The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to
-
-
First Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
Part 2 The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!Mike and many other RCC think if you are not baptized in water you are not saved.Salvation can only come by water baptism think many religious people.Not only the RCC but the church of Jesus Christ and more... I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 07/19/2009 13:58:35
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Yes, ALL, and in those passages who were the ALL? The context does not suggest that everyone on the planet received the Holy Ghost, nor does it imply that everyone in that region received the Holy Ghost. Nor does it even give credibility to the idea that the Jews who sent them away received the Holy Ghost.
Who were the Apostles with when the Holy Ghost came down? With their own followers who by that time had already been baptized.
The chapter didn't mention they got baptized or wet, but they had the belief message.
one love
Show me where you can get baptized without water. And Acts 19 proves beyond all doubt that belief does not beget the Holy Ghost or else those believers would have received it. They did not receive the Holy Ghost until after they were baptized into Christ.
And for your example, the Apostles had been very busy baptizing all of the disciples so it is unlikely that they have had followers close by who had not already been baptized. Again, as in Acts 19, they believed in not wasting any time getting believers baptized.
Acts 2:37-38 "Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
Act 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."
Belief did not get them the Holy Ghost either, but Peter told them how to get it - repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
You are very stubborn. For someone who claims to have the Bible as their sole rule of faith, you put a lot of trust in man made traditions and refuse to accept the plain truth of the Scriptures.
It was men who decided recently that baptism was only an act of faith and not a sacrament. It was men who disconnected baptism from the Holy Ghost. There is only one passage where anyone received the Holy Ghost ahead of baptism, and that was only a sign from God that they were worthy of being baptized. And yet some men decided, contrary to the very Word of God that this one passage supersedes all of the other passages that show baptism as being connected with the Holy Ghost.
So now you are admitting there is a verse that one recieve the Holy Spirit without getting wet, so God and Jesus went against His covenant, principles and will???
one love
Did you read my post at all??? No. The Bible says repeatedly that one receives the Holy Ghost when they are Baptised. The case with Cornelius was a special sign from God giving Gentiles permission to be baptized into Christ.
Even Peter understood from that shocking event that this meant they were to be baptized - every Jewish Christian in the area was shocked and surprised that anyone would receive the Holy Ghost before being baptized, and especially that this could happen with Gentiles - but the sign only happened ONCE in the Bible and after that all Gentiles had to be baptized first to receive the Holy Ghost.
I asked you to provide any evidence to the contrary.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by michael
Can a person baptize themself yes or no?
If no why?
So yes!
I did hear of a person do this in thier bath tube as they slide up then down getting thier whole body wet!
one love
You see, that is why you needed to be baptized three times. You do not know what Christian Baptism is. You think anytime someone gets wet they are baptized into Christ, but that is not the case.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Yes, ALL, and in those passages who were the ALL? The context does not suggest that everyone on the planet received the Holy Ghost, nor does it imply that everyone in that region received the Holy Ghost. Nor does it even give credibility to the idea that the Jews who sent them away received the Holy Ghost.
Who were the Apostles with when the Holy Ghost came down? With their own followers who by that time had already been baptized.
The chapter didn't mention they got baptized or wet, but they had the belief message.
one love
Show me where you can get baptized without water. And Acts 19 proves beyond all doubt that belief does not beget the Holy Ghost or else those believers would have received it. They did not receive the Holy Ghost until after they were baptized into Christ.
And for your example, the Apostles had been very busy baptizing all of the disciples so it is unlikely that they have had followers close by who had not already been baptized. Again, as in Acts 19, they believed in not wasting any time getting believers baptized.
Acts 2:37-38 "Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
Act 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."
Belief did not get them the Holy Ghost either, but Peter told them how to get it - repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
You are very stubborn. For someone who claims to have the Bible as their sole rule of faith, you put a lot of trust in man made traditions and refuse to accept the plain truth of the Scriptures.
It was men who decided recently that baptism was only an act of faith and not a sacrament. It was men who disconnected baptism from the Holy Ghost. There is only one passage where anyone received the Holy Ghost ahead of baptism, and that was only a sign from God that they were worthy of being baptized. And yet some men decided, contrary to the very Word of God that this one passage supersedes all of the other passages that show baptism as being connected with the Holy Ghost.
So now you are admitting there is a verse that one recieve the Holy Spirit without getting wet, so God and Jesus went against His covenant, principles and will???
one love
Did you read my post at all??? No. The Bible says repeatedly that one receives the Holy Ghost when they are Baptised. The case with Cornelius was a special sign from God giving Gentiles permission to be baptized into Christ.
