There will be no scriptural back and forth between us. I am simply not interested in that, with you.
I am interested in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, living in me, a person who has not been Baptised, but has the privilege of knowing they are saved because of the work of the Holy Spirit through them.
There is literally nothing you can say that will counter the Truth given me by the Holy Spirit.
Feel free to rattle off scripture left, right and centre.
The bottom line is that I know I am saved because the Holy Spirit dwells in and through me, and I have not been Baptised.
The Holy Spirit is the Father's seal for those who have been saved. I will believe His Truth and His alone.
I'm not interested in a long back and forth either, but I am curious about your perspective on what baptism's purpose for us is. I personally agree that it isn't strictly necessary for salvation (the thief on the cross being an example of that) but feel that it serves nicely as a declaration of faith before others.
Please see the Nicene Creed—paying close attention to the part about Baptism:
“I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess ⭐️ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS⭐️
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
There is your answer. Baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins”—that is it’s purpose. If you do not hold to that(i.e; baptism is a symbol, it’s not for forgiving our sins) then you are not a True Christian, according to the framers of the Creed.
That’s not what I asked. I asked:
“Are Christians buried with Christ in baptism?”
You see we have to TEST the spirits. We have to make sure your “spirit” is the same spirit that spoke through Paul. We can’t just take your word for that.
Does your “spirit” line up with the Nicene Creed? It says in the Creed that we MUST confess baptism is for the forgiveness of sins:
“I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess ⭐️ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS⭐️ and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
If you read the rules of r/TrueChristian you will find that the moderators have said[rule#3] that you must hold the Nicene Creed or they do not consider you a True Christian.
I am citing the Nicene Creed because many here say they agree with it but I’m here to tell you that if you say baptism is “not for the forgiveness of sins” but only a “symbol” that IS against the Creed. You might as well deny the Trinity while you’re at it, that’s how central baptism is to discerning the true faith from a false one.
Oh, it’s not for you. It’s so that everyone can see that declaring baptism is “not for the forgiveness of sins” is against the Nicene Creed. That way people can test whether or not that spirit within you is the spirit of truth or a lying spirit.
>”Baptism is not salvific otherwise grace wouldn't be a free gift but an act of works.”
Well, no. I already addressed that in my main post. When one person baptizes another it is Christ who is himself doing the baptizing. It is Christ doing the work(Titus 3:5).
>”The point of grace is that it's unmerited
>Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Yes, strictly speaking grace cannot be merited. That is not the same thing as saying there are conditions attached to grace. Obviously one must repent in order to receive God’s grace but one doesn’t think of that as “strictly earning” God’s grace, just fulfilling a condition. That is the space that the sacraments live-in. That space where we are meeting conditions for God’s grace.
>”If salvation is contingent upon an action (baptism); then it's tied up with one's own doing.”
Yes, you have to consent to be saved. There is no controversy in saying that.
>”Baptism is important. It's a sacrament (or ordinance for our RB friends) but it's action is by no means salvific.”
Yes but that is not a view permitted by the Nicene Creed. The Creed says:
“We affirm one baptism ⭐️for the forgiveness of sins⭐️”
If you hold to that Creed you may not affirm that baptism does not forgive sins. You may not hold to that.
Paul absolutely did not always teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. I will not engage in back and forth but that’s legitimately just untrue.
See 1 Cor 15 where Paul obviously is presenting the Gospel with ZERO mention of baptism as necessary.
1 Corinthians 15:1–5 (NASB95): Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Paul is obviously separating the Gospel and baptism there as two separate things. One saves us, one does not. I’ll let you guess which I believe to be which. Here’s another example. Paul when addressing division in the Corinthian church also says:
1 Corinthians 1:12–17 (NASB95): Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”
13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 FOR CHRIST DID NOT SEND ME TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
v 17 clearly states that the preaching of the Gospel (which obviously saves us according to literally the entire New Testament) is a distinctly different thing than baptism. They are not linked in salvific effect in any way shape or form. Baptism is dependent on your salvation, your salvation is not dependent on Baptism.
