Baptism Now Saves

Thanks for the vote, and for that logical perspective about the thief on the cross. Obviously a few others here strongly do not agree. In their perspective, I guess conversions for the dying is impossible, if they were never baptized. People like my Dad who accepted Christ while in hospice care, the day before he passed away with all of us around him as he said the acceptance prayer with youthful twinkle in his eye like I have not seen in years. They would tell me, “so sorry, but you should have had him baptized, his acceptance did not go far enough”.

But We know better.

I promise you I am not trying to push the Catholic poit of view, having been saved out of the Roman church thirty years ago.... All I was attemtping is to take a look at what Peter could have possibly meant when he said “Baptism now Saves...”.

What's funny about this is that your contortions lead you near the Catholic point of view... which is elegant in its simplicity and powerful in its humility. Your essay makes a confusion out of what is already known in an attempt to find any other answer but the one taught by the Church. When you peal back the confusion you will find that Baptism saves because Baptism is the rebirth (being born again [John 3:3-5]) into God's Family. It's that simple... It's that powerful.

Nice straw man , congratulations that you were able to to knock it down! No one on this thread has suggexted any such thing! If you had read anything beyong the title of my article you would have seen that I stated firmly, that it is Jesus’ blood that has procured our pardon and given us righteousness!

Thanks, Vlad, for giving some bearing to a wandering thread.

Mayflower, show me one place in my article where I denied deathbed conversion! You cqn't do it because its not there. Rather than ridiculing the article by silly non sequitars such as "Not a lot of time for the thief to jump down, be baptised, and hop back on his cross.", it would be nice to actually read beyond the title, and try to understand what I am trying to say rather than knee jerk distortions. I firmly stated in the article that it is the blood of Jesus that has procured our pardon and righteousness.The rest of the article is an exploration of what Peter meant by saying "Baptism now saves..." The conclusion? Baptism is the way we clearly and openly renounce our association with "the world"!

“No one on this thread has suggested any such thing! “

Oh yes they did. Two replies to me suggested just that.

My Contortions? I am not contorting anything, to my knowledge. I do not believe in any form of Baptismal regeneration. My essay is an attempt to understand what Peter meant when he said “Baptism now saves...” . People are tripping over Peter, not me, and they seem to be so insecure about their own salvation, they can;t seem to get over the title, which as you know is a quote from Peter. I am not a roman catholic, although my evangelicalism is “catholic” ie the universal faith! Thanks though, for your comments .

Well certainly not my article. You will not be able to find any such thing in my article. I maintained in it and through this thread that it is Jesus’ blood and faith in it that saves us for eternity, and procures our pardon.

I was going to ignore your post and just leave the tread alone... but then I got caught up in another discussion. As long as I'm here...

So, I can try to understand scripture for myself and risk being wrong or I can accept the Roman interpretation and not run any risk of being wrong but rather have complete assurance of being wrong. I'll take my chances where I at least have a chance.

So... you fashion yourself as smarter and more gifted by the Spirit than St Thomas Aquinas? Have you ever read the Summa Theologica? You have a greater understanding than St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Catherine of Siena, St Gregory the Great, St John Chrysostom, and St Teresa of Avila (just to name a few)?

Thank you but I will keep my humility to Holy Church Who has studied, expounded and taught the faith unbrokenly and without contradiction since the Deposit given them by Christ. I certainly do not think my graces and gifts are beyond those of the Apostles, their successors and the saints who have helped us understand so much over the ages.

The recent debate over contraception shows the wisdom of the Church. She is one of the only "groups" of Christians who continues to hold the view given by Christ as evidenced by the Didache. She is also the "sine qua non" of Christianity in the world... you hold in contempt She Who protects your ability to worship through Her Graces.

Thanks for the response.

So... you fashion yourself as smarter and more gifted by the Spirit than St Thomas Aquinas? Have you ever read the Summa Theologica? You have a greater understanding than St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Catherine of Siena, St Gregory the Great, St John Chrysostom, and St Teresa of Avila (just to name a few)?

Im not at all smarter than quite a few people.

Thank you but I will keep my humility to Holy Church Who has studied, expounded and taught the faith unbrokenly and without contradiction since the Deposit given them by Christ. I certainly do not think my graces and gifts are beyond those of the Apostles, their successors and the saints who have helped us understand so much over the ages.

Here is the problem for me. When I read scripture and it contradicts the teachings of the Roman Church, do I submit to scripture or to Rome? Rome makes a grand claim but their teachings are contrary to the work of God. I would likely be as deceived by Romes claims of authority as you are if they actually taught doctrines that are scriptural. However, since they teach quite a few heresies and are extremely corrupt, it makes it easy to see that their claims are false.

I don't have to be as smart or talented as Thomas Aquinas or Lucifer for that matter to know that I should trust the apostles’ interpretations of the gospel and not the pontiff's. The apostles are the ones who interpreted scripture and the teachings of Jesus for us. We have their writings in the new testament. I don't have a problem with learning from other Christians and gaining knowledge and understanding from their interpretation of scripture but I can't just take them as an authority, I have to confirm what they are saying with scripture myself. Paul commended the Bereans for doing this.

In matters of doctrine, its clear from your post that you hold Rome to be the ultimate authority while I consider God's Word to be the ultimate authority.

Hypothetically, if Rome came out and said that Jesus was the arc angel Michael, what would you do? Would you still believe that they have the authority and infallibility they claim? I suspect you would. How far off do they have to stray from truth before you see that they are false?

When I read scripture and it contradicts the teachings of the Roman Church, do I submit to scripture or to Rome?

Pick one and let's talk about it.

In matters of doctrine, its clear from your post that you hold Rome to be the ultimate authority while I consider God's Word to be the ultimate authority.

The problem for your position is that I can actually find mine in Scripture and you can't... Since I know we'll go down this road next, let me go ahead and support my position...

In 1 Cor 11:2, St Paul praises the Corinthians that they keep the ordinances he delivered to them. This is his "first" letter to the Corinthians, so he isn't referring to Scripture or prior letters. He didn't bring Scripture for them to read, he brought the teachings of Christ in his words and deeds. This is also said to the Phillipians in Phil 4:9.

In 2 Thess 3:6, St Paul admonishes the Thessolonians to withdraw themselves from those who do not walk in the traditions taught by the Apostles.

The idea that each of us is supposed to read the Bible and understand it authoritatively is thoroughly discredited by 2 Peter 1:20. And if we aren't supposed to read it and understand it individually, then there is no Sola Scriptura... someone must have the authority to teach. In fact, St Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:16 that the contortions we go through in trying to understand difficult Scripture is actually leading us to destruction.

Finally, Scripture doesn't refer to Itself as authoritative (I'm not saying It's incorrect. I'm speaking of authority, not infallibility), it points to the Church as the pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Hypothetically, if Rome came out and said that Jesus was the arc angel Michael, what would you do?

Silly hypothetical. The Church has been teaching for nearly 2000 years... and Her teachings are not hidden. If you want to understand why She teaches what She does, it doesn't take much research... The Catechism of the Catholic Church would be a great starting point.

If, on the other hand, you have no interest in what the Church teaches, then you would be wise to stop assailing what you have no desire to understand.

"Few Americans hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they think is the Catholic Church." -- Bishop Fulton Sheen

No not your post. I am referring to replies to me like post #16 and #38. Clearly stating their views that you must be baptized to be saved.

Pick one and let's talk about it.

How about calling priests "father"? What is the scriptural support for this?

“How about calling priests “father”? What is the scriptural support for this?”

I’ve always wondered where that came from, too, as Matthew 23:9 specifically forbids calling a man “father”.

Even having the title/position of “priest” in a church hierarchy is non-scriptural. All born-again Christians are priests, as we have direct communication with God.

How about calling priests "father"? What is the scriptural support for this?

This is an excellent challenge, thank you. It is so often misunderstood and is such a focus for so much angst.

The first place to look is in our own families. If we were to take Jesus literally in Matt 23:9 about calling NO MAN FATHER on Earth, we could not refer so to our own biological fathers. That would be absurd, however, as it is through our own earthly fathers that we come to understand our Heavenly Father. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood. Besides, the Bible gives many examples of father-son biological relationships, so that can't be what Christ meant... he would be arguing against His Own Word.

In the Bible, the concept of fatherhood is not just restricted to biological relationships and God. It is also used as a sign of respect to those who have a special relationship. For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8). Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21). We'll come back to Eliakim in a moment.

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

Those are Old Testament examples. Perhaps the New Testament is different? If it is, it's only because there are far more examples!

First, since the imperative to "call no man father" does not logically apply to biological fatherhood, we can also see it applied to ancestors as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, when noting that a biological or ancestral relationship can't be what Christ is referencing, we can assume He is speaking hyperbole. I know, you'll initially recoil at such a suggestion... but let's talk about it. The whole passage in Matthew doesn't just mention fatherhood, it also says, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ."

Christ specifically appointed certain men to be teachers in His Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt 28:19-20). Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

Did you know that the word "doctor" is actually the Latin word for teacher? Even the simple words "mister" and "mistress" are forms of the word "master"... which was also mentioned by Jesus. If we take Jesus literally, then, we would all be just as guilty for calling men "teacher" or "doctor" or "mister" or "mistress" as we would be for calling them "father." There has to be another answer because such an admonition would be unbiblical and illogical... as I have already shown.

So what did Jesus mean? Jesus had many harsh words for the Jewish leaders who loved "the places of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called 'rabbi' by men" (Matt 23:6-7). Jesus's admonition in just a few later verses uses hyperbole in demonstrating the sinfulness and pride of the Scribes and Pharasees in not looking to God as the source of all teaching, fatherhood and authority. Rather, they set themselves up as such. Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher. No, this is not what Catholics do with the Pope. The Pope is elevated to an office established by Christ in a commission to "feed [His] sheep." He is not a self-appointed guru nor the center of a cult of personality... despite what outsiders may think.

Let's look at the example of the Apostles. The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

So, the next question is... are the Apostles priests? The Jews would have agreed they were. Let's look at the Last Supper. In this narrative, we have all of the elements of the traditional Passover meal... well, almost. You see, there was no lamb mentioned (and it was central) and there was no priest (only the Levitical priests could spill a blood sacrifice). We know, as Christians, that the Lamb was present in Christ... as was the priest (though He was not a Levite). Note what He says next, though... "Do this in remembrance of Me." He is instructing His Apostles to offer this sacrifice as He had done. To the Jews of the time, that would be easily understood as Christ making the Apostles priests.

From there, the Church traces the lineage of its priesthood all the way back to the Apostles and we carry on Christ's Work as His Body present in the world today. Remember the reference to Eliakim above? Well, here's the verse after 21 (which mentioned fatherhood to Israel)... Isaiah 22:22 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. That should sound familiar because it's very like what Christ said to St Peter after his confession of faith.

Note: I borrowed heavily from an article posted on Catholic.com (mostly Scripture citations). The article from which I borrowed was found to have no defects of faith by the Bishop of San Diego. I pray that my additions and paraphrases do not alter that assessment. May any failures of mine not cause any reader to stumble. Amen.

Matthew 23:8-12

8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

This isn't to be taken as hyperbole or completely literally but rather in context. Jesus is talking about the equality of all believers. We have direct access to God and don't have to go through a “Father”, “Rabbi” or "instructor” but can come to God directly.

9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

If you simply read this verse, it is easy to see that Jesus is talking about calling someone “father” in place of our heavenly Father. This is exactly what Rome does however. They claim that the pope or a priest stands in place of God as the Alter-Christ and is to be called “father” in this context. This is a direct and specific violation of Jesus’ teaching.

The rest of the article is an exploration of what Peter meant by saying “Baptism now saves...” The conclusion? Baptism is the way we clearly and openly renounce our association with “the world”!

True enough! And from you further postings that point is made more clear. That being said, I think that in some cases we can clearly and openly state it in another fashion.

If I remember I’ll read through the article again with fresh eyes and head, but on a different slant. I always have a difficult struggle with the “who is in charge of Earth” aspect of things!

True,I agree with you. As for “the Whole world lies in the wicked One”, I do believe that God is absolute Sovereign over the earth, but the word “World” in the sense John was using it is a spiritual affinity. The Wicked one is marshalling the human opposition to God.

In light of 1 Peter, baptism which now saves you, why is it that you believe that baptism has no effect on salvation, i.e. does not confer Grace ?