Even Peter understood from that shocking event that this meant they were to be baptized - every Jewish Christian in the area was shocked and surprised that anyone would receive the Holy Ghost before being baptized, and especially that this could happen with Gentiles - but the sign only happened ONCE in the Bible and after that all Gentiles had to be baptized first to receive the Holy Ghost.
I asked you to provide any evidence to the contrary.
Once is maybe to much FAL!
But just like only Peter once walk on water means a pope can't never walk on water or have the power that Peter once had!
This is why I did understand you , you are trying to add to the scriptures a doctrine which is not there and that is a requirement to be saved only and everytime by a water ritual for the outside body!
Have you heard of the being baptized by the Spirit of God and is that less a baptism of water?
I asked the same with the blood baptism of Jesus is that less than a water baptism or the same more or less???
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 09/11/2009 03:03:12
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
We are baptised by the Holy Ghost during our water baptism. Why do you add to the scriptures by presuming that the lone exception is the norm?
Acts 19 proves you absolutely 100% wrong. This passage demonstrates clearly that the Holy Ghost is not received by merely coming to belief. The passage is clear that the Holy Ghost does come with baptism. It does not say the Holy Spirit comes down when they are baptized by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38 shows the same thing. If water baptism and spirit baptism were separate events, then this would be specified.
Acts 8 shows that the Holy Spirit did not come down upon any who had not been baptized into Christ. And further while you may try to ignore that baptism is not the topic here, you cannot get away from the fact that NONE of the believers received the Holy Ghost until an Apostle laid their hands upon them. Simon even tried to purchase this power. So if you or anyone else tries to teach that the Holy Spirit comes upon belief - the Bible says NO NO NO!
You say once is enough for your false dogma, and yet multiple times in the Bible says that you are wrong. Why do you cling to false teachings?
Baptism by Blood also works, but do you realize that this is accomplished by martyrdom? So long as we are baptized.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
We are baptised by the Holy Ghost during our water baptism. Why do you add to the scriptures by presuming that the lone exception is the norm?
Acts 19 proves you absolutely 100% wrong. This passage demonstrates clearly that the Holy Ghost is not received by merely coming to belief. The passage is clear that the Holy Ghost does come with baptism. It does not say the Holy Spirit comes down when they are baptized by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38 shows the same thing. If water baptism and spirit baptism were separate events, then this would be specified.
Acts 8 shows that the Holy Spirit did not come down upon any who had not been baptized into Christ. And further while you may try to ignore that baptism is not the topic here, you cannot get away from the fact that NONE of the believers received the Holy Ghost until an Apostle laid their hands upon them. Simon even tried to purchase this power. So if you or anyone else tries to teach that the Holy Spirit comes upon belief - the Bible says NO NO NO!
You say once is enough for your false dogma, and yet multiple times in the Bible says that you are wrong. Why do you cling to false teachings?
Baptism by Blood also works, but do you realize that this is accomplished by martyrdom? So long as we are baptized.
So when does the baptism of the blood of Jesus come in effect as when you go down under the water of when you come up?
So I would think water baptism doctrine people would say coming out the water you recieve the Holy Spirit to be like Jesus so a dove can fly on you!
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Yes to the first, and as for the second why do put the Lord your God to the test? Why must Jesus have inspired every specific detail and element of each sacrament for you - He spent three years teaching the men who would become our teachers and their successors so that the Bible would not have to be larger than the Library of Congress in the US.
If you do not understand the sacrament of Baptism, then trust the men that Jesus ordained to be over you and teach you correctly. IF you believe nothing else in the Bible, then believe the part where it tells you to obey those that have rule over you.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
My motive for teaching getting wet is differenr than your vatican doctrine!
one love
your teaching is just getting wet.. we teach getting baptized which is not just getting wet, so i know you doctrine is different. what i still want to know from you is why you teach dead works. if you don't believe baptism necessary why do it? do you think jesus taught people to do dead works? that he only said to do certain things for the sake of doing them? that is a dead work. catholics don't believe jesus told us to do things unless they were in some way important.. and that is why we believe they are sacraments. our belief is that if jesus said to do it... there is a real spiritual reason behind it that could never be reduced to a mere ordinance or dead work. if anything i think you need to explain yourself, your religion, and your doctrine before you start making accusations about catholics.
