Posted on 06/23/2005 9:06:58 AM PDT by murphE
New York's massive Roman Catholic population will sit out this weekend's Billy Graham crusade in Queens because its parishes are too busy, spokesmen for the two closest dioceses say.
The 413 parishes in the Archdiocese of New York, representing 2.5 million Catholics, are too involved with school graduations, confirmations and the Vatican's emphasis on the Eucharist during 2005, spokesman Joseph Zwilling said yesterday.
The Graham crusade "asked if it would be possible for our churches to invite their people to come," he said, but "given everything happening in our parishes, especially it being the Year of the Eucharist, we didn't feel it'd be possible to ask our parishes to take on any additional activities."
Across the East River in the Diocese of Brooklyn, which lists 1.8 million Catholics, church leaders have also declined involvement, although the crusade will take place there in Flushing Meadows' Corona Park. Spokesman Frank DeRosa cited Year of the Eucharist preparations as a key reason.
Thus, none of that diocese's 217 parishes is among the 1,300 sponsoring congregations for the crusade, which is expected to draw up to 70,000 people a night for what's been billed as the evangelist's last American crusade. Neither are Catholics officially among the 15,000 volunteers amassed for the event.
The Rev. A.R. Bernard, crusade chairman, professed some puzzlement over the archdiocese's reasoning, noting Catholic involvement in other crusades.
"Those who were touched by the Catholic charismatic renewal will be there," he predicted. "You cannot judge by the leadership's protests because the lay people will come anyway."
Catholics are still welcome to attend, but the lack of official involvement amazed Graham biographer Bill Martin, who characterized the archdiocese's reasoning as a "change in policy" from Mr. Graham's 1991 Central Park crusade. Back then, he said, 630 Catholic churches cooperated with the crusade and information on the meetings was handed out at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
That 1991 stance had been a huge shift from Mr. Graham's first New York crusade in 1957, he said, when Catholics boycotted the event and Catholic clergy were instructed on how to counter Mr. Graham's preaching.
"So maybe something's come down from above saying not to be involved in this," Mr. Martin added.
Mr. Zwilling said he didn't remember any such cooperation from churches back then, but Catholic clergy in 1991 did receive names of Catholics who answered Mr. Graham's altar calls at the Central Park event.
In a column to be released Saturday in the diocesan newspaper the Tablet, Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio outlined the significant divide over how Catholics and Protestants understand salvation.
The bishop said he welcomed Mr. Graham into the area and promised to follow up on any names given to them by crusade organizers.
To forestall objections of "sheep stealing," crusade policy is that all Catholics attending the event who sign a card signifying a desire for salvation are referred to the diocese.
Another Graham biographer, David Aikman, said Mr. Graham had a "good relationship" with many Catholic prelates, such as the late Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing, who in 1964 praised the evangelist's talent for converting non-Christians, adding, "I only wish we had half a dozen men of his caliber to go forth and do likewise."
In 1997, Mr. Graham told New Man magazine, an evangelical publication, that "through the years I have made many friends within the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, when we hold a crusade in a city now, nearly all the Roman Catholic churches support it.
"And when we went to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, for the crusade [last year], we saw St. Paul, which is largely Catholic, and Minneapolis, which is largely Lutheran, both supporting the crusade. That wouldn't have happened 25 years ago."
My personal feeling is that God has different purposes for different people. This is my own opinion, no one else's, but maybe it was the elder Graham's purpose to establish the movement which helped Christians to have the foundation to fight the battles of gay marriage and such. Maybe that is Franklin's purpose. Billy Graham not specifically addressing certain things does not make me respect him any less. He avoided the pitfalls of later mentees and serves as a shining example of a good Christian. Others will carry on his work and extend God's purposes.
I have strived to learn my own purpose God has for me in my own life. Every day I learn a little more and strive to do the best I can so that I can return to live with him.
"Mr. Graham should be respected for the movement he helped create and for the good person he was. I am thankful we were lucky to have such a great man in our modern times. "
Again, no question that he is to be respected. I am, however, disappointed that he shunned the battle for the soul of America, the culture wars. A person like Mr. Graham has the attention and respect of many Christians; he could have done much had he weighed in on the subjects of abortion or gay marriage. Why he chose to shy away from such important battles is beyond me. His son, Franklin, seems to be more willing to engage in these types of fights.
My personal feeling is that God has different purposes for different people. This is my own opinion, no one else's, but maybe it was the elder Graham's purpose to establish the movement which helped Christians to have the foundation to fight the battles of gay marriage and such. Maybe that is Franklin's purpose. Billy Graham not specifically addressing certain things does not make me respect him any less. He avoided the pitfalls of later mentees and serves as a shining example of a good Christian. Others will carry on his work and extend God's purposes.
I have strived to learn my own purpose God has for me in my own life. Every day I learn a little more and strive to do the best I can so that I can return to live with him.
Sorry, Simon Peter is the common name we know him as, and Jesus never renamed him, where in the world did you ever get that?
Why from the Bible. Aside from God giving new names to his servants throughout the Bible. (eg. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel) It's plainly stated in the Gospel of John if you didn't believe what was stated in Matthew:
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter. (John 1:42
Read my previous post, you seem to make the common mistake of using Doctrine to interpretet the Bible instead of letting the Bible determine doctrine.
No. It's not a common mistake to let the Church interpret what the Scriptures mean. The Canon itself was determined by the Church. The common mistake is letting believing the Scriptures (which are inert) perform an action (determine). The Scriptures are a testimony, they are not active. They simply are. The Church fills that role of the determining body.
And as for the rest you posted, again, go back and read my last post before this one, I show what the Bible actually teaches on this, and how Peter is NOWHERE given any supremecy over anyone in the Bible, only in RCC doctrine.
You are bringing your prejudices against the one, true Church into your interpretations. Your doctrine follows your interpretation. As far as your previous post goes: I've seen numerous citations by Protestants that deny one or another aspect of Jesus' reality. Some deny the Trinity or his humanity and they all use various citations out of context and don't seek to harmonize them in any way with citations which are contradictory if taken with subject. Simply put. Any interpretation of Scriptures that goes against what the Catholic Church teaches is an incorrect reading of Scripture.
Peter is NOWHERE given any supremecy over anyone in the Bible, only in RCC doctrine.
Yes he is. You didn't address the fact that he is given the Keys of the Kingdom. And told "Feed my lambs, Feed my sheep"
Perhaps I'm missing something. Where does the Bible deny that about baptism? Problem for you is that pretty much every verse about baptism affirms exactly what the CCC says there.
3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3)
What's "water", here?
2 God forbid! For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein? 3 Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death? 4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer. 7 For he that is dead is justified from sin. (Rom. 6)
Paul explains that we are justified by baptism.
26 For you are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. (Gal. 3)
Note that Paul sees no contradiction at all between justification by faith and v. 27. What do you suppose it means to be clothed by Christ?
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: 26 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: (Eph. 5)
Certainly looks like reference to baptism, there.
Scripture would seem to disagree ... "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations: And in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14). "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20).
What I posted was honest quotes from the Bible, and I used the common teaching of reading comprehension taught to school children across the U.S.
What exactly do you suppose the keys to the kingdom of heaven are? Do you want to make them of no account? "These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth:" (Rev. 3:7). "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open." (Isaiah 22:20-22). I suppose it is obvious to you that these are the same key. If St. Peter, then, was given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, then he was given the chief rule over the Church, as vicar of "he that hath the key of David", just as Eliacim was given chief rule over Judah.
then I will ignore everything else after you told me that.
Have a nice day.
Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone.
Jesus Christ is not a sinful human
12 Apostles making the foundation, not one named Peter
You only helped me on this...
Does Water Baptism Save?
A Biblical Refutation of Baptismal Regeneration
Introduction:
The following was written to some friends in the Church of Christ (a church that believes that water baptism is necessary for salvation):
Dear Friends,
I wanted to write to you concerning some of the things we talked about, especially concerning salvation and baptism. I’m sure that you would agree that there is no more important subject than that of God’s salvation and how a person can obtain this salvation. Our eternal salvation hinges upon whether or not we understand what God has revealed about the terms of salvation. Long ago the question was asked by a man who was in desperate need: “WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?” (Acts 16:30). How we need to see what God’s answer is to that all-important question! The issues at stake are nothing less than life and death, heaven and hell.
I greatly appreciate the desire of you both to follow what the Bible says and what the New Testament teaches, rather than to follow traditionalism and modern day teachings which in most cases have departed from the true teachings found in God’s Word. This is my desire as well. There is a great departure from the faith in these days, and our only hope is to go back to the Bible, which is the very Word of God.
I’m going to share several things from the Bible, and I hope that you will give this letter careful thought and that you might search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things be so (compare Acts 17:11). I’m not asking you to take me at my word. I simply want you to take God at His Word and receive whatever He has said as absolute truth. The only question we must ask is this: “What saith the Scriptures?” (Romans 4:3).
Let us now go to the Scriptures to see what the Bible teaches about salvation, about what a person must do to be saved and about the relationship between salvation and water baptism.