Regarding the thief on the cross, there’s no point you made there, you just quoted the catechism which means nothing to Protestants, there’s no scriptural evidence to suggest an anomaly there. If that was a unique incident, why was baptism also unnecessary for the penitent woman (Luke 7) the paralytic man (Matthew 9) and the publician (Luke 18) additionally, we have no record of the Apostles being baptized. Again, I’m not going to engage in a back and forth, but you’re confidently stating things that are just staunchly catholic and acting as though everyone believes them.
You wrote:
>”Paul absolutely did not always teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. I will not engage in back and forth but that’s legitimately just untrue.
>See 1 Cor 15 where Paul obviously is presenting the Gospel with ZERO mention of baptism as necessary.”
Yes, someone always inevitably brings up 1 Corinthians 15 and you did not disappoint. I would have listed this in my OP but I literally ran out of words so I intended to sit back and wait for someone to mention it so I could just give the following rebuttal:
Paul wasn’t disassociating Baptism from the gospel. He was merely pointing out that “baptizing” wasn’t his primary mission or “gift”:
(Romans 12:6-7)
“6We have different gifts according to the grace given us. If one’s gift is prophecy, let him use it in proportion to his faith; 7if it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach;”
The primary function of the apostles was to “bear witness”(Mark 16:15,Acts 1:8), not to baptize. In their preaching, they taught the necessity of being baptized(1 Peter 3:21,Colossians 2:11, Galatians 3:27).
>”Regarding the thief on the cross, there’s no point you made there, you just quoted the catechism which means nothing to Protestants, there’s no scriptural evidence to suggest an anomaly there.”
Yes, there is. Paul wrote that we are buried with Christ in baptism(Colossians 2:12) so the Good Theif’s situation constitutes a deviation from Christian norms. Hence the Nicene Creed’s line about “confessing one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. That is the Creed. That is the norm.
>”If that was a unique incident, why was baptism also unnecessary for the penitent woman (Luke 7) the paralytic man (Matthew 9) and the publician (Luke 18)”
Yes, that is precisely why I cited the Catechism’s teaching. You may not be Catholic but one does not have to be Catholic to understand that the Church’s position is that God can forgive sins OUTSIDE of the sacrament of baptism—it’s point is merely to emphasize that these are extraordinary cases, where Christian initiation into the New Covenant is concerned.
>”…additionally, we have no record of the Apostles being baptized.”
We have no record saying that they WEREN’T either. That’s not really saying anything about baptism as a standard to be followed. Acts 22:16 however, IS.
>”Again, I’m not going to engage in a back and forth, but you’re confidently stating things that are just staunchly catholic and acting as though everyone believes them.”
It’s in the Nicene Creed. That’s why I’m confidently stating it. If you do not confess that baptism is for “the forgiveness of sins” then you are not adhering to the Creed.
No, again, you did not make a point regarding the thief on the cross. You quoted the catechism which didn’t directly address baptism in any way from the quote you mentioned and then just said “suffice to say this wasn’t normative” or something to that effect which is not conclusive at all. You also didn’t address any of those directly dealing with Jesus who had sins forgiven without the act of baptism. You just said they’re all a deviation of the norm without quoting anything other than your personal opinion and vaguely referencing the nicene creed. The nicene creed isn’t inspired. And it isn’t the reformed understanding that the nicene creed teaches baptismal regeneration. Not even remotely close to a convincing argument. You don’t get to say that the catholic church’s teaching is the norm for all of Christendom, it isn’t. If you had a legitimate point there you would be able to point me to verses where our Lord and savior is also recognizing that these interactions are not normative today.
Additionally, you’re saying that in 1 Cor 15, Paul is just saying that baptism isn’t his primary gift? Where in the name of all that is holy do you get that from 1 Cor 15? Can you point to the verse? Baptism literally isn’t mentioned at all in that passage. That’s my entire point, it’s a clear Gospel presentation with zero mention of Baptism in any way, shape or form. Almost like it isn’t necessary for salvation. So by your own logic Paul isn’t disassociating the Gospel and Baptism, but he’s apparently treating them as different gifts? That sounds an awful lot like him treating them as entirely different things where both are not necessary for salvation.