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
When did the full power of the Holy Spirit come? The day of Pentecost. Wouldn't this then be the perfect time for Peter to preach the first sermon on Spirit Baptism and that by believing alone one would receive without even the mention of water baptism? Did Peter blow it on the very first Christian Sermon? Did he say that if you receive Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior you will be saved or receive the Holy Spirit? No, he didn't even mention belief, although it can be assumed:
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
Here the Jews that were in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost were convicted in their hearts of being guilty of murdering Jesus. When they asked what they should do, Peter didn't say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved:
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The construction of this verse can not be manipulated to mean anything other than repentance and water Baptism lead to forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. The Greek word eis always means into or unto meaning one action or set of actions (repentance and baptism) precedes another action of set of actions (forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit). That is why you have always avoided commenting on the meaning of this passage. You would rather just ignore it than own up to what it clearly says. How can one call the bible the sole rule of faith and then ignore it in favor of one's own religious tradition?
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
What did the word 'promise' mean to the Jews? It means covenant, specifically here it is the new covenant which included children (just like the Old) and all nations (unlike the Old); anyone whom the Lord calls.
40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Those who accepted Peter's message and exhortation were baptized as he commanded (as Jesus commanded him to do to make disciples). This marked their entrance into the Church, not their belief alone.
Why should anyone be suprised that Peter carried out exactly what Christ had commanded him to do in Mat. 28? Why is it that we see this for over 1500 years without ever being questioned. Even heretics didn't throw out water baptism. Why is it that only in the past hundred years or so that anyone has said that baptism is optional and one doesn't need it.
Clearly, it is a new tradition of men.
So according to your original post, was Peter the first heretic, preaching the heretic's message to the world to be baptized on the first day of the Church? The first day that the power of the Holy Spirit was manifested to the world started with a heretical sermon? The church never actually got started, but began in error?
Or Maybe it was Jesus who was the first heretic by commanding that disciples be made by baptizing in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit?
There are plenty of Protestants who have broken away from the new tradition and concluded (from bible alone - not what some preacher or 20th century prophet tells them) that water baptism is clearly a necessity for salvation.
Will you ever tell us how you square this passage with your original post? Let's see your confidence in your beliefs. If you really believe the bible is the sole rule of faith and every teaching is God-breathed absolute truth, you must have an answer, especially for the first Christian sermon and teaching on salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Yes to the first, and as for the second why do put the Lord your God to the test? Why must Jesus have inspired every specific detail and element of each sacrament for you - He spent three years teaching the men who would become our teachers and their successors so that the Bible would not have to be larger than the Library of Congress in the US.
If you do not understand the sacrament of Baptism, then trust the men that Jesus ordained to be over you and teach you correctly. IF you believe nothing else in the Bible, then believe the part where it tells you to obey those that have rule over you.
But the bible also says to prove all things even those who have a position in religion.
Ro:3:4: God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
quote:
My motive for teaching getting wet is differenr than your vatican doctrine!
one love
your teaching is just getting wet.. we teach getting baptized which is not just getting wet, so i know you doctrine is different. what i still want to know from you is why you teach dead works. if you don't believe baptism necessary why do it? do you think jesus taught people to do dead works? that he only said to do certain things for the sake of doing them? that is a dead work. catholics don't believe jesus told us to do things unless they were in some way important.. and that is why we believe they are sacraments. our belief is that if jesus said to do it... there is a real spiritual reason behind it that could never be reduced to a mere ordinance or dead work. if anything i think you need to explain yourself, your religion, and your doctrine before you start making accusations about catholics.
I have explain myself from the very beginning of this thread Mike.
It teach getting wet is something a christian should do just like other things like read the bible ,go to church, pray, fast,and get baptized, but all these things I listed is not a requirement to get saved, it is a fruit not a root!
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
When did the full power of the Holy Spirit come? The day of Pentecost. Wouldn't this then be the perfect time for Peter to preach the first sermon on Spirit Baptism and that by believing alone one would receive without even the mention of water baptism? Did Peter blow it on the very first Christian Sermon? Did he say that if you receive Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior you will be saved or receive the Holy Spirit? No, he didn't even mention belief, although it can be assumed:
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
Here the Jews that were in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost were convicted in their hearts of being guilty of murdering Jesus. When they asked what they should do, Peter didn't say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved:
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The construction of this verse can not be manipulated to mean anything other than repentance and water Baptism lead to forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. The Greek word eis always means into or unto meaning one action or set of actions (repentance and baptism) precedes another action of set of actions (forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit). That is why you have always avoided commenting on the meaning of this passage. You would rather just ignore it than own up to what it clearly says. How can one call the bible the sole rule of faith and then ignore it in favor of one's own religious tradition?
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
What did the word 'promise' mean to the Jews? It means covenant, specifically here it is the new covenant which included children (just like the Old) and all nations (unlike the Old); anyone whom the Lord calls.