1. The Bible teaches that to be saved a person must “BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.”
In Acts 16:30 the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas this crucial question: “What must I do to be saved?” What answer did these men give to this needy jailer? Did they say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized and thou shalt be saved”? If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why is nothing said about baptism in Acts 16:31? It’s true that this man was baptized (verse 33), and yet this does not change the fact that Acts 16:31 says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” If water baptism was a condition of salvation, then this would have been the perfect place for Paul to have said so.
2. The Bible teaches throughout the New Testament that FAITH and FAITH ALONE is necessary for salvation.
I would urge you to read carefully and prayerfully the following verses of Scripture:
John 1:12-13
John 3:15
John 3:16
John 3:18
John 3:36
John 5:24
John 6:35
John 6:40
John 6:47
John 7:38-39
John 11:25-26
John 20:31
Acts 2:21
Acts 10:43
Acts 11:17
Acts 13:38-39
Acts 15:11
Acts 16:31
Acts 20:21
Romans 1:16
Romans 3:22
Romans 3:26
Romans 3:28
Romans 3:30
Romans 5:1
Romans 10:9
Romans 10:11
Romans 10:13
1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 3:2-9
Galatians 3:14
Galatians 3:24
Galatians 3:26
Ephesians 2:8-9
2 Thessalonians 2:10
2 Thessalonians 2:12
1 Timothy 4:10
2 Timothy 3:15
Titus 3:8
1 John 5:1
1 John 5:11-13
In all of these passages FAITH is mentioned as being essential for salvation. In none of these passages is water baptism mentioned. If baptism is a necessary part or an essential part of salvation, then why is nothing said about baptism in these passages? If a man must be baptized to be saved, then why do all these verses fail to say so? For example, in Acts 10:43 why didn’t Peter say, “whosoever believeth in Him and is baptized shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins”?
3. EPHESIANS 2:8-9 is a passage which God has given to answer this key question: HOW IS A PERSON SAVED? This important doctrinal verse says nothing about water baptism.
How is a person saved? “For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” Why is there no mention made of baptism? Why didn’t Paul say, “For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH AND BAPTISM . . .”?
4. Water baptism is a WORK (something that man does to please God), and yet the Bible teaches again and again that a person is not saved by works.
Here are some examples:
Titus 3:5—“Not by WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS which WE HAVE DONE, but according to His mercy He saved us.”
2 Timothy 1:9—“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS.”
Ephesians 2:8-9—“For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.”
Romans 3:28—“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW.”
Romans 4:5—“But to him that WORKETH NOT, but BELIEVETH on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
In other words, salvation is not DOING something; it is KNOWING someone (John 17:3). Salvation is not based on what we might do; it is based on what Christ has ALREADY DONE (John 19:30). Salvation is not TRYING; it is TRUSTING (John 6:47). If salvation could be earned by anything we do, then Christ’s death was a waste (Galatians 2:21). Salvation is not WORKING; it is RESTING on the WORK of Another (Romans 4:5). Good works are not what a man DOES in order to be SAVED; good works are what a SAVED MAN DOES (Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-8). God’s holiness utterly condemns the best man (Romans 3:10-23); God’s grace freely justifies the worst (1 Timothy 1:15)!
5. The key question is this: When is a person saved? Is a person saved at the moment he believes on the Lord Jesus Christ or is a person saved the moment he is baptized in water? Is a person saved when he believes or is he saved when he is baptized in water (at a time subsequent to initial faith)?
If a person is saved at the point of faith, then this means that faith alone is necessary for salvation and that water baptism is something that is done after a person is saved. This would also mean that the requirement for salvation is simple faith in Christ. It is not faith plus baptism. The salvation formula would be this:
FAITH + NOTHING = SALVATION
If a person is saved at the point of water baptism, then this means that faith in Christ is not enough for salvation. This means that faith in Christ is part of the requirement but it is not the total requirement. To be saved a person must not only believe in Christ but he must also be baptized in water. The requirement for salvation is faith plus water baptism. This would also mean that it is possible for a person to be a believer in Christ and yet still be unsaved until he is baptized. The person’s sins are not washed away until the water baptism takes place. The salvation formula would thus be as follows:
FAITH + WATER BAPTISM = SALVATION
Let us now go to the Scriptures to determine whether a person is saved at the point of faith or at the point of water baptism.
A) Acts 16:31—“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (this statement was made in answer to the question of verse 30, “What must I do to be saved?”). This is a conditional promise. God promises to do something if the sinner does something. If the sinner does his part, God will do His part. So the meaning of Acts 16:31 is this: “If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you shall be saved.” Notice that nothing is said about water baptism being a requirement for salvation. The clear implication is that if a person believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, he will be saved. Ephesians 2:8-9 is a key passage which tells us how a person is saved: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). Water baptism is not mentioned. Salvation takes place at the point of faith. The gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to all who believe” (Romans 1:16), clearly implying that all who believe are saved.
B) 1 Corinthians 1:21—“It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” God saves those who believe! God would never fail to save someone who believes.
C) Luke 8:12—“Then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.” The devil knows God’s simple plan of salvation! He does not want people to BELIEVE AND BE SAVED! To foil the devil, the sinner simply needs to believe. If he does that, he will be saved! The devil’s strategy has always been to add certain requirements in order for man to somehow work for and earn God’s salvation. Here’s a simple test to prove this: Ask any member of a religious cult this simple question: “What must I do to be saved?” and then compare his answer with Paul’s answer found in Acts 16:31. You will find that the two answers are not the same! The cultist will invariably add at least one additional requirement.
D) Hebrews 7:25—“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.” He saves all those who come to Him through Jesus Christ. In John 6:35 we learn that COMING TO GOD is synonymous with BELIEVING ON HIM. Thus, God saves to the uttermost all who believe (compare also John 6:37).
E) John 3:16; John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:47; John 11:25-26 and other passages clearly teach that those who believe on Christ HAVE eternal LIFE as a present possession (compare also 1 John 5:12). If a person has eternal life the moment he believes on Christ, then this person is saved. It’s unthinkable to speak of a person who has eternal life and yet who is unsaved! All those who receive Jesus Christ by faith have received God’s free gift of eternal life (Romans 6:23), and this free gift becomes theirs at the moment of faith, not at the moment of water baptism.
F) Acts 10:43—“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins.” If a person believes on Christ and does not receive forgiveness of sins, then God is a liar! There is no such thing as a true believer whose sins are not forgiven. Those who refuse to believe on Christ will die in their sins (John 8:24), but those who believe in Him will not. Complete forgiveness of all my sins becomes a reality the moment I believe on Christ, not the moment I am baptized in water. If your sins have not been forgiven prior to being baptized in water, then you should not be baptized (because this would mean you are an unbeliever and hence unsaved).
G) “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39). All who believe are forgiven and justified from all things! In verse after verse we learn that FAITH is the one condition, the one requirement for salvation and for forgiveness. If you can find a true believer who is not justified from all things, then God would be a liar. God forbid!
H) Romans 4:3 and 4:5. In Romans 4 we learn how Abraham was saved. Keep in mind that Abraham lived prior to the time of water baptism. In verse 3 we learn that “Abraham believed God and it was counted (imputed) unto him for righteousness.” At the moment Abraham believed, God’s righteousness was put to his account. At the moment of faith Abraham was justified. As we come to verse 5 we find that the very same thing happens to a person living today: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). If justification takes place at the point of water baptism, then Paul could have clarified this. He could have said something like this: “Even though Abraham received God’s righteousness at the moment he believed, things are different in our day. Today a person does not receive God’s righteousness when he first believes, but he is justified only when he is baptized in water. There is no salvation, no justification, no forgiveness until the believing sinner takes this initial step of obedience and submits to water baptism.” But Paul says nothing of the sort. Paul consistently taught that those who believe are blessed just as Abraham was (Galatians 3:9). God’s Word teaches that “the righteousness of God . . . is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe” (Rom. 3:22).” No believer lacks God’s righteousness. Every believer has been justified.
I) In John 1:12-13 we learn that a person is born of God (is regenerated) and becomes a child of God when he receives Jesus Christ and believes on His Name. “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 (regenerated), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). Nothing is here said about baptismal regeneration. It does not say that water brings about this new birth, but it does say that these wonderful things happen when a person believes on Him.
J) How does a person become adopted by the Father and entitled to all the privileges and benefits of being God’s son? “For ye are all the children [literally “sons”] of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26). Once again we see that simple faith in Christ is the key.
K) How is a person purified and made fit for God’s kingdom? “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). Notice that is does not say that their hearts were purified by faith and water baptism. Keep in mind that some people claim to believe in Christ when they really don’t believe in Him at all. They profess Him but they don’t actually possess Him (1 John 5:12). Some of these false professors (mere pretenders) are even baptized in water, but this does nothing to purify their hearts. Only true faith in Jesus Christ can do this. The person must have his heart purified by faith before he or she ever gets into the water, or else water baptism is nothing but a meaningless ritual.
L) We have already seen that people are saved by faith and forgiven by faith and justified by faith and regenerated by faith, and in Acts 26:18 we learn that people are also SANCTIFIED (set apart unto God) by faith—“To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me” (Acts 26:18). In 1 Corinthians 6:11 we learn of those who are washed, justified and sanctified, and all of these blessings are conditioned on simple faith in Christ. It is impossible to find a true believer in Christ who is un-washed, un-justified and un-sanctified. Such a thought would be Biblically absurd! But according to those who believe in baptismal regeneration, there is a period of time, albeit short, where a person is a believer in Christ and yet is not yet saved and not yet forgiven and not yet cleansed. In their view, this would be the time between when the person believed in Christ and when the person was baptized in water. Remember, no one is baptized immediately after putting faith in Christ. Some amount of time elapses between the two events, whether it be very short or long.