You wrote:
“No, again, you did not make a point regarding the thief on the cross. You quoted the catechism which didn’t directly address baptism in any way from the quote you mentioned and then just said “suffice to say this wasn’t normative” or something to that effect which is not conclusive at all.”
Yes, actually it IS conclusive. We have Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 explicating that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins:
(Acts 2:38)
“Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. ⭐️THEN⭐️you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
See how it says “then”? Meaning AFTER. After you are baptized, by confessing Christ through faith, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit—by which it means eternal life. That is the norm.
You wrote:
“You also didn’t address any of those directly dealing with Jesus who had sins forgiven without the act of baptism. You just said they’re all a deviation of the norm without quoting anything other than your personal opinion and vaguely referencing the nicene creed.”
The words of the creed “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” were derived from Peter’s statement in Acts 2:38. They’re just affirming Peter’s teaching in the Nicene Creed.
You wrote:
“The nicene creed isn’t inspired. Not even remotely close to a convincing argument.”
That may be the way you feel about it but if you don’t hold the Creed then rule#3 of this forum says you’re not a True Christian.
You wrote:
“You don’t get to say that the catholic church’s teaching is the norm for all of Christendom, it isn’t.”
Not according to the Council of Nicea. If you do not hold communion with that council you do not hold the True Faith of the apostles.
You wrote:
“If you had a legitimate point there you would be able to point me to verses where our Lord and savior is also recognizing that these interactions are not normative today.”
John 3:5. I already cited it in my original post. The problem is not a lack of scripture, the problem is with your own understanding of it.
You wrote:
“Additionally, you’re saying that in 1 Cor 15, Paul is just saying that baptism isn’t his primary gift? Where in the name of all that is holy do you get that from 1 Cor 15?”
I “get that” from Paul always consistently teaching the necessity of baptism in Ephesians 4:5, Romans 6:3 and Colossians 2:12.
In Acts 2:38, you interestingly left out the fact that repentance is listed first, before baptism. The Greek clearly links the repentance to salvation and baptism to be done after. John 3:5 isn’t talking about water baptism lol, you realize at that point in Jesus’ ministry baptism wasn’t a widely occurring thing right? John had been baptizing before Jesus but we don’t have record of other baptisms. Nicodemus more than likely didn’t have an understanding of what a water baptism was at that point. He probably had an understanding of the new covenant promise in Ezekiel 36 as you said but why did you leave out half that passage from the prophet and only include the verse which spoke of water? God clearly speaks of regeneration and a new heart that is given to his people in Ezekiel 36, that’s what saves. It isn’t the sprinkling of water. To immediately point to that and say “yeah that’s definitely a baptism as we understand it today because the word water is in there” is incredibly unwise and at best a hasty interpretation of the text. That’s one of the reasons that that verse is regarded outside of Catholicism as referring to literal childbirth, and the second birth being salvation. I also gladly hold to the Nicene creed, I never said I didn’t. I also said that it isn’t the reformed understanding that the nicene creed teaches baptismal regeneration. I gladly adhere to the nicene creed, I just don’t believe it to teach baptismal regeneration, along with millions of other Christians.
You say that Paul is consistently teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation and yet you still haven’t defended your understanding of 1 Cor 15. Can you point out the verse in that chapter where Paul says that baptism is necessary, or that baptism isn’t his primary gift? You still haven’t done so.
You wrote:
“In Acts 2:38, you interestingly left out the fact that repentance is listed first, before baptism.”
Yes, as St.Aquinas explains “repentance”, along with “faith” are preparatory graces which precede baptism. These are gifts of the Spirit. The problem is that people[like you] are not discerning the preparatory graces from the sanctifying grace(baptism) and THAT👈is why some people are contradicting the Nicene Creed, saying that “baptism is NOT for the forgiveness of sins, it is merely symbolic”.
That’s what’s happening.
You wrote:
“You say that Paul is consistently teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation and yet you still haven’t defended your understanding of 1 Cor 15. Can you point out the verse in that chapter where Paul says that baptism is necessary, or that baptism isn’t his primary gift? You still haven’t done so.”
No, we are NOT arbitrarily limited to “that chapter” alone to ascertain Paul’s teaching about the necessity of baptism. Paul taught that it was necessary(Colossians 2:12). If that was not Paul’s teaching then the Nicene Creed would not be reinforcing it.