40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Those who accepted Peter's message and exhortation were baptized as he commanded (as Jesus commanded him to do to make disciples). This marked their entrance into the Church, not their belief alone.
Why should anyone be suprised that Peter carried out exactly what Christ had commanded him to do in Mat. 28? Why is it that we see this for over 1500 years without ever being questioned. Even heretics didn't throw out water baptism. Why is it that only in the past hundred years or so that anyone has said that baptism is optional and one doesn't need it.
Clearly, it is a new tradition of men.
So according to your original post, was Peter the first heretic, preaching the heretic's message to the world to be baptized on the first day of the Church? The first day that the power of the Holy Spirit was manifested to the world started with a heretical sermon? The church never actually got started, but began in error?
Or Maybe it was Jesus who was the first heretic by commanding that disciples be made by baptizing in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit?
There are plenty of Protestants who have broken away from the new tradition and concluded (from bible alone - not what some preacher or 20th century prophet tells them) that water baptism is clearly a necessity for salvation.
Will you ever tell us how you square this passage with your original post? Let's see your confidence in your beliefs. If you really believe the bible is the sole rule of faith and every teaching is God-breathed absolute truth, you must have an answer, especially for the first Christian sermon and teaching on salvation.
I think in John brief is a better teaching of being saved or born again, without getting wet!
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
People like to argue over various teachings and how to interpret them. But in Acts, we see many of these teachings in action. You just can't ignore them because you learned Christ from someone who doesn't believe in baptismal regeneration.
Then again, if you are referring to John 3, The whole teaching revolves around being born again of water and spirit. Starting with the end of John 2 when Jesus says that believing on His name was not enough and ending with Jesus going out with His apostles and baptizing more than John. In between, Jesus says whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. Now you need to resolve the apparent conflict between belief in His name not enough and belief brings eternal life. You can't just pick and chose which one to ignore and which to accept. What separates the two is being born again through baptism which is from above. That is what fills in the blanks and gives sense to John 3:16
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Yes to the first, and as for the second why do put the Lord your God to the test? Why must Jesus have inspired every specific detail and element of each sacrament for you - He spent three years teaching the men who would become our teachers and their successors so that the Bible would not have to be larger than the Library of Congress in the US.
If you do not understand the sacrament of Baptism, then trust the men that Jesus ordained to be over you and teach you correctly. IF you believe nothing else in the Bible, then believe the part where it tells you to obey those that have rule over you.
But the bible also says to prove all things even those who have a position in religion.
Ro:3:4: God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
one love
You cannot use Romans 3:4 to overturn the Gospel.
We are to test all things and keep that which is good. But God did not say that we were all the sole arbiters of what was good.
Matthew 16:19 shows that Peter was given the authority to bind and loose, later in Matthew 18, we see that the Apostles also share in this authority. And in Hebrews we are instructed to obey those that have rule over us, this does not mean that we can pick and choose when we will obey and when we will not.
In the Catholic Church, even the laity have the responsibility to correct the clergy, in an appropriate manner, if they are not in line with the teachings of the Church. But, none of us have the right, according to the scriptures, to turn our backs on the Church and its clergy.
In fact, the Bible warns that there will be those who resist "government" and will not endure "sound doctrine".
The Church is described in action in the Book of Acts. Its doctrines and sacraments are found throughout the New Testament. And yet today many think that no one should have any authority and that the sacraments are no longer in effect.
Many say that Catholics should follow the Bible alone while refusing to follow the Bible themselves. We Catholics already follow the Bible, even when it says to stand fast in the Tradition both by word of mouth or written epistle, and when it says that we must obey those who have rule over us.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
I have explain myself from the very beginning of this thread Mike.
It teach getting wet is something a christian should do just like other things like read the bible ,go to church, pray, fast,and get baptized, but all these things I listed is not a requirement to get saved, it is a fruit not a root!
one love
what does jesus say about trees that bear no fruit?
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
People like to argue over various teachings and how to interpret them. But in Acts, we see many of these teachings in action. You just can't ignore them because you learned Christ from someone who doesn't believe in baptismal regeneration.
