Baptismal regeneration

[PreachTony]

Preach Tony, you wrote: "That said, I believe every believer ought to be baptized. But I also believe that when I enter into God's Glory I'll meet a lot of believers who never were baptized."

You will only meet those people that lived during the period of the Old Testament not Baptized but "saved". All want-to-be- Christians living after Christ's New Testament must be Baptized with only the following formula- " I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".


...... 'After this Jesus and His disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized "

No, they must not. You are wrong in this, lakeside. What you are condoning is a works-based salvation, based on ceremony and tradition, requiring men and women to perform a task in order to ensure their salvation. The only thing the Bible requires of us for salvation is faith, not baptism. Being baptized after believing is a blessing, but it is not a requirement for salvation.

Again, I return to the thief on the cross. Christ told the thief "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43)." Did Christ lie to this thief? After all, the thief was never baptized. Or do you count the thief as an Old Testament believer, and claim the baptism requirement only took effect AFTER Christ died?

 

[Revmitchell]

No, they must not. You are wrong in this, lakeside. What you are condoning is a works-based salvation,

It is clear in scripture that Baptism is not required for salvation. When you look at Romans 6 we can see the biblical nature of Baptism. I believe that is a much better argument than it being a work. God can require whatever He wants as a response to his offer of grace. If we say that Baptism is a work then we also have to argue that any response to the gospel is a work. "Works" is always a reference to the law and the dependence on the law over grace.

A much more solid argument against Baptism being required is found in its very biblical nature . Stick with that.

 

[PreachTony]

It is clear in scripture that Baptism is not required for salvation. When you look at Romans 6 we can see the biblical nature of Baptism. I believe that is a much better argument than it being a work. God can require whatever He wants as a response to his offer of grace. If we say that Baptism is a work then we also have to argue that any response to the gospel is a work. "Works" is always a reference to the law and the dependence on the law over grace.

A much more solid argument against Baptism being required is found in its very biblical nature . Stick with that.

Good point, Rev. Thank you. I suppose I've been so caught up lately in people saying any response by man is a "work" that it became my 'go-to' argument here. Romans 6 is a great place to see the biblical nature of baptism.

 

[Robert William]

Robert William, you stated that " nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christian water baptism as salvific.

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

What translation are you using, Matt 28:19-20 does not say what you are saying. I think you may be trying to deceive us to make verses say to baptise goats. The ones who are baptised are the ones who are taught.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 

[lakeside]

So, are you trying to tell me that if Jesus taught and commanded His Apostles to baptize [ with the correct precise formula ] that it wasn't an important ordinance / sacrament, why not ?

 

[Robert William]

So, are you trying to tell me that if Jesus taught and commanded His Apostles to baptize [ with the correct precise formula ] that it wasn't an important ordinance / sacrament, why not ?

What translation are you using, Matt 28:19-20 does not say what you are saying. I think you may be trying to deceive us to make verses say to baptise all babies even, goats. The ones who are baptised are the ones who are taught.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 

[McCree79]

Some good posts by Preach Tony and John Deere. I will just add a little to what they said. If Peter, in 1 peter 2 was comparing (water)baptism to Noah's physical salvation. It would be natural to compare water to water. Based on those verses, if water baptism saves us spiritually, then the flood(water) would have saved Noah. But water didn't save Noah. Noah was saved from the water. Water was the instrument of death. The chapter before Noah enters the ark, we see that God found favor with Noah. Noah was saved by grace, not water. 1 Peter 2 is not about water. It is about Faith and the comparison in play is the Ark and Christ. Preach Tony covered that....so I won't repeat it.

 

[Robert William]

Some good posts by Preach Tony and John Deere. I will just add a little to what they said. If Peter, in 1 peter 2 was comparing (water)baptism to Noah's physical salvation. It would be natural to compare water to water. Based on those verses, if water baptism saves us spiritually, then the flood(water) would have saved Noah. But water didn't save Noah. Noah was saved from the water. Water was the instrument of death. The chapter before Noah enters the ark, we see that God found favor with Noah. Noah was saved by grace, not water. 1 Peter 2 is not about water. It is about Faith and the comparison in play is the Ark and Christ. Preach Tony covered that....so I won't repeat it.

Amen,

What saved the eight people on the Ark, the water or the Ark??

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Some good posts by Preach Tony and John Deere. I will just add a little to what they said. If Peter, in 1 peter 2 was comparing (water)baptism to Noah's physical salvation. It would be natural to compare water to water. Based on those verses, if water baptism saves us spiritually, then the flood(water) would have saved Noah. But water didn't save Noah. Noah was saved from the water. Water was the instrument of death. The chapter before Noah enters the ark, we see that God found favor with Noah. Noah was saved by grace, not water. 1 Peter 2 is not about water. It is about Faith and the comparison in play is the Ark and Christ. Preach Tony covered that....so I won't repeat it.

TRUE!

Noah was saved as through water passing without water having touched him, or he, water ---like the prophet Jonas in the belly of the fish ---like Israel through the Red Sea on dry land. And as Jesus who went under the foundations of the mountains in the sea whose "baptism" was with hell : WITHOUT hell leaving a smell of the furnace on Him ---like not a flame touched the four in Nebuchadnezzar's seven times overheated oven.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Amen,

What saved the eight people on the Ark, the water or the Ark??

Neither. God saved both the ark and the eight.

The ark was type of Jesus' GRAVE wherein "his flesh saw NO CORRUPTION".

In fact the word 'ark' in Hebrew is the very same as for a "coffin" and "sanctuary" or place of SAFE REST-OVER for the Lord's Beloved.

 

[lakeside]

I will give you another example.Saul was not saved the moment he was struck on the road to Damascus and first believed in Jesus Christ because his sins were not forgiven until three days later, when he was baptized (Acts 9:9-19 and 22:16). Isn’t it ironic that many of you claim Paul preached "salvation by [mental] faith alone" when it didn’t work that way for Paul himself ?

 

[PreachTony]

I will give you another example.Saul was not saved the moment he was struck on the road to Damascus and first believed in Jesus Christ because his sins were not forgiven until three days later, when he was baptized (Acts 9:9-19 and 22:16).

Where in Acts 9 does it say that Paul was not saved and forgiven of his sins until three days after his encounter with the Lord on the road to Damascus? Ananias came to him as a minister, sent from God. Paul required instruction and God provided that instruction. Paul later detailed the salvation experience to the Romans by saying:

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Paul does not tell the Romans that baptism is a requirement for salvation; only faith.

Isn’t it ironic that many of you claim Paul preached "salvation by [mental] faith alone" when it didn’t work that way for Paul himself ?

The Bible makes that claim, lakeside...not us. Otherwise I have to assume your reading of the Pauline epistles is vastly different from mine.

 

[McCree79]

Neither. God saved both the ark and the eight.

The ark was type of Jesus' GRAVE wherein "his flesh saw NO CORRUPTION".

In fact the word 'ark' in Hebrew is the very same as for a "coffin" and "sanctuary" or place of SAFE REST-OVER for the Lord's Beloved.

I don't think Robert is contesting that God saved them. I think the point is the God ordained/provided the Ark for physical salvation. As he ordained spiritual salvation through the redemptive work of Christ. To play on the point you made, "of safe rest". The Ark provided that physically and Christ provides that Spiritually.

 

[lakeside]

PreachTony, Acts 9:18-20; 22:16 - Paul is "baptized" while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

 

[PreachTony]

PreachTony, Acts 9:18-20; 22:16 - Paul is "baptized" while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

I don't see it, bud. What translation are you using?

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Nothing in that verse implies Paul was standing up when he was baptized.

 

[lakeside]

The Roman Catechism

It was necessary that Jesus should rise again in order to manifest the justice of God. For it was most fitting that He who was degraded and loathed with ignominy through obedience to God, should have been exalted by God. The Apostle gives this reason in his Epistle to the Philippians: "He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him" (Ph 2:8-9).

Furthermore, he rose with the purpose of confirming our faith, which is necessary for our justification. For the resurrection of Christ from the dead by his own power gives our faith its principal argument for his divinity.

[At the same time as it proves Christ's divinity, the Resurrection also shows us that the sacrifice of Christ was acceptable to the Father, and serves a sign of the ratification of the New Covenant. Thus:]

It also nurtures and sustains our hope, for, as Christ rose again, we are established in the certain hope that we too shall rise again. The members must necessarily arrive at the condition of their head. This is the conclusion which St. Paul draws from the reasoning which he uses in his Epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians (see 1 Cor 15:12; 1 Th 4:14). And Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, says: "Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By His great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pt 1:3).

Finally, the resurrection of our Lord was necessary to complete the mystery of our salvation and redemption. For Christ liberated us from the slavery of sin by His death and restored to us through his resurrection the most important privileges which we had lost by sin. Hence the Apostle Paul teaches: "Jesus was to put the death for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Rm 4:25).

Therefore, so that nothing be wanting to perfect the work of our salvation, it was necessary that, as he died, he should also rise again from the dead.

 

[Darrell C]

I will give you another example.Saul was not saved the moment he was struck on the road to Damascus and first believed in Jesus Christ because his sins were not forgiven until three days later, when he was baptized (Acts 9:9-19 and 22:16). Isn’t it ironic that many of you claim Paul preached "salvation by [mental] faith alone" when it didn’t work that way for Paul himself ?

Certainly Paul was saved by faith alone, which is indicated in his actions after being saved. I would suggest the context addresses Paul's persecution of the Church and that the "washing away of sins" is not salvific but deals with Paul making amends, so to speak, by the new ministry which stood in direct contradiction to what was known of Paul.



Acts 9:13-15

King James Version (KJV)

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:



Acts 22:16-21

King James Version (KJV)

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:

20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.


Identification with Christ through Baptism was something incredible in light of Paul's former persecution of those calling on the name of Christ. It is Ananias' perspective given in regards to a correlation between baptism and washing away sins, and Ananias' perspective is made clear, that Paul was a persecutor and for this reason a dubious choice as a witness for Christ, lol.


God bless.

 

[Walter]

I believe it is true that immersion best represents death and resurrection, bringing out more fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239. Immersion is actually the usual mode of baptizing in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites (Byzantine, Maronite, etc.) On the other hand, pouring best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit also associated with water baptism. And all three modes adequately suggest the sense of cleansing signified by baptism. Personally, I believe no one mode has exclusive symbolical validity over the others. However, as Lakeside points out, there were obviously times when immersion was not possible for reasons such as incarceration. No bath tubs in Roman prisons, agreed?

The Early Church was aware that immersion was not always possible and we find instructions by those taught by the Apostles themselves in The Didache. The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, an anonymous book of 16 short chapters, is probably the earliest known written instructions, outside of the Bible, for administering baptism. The first version of it was written c. 60–80 AD. The second, with insertions and additions, was written c. 100–50 AD. This work, rediscovered in the 19th century, provides a unique look at Christianity in the Apostolic Age and is the first explicit reference to baptism by pouring, although the New Testament does not exclude the possibility of this practice." Its instructions on baptism are as follows:

'Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand'.

 

[lakeside]

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

 

[PreachTony]

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

I think we have different ideas about just who Jesus is...

By the by, you still haven't answered the question that has been posed to you several times: what translation are you using?