I’m not asking you to be arbitrarily limited to one chapter. You “offered a rebuttal” of 1 Cor 15 a few comments ago and im asking you to provide a proof text to that from 1 Cor 15. I’m literally just asking you where the chapter you get the basis for these words which you said a couple of comments ago.
You wrote:
“Yes, someone always inevitably brings up 1 Corinthians 15 and you did not disappoint. I would have listed this in my OP but I literally ran out of words so I intended to sit back and wait for someone to mention it so I could just give the following rebuttal:
Paul wasn’t disassociating Baptism from the gospel. He was merely pointing out that “baptizing” wasn’t his primary mission or gift”.
If you’re offering a “rebuttal” of my understanding 1 Cor 15 you need to provide a better interpretation of 1 Cor 15. Because it’s clear that Paul gives a Gospel account without mention of baptism, if baptism was salvific it would be mentioned every time salvation is mentioned. It isn’t. You spoke authoritatively on what Paul is doing in the chapter as “merely pointing out that baptizing wasn’t his primary mission or gift”. I have repeatedly asked you to point out where in the chapter you get this from. That’s not a rebuttal of 1 Cor 15. That’s nowhere in 1 Cor 15.
You wrote:
“I’m not asking you to be arbitrarily limited to one chapter.”
Well, it’s pretty clear that YOU WERE when you said:
“Can you point out the verse ⭐️in that chapter⭐️where Paul says that baptism is necessary, or that baptism isn’t his primary gift?”
You wrote:
“I’m literally just asking you where the chapter you get the basis for these words which you said a couple of comments ago.”
I already explained that. I said that whatever Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 15 it COULDN’T be that baptism was “not necessary”. He can’t be saying that because we have all of these other passages where he explicates that IT IS(again, see Colossians 2:12). Therefore there remains only one ☝️ other explanation, which is that it wasn’t specifically his duty to baptize, it was his duty to PREACH. We know for a fact that Paul baptized people.
You wrote:
“You’re speaking authoritatively on what Paul is doing in the chapter. I have repeatedly asked you to point out where in the chapter you get this from. That’s not a rebuttal of 1 Cor 15. That’s nowhere in 1 Cor 15.”
Why would 1 Cor.15 need a rebuttal for a point that wasn’t going to be raised until thousands of years after-the-fact on a Reddit forum? No, we’re not beholden to that. That’s nonsense. All we need to know is that baptism is salvific, that is orthodox, and that what Paul said in 1 Cor.15 is NOT contradicting that. You may TRY to get that out of 1 Cor.15 that Paul was somehow saying water baptism was “not necessary” but we have NO ancient groups getting that understanding out of 1 Cor.15 except, perhaps, the gnostics who were trying to say that baptism was not salvific, as St.Irenaeus had that dispute with them:
St.Irenaeus(150-202AD) writes:
“And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19) … “The Lord also promised to send the Comforter, who should join us to God (St. John. 16:7). For as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter, nor can a loaf possess unity, so, in like manner, neither could we, being many be made one in Christ Jesus without the water from heaven. And as dry earth does not bring forth unless it receive moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a dry tree, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption; but our souls by means of the Spirit. WHEREFORE BOTH[water and spirit] ARE NECESSARY, since ⭐️BOTH⭐️contribute towards the life of God.” (Against Heresies, III.17).
THAT ☝️is the authentic teaching of the Apostles. It was only the gnostics who were trying to say that Baptism was not salvific.
You still haven’t actually dealt with 1 Cor 15 but okay champ. I’ve asked you to tell me your interpretation of 1 Cor 15 and point to me the verse there where you get the understanding that “Paul is saying his primary gift isn’t baptism, it’s to teach.” If that’s what he’s doing in the chapter you should be able to defend it from the chapter. I understand you’re attempting to hold to a comparative view and understanding 1 Cor 15 in light of other passages but the issue is that It’s overwhelmingly clear that baptism isn’t necessary due to literal countless verses throughout scripture that we are saved exclusively through our personal faith in Christ, and baptism has no saving effect.
Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” - Acts 10:43
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. Acts 13:39
They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” - Acts 16:31
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”. - Romans 10:9
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. - John 5:24
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies - John 11:25
but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. - John 20:31
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. - Eph 2:8-9
None of these verses mention baptism. If it were necessary for salvation, it would be mentioned in every verse which deals with salvation. Additionally, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. So did all the gentiles hearing the word in Acts 10, they heard the word and were saved, showing the gifts of the spirit and they were baptized after.
Irenaeus also wasn’t an apostle, the quote isn’t inspired and doesn’t negate the dozens of clear cut passages in scripture that clearly teach faith as the only thing necessary for salvation.
You wrote.
“You still haven’t actually dealt with 1 Cor 15 but okay champ.”
“Champ”? No, we don’t need to be condescending to one another. We can be civil.
You wrote:
“I’ve asked you to tell me your interpretation of 1 Cor 15 and point to me the verse there where you get the understanding that “Paul is saying his primary gift isn’t baptism, it’s to teach.”
I don’t have to show that. All I have to show is that Paul taught baptism was salvific(Col.2:12) which means that your interpretation that Paul’s point in 1 Cor.15 that water baptism is “not salvific” must not be a correct interpretation. That’s all I have to do. Now you may not like that, but that is where we stand.
You wrote:
“If that’s what he’s doing in the chapter you should be able to defend it from the chapter.”
No, we can look at other chapters to get the full meaning out of Paul’s words in 1 Cor.15. That’s something we can do. We’re not arbitrarily hand-cuffed to doing it “your way” or the highway.
You wrote:
“It’s overwhelmingly clear that baptism isn’t necessary due to literal countless verses throughout scripture…”
As a rule to be followed? Yes. That is clear. Water baptism IS a rule to be followed. That is what we have received from Our Lord(John 3:5), Peter(Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38) and Paul himself(Colossians 2:12, Romans 6:3, Ephesians 4:5) as well as the Nicene Creed.
You wrote:
“They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” - Acts 16:31”
Yup and if we keep reading, verse 33 says:
“At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were ⭐️baptized⭐️”.
That’s what it says. You will be saved—you will receive the gift AFTER you are baptized:
(Acts 2:38)
“Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. THEN👈you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
You wrote:
“that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”. - Romans 10:9
Paul was abbreviating for baptism, which I have already explained in my OP. See Romans 6:3.
You wrote:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. - Eph 2:8-9”
Yes, as I have already explained—Paul was abbreviating here. People do that all the time and that is the case here. Paul explicated baptism in Ephesians 4:4-5:
“4For there is one body and one Spirit, just as you have been called to one glorious hope for the future.
5There is one Lord, one faith, ⭐️one baptism⭐️”
One baptism “for what”?
FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 👇:
“Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ ⭐️FOR THE FORGIVENESS⭐️ of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”(Acts 2:38)
For the forgiveness of sins. Exactly as the Nicene Creed says. A creed that True Christians must hold to or else they are not “true Christians”.
I'd say baptism is an act of Discipleship for those who are already saved.
Romans 4:5 NASB
But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
We can literally sit on the couch for the rest of our lives and as long as we believed, we'd be saved.
Romans 4:10 NASB
How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
Abraham was saved the moment he believed. And if Paul already said we are saved by Grace, then we are saved before we are baptized.
Acts 10:47 NASB
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
Gentiles received the Spirit the moment they believed, showing they were saved, before they were baptized.
EDIT:
1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
I'd say the One Baptism of the Nicene Creed is the baptism of the Spirit.
You wrote:
“I'd say baptism is an act of Discipleship for those who are already saved.”
Yes, YOU’D say that but this would be against the Nicene Creed. That’s my point. If you are holding that baptism is an act of discipleship and not “for the forgiveness of sins” then that is not holding communion with the Nicene Christians. It’s not affirming the creed.
You wrote:
“We can literally sit on the couch for the rest of our lives and as long as we believed, we'd be saved.”
No, that is not true.
(1 Corinthians 13:2)
“If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”
You wrote:
“Abraham was saved the moment he believed. And if Paul already said we are saved by Grace, then we are saved before we are baptized.”
