Is Baptism Essential To Salvation? by baptismalregenerationheresy.com
There are many churches and individuals who believe that people must be baptized in water in order for them to be saved from their sins and go to Heaven when they die. Some churches teach that baptism is essential to salvation. Those churches generally believe that anyone who trusts Jesus, but does not also get baptized in water before they die, must then go to Hell, because they did not perform the “good work” of getting baptized that they might be saved thereby.
Churches believing that baptism is essential to salvation tend to de-emphasize the Blood of Christ as an all-sufficient payment for sin. Instead, they believe that the blood of Jesus is not really sufficient to “cleanse us from all sin”. (See I John 1:9). Instead, they believe that salvation must be obtained through both the good work of Christ on the cross, and through the good work of man in baptism. People who hold to this false doctrine believe that Man therefore becomes a “co-redeemer” together with Christ. They believe in salvation by the grace of God plus the works of man. This is the erroneous belief that Jesus and man both work together to pay for sin, a doctrine also taught by the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church.
One of the most well-known churches teaching that baptism is essential to salvation is the “Church of Christ”. I once heard a man say that he knew of a preacher who was raised in the Church of Christ and stayed in the Church of Christ all of his life. Nevertheless, even though he was a preacher in the Church of Christ, on his death bed he wanted to be baptized “once again”, just to “be sure” that he would go to Heaven instead of going to Hell when he died.
Those churches believing that baptism is essential to salvation often use such verses as Acts 2:38 to support this point of view. This view of baptism held by the Church of Christ can be traced to its founder, Alexander Campbell. Alexander Campbell once said that, “Immersion is that act by which our state is changed” The idea that baptism itself saves, (instead of Jesus alone saving us from our sins through His own redeeming blood shed on the cross), is called “baptismal regeneration”.
The act of baptism is actually a picture of what should have already happened in the lives of believers before they were baptized. Namely, that they have already been forgiven for their sins and therefore they have already been made ready for Heaven by trusting Jesus alone for salvation. This then brings up an interesting question: If all of their sins were already forgiven before they were baptized, then how can there be any sins left over for baptism itself to “forgive” or wash away? Also, which sin will they be sent to Hell for, if someone had trusted Jesus, but then died before getting baptized?
I was baptized a few times before I was actually saved. In fact, all that happened to me on those occasions was that I got wet. I was not saved by getting baptized. When I did get saved by trusting Jesus alone for my salvation, I was e again baptized — but this time out of obedience to Christ! Since I had already been saved, I had no need to try to earn my own salvation by my own good work of baptism. Jesus had already saved me. Jesus did all the saving. It was all Christ.
I once knew of a lady who desired to be baptized. When she was baptized and came up out of the water, she praised God that she was now saved. What she meant, of course, was that she was lost in sin before going down into the water. She was trying to save herself by her own good work of baptism. Needless to say, this woman very quickly fell back into the world and back into sin, proving that she was never truly converted in the first place. Her baptism, (which was an act of “salvation by works”), did not save her from her sin.
The idea of salvation by works dates all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Cain, the son of Adam, brought an offering of vegetables to God – his attempt at “salvation by works”. Nevertheless, God wanted blood, not the “good works” of fallen man. Cain’s offering of works was therefore rejected by God. The fact is, men and women often want to give their “salvation by works” offerings to God, just as Cain once tried to do. They do not want to trust Jesus alone to save them by His blood. This “total depravity” of man in rejecting God’s way of salvation by grace, helps to explain why there are hundreds of religions in the world today which provide various forms of “salvation by works”. Jesus said:
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:” (Matt. 7:13)
Most people try to be saved by their good works, such as by the good work of baptism. God’s way for you to be saved is by His grace through faith in Jesus’ blood alone, which Jesus shed outside Jerusalem at Calvary to pay for your sins. The Bible says:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)
“…the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (I John 1:7)
Have you trusted Jesus alone to save you from your sins? If you are trusting Jesus plus anything else to save you, then this proves that you have never actually been converted. You are still on the road to Hell. Trust Jesus alone to save you before it is too late. Eternity is a very long time, and Hell is very, very hot. Trust Jesus today!