Then again, if you are referring to John 3, The whole teaching revolves around being born again of water and spirit. Starting with the end of John 2 when Jesus says that believing on His name was not enough and ending with Jesus going out with His apostles and baptizing more than John. In between, Jesus says whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. Now you need to resolve the apparent conflict between belief in His name not enough and belief brings eternal life. You can't just pick and chose which one to ignore and which to accept. What separates the two is being born again through baptism which is from above. That is what fills in the blanks and gives sense to John 3:16
The Anglican Church and Eastern Orthoxy also theoretically embrace 'baptismal regeneration' though - in fact - countless Anglican ministers, especially of the evangelical variety, actually reject it. Many cults and sects also uphold 'baptismal regeneration' and it is surely interesting that these groups necessarily equate membership in their particular church organization with salvation itself. With undeniable consistency, religious bodies which profess to be "the one true church" incorporate ritual baptism as an essential step in their "What must I do to be saved" formula.
Although in the New Testament, baptism is considered important, if one puts the entirety of New Testament doctrinal teaching together, baptism is not really mentioned all that much.
The Galatian believers were justified by faith, not works (Galatians 2:16; 3:22). It was the "false brethren" (Galatians 2:4), the Judaizers, who introduced the additional requirements of keeping certain tenets of the law in order to be saved. Moreover, the Acts 15 church conference of about AD49 which discussed the approach to be employed in bringing Christ to the Gentiles does not even mention baptism! While it could be argued that this was discussing things in the gentile's lives post-baptism (baptism being assumed), if 'baptismal regeneration' (salvation is impossible without baptism) is really true, it does seem surprising that there is no mention here. Moreover, something over 80 places in the Bible refer to salvation by grace through faith alone. Here are just a very few examples: John 1:12; John 3:16; John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 11:25; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:30,31; Romans 3:22; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:3; Romans 4:5; Romans 10:9-13; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:26, and Ephesians 2:8-9 - many more examples could obviously be given, but the point should surely already be clearly made that while new believers are instructed to be baptized, water baptism itself only occupies a very minor role in New Testament theology; but if baptism by an officially ordained minister of any particular denomination/organisation is absolutely essential to salvation (as Catholicism and numerous cults and sects teach), would it not, surely, occupy a more major place in New Testament doctrinal teaching??
We can take this even further:
It is well-recognized that the two most heavily doctrinal books in the New Testament are Romans and Hebrews (I am not aware that anybody even challenges this). But what do we find when we look for evidence from these books that salvation cannot occur without baptism? We are in for some surprises!
1. The word for 'baptism' only occurs in Romans 6:4, it occurs nowhere else in these two heavily doctrinal books which teach us so much about salvation.
2. The word, 'baptisms' occurs just once in Hebrews 6:2 but nowhere else in these books.
3. The word for 'baptize' never occurs in either book!
4. The word for 'baptized' just occurs in Romans 6:3, but nowhere else in these books.
5. The word for 'baptizing' never occurs anywhere in either book!
So we are left with just Romans 6:3-4 and Hebrews 6:2.
So are these verses (in two such doctrinal books which continually focus on salvation) definite warnings that none will be saved without baptism?
Let us look:
Romans 6:3-4
Romans 6:3-4 just shows that our baptisms were symbolic of the death of our old person when we accepted Christ. These verses show that just as '...Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life' (Romans 6:4). The point which Paul is answering is the one he had raised in verse one: '...Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?' Paul shows that this would be a nonsensical approach since we should now look upon our old 'sinning man' as dead. But does he conclude here with a warning that none will even be saved without being baptized (after all, he mentions baptism nowhere else in this epistle)? No. He does not, since the huge weight of his teaching elsewhere in this epistle (and elsewhere in his other epistles) is that the vital components in salvation are faith and grace.
Hebrews 6:2
What about Hebrews 6:2? Do we find a warning here in such a heavily doctrinal book as this that there is no salvation without water baptism? There is a surprise here, for in verses 1-2 the writer is saying that it is time to move on from such 'elementary principles' as 'the repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment' (Hebrews 6:1-2). He is saying that while we should understand these things, it is now time to move on toward perfection! Interestingly, he puts baptism second in his list after first mentioning the vital matter of 'repentance from dead works and of faith toward God' (An order which Protestant theology would expect to see). But does the writer take an opportunity (since the topic of baptism is raised nowhere else in this epistle) to remind and warn that there is no salvation without water baptism? No. He does not.
So we are left with the clear conclusion that the two most heavily doctrinal books in the New Testament which reveal so much about how humans may - through the grace of God - attain salvation, never mention water baptism as a vital stage in the process without which there is no salvation.
We are bound to conclude that while those who come to faith in Christ should certainly be baptized in line with the clear New Testament example, water baptism is not essential for salvation; therefore, we must also conclude that the Holy Bible does not uphold the Roman Catholic and cultic doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
my source:
http://www.ukapologetics.net/1baptismal.htm
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 09/22/2009 00:02:54
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS