Baptism:Luther, Knox, Calvin, Augustine...

[JSM17]

Luther (Lutherans)on baptism:
In Baptism every Christian has enough to study and to practice all his life. He
always has enough to do to believe firmly what Baptism promises and brings—
victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God’s grace, the entire Christ,
and the Holy Spirit with his gifts. In short the blessings of Baptism are so
boundless that if timid nature considers them, it may well doubt whether they
could all be true.1 (Emp. JSM17)
1. LC, Baptism, 41–43

John Knox (Presbyterians) on baptism:
Scots Confession of John Knox teaches regarding baptism. It states,
...so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted... (Chapter 21) (Emp.JSM17)

John Calvin on baptism:
This is in keeping with, for instance, the teaching of Calvin, who could write, in his 1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent,
We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine. (Emp. JSM17)

Augustine (Catholics) on baptism:
"...as soon as they have been WASHED in the LAVER OF REGENERATION, and HAVE RECEIVED the FORGIVENESS OF ALL SIN. THEN is the time to escape all future sin, when ALL PAST SIN IS BLOTTED OUT."

Wesley (Methodists) on baptism:
Treatise, p. 192.
"By water then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated and born again; whence it is called by the apostles 'The washing of regeneration'...Nor does [the Church] ascribe it to the outer washing, but to the inward grace, which added thereto, makes it a sacrament." (Emp. JSM17)

The Bible teaches that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Even the reformers and others could see this. Even though they could not agree on the mode, they still taught what they taught. They are not my authority, yet to many on this forum they are the champions for many doctrinal ideas today. I understand that a majority of Baptists’ stand alone and that is good, but those who agree with the reformers such as those shown above may want to reconsider due to their position on baptism. Is see my on this forum talking about whether or not this group or that group are saved, listen if anyone teaches another doctrine then they are to be accursed. Either baptism is for the remission of sins or it is not. If not then label those who say it is, which includes those who claim to be a part of those groups above.

 

[Darron Steele]

So having failed to make Scripture appear to support your views of salvation by completed baptism, you now appeal to teachings of men.

Which of these men are you going to adopt all the views of?

As you are not Lutheran, I assume that you yourself do not adopt the teachings of Martin Luther.

As John Knox was a Presbyterian leader, and you are not Presbyterian, I assume that you yourself do not adopt the teachings of John Knox.

I am guessing that you are not a Calvinist, as Calvinism is a no-no in the group that has named itself the Churches of Christ.

As you are not Methodist or Wesleyan or a member of a Holiness denomination, my guess is that you you yourself do not adopt the teachings of Mr. Wesley.

Augustine was not Catholic, as he was centuries before the 1054 of Rome from the rest of the larger body of the church. As you are neither Orthodox or Catholic, my guess is that you yourself would not adopt all the teachings of Augustine.

As you yourself do not adopt the teachings of these people, I see no reason for you to expect us to.

I also will not adopt the teachings of John Thomas, which you have indirectly adopted and have been promoting here.

As for me, I will just stick to the Scriptures. After all, they are the Book of God.

 

[RAdam]

The reformers were good godly men that loved God and His word. However, as much as I respect them for their dedication to God, that doesn't mean they were infallible.

 

[billwald]

Baptism doesn't accomplish anything except qualify one for membership in a Baptist congregation?

 

[Darron Steele]

Baptism doesn't accomplish anything except qualify one for membership in a Baptist congregation?

I would not agree with that statement.

Baptism is shown to be very important in Scripture. In Acts 16, baptism was done in the middle of the night, after medical treatment of Paul and Silas but before the convenience of food.

In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus said "So go and make followers of all people in the world. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything I have told you" (ICB). He expected His followers to be baptized just as He expected them to obey His teachings in general.

In Acts 10:34-48, Peter said that "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) and when Peter was saying this, "the Holy Spirit came down on all those who were listening" (ICB). When Peter recounted this experience in Acts 15:8-9, he said that when God was "giving them the Holy Spirit" (NASB) He was "cleansing their hearts by faith" (NASB). Still, even though these individuals were already cleansed, they were still to be baptized, as Acts 10:48 shows.

Baptism is an demonstration that someone has converted to following Jesus Christ. As Jesus Christ placed the directive to baptize new Christians between the command to make them and to teach them, it is pretty clear it was to be done promptly. Baptism is an important demonstration that a person has converted to following Jesus Christ.