***The Only Way to God***
Posted on November 22, 2015, in Baptismal Regeneration and tagged baptism, baptism now saves, baptism salvation, Baptismal Regeneration, church of christ, church of christ baptism, does baptism save, is baptism essential, water gospel. Bookmark the permalink. 17 Comments.
Answering The Hard-line Church of Christ 
I asked a CoC member, at work, if baptism is so important it must mean it is a divine act and not a human act. I asked him if Baptism was a supernatural act because being born again is a supernatural act. He never answered that question except to say that God instituted it at the Baptism of Jesus.
Good point, in this article, is that it asks the questions ‘Is Jesus Blood not enough to save’? It must be baptism as well? Chris Rosebrough became a Lutheran based on TItus 3:5 which is about baptism and the washing away of sins but then I ask the question……to be born again is a supernatural thing. Is baptism then something supernatural or is it a symbol of what just happened as a part of being born again?
LikeLike
I believe baptism is the sign of the new covenant similar to circumcision in the OT. It is also an outward expression of what happens inside us when we believe which is to die and be risen to life in Christ.
LikeLike
How do you explain Mark 16:16 which says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” How do you explain John 1:12-13 which says, “But as many as receive Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” and also, John 3:1-7? How do you explain Romans 6:1-10? Col. 2:12-13? Gal. 3:26-27? Is Jesus only a Savior, or is He also Lord? As Lord, is there anything that he wants us to obey for us to be saved? How do you explain Rom. 1:16, I Cor. 15:1-4 and 2 Thess. 1:8-9? In the numerous examples of conversion in the book of Acts, when the question “What must I do be saved,” was asked, was the reply “Pray the Sinner’s Prayer”. If not, why not? Why was the response of apostle Peter say, “Repent and be baptized..” not repent and pray the Sinner’s Prayer? When the Jailer in Acts 16:30 asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Did Peter say, “no, there is nothing that you need to do?” With all the examples of conversion in the book of Acts, I wonder why people insists that a group of people insists on saying that you pray the sinner’s prayer and right away you are saved. Is it not that it was only when the early Christians obeyed the Gospel that they were added by Him to His church, the church of Christ? (Acts 2:47).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for commenting. I will try to respond in length in a few days as I will be busy for awhile
LikeLike
DAMON: All you have really done is prooftext and used verses out of context and interpret them wronging to come to a wrong conclusion because you start of with presumption. Your just spewing the same old tired CoC spiel that all hardliners do.
QUINTIN: How do you explain Mark 16:16 which says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
DAMON: There are a myriad of reasons Mark 16:16 cannot be used to teach baptism is required for salvation. (1.) This text does not deal specifically with the fate of someone who believes and is not baptized. (2.) The obvious emphasis is on unbelief = damnation. (3.) Most who claim baptism is required say baptism is “for the remission of sins”. This verse predates Acts 2:38, so this verse is talking rather about Johns baptism which was a “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Repentance correctly understood as a change of mind from unbelief to personal faith in Christ (Matt. 21:32, Acts 19:4, Acts 20:21, Mark 1:15) is what provides remission of sin (Acts 10:43). (4.) The oldest New Testament Greek manuscripts do not contain Mark 9-20 and therefore cannot be used as a certainty to establish a doctrine of salvation. (5.) Most baptismal regenerationist are cessationist, not Charismatic, and do not follow Mark 17-18 by casting out devils, speaking in tongues, laying hands on the sick, taking up serpents and drinking deadly things. So while they say they believe the passage, they do not practice it. (6.) It is said “these signs shall follow those who believe”, not “those who believe and are baptized”. (7.) Verse 20 says the Lord works with then who believe, not them that believe and are baptized.
QUINTIN: How do you explain John 1:12-13 which says, “But as many as receive Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,”
DAMON: What is there to be made of it. The verse actually says that those who believe in Jesus’s name that they are born of God and are his children. And if someone is born a child of God by believing in Jesus name, we can rest assured that they are saved.
QUINTIN: and also, John 3:1-7?
DAMON: Joh 3:1-7 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
If this passage was a snake it would bite you for standing right on top of it and not realizing it’s there. The meaning of the passage is right there in the text and it is so clear.
First the term “born again” means born from above because the greek word for again, does not mean again but “from above”. The greek word is anōthen G509 “from above; by analogy from the first; by implication anew: – from above, again, from the beginning (very first), the top” (STRONGS).
Born of water refers to amniotic fluid in the womb during childbirth. And born of water is in direct response to “can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born”. Nicodemus understood rightfully that the “Except a man be born again” part of Jesus’ answer meant that he had already been born once but he did not understand how to be “born from above” or born again. So he asked Jesus the rhetorical question “can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb”. Jesus’s response was you have been born once but you must be born again, from above, born of the Spirit because that which is born of flesh is of the flesh (meaning flesh begets and births flesh) but that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again”.
So why do you marvel that you must be born from above and of the Spirit. Most hardline CoC do not believe the Spirits indwells believers. But there are numerous passages that say those that believe will be indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and if you do not have the “Spirit of Christ” you do not belong to Christ, such as….
Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit
Joh_7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Rom 8:9-11 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. and if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in You?
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
QUINTIN: How do you explain Romans 6:1-10? Col. 2:12-13? Gal. 3:26-27?
DAMON: The Romans 6 and Galatians 3 passages are about Spirit baptism. CoC like to quote Eph. 4:5 to say there is only one baptism but scripture says there are 7 kinds of baptism (immersion) and Heb_6:2 says there are more than one. Heb. 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptismS (plural), and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
CoC makes the eternally fatal mistake of calling anything associated with words like wash and clean as references to water and water baptism. But it is the baptism of the Spirit that a Christian must have to be a Christian. The seven types of bible baptisms are here in this article.
CHURCH OF CHRIST MYTH: Saying There is Only One Baptism When There Are Many
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
The Col 2 passage does not mean baptism saves. We are buried with Christ through baptism but we are not raised by baptism, we are raised by Christ resurrection and faith in the operation of Him who raised Him.
QUINTIN: In the numerous examples of conversion in the book of Acts, when the question “What must I do be saved,” was asked, was the reply “Pray the Sinner’s Prayer”. If not, why not? Why was the response of apostle Peter say, “Repent and be baptized..” not repent and pray the Sinner’s Prayer? When the Jailer in Acts 16:30 asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Did Peter say, “no, there is nothing that you need to do?” With all the examples of conversion in the book of Acts, I wonder why people insists that a group of people insists on saying that you pray the sinner’s prayer and right away you are saved
DAMON: Because I am short on time I skipped your next group of prooftext verses.
Firstly, there are 8 instances of salvation in Acts that mention baptism. But there are 9 that do not mention baptism but still people, multitudes and great multitudes where saved when they believed.
Here are the nine instances of conversion or salvation in the book of Acts without reference to baptism. So no one can rightfully claim salvation in Acts includes baptism and baptism is required for salvation.
Acts 3:1-4:4 – Peter and John where preaching at the temple (3:1) and in verse 19 the people are told “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord”. And in Acts 4:4 about 5000 believed. There is no mention of baptism.
Acts 5:1-14 – After Ananias and Sapphira where struck down by the Lord, fear came upon the people (v.11) and many signs and wonders were wrought among them (v.12), as a result multitudes where added to the Lord. Act 5:14 “And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women”. There is no mention of baptism.
Acts 9: 32-35 – After Peter healed a certain man with palsy “…all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord” (V. 35) There is no mention of baptism.
Acts 11:19-24 – After preaching Jesus in Antioch (v.20) a great number believed and turned to the Lord (v.21) and were added to the Lord (v. 24). There is no mention of baptism here except in verse 16 and that is referring to John’s baptism by water and the baptism with the Holy Ghost. And that happened before Barnabus arrived in Antioch.
Acts 13:6-12 – Sergius Paulus desired to hear the word of the Lord. Then by the hand of the Lord Paul blinded him for a season. Then he believed being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord. There is no mention of baptism.
Acts 13:42-52 – Paul and Barnabus where preaching in the synagogue to the gentiles “And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (v. 48). There is no mention of baptism.
Acts 14:1 – “And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.” Another multitude, this time a great one, believed and there is no mention of baptism.
Acts 17:10-12 – Paul and Silas were preaching the word in the synagogue in Berea, and “many” believed. There is no mention of baptism.
Acts 17:22-34 “Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among them which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them”. There is no mention of baptism.
Secondly, Acts 2:37 does not say WHAT MUST WE DO TO BE SAVED but rather WHAT MUST WE DO. The WHAT MUST WE DO TO BE SAVED question is asked and answered in Acts16:31 and you know that it says BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND YOU WILL BE SAVED, or you would not be throwing out the red hearing and straw man of the sinners prayer. No one who uses the sinners prayer says or believes that any type to prayer saves you. It is not the prayer itself that saves but the heart things expressed in the believer during the prayer, namely belief/faith in Christ work of atonement, through His death burial and resurrection (THE GOSPEL).
QUINTIN: . Is it not that it was only when the early Christians obeyed the Gospel that they were added by Him to His church, the church of Christ? (Acts 2:47).
DAMON: The gospel is not baptism or the 5 or 6 steps of the CoC plan of salvation. The gospel is clearly stated in 1Cor. 15:1-4 to be the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. It is not something you can do it is something to believe or not believe. You obey the gospel by believing.
CHURCH OF CHRIST: How Does a Person Obey the Gospel
LikeLike
This post isn’t about “answering the CofC”, but about most Christians throughout the world and history, and how they are correct to accept Baptismal Regeneration.
Damon, you’ve deleted my reasonable comments in the past; I hope you keep this and let your readers weigh it.
The CofC’s belief in Baptismal Regeneration isn’t an exclusive CofC trait. The CofC held the already established belief — it is a Catholic leftover.
And since it is a “Catholic” leftover, it is reasonable to entertain the possibility that it is an older belief than what any Protestant (or whatever you call yourself) belief. And as a sort of proof: Can you provide an example of the early Church teaching that Baptismal Regeneration is a lie? Surely, if your belief in some invisible/state of mind-ish sort of saving experience is true/historical, then you should be able to provide evidence other than your private interpretation of a library of books provided to you by a Church that has always interpreted [her own words] much differently.
In other words, instead of presenting your own private interpretation of the Bible, please show us any early interpretation (by people you would not reject as blatant heretics) that you can use as support for your new idea. AND, if you’re unable to provide such support, then please establish your authority/credentials to give your readers any reason to accept your novel belief.
Pax,
Pat
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting. I will try to respond in length in a few days as I will be busy for awhile
LikeLike
In the end, it doesn’t matter what the Roman Catholics believed, or what is a “leftover” of the Catholic Church. Most of us non-Roman Catholics would agree that they believe some things falsely. If you don’t agree with their praying to Mary and Saints (when the almost exclusively used word for “prayer” in the Greek has an obvious component of worship attached to it), then you most likely don’t agree with them 100%.
Since you don’t, can you truly claim that something must be based in the Roman Catholic church in order for it to be true? Seriously? How about the Holy Bible, something that both pre-existed before the foundation of what would become the Roman Catholic church, and also holds the truth. Can we not argue from the Bible instead, and if our argument is sound, would that then not be proof?
And since that is so, here is a rebuttal to Patrick and Quentin. I don’t need to tell you how I explain your pet cherry-picked verses that seem to state what you want them to state, but only if you take these one-verse wonders completely out of context and then spin them to say something which isn’t true. To that, I only need to disprove that water baptism has anything to with becoming saved, or remaining saved.
To that end, Ephesians 2:8-10 states the components needed to become saved initially. Those components are Grace, which God provides and brings to the table, and faith in Jesus, which we provide and bring to the table. These two things alone are all that is required to be saved (the components of Initial Salvation).
Sure, one must pass through Repentance in order to get to the destination of Initial Salvation, but Repentance is a landmark on the way to the destination. It is not itself the destination. But Ephesians 2:8-10 has something remarkable to say, and “he that hath an ear, let him hear the truth.”
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Clearly, in the Initial stage of the Covenant of Salvation, only Grace and faith in Jesus are required, Grace from God which enables Salvation, and faith in Jesus from us which accesses Grace unto Salvation. Note that there is nothing added here other than these two components, Grace and Faith in Christ.
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Initial Salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with any good work, such as water baptism, lest men should boast. But even more incredibly…..
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Until one is already saved by Grace through Faith in Christ, one cannot become His workmanship, created unto good works like water baptism!
Remission of sins works in the exact same way. Remission of sins is enabled by the once and final atonement of Christ as High Priest in the temple in Heaven….
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
And Peter reveals how we access Jesus’ once and final atonement unto Remission of Sins, and it’s not water baptism…
Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
There are three things of importance here. The first is that nothing is listed for enabling and/or obtaining Remission of sins other than Jesus’ atonement which He provides, and belief in Jesus which we provide to access that atonement of Jesus’ unto Remission of sins.
Secondly, Peter informs us that the Prophets of the Old Covenant both were aware that Jesus’ atonement as High priest in the temple in Heaven would be required, but also were aware that belief in the Messiah would be the key, not water baptism, to accessing the atonement unto Remission of sins. But they also looked forward to the day when they themselves could likewise obtain Remission of sins enabled by Jesus’ atonement, and through belief in Jesus.
Third, if you continue in the 10th chapter of Acts, you’ll see that right after Peter spoke these words, the household of Cornelius was Saved, obtained Remission of sins, was Indwelt with the Holy Spirit and obtained the Baptism or the Holy Ghost all before water baptism is mentioned, let alone undertaken.
Any honest person can see the above, and realize that water baptism has absolutely nothing to do with obtaining either Initial Salvation or Remission of sins. And no, it’s not obtained through saying the Sinner’s Prayer. Saying some words means nothing if there is no change in your heart and your life. But clearly the Bible lists what it takes to become Initially saved, and only Grace and faith in Jesus are listed (plus nothing), and it also lists what it takes to obtain remission of sins, the enablement by Jesus’ blood as High Priest in the Temple in Heaven, and belief in Jesus being the key to accessing Remission of sins, not water baptism.
And that means that when those one-verse-wonders are looked at with that in mind, and in the proper context, subject, and topic, it’s easy to see that they don’t really state what some people falsely believe and speak them to state. If you wish, I could go through and debunk each one-verse-wonder “baptism” myth and prove it to you that they don’t really state what you falsely believe/state that they do, but nothing changes the biblical fact that the good work of water baptism cannot enable or access either Initial Salvation or Remission of sins. Grace through faith in Christ does the former, and Jesus’ blood atonement in the temple of Heaven and belief in Jesus does the latter.
LikeLike
Very good response to Patrick and Quentin Robert. I am glad i forgot to get back to them because your response is probably better than I could do. THANKS!
LikeLike
Actually, it wasn’t a response at all; it was a reaction. My questions weren’t addressed. All he did is blurt out a laundry list of red herrings as a way to avoid the thrust of the topic.
Damon, I’m waiting for your answer.
