to believe) gets baptized. Yet again, in the context of salvation, as soon as Crispus believed, he was baptized. So baptism is yet again a part of the salvation process. Their quotation of Acts 16:31-35 is a similar case that again proves this Catholic point. Part of believing is getting baptized. This again refers us back to Christ’s teaching:
Mark 16:16”He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
They then write of Acts 8:12 “Salvation first, THEN water baptism in Acts 8:12:” “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” -Acts 8:12” Here again there is no quotation saying what they wrote. Nothing in Acts 8:12 says, that when they believed they were saved, and only after salvation were they then baptized. Apparently Philip taught that baptism was part of salvation, because as soon as they believed they were baptized. If it was only symbolic, why the rush?
They then write: “•Performing some ritual like water baptism could NEVER save for we can not be justified before God except through saving faith in Jesus. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” -Galatians 2:16
They somehow equate baptism with works of the law. Nevertheless, they do not give one reference in the Bible that equates baptism with the works of the law. This quotation is therefore irrelevant. Works of the Law is another issue, but that is dealing with two things: People who rely on achieving salvation on their own power, circumcision and Old Testament rituals. Paul nowhere alludes to baptism as being of the works of the law. These were the Judaizers who sought to impose the Works of the Law. A good file on Works of the Law is Can be found by clicking here.
They also write that it couldn’t be baptism because it had to be faith. However, it is not faith or baptism, it is faith AND baptism. Remember, in this very chapter Paul writes Galatians 3:26-27. “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST HAVE PUT ON CHRIST.” So in order to put on Christ, one must have faith and baptism. So in other places when Paul talks about putting on Christ and the new self, the background to these verses is baptism (Col. 3:10, Eph. 4:24).
Baptism is seen unanimously by the Church Fathers as the normative necessary means of salvation. The Fathers all read the verses exactly as stated. When they read baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21), that it washes away sins (Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11), and causes the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), they all took it for what it said. There was not one isolated voice for 1500 years that taught against baptismal regeneration. The first person who taught against it was John Calvin and the Ana-Baptists. Why people who claim to follow scripture reject the plain meaning of scripture is because they have decided to follow a man-made tradition, against, Jesus, against Peter, and against Paul.
In sum, the Bible says that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21). They say that baptism does not save. The Bible says that baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16). They say that baptism does not wash away sins. The Bible says that one must be born of water and spirit (John 3:3-5). They say that water is not necessary. The Bible says that baptism causes the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). They say that baptism does not cause the remission of sins. The Bible says that baptism makes us sons of God (Gal. 3:26-27). They say that baptism does not make us sons. The Bible says that baptism makes one put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). They say that baptism does not make us put on Christ. The Bible says by baptism one puts off the body of sins (Col. 2:12-13, Rom. 6:3-4). They say that baptism does not put off the body of sins.
Who really believes in the Bible?
Thus the Catechism is proved to be true again.
There are many other allusions to the salvific power of baptism as well that I did not refer to as well (Mt. 28:19, Mk 1:4-8; Mt. 3:13-17; Jn 1:26-34; 1 Cor. 10:1-4; Eph 4:4-6; Eph 5:25-27;, and others). A good reference for further study of the verses mentioned is found in the book “Crossing the Tiber, Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church,” Ignatius Press, by Stephen Ray, an Evangelical who found the fullness of truth in the Catholic Faith. It can be purchased via Amazon Press at this url Ignatius Press also has a description of the book here and it can also be purchased by calling (800) 651-1531.
There was a critique of this article. Click here to see my response to this critique.
To all Visitors, Grace of Christ to You
Page created by: Matt1618. Send email with questions on this article to Matt matt16182@yahoo.com
Return to Matt’s Catholic Apologetics Page
Return to Matt’s Baptism Page
says it better than i can.
Read later, after I can control the LOL! of what I’ve seen so far..
if you to choose to laugh at Biblical, historical and orthodox Christian doctrine, that’s up to you.
my prayer is that some will actually read the article and find out what Christians have believed for 2,000 years, maybe for the first time.
Actually I am lol! at the statement that once again the Catechism has been proven correct. My prayer is that some will read their Bible and come out of the RCC.
The passages I gave speak for themselves. If someone wants to claim the Baptism of the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist, that is their problem - or yours.
There is indeed only one baptism that counts.
2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? - Gal 3
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
Gal 4:29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit
Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
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.