There is unfortunately a variety of circumstances where a Christian might not be baptized, including congregation authorities delaying or withholding it, or a lack of proper understanding or knowledge by the Christian. However important baptism is, the Scriptures do not allow a view that an unbaptized Christian will not be saved.

 

[Zenas]

As for me, I will just stick to the Scriptures. After all, they are the Book of God.

I think sticking with the scriptures is a good idea too and that is why I believe in baptismal regeneration. What the reformers and the church fathers thought only reinforces the message of scripture. After all, scripture is the source of most of their understanding as well. In fact it would be very hard to go back more than 300 years and find someone who did not believe in baptismal regeneration. The idea that baptism is merely symbolic is at odds with every bit of scripture.

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5.

He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. Mark 16:16.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20.

Peter said to them, " Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38.

Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Acts 22:16.

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21.

Someone will probably answer this post and say these passages do not mean what they purport to say if taken in context, but that is just wrong. Taken in context, these and dozens of other scriptural passages present a message of baptism being the sine qua non of Christianity.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
Someone will probably answer this post and say these passages do not mean what they purport to say if taken in context, but that is just wrong. Taken in context, these and dozens of other scriptural passages present a message of baptism being the sine qua non of Christianity.

I will present another passage that means what it says: Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).


One of the passages you brought up is not even talking about baptism. Not every reference to water in Scripture is a reference to baptism.

There is not a single passage of Scripture that states that unless someone is baptized, then s/he will not be saved. Not one. Assertions that they do are based on inference.

Anytime an inference contradicts an explicit statement of Scripture, the inference is wrong.

Let me deal with some of your favorites:
Matthew 28:19-20 I already quoted in a good translation,
Acts 22:16 says ""Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord" (GenB),
Mark 16:16, if we grant its authenticity, does not say `he that believeth but is baptized not shall be condemned,'
1 Peter 3:21 explicitly states that the bath does not save us -- "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" -- you quoted it,
Acts 2:38, granted that the way foreign translations handle it is not the best way, and the 1769 KJV is the best way, does not say `for without baptism, no one shall ever receive remission of sins.'

You see, your position is based upon inferences. You assume that John 3:5's mention of water means baptism. You assume that we wash away our sins in baptism, when the text says we do so by calling on His Name. In one case, your inference is contrary to the text. In others, your inference is something beyond what the text states.

My position, in contrast, sticks with what Scripture actually states. My position: "every one that believeth on him receives remission of sins" -- exactly as Scripture says.

So tell me, Zenas: is it your position that believers on Jesus Christ will be unsaved if for some reason they fail to be baptized? If so, being Baptist, do you make a personal endeavor to arrange for new converts in your congregation to be baptized as quickly as you can get them to water? If not, why not?

Biblically, there is no merit to having Christians fret over misguided ideas that beloved Christians who died unbaptized are not in Heaven. There is no merit to any ideas that Christians are not Christians because they have not been baptized. There is no merit to any ideas that we should divert time, attention, and resources away from evangelism of unbelievers to `evangelize' Christians. All of these are harmful byproducts of `salvation by completed baptism.'

Why can we be sure there is no merit to these harmful notions? Acts 10:43 explicitly says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

 

[JSM17]

It is not to declare whether I agree or disagree with the quotes above, it is about showing how through the years starting from the first century many have tried to understand the truth concerning the purpose of baptism. Evangelicals today proclaim salvation by faith alone, yet do not understand even what people like Luther meant by it. Clearly Luther was not a hypocrite was he? They point of all this is to show the dis-unity of doctrine between groups who claim to be in agreement.

Perhaps Darron Steele or anyone else can tell us what the purpose of water baptism is for with scripture.


BAPTISM:

is done FOR the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)

is done to SAVE us (1Peter 3:21, Acts 2:40, Mark 16:16)

Is done to WASH AWAY OUR SINS (Acts 22:16)

is done to be REBORN to new life (John 3:5, Romans 6:3-6)

is done to CLOTHE ourselves with Christ (Gal 3:26-27)

is done so that GOD will RESURRECT us from death (Colossians 2:12, Romans 6:3-6)

is done as a REQUIRMENT to enter heaven (John 3:5, Mark 16:16)

is done to put us INTO CHRIST (Romans 6:3-6, Galatians 3:26-27, 1Corinthians 12:13)


Show us a passage that states how we get "INTO" Christ that does not pertain to baptism.

Plain Bible passages are ignored about baptism. Someday those who deny plain teaching on the commandment of baptism will have to answer to God.

I do not see "An outward sign of an inward grace" or it is only "a pledge of salvation" already obtained. Show us where the Bible states this.

 

[Darron Steele]

...

Plain Bible passages are ignored about baptism. Someday those who deny plain teaching on the commandment of baptism will have to answer to God. ....

This is nuts. You come over here, to a Baptist Internet board, loaded with people who spend a lot of time in their Bibles, and more time thinking about what it says, and accuse them of ignoring Scripture. Then you expect them to go rushing over to hear your `gracious words.'

So, exactly what is the motivation for baptized Christians to `ignore Scripture' about baptism? Explain this. It is a common lie in the Churches of Christ that the people who disagree with them just want to get out of baptism. Yet you are posting similar baseless accusations on a board full of people who are baptized. Therefore, what would be the motive?

Someday, many who make baseless accusations out of retaliation for being disagreed with will answer to God. Satan is a slanderer too.

People who treat their inferences of Scripture as if it was Scripture itself also run afoul of Revelation 22:18.

Fact is, JSM17, on more than one thread, there has been one specific passage that refutes your mortal inferences. Some of your inferences run afoul to the text itself. Many of your inferences are reasonable, but are not required by the text, and are contrary to a certain passage of Scripture.

Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

On every single thread this has come up, you have tenaciously tried to divert attention from it.

 

[grace56]

"Augustine was not Catholic, as he was centuries before the 1054 of Rome from the rest of the larger body of the church. As you are neither Orthodox or Catholic, my guess is that you yourself would not adopt all the teachings of Augustine."


Augustine most certainly was a Catholic Priest and Bishop.

St. Augustine of Hippo
Feastday: August 28
Patron of brewers
430


St. Augustine of Hippo
St. Augustine of Hippo is the patron of brewers because of his conversion from a former life of loose living, which included parties, entertainment, and worldly ambitions. His complete turnaround and conversion has been an inspiration to many who struggle with a particular vice or habit they long to break.


This famous son of St. Monica was born in Africa and spent many years of his life in wicked living and in false beliefs. Though he was one of the most intelligent men who ever lived and though he had been brought up a Christian, his sins of impurity and his pride darkened his mind so much, that he could not see or understand the Divine Truth anymore. Through the prayers of his holy mother and the marvelous preaching of St. Ambrose, Augustine finally became convinced that Christianity was the one true religion. Yet he did not become a Christian then, because he thought he could never live a pure life. One day, however, he heard about two men who had suddenly been converted on reading the life of St. Antony, and he felt terrible ashamed of himself. "What are we doing?" he cried to his friend Alipius. "Unlearned people are taking Heaven by force, while we, with all our knowledge, are so cowardly that we keep rolling around in the mud of our sins!"

Full of bitter sorrow, Augustine flung himself out into the garden and cried out to God, "How long more, O Lord? Why does not this hour put an end to my sins?" Just then he heard a child singing, "Take up and read!" Thinking that God intended him to hear those words, he picked up the book of the Letters of St. Paul, and read the first passage his gaze fell on. It was just what Augustine needed, for in it, St. Paul says to put away all impurity and to live in imitation of Jesus. That did it! From then on, Augustine began a new life.

He was baptized, became a priest, a bishop, a famous Catholic writer, Founder of religious priests, and one of the greatest saints that ever lived. He became very devout and charitable, too. On the wall of his room he had the following sentence written in large letters: "Here we do not speak evil of anyone." St. Augustine overcame strong heresies, practiced great poverty and supported the poor, preached very often and prayed with great fervor right up until his death. "Too late have I loved You!" he once cried to God, but with his holy life he certainly made up for the sins he committed before his conversion. His feast day is August 28th

 

[Darron Steele]

"Augustine was not Catholic, as he was centuries before the 1054 of Rome from the rest of the larger body of the church.

...
Augustine most certainly was a Catholic Priest and Bishop.
...

Impossible. The Roman Catholic church did not schism against the rest of the main church body until 1054.

Augustine lived centuries before that. The Orthodox also make a claim to him, and because it was Rome that initiated the actual split, the Orthodox claim is more valid.