Thought question: What happens if the person dies after he believes in Christ but before he is baptized in water? If this person is safe with God and among the redeemed, then it is very clear that it was not the water baptism that saved him. [The thief on the cross is often used as an example of this. Here was a man who trusted Jesus Christ and had no opportunity to be baptized in water (even though we recognize that Christian baptism did not begin historically until the Day of Pentecost, about 53 days later). If any additional requirements for salvation had been laid on this man, apart from simple faith in Christ, he would have been in trouble].
M) The New Testament consistently teaches that a person receives the Spirit by faith. Those who believe in Christ receive the Spirit (according to John 7:37-39). In Galatians chapter 3 we learn that we receive the Spirit, not by any kind of works, but by faith (Gal. 3:2,14). In Romans 8:9 we learn that if a person does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is “none of His” (meaning he is not a Christian, he does not belong to Christ). This implies that all those who have the Spirit belong to Him and are Christians. Indeed a Christian can be defined as one who has received the Spirit by faith. If a person is not indwelt by the Spirit, then this person is not a Christian and is not saved. Since every believer is indwelt by the Spirit and since everyone indwelt by the Spirit is saved, then this strongly points to the fact that a person is saved at the moment of faith. Nowhere in the New Testament does it teach that the reception of the Spirit is contingent upon being baptized in water. We also learn in Ephesians 1:13 that a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit when he believes in Christ [the KJV of this verse can lead to confusion; Darby’s translation: “in whom also, having believed, ye have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise”]. You can’t be securely saved unless you are sealed, and this sealing takes place at the moment of faith, not at the moment a person is baptized in water.
N) Salvation is the work of God from beginning to end, as summarized by 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Faith is mentioned in this passage (“belief of the truth”) but there is no mention of water baptism.
O) In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Paul sets forth the content of the gospel. He tells us what the gospel really is. He mentions Christ’s death for our sins (v.3) and Christ’s resurrection (v.4) and the necessity of genuine faith (v.1-2), but he says absolutely nothing about water baptism. If water baptism were an essential requirement for salvation, then how could Paul have omitted this from his explanation of the gospel? Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 Paul was thankful that he did not personally baptize the Corinthians, except for a few people. He then made this remarkable statement—“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1:17 and compare 1 Cor. 1:21). How could Paul say such a thing if water baptism were essential for salvation? The clear implication here is that water baptism, though clearly practiced by the apostles, was not part and parcel of the gospel message. But if water baptism were essential for salvation, then we would expect it to be at the very heart of the gospel message. But water baptism is not something that a person does to be saved; it is something that a saved person does. This is a crucial distinction. [See also 1 Corinthians 4:15. The Corinthians owed their regeneration to Paul, the human instrument, and to the gospel (Eph. 1:13) but not to water baptism. Paul did not say, "I have begotten you through the gospel and through water baptism."]
P) In the early church there were legalistic false teachers who were saying, “Except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). This teaching was strongly condemned by the apostles and the Jerusalem council. Today there are those who teach this: “Except ye be baptized in water, ye cannot be saved.” Should this teaching be likewise condemned?
Q) Conclusion to this section: In the book of Acts we have frequent examples of water baptism. As we study the book of Acts we learn that the order was always this: 1) First, the person heard the gospel and believed on Christ; 2) Then, the person was baptized. According to the Bible, a person is saved when he believes on Christ (Acts 16:31; 1 Cor. 1:21), and therefore those who were baptized in the book of Acts were already saved before they entered the water.
We just studied numerous passages of Scripture showing that a person is saved and justified and forgiven and sanctified and purified and regenerated and sealed and indwelt the moment he believes on Christ. We also looked at numerous salvation verses under Section 2 of this study. All of these verses declare that a person is saved the moment he believes on Christ. The Lord Jesus Himself said, “He that believeth on Me HATH (HAS) everlasting life” (John 6:47). If a person confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes in his heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, that person is SAVED (Romans 10:9). If he is not saved, then God is a liar. God saves those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21). Saved people have their sins forgiven and forgiveness is something that a person receives the moment he believes (Acts 10:43). Therefore, baptism is not something that a person does to be saved; baptism is something that a saved person does. It is something that a believing person does after he is saved and after he is forgiven. An unsaved person should never be baptized. There is no such thing as an UNSAVED BELIEVER. The Bible knows of only two groups of people: BELIEVERS (those who are saved) and UNBELIEVERS (those who are not saved). See John 3:18; 3:36; 1 John 5:12. Only saved believers should be baptized in water, in obedience to Christ’s command. [Note: A "saved believer" is a redundancy but we use it here to over-emphasize our point].
6. Is water baptism essential? The answer is both NO and YES. It is not essential for salvation, as we have already studied. God’s single requirement for salvation is FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ. “Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling!” On the other hand, water baptism is essential for OBEDIENCE once a person is saved. How can we not obey the Lord who died to save us? Water baptism is one of the first things that God tells a believer to do after he is saved. It is Lesson Number 1 in God’s School of Obedience. It is something that God has commanded that his believers should do (Acts 10:48; Acts 2:38; Matthew 28:19-20). We should gladly obey our Lord and not be ashamed to publicly identify ourselves with Jesus Christ our Saviour and with other believers who love and honor Him.
7. If a person is not baptized in water, is he saved? This question needs to be answered carefully. There are different reasons why a person may not be baptized. He may be a new believer and perhaps no one has taught him the importance and the significance of water baptism. Remember, Philip had to teach the Ethiopian Eunuch about baptism (Acts 8). There may also be unusual circumstances which would make water baptism very difficult. For example, a man could come to know Christ on his hospital death-bed, and be physically unable to be baptized in water. God certainly understands the circumstances.
I knew a Pastor who was sound in the faith in almost every area. He had a heart for the lost and was an excellent Bible teacher. But he had a doctrinal quirk. For some strange reason he believed that water baptism was not for today (even though he was not ultradispensational) and thus he never baptized those who got saved. This man led many precious souls to a saving knowledge of Christ and I have no doubt that they were genuinely saved. Had they been correctly taught about baptism, I’m sure they would have submitted to the ordinance. This pastor will have to give an account to Christ for his incorrect teaching concerning water baptism, but we can thank God that he preached Christ and many were saved through this man’s ministry (compare Philippians 1:18).
What about the person who is correctly taught about baptism, knows that he should be baptized, understands its significance and yet refuses to obey Christ in this area? Would not this indicate a major spiritual problem? Our Lord asked this searching question: “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Obedience is the fruit of saving faith. We are not saved because we obey, but we obey because we are saved. As blood bought believers, it is sadly true that there are times when we fail to obey our Lord and Master and we need to confess this sin of disobedience (1 John 1:9). But the general pattern of our new life in Christ should be one of obedience. It was said of the original disciples that “they kept His Word” (John 17:6) even though we know that they did not always keep His Word (think of Peter’s denial, as an obvious example). If you took a snapshot of Peter denying Christ, you would have a picture of his terrible sin and disobedience. But if you watched a video of his entire life as a believer, it would show a general pattern of obedience and faithful service to Christ. In spite of times of failure, the overall pattern of a saved person’s life should be one of obedience. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3-4). If a person knows and understands the importance and significance of water baptism and refuses to obey Christ’s command in this regard, then it would not be wrong of us to seriously question this person’s salvation.
8. Passages That Seem to Teach that Water Baptism Saves
We have examined the mass of Biblical evidence which clearly teaches that a person is saved at the moment of faith, and not at the moment of water baptism. The verses we looked at were simple and clear and unmistakable in their meaning. How can it be put any more simply or any more clearly than this: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31); “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47); etc. ?
We now want to look at a few verses which at first glance may seem to teach that water baptism saves. Do these verses really teach baptismal regeneration or do these verses actually harmonize with the scores of passages which we have already looked at?
Mark 16:16
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).
In light of this verse consider the following groups of people:
1) Those people who have believed on Christ and who have been baptized in water. According to Mark 16:16, these people are saved.
2) Those people who have believed on Christ but who have not been baptized in water. Nothing is said about this group of people in Mark 16:16. If this verse had said, “He that believeth and is not baptized is not saved,” then this would be a strong argument for those holding to baptismal regeneration. But it doesn’t say this. Actually unbaptized believers were practically unheard of in the days of the early church. According to the book of Acts, when people believed on Christ they were baptized in water, and this usually took place without much delay. So it is not surprising that this verse in Mark has nothing to say about unbaptized believers. The believers of the first century were willing to go so far as to die for Christ, and they were certainly willing to be baptized. I can find no example in the book of Acts of true believers who refused to be baptized in water after they learned its importance and its symbolism.
3) Those people who have not believed in Christ and who have not been baptized. According to Mark 16:16 such people are damned (condemned, judged).