LikeLike
Robert,
I understand you believe you’re above “answering my cherry-picked verse” (whatever that means), but I think you’re actually unable to address my question. That’s how you and Damon come off… until you actually pony up.
Your laundry list is quite typical. I’m not above addressing your list, but it makes little sense to give hours of attention to a list that you’ve clearly given no thought to. For example, you started off by theorizing that the Bible pre-dates the Catholic Church. Are you aware that the Catholic Church wrote the NT, added it to the OT, and then called the entire collection the Bible? Not to be too harsh, but your theory is laughable. The Catholic Church pre-dates the Bible. The Protestant Bible didn’t exist until the 16th century. The Catholic Bible was spelled out in the 4th. This is basic stuff.
If you’d like to have an intelligent discussion about one topic instead of a laundry list of red herrings and nonsense, I’m happy to do so! And for the edification of the masses, feel free to do so via email so that I can post an unedited transcript on my site.
Pax
LikeLike
Damon,
I’m still waiting!
Are you going to answer my easy questions? If so, please address what I actually wrote and don’t wonder into red herring / non-answer territory like Robert.
Until you either answer or delete my questions as you have in the past keep in mind that your readers are noticing your “delay”. Perhaps you can invite Robert to come back and “correct false doctrine” (as he says he likes to do)! Of course, he’d actually need to answer my questions to do so… We’ll see.
Pax
LikeLike
Patrick, I have allot of bad things happening in my life right now that prevents me from doing much ministry work. But I will respond adequately in 4 or 5 days or so.
LikeLike
I’ll offer you a prayer for you; don’t worry about responding. Pax
LikeLike
“Robert,
I understand you believe you’re above “answering my cherry-picked verse” (whatever that means), ”
That is a misstatement of what I wrote, Patrick. Here is what I wrote….
” I don’t need to tell you how I explain your pet cherry-picked verses that seem to state what you want them to state, but only if you take these one-verse wonders completely out of context and then spin them to say something which isn’t true. To that, I only need to disprove that water baptism has anything to with becoming saved, or remaining saved.”
My point was that it was not needful for me to explain one-verse-wonder by one-verse-wonder why, in the correct context, and not stripped out and given a spin that they do not mean, they don’t actually mean that one must have a water baptism in order to be saved. I NEVER stated that I’m above answering the cherry-picked one-verse wonders that proponents of the so-called “baptismal regeneration” crown espouse. I can easily answer why those cherry-picked one-verse-wonders don’t mean what you folks spin them to state. I’m referring to Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21, John 3:5, Col 2:12, and others like it.
“but I think you’re actually unable to address my question.”
You asked several questions, Patrick. To which were you referring?
“And since it is a “Catholic” leftover, it is reasonable to entertain the possibility that it is an older belief than what any Protestant (or whatever you call yourself) belief. And as a sort of proof: Can you provide an example of the early Church teaching that Baptismal Regeneration is a lie? ”
I provided several truths directly from the New Testament of the Bible, which predates the Roman Catholic church, which show that baptismal regeneration is a lie. To wit, specifically, because water baptism cannot ENABLE Remission of sins, since only the blood of Jesus can (Heb 9:11,12). And also specifically because water baptism cannot ACCESS Remission of sins, because Peter tells us in Acts 10:42,43 that it is through belief in Jesus that we access Remission of sins, something the Prophets of the Old Covenant were both aware of was the key to accessing Remission of sins, and that they looked forward to the time when they too could access Remission of sins through belief in Jesus after He made the once and final atonement in the Temple in Heaven.
You also stated…
“Surely, if your belief in some invisible/state of mind-ish sort of saving experience is true/historical, then you should be able to provide evidence other than your private interpretation of a library of books provided to you by a Church that has always interpreted [her own words] much differently.”
….which I then supplied how “water baptism” came to us through the Old Covenant Mikvah bath. It was the first step of a no longer unclean person towards becoming clean again. They would undertake the MIkvah bath, and then show themselves to the priest, and make the proper offerings (Burnt or Burnt and Sin offerings) and then they would be clean. The Mikvah bath only ceremonially purified the body physically. It did nothing to anyone spiritually.
John’s Mikvah was changed to be unto Repentance, and was also changed to be a one time ordinance, not once every time someone became ready to be clean again. All this was clearly understood by the early Christians, up until the Gentiles started becoming saved as well. Then the Jews realized they’d need to communicate certain things to the Gentiles, and chose Greek as the “Common” language of the day. The change from John’s Mikvah to “water baptism” came through two Greek words coined by Nicantor, a botanist and poisoner about 200BC (also predating the Roman Catholic church). They were coined in the use of making pickles from cucumbers.
Those two Greek words that stood in place for the “Mikvah bath” of the New Covenant then became “water baptism” when other translations of the Bible started being printed. But the Mikvah bath of the Old Covenant is only different from the Mikvah bath or “water baptism” of the New Covenant in one way. It’s a one time ordinance, and it’s STILL for ceremonial cleansing of the body physically. It had no part in savind anyone in the Old Covenant, and it has no part in saving anyone in the New Covenant.
” That’s how you and Damon come off… until you actually pony up.”
As for me, I don’t care how I “come off” to detractors. I care what God thinks of me. But the truth is the truth, and water baptism cannot enable or access Remission of sins. Also, if you wish, I can take each of those “cherry-picked” one-verse wonders, and show you why they are not about water baptism and/or baptismal regeneration at all. I’m not “above” that, I just felt the need was only to prove that water baptism cannot enable Remission of sins, or access it. And I’ve proven that through Heb 9:11,12 and Acts 10:42,43.
“Your laundry list is quite typical. I’m not above addressing your list, but it makes little sense to give hours of attention to a list that you’ve clearly given no thought to.”
Reading between the lines, I get “I can’t debate the truth, so I’m going to make the truth look like it’s not true in order to foist my “truth” instead….. It wouldn’t have taken you “hours and hours,” Patrick. All you have to do is disprove Heb 9:11,12, and Acts 10:42,43. That was my basis for why water baptism cannot Enable or Access Remission of sins. That was my entire case. Everything placed upon that was just added truth. I expect you to deal with why those two passages aren’t true in your next post, or we’ll just take it as silence is your way of saying you can’t.
” For example, you started off by theorizing that the Bible pre-dates the Catholic Church. Are you aware that the Catholic Church wrote the NT, added it to the OT, and then called the entire collection the Bible?”
No, I wasn’t aware of that, and neither is any other person who knows the truth, Patrick. To my thinking, and the history of the Bible, what became the New Testament was written by and large by Jews, with the exception of one Gentile, Luke, who traveled with Paul and wrote Luke and Acts. Imagine my surprise to find out all this time they were Roman Catholics!
Seriously, the foundation for what would become the Roman Catholic church was never really a part of the church Jesus built. And that foundation occured about 325AD in the Council of Nicea, where they kicked out all the Jewish Christian delegates, and forever lost the Hebraic roots of the Bible. It started to go south before that, but the Council of Nicea was the real break from the church Jesus built, if indeed the foundation for what became the Roman Catholic Church was ever a part of the church Jesus built.
The “Bible” was not written by Roman Catholics, and really all the foundation for what became the Roman Catholic church did was ratify books that were already pretty much acceepted by the time of the Council of Nicea. The four gospels were pretty much ratified by the mid Second Century, and most of the Epistles that appear in the Bible were also accepted. All they really did was to ratify what was already agreed upon, and then write a Latin translation.
” Not to be too harsh, but your theory is laughable. The Catholic Church pre-dates the Bible.”
I get your utterly false claim that the RCC predates the New Testament. But do you really want to go down claiming that the RCC predates the ENTIRE BIBLE????? Perhaps you need to brush up on your debating skills, neighbor, that way you won’t be so apt to stick your foot in your mouth.
“The Protestant Bible didn’t exist until the 16th century.”
Nonsense. The first English translations appeared in the 16th century, true, but they remain unchanged from the First Century other than being in English instead of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. There really isn’t that much difference between the New Jerusalem Bible and the KJV, for example, except that the former uses some Greek words which did not appear in the original.
“The Catholic Bible was spelled out in the 4th. This is basic stuff.”
Utter nonsense. The Latin Vulgate was not a Bible, Patrick. It was simply a translation of the Bilbe into Latin. Those texts also dated back to the first Century.
“If you’d like to have an intelligent discussion about one topic instead of a laundry list of red herrings and nonsense, I’m happy to do so!”
You know, Patrick, for all you go on and on about this “laundry list of red herrings and nonsense,” the sum total of your claim is just that – your opinion. Until you take those scriptures I gave and debunk then one by one, then all we have to go by that they are a “laundry list of red herrings,” is YOUR OPINION. I think you were afraid to go over them, because you realized that you would see the truth. And that simple truth remains (your humble opinion aside). “Water baptism cannot enable Remission of sins (Heb 9:11,12) and water baptism cannot access Remission of sins (Acts 10:42,43).” Hence, water baptism has no part in becoming saved, or in remaining saved.
“And for the edification of the masses, feel free to do so via email so that I can post an unedited transcript on my site.”
Send you an email??? I’m supposed to read your mind and figure out your email when you chose not to include it? Sorry, but I’m on this site for a reason, to debunk and show up biblical untruth wherever it rears it’s ugly head. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
“Pax”
I pray God turns you every which way but loose till you come to the truth of the Bible, and reject the error that you’re enmeshed in.
LikeLike
The So-Called “Laundry List” of Red Herrings
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Saved by grace through faith (in Jesus), not of yourselves, it is the gift of God
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
No works can have anything to do with getting you saved or keeping you saved.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Until one is already saved by Grace throughfaith, one CANNOT legitimately do good works like water baptism because they are not yet His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works.
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Jesus’ once and final atonement for sin by sprinkling His own blood upon the Mercy Seat as High Priest in the Temple of Heaven is what ENABLES Remission of sins. Water baptism cannot enable Remission of sins. Notice that Jesus’ act in the Temple of Heaven is the culmination of what the Day of Atonement foreshadowed in the Old Covenant. Jesus’ act as High Priest was the finish, to the substitution of the Day of Atonement. Thus Jesus’ Day of Atonement is the Enabler of Remission of sins, NOT water baptism.
Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Through His name, whoever believes in Him shall receive (access) Remission of sins, NOT water baptism. This was something that the Old Covenant Prophets were aware of was the key to accessing Remission of sins, and looked forward to the day when they too could access Remission of sins.
Some “laundry list” and some “red herrings.” Says the person who just states that his opinion is better than anyone else’s and uses logical fallacies in order to make them seem more constructed. These three passages disproves that the good work of water baptism has anything to do with becoming saved, or remaining saved. It’s not a laundry list, nor are they red herrings. They are simple truth that water baptism cannot get you saved or keep you saved.
LikeLike
Good morning All. I have been reading most of these responses only to see what I have learned in the past. It is exactly why Jesus had a difficult time teaching the Pharisees. Because it is so hard for those to believe that a saviour can actually save you and the COC to actually trust really what Gods word says. I would consider this a type of unbelief. When my Son was saved which is the biggest and best day is of his life I informed my COC in laws and they didn’t even respond. I knew then that I was dealing with something much deeper than what grace meant but I had to somehow let them belong to their group and just keep living my life for Christ. I must add the church they attend subscribe to a muscle and shovel heresy. I suggest they read the living word of our Lord and Saviour and love like he loved us. Then we will see true saving begin.
LikeLike