 

[JSM17]

Perhaps Darron Steele or anyone else can tell us what the purpose of water baptism is for with scripture.


BAPTISM:

is done FOR the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)

is done to SAVE us (1Peter 3:21, Acts 2:40, Mark 16:16)

Is done to WASH AWAY OUR SINS (Acts 22:16)

is done to be REBORN to new life (John 3:5, Romans 6:3-6)

is done to CLOTHE ourselves with Christ (Gal 3:26-27)

is done so that GOD will RESURRECT us from death (Colossians 2:12, Romans 6:3-6)

is done as a REQUIRMENT to enter heaven (John 3:5, Mark 16:16)

is done to put us INTO CHRIST (Romans 6:3-6, Galatians 3:26-27, 1Corinthians 12:13)


Show us a passage that states how we get "INTO" Christ that does not pertain to baptism.

I have yet to see anyone from this site proclaim what water baptism is for using scriptures that declare what the proclaim. Acts 10:43 is not mentioned on this thread Steele. You will have to leave your favorite scripture for the other threads.

Still waiting...................

 

[Darron Steele]

Acts 10:43 is not mentioned on this thread Steele. You will have to leave your favorite scripture for the other threads.

Still waiting...................

JSM17:

It is Darron Steele, Mr. Steele, or Darron.

I do not care how much I put a dampener on your ambitions to promote your group's religious precepts. It will not hurt you to address me with more civility than you did.

As for Acts 10:43, I will not leave out any relevant Scriptures that would refute your precepts, no matter how much you would like us to.

This is not a Church of Christ meeting or discussion board. You cannot censor what passages of Scripture are discussed.

 

[billwald]

Steele San

I agree with your general thrust but


>As for me, I will just stick to the Scriptures. After all, they are the Book of God.

Is not useful unless you read and understand Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Further, the word were written down by humans as best they could. Third, every writing, whatever the subject, has a slant else there is no good reason to write on a subject about which someone else has already written.

Personally, I think Acts was written to counter statements made by Paul. If Luke's intent was to support Paul he sure failed. I'm writing as a person who spent 30 years writing slanted material and getting paid for it.

 

[Amy.G]

Steele San

I agree with your general thrust but


>As for me, I will just stick to the Scriptures. After all, they are the Book of God.

Is not useful unless you read and understand Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Further, the word were written down by humans as best they could. Third, every writing, whatever the subject, has a slant else there is no good reason to write on a subject about which someone else has already written.

Personally, I think Acts was written to counter statements made by Paul. If Luke's intent was to support Paul he sure failed. I'm writing as a person who spent 30 years writing slanted material and getting paid for it.

Seriously. Why are you here?

 

[Darron Steele]

Written to someone else

Seriously. Why are you here?

Apparently, to try to undermine people's faith in God's Book, or even Christian faith directly.

There have been too many times where he forces in a disparagement of Scripture that is totally off-topic.

There have been too many times where his purpose in posting in a thread was an off-topic disparagement of Scripture.

I can think of no other reasons for such a focused compulsion to disparage God's Book or encourage doubt thereof.

As I said to someone other than him, I will just stick to the Scriptures. As a Christian, I will believe God's Book in all details; what it teaches, goes -- period.

 

[Zenas]

This is in response to Darron Steele’s Post No. 7. When you say that one of the passages I brought up isn’t even talking about baptism, I must assume you are referring to John 3:5. This is understandable because you must take it to mean something else, otherwise you must believe in baptismal regeneration. The fact remains, however, that being “born of water and the spirit” has always been understood to mean baptism. Justin Martyr spoke of this as early as 151. A host of others up to the present day have done the same. No one challenged this idea until modern times, probably less than 300 years ago. As JSM pointed out in the O.P., even the reformers believed in baptismal regeneration, that being “born again” refers to baptismal regeneration. I simply cannot understand why Baptists and other Evangelicals consider this such an heretical concept.

Perhaps their (your) antipathy toward this concept lies in a total rejection of the concept of sacraments. It is true that the Bible nowhere refers to a “sacrament.” Just like the words “trinity” and “dispensation”, "sacrament" has come to refer to a concept that is clear by inference from the Bible but is not used by the Biblical scrivners. Sacrament is a word that simply refers to the use of a physical or visible object as a means of conferring spiritual grace. We see this often in both the Old and New Testaments.