4) Those people who have not believed in Christ and yet have been baptized. These people will be damned also. Mark 16:16 clearly implies that all unbelievers will be damned whether they have been baptized or not. This is in harmony with John 3:18 and 2 Thessalonians 2:12 and other passages which teach that men are condemned because of their unbelief. In Acts 8:9-24 we have an example of an unbeliever who was baptized. He is known as Simon the Sorcerer. Even though it says he believed (v.13), verses 20-23 indicate that his faith was not genuine saving faith. He was a professing believer but not a true believer. Does water baptism save? One thing we know for sure! Water baptism has never saved an unbeliever. Those who do not believe will die in their sins (John 8:24).
One final word about Mark 16:16. It is absolutely true that the person who believes and is baptized shall be saved. This is true in my own life. I believed in Christ and I was baptized in water, and I am saved. But the Scriptures teach, as we have previously established, that the essential ingredient and requirement of salvation is not baptism, but faith. Faith is essential for salvation. Water baptism is essential for obedience because as a believer I must be careful to observe to do all things whatsoever Christ has commanded me (Matthew 28:19-20), and water baptism is one of the first things He has told me to do. However, the water did not save me, Christ did (Matthew 1:21)!
John 3:5
“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” (John 3:5).
This passage is talking about how a person is born again or how a person is regenerated. Those who believe in baptismal regeneration believe that the “water” mentioned in this verse refers to water baptism. But is this really the case?
First, we should remember that when Jesus said these words, Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. Christian baptism was first mentioned by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20 and it was not practiced until Acts chapter 2 (the day of Pentecost, see especially verse 41). That there was a clear difference between the baptism of John and Christian baptism is obvious from Acts 19:1-7 (compare also Acts 18:25). So Jesus in John 3:5 could not have been referring to Christian baptism because such did not exist at that time.
If He was not referring to baptism, then what was our Lord referring to when He taught that a person must be “born of water”? The main point that Jesus was making is this: You cannot enter God’s kingdom unless you are CLEAN. Filthy disciples (those who are unclean, unforgiven, uncleansed) will not be allowed to enter. Our Lord was not talking about physical water which can only cleanse a person on the outside. In John 3:5 Jesus was talking about SPIRITUAL CLEANSING (something that must happen on the inside of a person). To be clean on the outside a person must take a bath and use soap and water! To be clean on the inside there is another kind of bath that is needed. Soap and water can never remove the filth of sin! God must do something on the inside of a person. Let us now see what the Bible says about being born of water and of the Spirit.
John 3:3 says that if a person is going to see the kingdom he must be born again. John 3:5 says that if a person is going to enter the kingdom he must be born of water and of the Spirit. Therefore, being born again means the same thing as being born of water and of the Spirit. If a person has been born again, then this person has been born of water and of the Spirit.
[Note: Some think that “water” refers to our natural birth when we were born as a baby and “Spirit” refers to our spiritual birth when we are born again. But this view does not fit the context. Since every person has been born physically, it would be stating the obvious to say that to enter the kingdom a person must be born of water. This would be like saying, A person cannot enter the kingdom unless he is a person.]
Water is the one thing we use whenever we wash something. Water is the universal cleansing agent. If you wash your car, water is used. If you wash your face, water is used. To make your clothes bright and clean, you use water. To make your teeth clean, you not only use toothpaste, but water as well. Whatever we wash, water is somehow involved. It is easy to see how WATER can be symbolic of CLEANSING (making something clean)!
Sinners need to be washed and made clean. Jesus wanted Nicodemus to know something very important: No unclean person can enter God's kingdom! Paul says it this way: “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Ephesians 5:5 and see also Galatians 5:21 and Revelation 21:27). To enter the kingdom a person must be CLEAN and WASHED on the inside (sins forgiven!). No unwashed people will be admitted! No unclean person will enter the kingdom of God. Only cleansed sinners will be allowed! Compare Psalm 24:3-4. You must be born of water! You must be washed!
Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Will any unclean or unrighteous people inherit the kingdom? Will washed sinners enter the kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:11)? There is hope for the filthy, but only if they get washed, and this washing does not refer to water baptism. It refers to an inner work that only God can do. In verse 11 we have the two ingredients of John 3:5 mentioned: the WATER (“washed”) and the SPIRIT (“by the Spirit of our God”).
Whenever you think of John 3:5 you should also think of Titus 3:5. The latter explains the former. Both of these verses are found in chapter 3 verse 5, so they are easy to remember! Both of these verses talk about being BORN AGAIN (the word "REGENERATION" in Titus 3:5 means "born again"). Both of these verses talk about the WATER and the SPIRIT. Look at 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 (the WATER) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (the SPIRIT)." The born again person is the person who has been thoroughly cleansed and renewed by the Spirit of God!
All of these verses are talking about that wonderful work which God does on the inside of a person, making it possible for him to enter God's kingdom!
Notice the water in John 13:5. Jesus was using this water to be a symbolic picture of an important spiritual truth. Was Peter a "washed" disciple? Was Peter CLEAN on the inside (see John 13:9-10)? Who was the disciple who was never born of water? Judas was the disciple who was unwashed and unclean and who had never been born again (John 13:10-11 and compare John 13:2)? This man would never enter the kingdom.
The WATER is also mentioned in Ephesians 5:25-26: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:25-26). How is a person washed? BY THE WORD! The WORD OF GOD is an essential part of the cleansing process. The WORD OF GOD is the mirror that shows us how dirty we really are (because of sin). Not only does the Bible show us our sin, but it also points out the only Saviour and His many promises to save those who truly believe on Him. Without the Word of God a person could never be saved and could never be born again. The following verses show how important God's Word is when it comes to salvation and regeneration and cleansing:
1) Psalm 119:9 -"Wherewithal (how) shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.”
2) John 15:3 - "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”
3) 1 Peter 1:23-25 - "Being born again (regeneration!) not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever."
4) James 1:18 - "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth." “Begat” is another term that relates to regeneration.
God's Word does two things: 1) It shows man how great a sinner he is (Romans 3:10-23) and 2) It show man how great a Saviour Christ is (Romans 3:24-26)!
Nicodemus was a Jew who should have been familiar with the Old Testament. In John 3:9 we see that Nicodemus still did not understand what Jesus was talking about. In John 3:10 Jesus told Nicodemus that he should have known these things! He should have understood about the WATER and the SPIRIT! He should have been familiar with EZEKIEL 36:25-29. Does this passage talk about the WATER? Does this passage talk about being CLEAN and being CLEANSED? Does this passage talk about the SPIRIT? In this passage God promised to do a wonderful work ON THE INSIDE (see Ezekiel 36:26-27)! See also Jeremiah 4:14 and Isaiah 1:16.
My friend, based on these many passages, if God has not cleansed you on the inside, then you will not enter the kingdom. You must be born again! Water baptism is not the answer. You need to be cleansed before you ever get baptized in water. You need to have your heart purified by faith (Acts 15:9).
Acts 2:38
“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” (Acts 2:38).
This passage has become one of the favorite verses of those who teach baptismal regeneration. In a motel room there was a Gideon Bible and near the front it had a section with John 3:16 written out in many different languages. In this particular Bible someone had crossed out all of the John 3:16 verses and in big letters had written ACTS 2:38. The person who had defaced this Bible was communicating something like this: “You are deceived if you think that John 3:16 presents the true gospel. It doesn’t present the true gospel at all. It’s not enough to believe in Christ. To be saved and to be forgiven a person also needs to be baptized in water. The true gospel is much better presented in ACTS 2:38!”
When it comes to having sins forgiven, what must a person do? The Bible teaches that it is faith and repentance that brings about forgiveness. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have true repentance without having true faith. You can’t have true faith without having true repentance. They go together. The Bible sometimes mentions repentance as the only condition of salvation. One example of this would be Luke 13:3, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” See also Luke 15:7,10 and Acts 17:30. A few times both repentance and faith are mentioned in the same verse (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). There are many, many verses which mention only faith as the condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; Acts 16:31; etc.). When only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other.
What is repentance? The word means “a change of mind.” It means to change your mind about sin, self and the Saviour. It especially has to do with one’s recognition of his true condition before God. One Biblical definition of repentance is found in Job 42:4. Job said, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” According to this verse, to repent is to abhor oneself, to discover how vile we are (see Job 40:4), to discover our utter wretchedness and sinfulness. No one can be saved unless he changes his mind about sin and self and recognizes how sinful he really is in God’s sight.
Harry Ironside explained repentance as follows: ““Repentance is just the sick man’s acknowledgment of his illness. It is simply the sinner recognizing his guilt and confessing his need of deliverance....(repentance) is judging oneself in the presence of God; turning right about-face, turning to God with a sincere, earnest desire to be completely delivered from sin. And when a man takes that attitude toward God and puts his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he finds salvation” (Luke, pp. 253-254).
In another place Ironside said, “Literally [repentance] means ‘a change of mind.’ It actually implies a complete reversal of one’s inward attitude. To repent is to change one’s attitude toward self, toward sin, toward God, toward Christ....So to face these tremendous facts is to change one’s mind completely, so that the pleasure lover sees and confesses the folly of his empty life; the self-indulgent learns to hate the passions that express the corruption of his nature; the self-righteous sees himself a condemned sinner in the eyes of a holy God; the man who has been hiding from God seeks to find a hiding place in Him; the Christ-rejector realizes and owns his need of a Redeemer, and so believes unto life and salvation” (Except Ye Repent, pages 15-16).
True faith requires repentance because to be saved a person must recognize his lost estate and see himself as lost and helpless and vile and wicked and utterly sinful. True repentance requires faith because the man who repents believes what God has said about his true condition (Romans 3:10-23) and he also believes that God has provided a perfect solution in the person of His Son, God’s only Saviour.
Now let us return to our discussion of Acts 2:38. We have already seen that faith (which would include repentance), not baptism, is essential for the forgiveness of sins. This is clearly seen in Peter’s very next sermon, found in Acts 3:19—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Notice that in this verse Peter says nothing about water baptism. If water baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing about this in Acts 3:19? If water baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing about this in Acts 10:43 (“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins”). If water baptism is an essential part of the preaching of salvation, then why does Luke 24:46-47 mention repentance and the remission (forgiveness) of sins but say nothing about water baptism? Even in the days of John the Baptist, it was repentance that was for the remission of sins, not water baptism (see Mark 1:4). John's baptism was an outward demonstration to show publicly that repentance had already taken place.
Forgiveness is received at the point of repentance/faith, not at the point of water baptism. Those who are not forgiven should not be baptized. They are yet in their sins. One simple parenthesis helps us to understand what Acts 2:38 is really saying, “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.”
The real question centers on the meaning of the preposition eis (translated "for" in the KJV). It is possible to show examples where eis can mean "because of" (Matthew 12:41--"at") or "on the basis of" or "with reference to," and all of these are certainly grammatically possible. However, it seems more natural and more probable that in Acts 2:38 this preposition indicates purpose or result. Peter was preaching to unsaved Jews who were guilty of crucifying Christ. They desperately needed the forgiveness of sins (as we all do). Peter was telling them what they must do in order to have forgiveness (see Acts 2:37---"What shall we do?").
The translations seem to support this meaning. The KJV, NASB, Amplified, NEB, RSV all give the rendering "for." The Revised Version has "unto." The NIV has "so that your sins will be forgiven" (although in later editions this was changed to "for"). You can see how a person believing in baptismal regeneration could easily use all of these translations to support his view.
The lexicons seem to support this meaning. Arndt & Gingrich say that the preposition here denotes purpose ("in order to") and they render the phrase: "for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven." Thayer has a similar rendering "to obtain the forgiveness of sins" (his discussion under baptizo). Thus those who believe that a man is saved by water baptism would gladly appeal to these authorities.
Acts 3:19 seems to support this meaning. This is the very next sermon that Peter gives, and again he tells the Jews what they must do to have forgiveness. We would expect that what Peter told the Jews in Acts 3 would be similar to what he told them in Acts 2. In both cases he was preaching to unsaved Jews under similar circumstances. In Acts 3:19 once again the preposition eis is used, and the KJV translates it "so that your sins might be blotted out." Of course, those who teach baptismal regeneration do not make much of this verse because water baptism is not even mentioned.
The grammarians also concede that the preposition may be translated "for the purpose of' or "in order that" (see Dana & Mantey, p. 104). Those such as A.T.Robinson and Julius Mantey who render it “because of” or “on the basis of” do so primarily on the basis of theology, not grammar. They suggest a rare usage for the term in order to make the verse not teach baptismal regeneration. But are we really forced to depart from what seems to be the more natural and more common rendering?
Most commentators, regardless of the view they hold, understand the prepositional phrase ("for the remission of sins") as belonging with the verb "be baptized." It is possible, however, that the phrase is actually part of a chiasmus (inverted parallelism) and should be connected not with the command "Be baptized" but with the command "Repent." The verse contains two commands and two prepositional phrases which can be represented by the following chiasmus:
A Repent
B Be Baptized
B In the Name of Jesus Christ
A For the remission of sins
In English we would best represent this structure by using a parenthesis: "Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins." This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches (only Peter there omits the parenthesis). In Acts 3:19 Peter could have said, "Repent (and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ) so that your sins may be blotted out!"
Indeed, the Bible consistently connects "repentance" with "the forgiveness of sins" (see Luke 24:47 where Peter received his commission; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 5:31). On the day of Pentecost the Jews would have understood this because the only baptism that they knew about was the baptism of John which was a baptism of repentance UNTO (eis) the remission of sins.
The strengths of the view which sees "for the remission of sins" as part of a chiasmus are as follows: 1) it is theologically sound and avoids the error of making water baptism a condition for forgiveness; 2) it harmonizes with the other passages which speak about repentance and the forgiveness of sins; 3) it understands the preposition eis in its most natural meaning (though other meanings are possible); 4) it agrees with the parallel passage of Acts 3:19; 5) it best suits the context of Acts 2:38 where Peter is offering forgiveness to Christ-rejecting Jews. Peter was not speaking "with reference to" or "because of" or "on the basis of" a forgiveness which they did not yet have! 6) it employs a figure of speech (chiasmus) that was not uncommon or unusual to the Semitic mind, though in English it may seem somewhat awkward. For a detailed study of Chiasmus, see our study entitled Englishman's Greek.
Stanley D. Toussaint (The Book of Acts in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 359) gives several reasons why the parenthetical view is the correct view:
Several factors support this interpretation: (a) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb "repent" is plural ["repent ye"] and so is the pronoun "your" in the clause, "so that your sins may be forgiven" (lit., "unto the remission of your sins," (eis aphesin ton hamartion humon). Therefore the verb "repent" must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins. On the other hand the imperative "be baptized" is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence. (b) This concept fits with Peter's proclamation in Acts 10:43 in which the same expression "sins may be forgiven" (aphesis harmartion) occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone. (c) In Luke 24:47 and Acts 5:31 the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission of 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” (Acts 22:16).
In this passage Paul is recounting his conversion experience. According to Acts chapter 9, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. It was at this point that Saul was blinded. It was not until three days later that God sent Ananias to Saul, he received his sight and he was baptized in water. The verse given above is what Ananias told Saul to do three days after he had seen the Lord on the road to Damascus.
The key question is similar to our key question under Section 5 (“When is a person saved?”). Here the key question is this: When was Saul (Paul) saved? Was he saved and converted on the road to Damascus or was he saved three days later at the time of his baptism in water?
The following are reasons why we know that Saul was saved and forgiven (sins washed away) before he was ever baptized in water:
1) As a result of meeting the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, Saul confessed with his mouth that Jesus was Lord (see Acts 22:10) and believed in his heart that God raised Him from the dead (compare Romans 10:9). His confession that Christ was Lord (Acts 22:10) was significant because the One who appeared to him had just revealed Himself as “Jesus” (Acts 22:8) the One Saul hated and whose servants he had persecuted. And yet Saul, knowing it was Jesus, immediately called Him LORD! Compare 1 Corinthians 12:3. This involves a drastic change of mind (“repentance”) concerning who Jesus Christ really was.
2) Before he was baptized, Saul was filled with the Spirit (Acts 9:17). Saved people are filled with the Spirit, not unsaved people.
3) Before Saul was baptized, Ananias referred to him as “Brother Saul” (Acts 9:17) indicating that Ananias recognized him as a brother in Christ.
4) There is no record that Ananias preached the gospel to Saul or exhorted him to “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Saul had already done this. He had already been saved.
5) Before he was baptized, Saul called upon the name of the Lord and was saved (compare Romans 10:13). We learn this from Acts 22:16. Charles Ryrie helps us with the Greek construction of this verse:
Verse 16 should be translated literally as follows: “Having arisen (aorist participle), be baptized; and wash away your sins, having called (aorist participle) on the name of the Lord.” (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 112).
Kenneth Wuest, a former Greek teacher, translates the verse as follows: “Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name.” Three days before Saul was baptized, he had called upon the name of the Lord and was gloriously saved (compare Romans 10:13) and inwardly cleansed, all of his sins being forgiven and washed away at the point of faith (Acts 10:43).
What then is the meaning of Acts 22:16? If Saul had already been saved and his sins had already been washed away, then why was he told three days later to “be baptized and wash away your sins”? Because Saul was already cleansed spiritually, these words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. He was to be baptized in token of and as an outward sign of the washing away of his sins which had already taken place. Water baptism is meant to be a wonderful picture of God’s great salvation, including the washing away of sins. When a person is being baptized he is presenting a public testimony to show what happened to him when he was saved. As David Brown has said, “Remission of sins is obtained solely through faith in the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:43) but baptism being the visible seal of this, it is here and elsewhere naturally transferred from the inward act of faith to that which publicly and formally proclaims it” (namely, the symbolic act of water baptism).
When a person is being baptized he is presenting this message: “I am being baptized today in obedience to Christ’s command, to publicly show my identification with the Lord Jesus Christ and to present a picture of the new life that I have in Him. I want you all to know that because of what my Saviour did for me on the cross, I am a new creature in Him and all of my sins have been washed away. I now desire to follow Christ and to walk in newness of life, as He enables me to do so. My salvation depends on Christ’s work alone.”
But how contrary to the gospel it would be if a person were to say something like this: “I am being baptized today because even though I have believed on Christ I am not yet saved. I am still in my sins and my sins will not be washed away until I am baptized in water. So although I now stand before you as a filthy, unforgiven sinner, in just a moment I’m going to come up out of the water saved and forgiven. My salvation depends not only on Christ’s work, but also on my work. My salvation is conditioned, not only on faith, but on my being obedient to water baptism.” This is a perversion of the grace of God (see Romans 11:6).
1 Peter 3:20-21
“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. 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” (1 Peter 3:20-21).
Water baptism does not save a person, but there is a baptism which does. The moment a person believes in Christ he is baptized (immersed) or placed into Christ. “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27). Being baptized or placed into Jesus Christ is not something that man can do but it is something that only God can do for the believing heart. The result of this baptism is that the believer has a brand new position. Having been placed into Jesus Christ he is now “in Christ” (a phrase that is found repeatedly in the New Testament Epistles). “If any man be IN CHRIST, he is a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17). How did we get to be “in Christ”? God, in His grace, placed us into His dear Son the moment we believed on Him.
In the days of Noah, eight people were saved. The rest of the world perished. They were saved because they were in a location which was absolutely safe and secure. They were in the ark. Everyone outside of the ark perished. Today Jesus Christ is our Ark of safety. There is no safer place to be than “in Christ”—“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). Those outside of Christ are in great danger. How did we get into Christ our Ark of safety? We were baptized into Jesus Christ the moment we were saved. God placed us into His Son, and in Him we are safe and secure forever. Water baptism is meant to be a picture of the real baptism (sometimes referred to as spiritual baptism or Spirit baptism) that took place the moment we were saved. Water baptism is meant to be a picture of this new position and new relationship we now have in Christ, having been totally identified with Him, with His Person and His work.
9. Mistakes That Baptismal Regenerationists Often Make
1) They Confuse real baptism with ritual (water baptism) baptism.
They assume that whenever the New Testament speaks of baptism that it means water baptism. However, this is not always the case as discussed above. The following passages refer to REAL BAPTISM (spiritual baptism or Spirit baptism) which happens to a person the moment he is saved. It involves being placed into Christ or into His body:
Matthew 3:11
Acts 1:5
Acts 11:16
Romans 6:3-5 (notice it doesn’t say, “baptized into water”)
1 Corinthians 12:13 (notice it doesn’t say, “baptized into water”)
Galatians 3:27 (notice it doesn’t say, “baptized into water”)
Ephesians 4:5 (water baptism is a picture of this one real spiritual baptism)
Colossians 2:12
Water baptism is a symbolic representation of the real baptism that is described in the above verses, but the picture should not be confused with the real thing.
2) They misunderstand the grace of God by teaching that salvation, at least in part, is something that we must do.
“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 6:28-29).
If salvation is based (at least in part) on what I do, then my salvation can never be secure because I may do something to lose my salvation. If I am responsible to keep myself saved, then I may fall short, lose my salvation and be lost forever. Thus we are not surprised to discover that people in the “Church of Christ” do not believe in eternal security but believe that a person can do certain things to forfeit salvation. It would be very rare to find someone who believes in baptismal regeneration who also believes in eternal security.
3) They err when it comes to faith because they confuse the root with the fruit.
When those who believe in baptismal regeneration are shown the multitude of verses which condition salvation on faith alone, they usually say something like this: “You need to understand what 'believe' really means. True faith involves obedience. This means that believing in Jesus Christ also includes obedience to the Lord’s command to be baptized. If a person really believes, then he will obey.”
We will not deny that obedience to Christ is the fruit of saving faith, but we need to be very careful not to confuse faith with its fruit. Faith results in many things, but it is terribly wrong to then make these things the requirements of salvation. Faith results in love (Galatians 5:6), but we are not saved by love, but by faith. Faith results in good works (Ephesians 2:8-10), but we are not saved by good works, but by faith. Don’t put the cart before the horse.
10. Conclusion.
The conclusion to our paper on Lordship salvation [Saved By Grace Alone] is appropriate at this point also:
My obedience to His Word does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My obedience to water baptism does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My commitment to Jesus Christ does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My surrender to His Lordship does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My love for the Saviour does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My ability to fulfill all the demands of discipleship does not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE. My behavior and my conduct do not save me. CHRIST SAVES ME BY HIS GRACE.
God’s saving grace is to be found in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ WHO ALONE CAN SATISFY GOD’S HOLINESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS and be to the believing heart God’s “so great salvation”! “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12; all verbs are in the present tense).
Have you been justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus? Is your hope based upon what you have done or is your hope based upon Jesus’ blood and righteousness? “I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but WHOLLY LEAN ON JESUS’ NAME!” May we be standing fully on Christ the solid Rock, not upon the sinking sand of our own fragile commitment.
Are the 12 Apostles "sinful men", or not? Is a house dependent upon its foundations, or not?
GP>Wrong. You've got to drink it. He said so.
But first you must accept His Jewish blood sacrifice to cover your sins.
B'shem Y'shua
What in tyhee world does that have to do with the error of claiming that Peter is the ROCK mentioned?
Open up your Bible and Read Deut 32, there are some references to THE ROCK, and it is clear, Peter wasn't born yet
God does NOT use sinful men as the CORNERSTONE of the faith.
For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumens beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Session VI, Decree on Justification, cap. vii)
That is why Our Lord said "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned". Why else, except to make clear the inseperable bond in the economy of the New Covenant between faith and baptism? "Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21) Faith, recall, is a Gift of God (Eph. 2:8), and He may choose to bestow it in whatever manner He pleases (John 3:8). It is true, indeed, that in the Acts we read of some believing with a saving faith before baptism. Yet, based on irrefutable scriptural evidence (Rom 6:3-7; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27; Col. 2:11-2; John 3:5), this must be confessed as being in view of their intention to receive baptism. Thus Trent defined most correctly that: "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema." (Session VII, Decree on the Sacraments in General, can. iv).
As to your theory of a "spiritual" baptism, all I can say is that it is directly opposed to the testimony of Scripture, which speaks of "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5), not two. The contrast in Acts 1:5, etc. is between John's baptism and Christ's baptism, which is "of water and the Holy Spirit", not of the Holy Spirit alone, as in your theory, nor of water alone, as in John's baptism (Matt. 3:11). St. Peter says "baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also", the likeness being to how eight men were "were saved by water" (1 Pet 3:20-21). Now the likeness is entirely destroyed if one supposes that there is no actual water involved here.
As regarding John 3:5, your article argues that Jesus in John 3:5 could not have been referring to Christian baptism because such did not exist at that time. However, this is not true, as Christian baptism did exist at that time. It was established by Christ's own baptism, although not required until after the Resurrection, for as St. Thomas says: "our Lord's words to Nicodemus ... seem to refer to the future rather than to the present" (Summa Theologiae, III q. 66 a. 2) and so we are not suprised to find that, shortly after the conversation with Nicodemus: "After these things, Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them and baptized" (John 3:22). As for all the rest, it is simply an admission that you do not believe that rebirth is "of water and the Holy Spirit". Water is water: if Christ wanted to say "cleanly reborn of the Holy Spirit", he very well could have, although I should wonder how the rebirth of the Holy Spirit could be thought unclean in any case. As regards the other verses cited, 1 Cor. 6:11 and Titus 3:5 are both referring to water baptism. "But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God." Now what do you suppose "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" is a reference to, except what is said elsewhere: "in the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:12).
In the end, we must admit what Eph. 5:26 says is true: "That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life". There is nothing here to make one suppose that the Apostle meant anything other than water, which is the natural reading.
This that man received as the special pledge of his ministry, that the preparatory sacrament of washing should even be called by the name of him by whom it was administered; whereas the baptism which the disciples of Christ administered was never called by the name of any one of them, that it should be understood to be His alone of whom it is said, "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (St. Augustine, Answers to the Letters of Petilian, III, 56)"By the washing or layer" He washeth her uncleanness. "By the word," saith he. What word? "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, XX)
You see that I have written a long response, and I suppose that that article is not yours. I will return the favor by giving you a selection from the Lectures on Justification which John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote while still an Anglican:
It is objected, then, that under the Gospel, Ordinances are of little account, and that to insist on them is to bring the Church into bondage; that if Baptism convey regeneration, or the Apostolical Succession be the warrant for the Ministry, or Imposition of hands be a spiritual benefit, or Consecration be required for giving and receiving the Eucharist, or its Celebration involve a sacrifice, in a word, if outward signs are necessary means of gospel grace, then St. Paul's statement does not hold that we are "justified by faith without the deeds of the Law."Now, I observe, that this argument, on the face of it, proves too much; it proves that Christian rites should altogether be superseded as well as Jewish. Faith superseded circumcision; it did not supersede Baptism; there is then, on the face of the matter, some difference between Jewish and Christian Ordinances; and if the latter be necessary under the Gospel and the former not, perhaps they are necessary for some certain purpose, and perhaps that purpose is justification. Whether they are or not is another matter; but certainly the text in question is not inconsistent with such a doctrine, or else is inconsistent with much more. If faith is compatible with their use, it may be compatible with their virtue.
But here it may be urged that, specious as this mode of arguing may be, it does not touch the real reluctance of religious persons to believe in the power of Sacraments under the Gospel, or the grounds of their considering such belief unscriptural; that, as every one knows, there are explanations of the sacred text, which, however specious, are felt to be evasions; and that the interpretation proposed is utterly subversive of St. Paul's doctrine, and uncongenial with his spirit. No one can doubt, it may be said, that by the doctrine of Faith he meant to magnify God's grace, to preach Christ's Cross, to inculcate its all-sufficiency for pardon and renewal, and our dependence on the aid of the Holy Spirit for the will and the power to accept these blessings; that, on the other hand, to say that Sacraments are the means of justification, obscures the free grace of the Gospel, and is "putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples." Now certainly, this argument, in its place, demands attention; I say in its place, lest I should seem to allow of its being used, after the fashion of these later centuries, as a "leading idea" of the Christian Dispensation, and a short and easy way into a comprehensive view of it. No; we must abandon all such methods, if we would enter in at the strait and lowly gate of the Holy Jerusalem; bowing our heads and bending our eyes to the earth, not thinking to command the city, or letting the eye range over its parts, or flattering ourselves we can "mount up with eagles' wings," before we have first "waited on the Lord." Philosophizing upon the inspired text is a very poor method of interpreting it, though it be allowable under due limitations, after gaining its meaning in a legitimate way. With this caution, I proceed to consider the objection which has been stated.
I say then, that fully allowing, or rather maintaining that the scope of St. Paul's words is to show the nothingness of man and the all-sufficiency of Christ, and that this is the proper meaning of the doctrine of justification by faith, yet so far is the Catholic doctrine concerning Sacraments from interfering with this undeniable truth, that I might apply the Apostle's words, and say, "Do we make void faith through the Sacraments? yea, we establish faith." The proof of this is simple.
I allow then that faith exalts the grace of God; this is its office and charge; accordingly, whatever furthers this object, co-operates with the Gospel doctrine of faith; whatever interferes with this object, contradicts the doctrine. Salvation by faith only is but another way of saying salvation by grace only. Again, it is intended to humble man, and to remind him that nothing he can do of himself can please God; so that "by faith" means, "not by works of ours." If then the Sacraments obscure the doctrine of free grace, and tempt men to rest upon their own doings, then they make void the doctrine of faith; if not, then they do not; if they magnify God and humble man, then they even subserve it. This was the evil tendency of the Jewish rites when Christ came, that they interfered between Christ and the soul. They were dark bodies, eclipsing the glorious Vision which faith was charged to receive. Now I would say, that the Sacraments have a directly reverse tendency, and subserve the object aimed at by the doctrine of faith, as fully as the Jewish ordinances counteracted it. If this be so, the doctrine of justification by Sacraments is altogether consistent, or rather coincident with St. Paul's doctrine, when he says, that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.
Upon Adam's fall, the light of God's countenance was withdrawn from the earth, and His presence from the souls of men; nor was the forfeited blessing restored but by the death of Christ. The veil which hung before the Holy of Holies, was a type of the awful "covering" which was "cast over all people;" and, when the Atoning Sacrifice was made, it rent in twain. Henceforth, heaven was opened again upon man, not on rare occasions, or in the instance of high Saints only, but upon all who believe. Such being the state of things before Christ came and such the state after, the Law which was before could not be the means of life, because life as yet was not; it was not wrought out, it was not created; it began to be in Christ, the Word Incarnate. The Law could not justify, because, whatever special favour might be shown here and there by anticipation, Gospel justification was not yet purchased in behalf of all who sought it. God justified Abraham, and He glorified Elijah; but He had not yet promised heaven to the obedient, nor acceptance to the believing. He wrought first in the few what He offered afterwards to all; and even in those extraordinary instances, He acted immediately from Himself, not through the Jewish Law as His instrument. Abraham was not justified through circumcision, nor Elijah raised by virtue of the Temple. Judaism had no life, no spirit in its ordinances, to connect earth and heaven.
Accordingly, the ceremonies of the Law, though given by God, were wrought out by man; I mean, as has been explained before, they were men's acts, not God's acts. They were done towards God, in order (if so be) to approach that which was not yet accorded; and thus were tokens, not of the presence of grace, but of its absence. Sacrifices and purifications, circumcision and the sabbath, could not take away sins, could not justify. Visible things are but means of grace at best; and they were not so much, before grace was purchased. They were attempts in a bad case towards what was needed; they were the humble and anxious representation of nature, making dumb signs for the things it needed, as we provide pictures and statues when we have not the originals. Such was human nature in its best estate before Christ came; its worst was when it mistook the tatters of its poverty for the garments of righteousness, and, as in our Lord's age, prided itself on what it was and what it did, because its own,—its sacrifices, ceremonies, birth-place, and ancestry,—as if these could stand instead of that justification which it needed. This was that reliance on the works of the Law, which St. Paul denounces, a reliance utterly incompatible of course with the doctrine of free grace, and, in consequence, of faith.
This then was the condition of the Jews; they had been told to approach God with works, which could not justify, as if they could; and the carnal-minded among them mistook the semblance for the reality. But when Christ came, suffered, and ascended on high, then at length the promised grace was poured out abundantly, nay, for all higher purposes, far more so than on Adam upon his creation. What, therefore, to the Jews was impossible even to the last, is to us imparted from the first. They might not even end where we begin. They wrought towards justification, and we from it. They wrought without the presence of Christ, and we with it. They came to God with rites, He comes to us in Sacraments.
Now supposing, when any one desired and prayed for the gospel gifts, they were conveyed to him through the visible intervention of an Angel, would that Angel's presence be a memento of free grace, or a temptation to self-righteousness? Or did Naaman's bathing in Jordan naturally lead to self-trust and a practical forgetfulness of God's power? Did the necessity of coming to the Apostles for a cure inculcate the law of works or of faith? But it may be answered that such appointments are capable of being used in a superstitious dependence. Angels may be worshipped; Apostles venerated, as if they were not "also men." Let me then put the question in another shape,—does the possibility of the abuse destroy the natural and direct meaning of the appointment? Was not the Brazen Serpent worshipped in a corrupt age? yet our Lord still appeals to its legitimate meaning as a token of God's free grace. If the ordinance of the Brazen Serpent, which had been abused, still conveyed the doctrine coupled with it by Christ Himself, of "everlasting life" to those that "believe," surely Baptism, which had not been abused, might in St. Paul's mind be deemed consistent with the doctrine of justification "by faith without deeds of the Law;" surely he might discard those deeds without meaning to include Baptism among them. St. Peter teaches us the same lesson after curing the lame man; he and St. John had been the visible means of the cure; "all the people ran together unto them greatly wondering." If there be a tendency anywhere superstitiously to rest in the outward part of Baptism or of the Lord's Supper, or in their circumstances, or in other Christian rites, with that "amazement" which the Jews felt towards the Apostles, why must we deny their instrumentality in order to our giving glory to God? why is it not enough with St. Peter, to lead the mind, not from, but through the earthly organ to the true Author of the miracle, not denying a subordinate truth in order to enforce a higher? "Ye men of Israel," he says, "why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?" And surely, what St. Peter proclaimed by word of mouth, that the Sacraments proclaim from the first by their symbolical meaning and their simplicity. Nay, and independent of this, surely what is professedly a channel of mercy, is an emblem of that mercy; what conveys a gift, speaks of a gift. Under the Law, God was in "clouds and darkness;" in heaven, "the Lord God will lighten" the Temple face to face; but under the Gospel, He is as upon the Mount of Transfiguration, in "a bright cloud over-shadowing" us; and as well may such a cloud be said to obscure the sun which gilds it, as Sacraments to obscure that grace which makes them what they are. Hence Baptism was even called of old the Sacrament of faith, as being, on the part of the recipient, only an expression by act of what in words would be "I believe and I come." And what is meeting together for prayer but an act of faith and nothing more? What the Jews by journeying up to Jerusalem were wont, not to receive, but to ask, is brought home to us, almost to our very doors, not in promise merely, but in substance; according to our Saviour's condescending words, "If any man hear My voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me." And all this is "without money and without price;" expensive sacrifices were required of the Jews, and intricate rules prescribed; but the Gospel rites are so simple, that the world despises them for their very simplicity.
In a Jewish ordinance, then, man worked and God accepted; in a Christian, God speaks the word, and man kneels down and is saved. Such is the relation between Faith and Sacraments;—in considering which I have taken "faith" in the sense in which the objection uses it, not in its proper sense of submission to what is unseen, but as trust founded upon that submission; and it appears, that while the Sacraments are an exercise of submission, they are also a lesson of trust. Faith is inculcated in their outward sign, and required for their inward grace; and is as little disparaged by the Catholic doctrine concerning them, as Christ Himself by the doctrine of faith. ...
It seems, then, that whereas Faith on our part fitly corresponds, or is the correlative, as it is called, to grace on God's part, Sacraments are but the manifestation of grace, and good works are but the manifestation of faith; so that, whether we say we are justified by faith, or by works or by Sacraments, all these but mean this one doctrine, that we are justified by grace, which is given through Sacraments, impetrated by faith, manifested in works.
It's not my fault you're blind to Our Lord's word, but your objection is unfounded. You said that God can't build on sinful men, but he built his Church upon the Apostles.
I note you didn't reply to my point showing what the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" are.
Kind of like not being part of an inside joke. = ) Not to worry. You have nothing to apologize for. I was never really offended by anything you said, and if I had been so what?
Feel free to stumble onto any Catholic thread you like, at least the ones I start, and please do question anything stated that you find ridiculous. But, be sure to stick around for the answers to your questions.
Sorry for the 'blind' comment. That was a little too much, I think.
Still, I think the keys/power given to Peter and the petros/petra wordplay make it quite clear that he's in view in that passage as the Rock. Otherwise the conjunction of v. 18 with v. 19 would make very little sense.
http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0016.htm This kind of trend, by the way, beloved, and I'm going to be pretty pointed in a minute, has been coming for a long time...a long time. I remember as a college student hearing about the Billy Graham Crusade in the city of New York. And there was a tremendous cry among evangelicals across this country that something...something new had happened because for the first time in evangelistic history in America, liberals, people who were not evangelical fundamental Christians were invited to cooperate in that meeting in 1955. An ecumenical evangelism was born, that is the kind of evangelism that says we want everybody to come so we'll get the Catholics and we'll get the liberals and we'll get the neo-orthodox and the people who don't believe the Bible and we'll get them all together and we'll get them all involved. Carl Henry who has been a tremendous contributor to assessing the church says if you look at the early years of the Billy Graham organization, you will find that its overall policy was to attain prestige and influence for evangelicals. To do this there had to be a successful image and that would not be possible, they believed, unless every effort was made to avoid any division with those who didn't believe the Bible. That was a new day...1955, brand new day. The Graham organization, wrote Henry, was not ready to forfeit dialogue with the ecumenical leaders and churches because it feared a loss of influence. That showed up in Fuller Seminary. Edward John Carnell who was on the faculty at Fuller said, "We...and I'm quoting him...we need prestige desperately," end quote. And they went after it. And they wanted faculty members who got their degrees from the elite eastern liberal institutions. I remember one faculty member saying in a meeting when I was over there at Fuller Seminary, "If I have to publicly and outwardly identify with evangelicals, forget it." They desperately wanted the prestige. They desperately wanted the association with the influential eastern elite, and even the dead Germans who spawned liberalism. And when the church began to say we're going to have to have influence, and we're going to have to have prestige, and we're going to have to have popularity, we're going to have to be intellectually accepted, and we're going to have to embrace these people and show that we really like them and they're going to have to like us a lot if they're ever going to like our Jesus, it made a major turn...a major turn. Paul the Apostle said we are the scum, we are the dregs, we are the off-scouring of the world. Jesus said they hated Me, they'll hate you. But we've gotten sophisticated. This view believes that our prestige, our influence and our popularity is what gets people to the place where they'll believe the gospel. How absolutely wrong that is. How absolutely wrong. Real spiritual men fight and real spiritual men pay the price for bold clear loving proclamation of the truth. What I'm seeing happen I could call the feminization of the church...so soft.
The Church didn't determine anything, God did.
God inspired the writers. And he guided the Church in determining which books were inspired.
Plus, over 2/3 of the Bible was already here before Jesus was born. The RCC needs to drop that argument. The Jews already had over 2/3 of the Bible.
False argument. The final 3rd wasn't there. And of all the manuscripts circulated it was the RCC that determined which ones were inspired. That's why you are not reading Clement (though laudable) and the Gospels of Peter, Andrew and Thomas.
This is not about prejudices, that would be comments like me asking why RCC people didn't leave after the Priest molestation scandals or demand that old histories of RCC endorsement of murder of Protestants be an issue, those are prejudices.
Those questions can be easily answered. For instance, Priests are not the Faith. Just as a bad doctor is not Medicine. And a comparison of heretics put to death by Christendom is small potatoes compared to the Catholic bloodshed of the Reformation. And it wasn't the Vatican taking care of all of those witches in Salem Mass. in 1692. And Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish clergy all have their own sex abuse situations that are just as bad.
What I posted was honest quotes from the Bible, and I used the common teaching of reading comprehension taught to school children across the U.S.
Hardly. That was some of the most stretched argumentation I've ever read.
For example "If BOTh tradition and Scripture must be accepted, and BOTH are equal, then Salvation, which is learned form the Bible, is also held hostage to Tradition."
That is a non-sequitur and an unsupportable polemic. Held "hostage"? Please. It's already held hostage to the private interpretation of thousands and thousands of Protestant denominations that can't agree.
Another example: " Now, you KNOW that isn't totally true! The RCC FORBADE people to own their own Bible for centries and even killed people who printed the Bible in English!"
Then why was the Venerable Bede the first person to ever translate books of the Bible into English? Why was he not killed? Could it possibly be that: 1) it wasn't until Guttenberg a Catholic invented the printing press that the Bible could be reliably reproduced in quantities. 2) the scarcity of bibles was such that the Scriptures were chained in the Church to prevent them from being stolen. And everyone would know where they were. 3) the literacy rate of the population was such that most people didn't have ANY books much less the ability to read. 4) The catastrophic consequences eventually showed themselves after the Protestant revolt, that a tricky book like the Apocalypse would be misunderstood by a simplistic agricultural community that didn't have the constant guidance of the Church.
Nowadays, also, I heard it from the kids I gew up with, RCC people were taught in the 60's and 70's that the RCC practitioner CANNOT understand the Scriptures without a Priest explaining it to them!
Not true. It was recommended that people have a spiritual director to help them understand the scriptures according to the mind of the Church so as not to fall into error.
I was CLEARLY told by those kids that they didnt read their Bibles and their parents didnt read their Bibles because there was no way they would understand them unless there was a Priest to explain it to them!
That's not the Church's fault. That's their fault. I'm just sure they were running up to the Church on their free time to ask the priests to help them understand on Saturdays after confession. I'm sure the Catechism and books in the libraries were always taken out by them each week. Study bibles were also always available and the nuns were quite capable of imparting a solid understanding. Sorry, they were just lazy Catholics or they were the victim of modernists who no longer held the faith. I grew up in the 70's and got a thorough training in Bible studies. We prayed the psalms after lunch each day, were instructed in Jewish tradition, and taught Catechism. The modernists got to undermind a lot of it, with their hippie mumbo jumbo but some of us were lucky to pay attention.
So, my comment is based on personal experience, and many Freepers here who are ex-Catholic have testified to having been taught those things themself, so, I am not wrong on that point.
Now you have my experience to round out that understanding. And you are wrong because your sources are wrong.
And I wouldn't cite the U.S. school system as a credible comparison.
Maybe you missed that class, but one thing that must be kept in focus is context.
Yes. I was busy doing other things. Learning to read for one.
When you change the subject from who Jesus is, THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, to make it something about Peter, and then ignore what Jesus just said in order to form your own religion, that is not my error.
No. Your error is believing what you just wrote above is accurate. You just want to ignore the whole context in order to jury rig your beliefs. God is efficient. We know who Jesus is from Gabriel the archangel telling the Blessed Mother who she is to be the Mother of.
The chapter starts with Jesus being tempted by the Pharisees and Sadducees (ie. the corrupt leaders in the Church)
He then tells the Apostles to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They don't understand that he means the doctrine and not literally bread from them. Then in order to spell it out for them, He asks them who people say He is and who they believe He is. Then Peter, (the first among them see. Chapter 10 of Matthew. In fact, look at any listing of the Apostles and Peter is the first, or it's just Peter and "the rest" so to speak)... Is given the inspiration to speak formally of who Jesus actually is.
Confirmed in their faith. Jesus then proceeds to establish his Church upon Peter over the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
And if you're paying attention without anti-Catholic blinders on. You'll see in the previous chapter two things. Jesus' statement about the uprooting of the plants not planted by the Father. (see the whithered fig tree parable as well)
You'll also notice that Jesus is continually putting Peter to the test and Peter blows it each time, Walking on water, taking him to task for not understanding the parables etc.
As for Peter being told to Feed My Lambs, Where is the promotion there? All Jesus was doing was encouraging Peter to stop pitying himself.
There is no indication that Peter grieved before Christ asked him the three times if he loved him. Jesus starts the conversation asks the question and Peter answers. He doesn't grieve till the third time when he doesn't understand that Jesus is having him do penance for his tri-fold denial. And he prepares Peter for his eventual martyrdom.
Also, do you not think that the rest of the Apostles in the room weren't supposed to get that message? NONE of them were to feed Jesus' Lambs? Jesus' Sheep?
It was only to Peter that the Keys to the Kingdom were given. The rest of the Apostles were given the same task but to be united as one under Peter as they had been throughout.
According to RCC logic, the rest of the Apostles had no such responsibility at all, yet Scripture is profitable for ALL to learn from, for ALL to obey and these are the words of Jesus Himself!
No. It says for the Man of God Scripture is profitable.
No, It is clear, each time someone brings up these doctrines, that the RCC does NOT start with the Bible, they start with RCC doctrine, THEN try to make the Bible fit.
The RCC is older than the manuscripts of the New Testament. How else were they to determine which books were inspired?
When you use the Bible alone, RCC doctrine does not equal what is said.
When you use the Bible alone there is no one true faith according to Protestant interpretations. So, the whole thing is useless and a lie. Unless of course it is wedded to the RCC where all of it is in harmony.
God's church on Earth is not dependant on any human, it is dependant upon the Son of the Living God, not a sinful man.
And if God says that I'm going to give you a Church with an office that a man can sit in, and depend on me to guide him. He will not fail. A man like Peter can walk on water if he keeps his eye on Christ, he can raise the dead with his shadow, he can cure, he can heal and he can certainly interpret Scripture infallibly.
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.