The story of Naaman and Elisha is a prominent O.T. example. We do not and should not believe that the water of the Jordan River had any kind of magical qualities. What we do understand is that God used the water as a vehicle for transmitting His graces to Naaman so he could be healed. Now before you say that this was a case where God was seeking obedience and humility from Naaman, consider these miracles of Christ.

Jesus often used tangible physical things as the vehicle of working His miracles. Please consider the sacramental nature of these miracles:

Feeding the 5,000. Rather than creating food out of thin air, He took a boy's loaves and fish and multiplied them.

Turning water into wine. Jesus could have simply caused the wine to appear in the washing jars, but instead He used water as the vehicle of His miracle.

Healing the deaf mute. Jesus put His fingers in the mute's ears and spit on his tongue, although He could have merely commanded the man to hear and speak.

Healing the blind man at Bethsaida. Jesus spit on the man's eyes.

Healing the man born blind. Here Jesus spit on the ground and then applied the mud to the man's eyes.

Demons into a herd of swine. Jesus might have simply cast out the demons to drift into oblivion, but instead he sent them into the herd of swine as a visible sign of His miracle.

Once you understand that sacramentals is a completely scriptural concept, the idea of baptismal regeneration makes perfect sense according to scripture. As Peter implied in 1 Peter 3:21, it is not the water that cleanses us but the grace of God acting through the water that cleanses us of all unrighteousness. God could have selected a different plan of salvation but He did not. He selected baptism as the mode of our receiving His saving grace and it is incumbent on us to accept it.

You have mentioned Acts 10:43 at least twice in your post and several other times on this thread. This was a single element of Peter’s sermon to the household of Cornelius. Actually in verse 10 Peter was telling them what the prophets had said, although he did not disagree. I am not suggesting that baptism without belief can save you. If that were so, we should round up people at random and baptize as many as possible. That is not what Matthew 28:19-20 commands us to do. Peter was showing Cornelius the way of salvation. When the Holy Spirit came on them suddenly, and unexpectedly, Peter stopped his sermon and said in effect, “Let’s get on with the baptism right now.” Then he baptized everyone in the household, including children. He didn't say, "I'll be back in a couple of months and then we will do the baptism." I have a theory as to why the Holy Spirit came on these people suddenly without warning but this post is too long now.

As for your direct question, yes I believe that one who neglects to be baptized will be unsaved. I have made this known to my church but I serve in a large Baptist church and only two or three members believe as I do. So despite my efforts, there is usually a two or three week interlude between a profession of faith and baptism. No one in my church has been able to show me any scriptural support for this practice.

 

[JSM17]

Dear MR. Darron Steele,
I hope we will be hearing from you on the passages that were originally asked of you and others showing how scripture proves the view that baptism is an "Outward sign of an inward grace", that it is a sign of salvation that has already occured.

BAPTISM:

is done FOR the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)

is done to SAVE us (1Peter 3:21, Acts 2:40, Mark 16:16)

Is done to WASH AWAY OUR SINS (Acts 22:16)

is done to be REBORN to new life (John 3:5, Romans 6:3-6)

is done to CLOTHE ourselves with Christ (Gal 3:26-27)

is done so that GOD will RESURRECT us from death (Colossians 2:12, Romans 6:3-6)

is done as a REQUIRMENT to enter heaven (John 3:5, Mark 16:16)

is done to put us INTO CHRIST (Romans 6:3-6, Galatians 3:26-27, 1Corinthians 12:13)


Show us a passage that states how we get "INTO" Christ that does not pertain to baptism.

Oh and by the way Mr. Darron Steele, I am here for the sme reason that you are on the "Ex-church of Christ" website, helping people that I feel have missed the mark. But please don't let this last comment draw away from the question asked 3 times now. Still waiting.

 

[Darron Steele]

This is in response to Darron Steele’s Post No. 7. When you say that one of the passages I brought up isn’t even talking about baptism, I must assume you are referring to John 3:5. This is understandable because you must take it to mean something else, otherwise you must believe in baptismal regeneration. The fact remains, however, that being “born of water and the spirit” has always been understood to mean baptism. Justin Martyr spoke of this as early as 151.

I want to reply up to here.

First, I do not care what Justin Martyr believed, or anyone else believed. Appealing to teachings of men has blocked the church from following Scripture for centuries.

As for John 3:5-6, behold:

John 3:5b “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (NASB)
John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (NASB).​

The term "born of water" refers to being "born of the flesh."

Ancient Hebrews used such words as "water" and "drop" to describe natural birth. Jesus was referring to that convention. It is pretty evident from the text.

...baptismal regeneration. I simply cannot understand why Baptists and other Evangelicals consider this such an heretical concept.

Perhaps their (your) antipathy toward this concept lies in a total rejection of the concept of sacraments.

No; my rejection of the concept is explained in the post you responded to.

First, it is contrary to Scripture. That has been shown. We cannot have Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) and `NOT everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins.'

Second, the teaching causes Christians to wrongly lament over the eternal status of Christians who were not properly baptized. When such a teaching is without merit, and causes that, I will oppose it.

Third, it divides the church. There are many church groups that do not baptize properly, and the only way to baptize is the Bible way; those groups carry a lot of unbaptized Christians who think they are baptized. Christians in the Churches of Christ and in many Independent Christian churches will not acknowledge unbaptized Christians at all. Therefore, they will not partner with them in fellowship or ministry.

Fourth, it wastes evangelistic resources. Time and resources that should be going to evangelizing unbelievers get misdirected to `evangelizing' Christians. In fact, some church groups that have bought into `salvation by completed baptism' focus their entire `evangelistic' program on Christians!

It is true that the Bible nowhere refers to a “sacrament.” ... it is not the water that cleanses us but the grace of God acting through the water that cleanses us of all unrighteousness.

This whole thing is mystic speculation gone wild to me.

God turning water in magic water? You go further than even the Churches of Christ.

You have mentioned Acts 10:43 at least twice in your post and several other times on this thread. This was a single element of Peter’s sermon to the household of Cornelius. Actually in verse 10 Peter was telling them what the prophets had said, although he did not disagree. I am not suggesting that baptism without belief can save you. If that were so, we should round up people at random and baptize as many as possible. That is not what Matthew 28:19-20 commands us to do. Peter was showing Cornelius the way of salvation. When the Holy Spirit came on them suddenly, and unexpectedly, Peter stopped his sermon and said in effect, “Let’s get on with the baptism right now.” Then he baptized everyone in the household, including children. He didn't say, "I'll be back in a couple of months and then we will do the baptism." I have a theory as to why the Holy Spirit came on these people suddenly without warning but this post is too long now.

I have a theory too; Peter's explanation at Acts 15:8-9.

It is a lot shorter than your probably speculative piece.

Peter's explanation at Acts 15:8-9 “And God, who knoweth the heart, |gave them evidence|, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith” (ASV|NBV|ASV).

Since that is what the Bible says, it is not really a theory to me.

"Actually in verse 10 Peter was telling them what the prophets had said, although he did not disagree." Huh? You mean chapter 10, verse 43, I assume? So he did not disagree with his own statement "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

Then why would you?

As for your direct question, yes I believe that one who neglects to be baptized will be unsaved. I have made this known to my church but I serve in a large Baptist church and only two or three members believe as I do. So despite my efforts, there is usually a two or three week interlude between a profession of faith and baptism. No one in my church has been able to show me any scriptural support for this practice.

I will amen you for as long as you speak against delayed baptism. I detest the practice.

What bothers me about your attitude is that you do not track these people down and try to arrange a private baptism. After all, in your view, these people go to Hell if they die before congregational leaders arrange baptism. Rather, you seem content on trying to convince church leadership of your `salvation by completed baptism' and your mysticism.

Again, I will amen you for as long as you speak against delayed baptism. It is a practice foreign to Scripture and is in defiance of every New Testament example and Matthew 28:19-20. When Jesus Christ directed us to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them, it is pretty clear He wanted baptism done as quickly as He wanted teaching to begin.

However, when you teach `If anyone who believeth on Jesus Christ is not baptized, then s/he shall not receive remission of sins' I will not amen you. It teaches `NOT everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins' when Acts 10:43 SAYS "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

 

[MrJim]

The reformers were good godly men that loved God and His word. However, as much as I respect them for their dedication to God, that doesn't mean they were infallible.

Weren't infallible? That's the understatement of the day~~if we as baptists lived in their day we would be persecuted by them as anabaptists ["rebaptizers"] even to the point of death; that means "they loved God and His word"? That means they "were good godly men"?