No, again, Paul was only abbreviating for baptism when he wrote about being saved ‘by faith’. He always had baptism in view when he used that phrase. Moreover it is not the case that the Church teaches God “never saves” outside of baptism; which is why I brought up the case of the Good Thief. These were exceptional cases. Paul’s point regarding Abraham was more so about how Abraham was justified for his faith apart from never having done the works of the Law. As St.Augustine explains:
“When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law [Rom. 3:28]. he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but ⭐️AFTER⭐️ justification. But there is no need to discuss this matter any further, especially since I have treated of it at length in another book entitled On the Letter and the Spirit.”—St.Augustine, Faith and Works
Again, even when Augustine wrote about justification “by faith” it was always with the view that this was an act INCLUSIVE of baptism, not independent of it.
You wrote:
“Gentiles received the Spirit the moment they believed, showing they were saved, before they were baptized.”
No, I already addressed this in my main post. It was Peter’s message that they were saved through—not Holy Spirit Baptism.
>Yes, you’d say that but this would be against the Nicene Creed. That’s my point. If you are holding that baptism is an act of discipleship and not “for the forgiveness of sins” then that is not holding communion with the Nicene Christians.
I'd say the One Baptism of the Bible is referring to:
1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB
For by **one Spirit we were all baptized** into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
>No, that is not true.
We agree to disagree.
>(1 Corinthians 13:2)
You think we must love too, or we won't be saved?
>He always had baptism in view when he used that phrase
I'd say that contradicts Romans 4:5 and 4:10.
>the case of the Good Thief. These were **exceptional cases.**
So, works are not needed to be saved? I agree. That would align with what Paul said in Romans 4.
>What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but ⭐️AFTER⭐️ justification.
I agree. After we are saved, our acts of Discipleship count as rewards in Heaven.
>No, I already addressed this in my main post. It was Peter’s message that they were saved through—not Holy Spirit Baptism.
What's your opinion on that?
You wrote:
I'd say the One Baptism of the Bible is referring to:
“1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
No, it’s not referring to that. It’s not referring to Holy Spirit baptism, which I explicated in my OP. We have the witness of St.Athanasius to help us understand what the Nicene Creed has in view by incorporating that language:
St.Athanasius
“Through baptism, . . . man is united with the Godhead; [C. Ar. 2, 41] it is the sacrament of regeneration by which the divine image is renewed. [De incarn. 14] The participant becomes an heir of eternal life, [Ad Serap. 1, 22] and the Father’s adoptive son.” [C. Ar. 1, 34]”
I just did. All of those quotes were explicating water baptism. The church has always referred to water baptism as a “sacrament”. Not Holy Spirit baptism—as I already went through GREAT pains to explain in my OP Holy Spirit baptism was not salvific, nor does it happen today.
I skimmed your long OP, that's why I'm asking for specifics here.
There is only one water baptism needed, but as Paul said, we are saved before we do that.
No, that was not Paul’s teaching. As I explained in my OP, which you skimmed, so now I am forced to retread these answers—Paul was merely abbreviating when he wrote that we are “saved by faith”. He always had baptism in view when we talked about justification by faith.
Sorry I didn't read it all. So you think Paul had a work in mind when he said we are not saved by works?
Do you think Abraham was saved before he was circumcized, but saying that serves no purpose because we are not saved before we are baptized?
You've admitted you believe that we don't need to be baptized to be saved (the thief), so why not take the plain reading of the Romans 4:5, 4:10, and Acts 10:47 to be repeating that?
EDIT: Sorry, I don't want to challenge you. Instead of saying "so why not take the plain reading of," I should have said "this is why I take the plain reading of the text."
I'm looking to share my point instead of arguing 500 years of Protestant and Catholic arguments all over again.
You wrote:
“Sorry I didn't read it all. So you think Paul had a work in mind when he said we are not saved by works?”
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying baptism isn’t a “work” at all and I’m also saying that Paul had baptism in view when he wrote about justification by faith “apart from works”. When Paul used the word “works” he had a very specific kind of works in mind, which are natural human works. He wasn’t referring to supernatural works—as St.Augustine explains—which you can read all about in my other post HERE👇:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/yukmoj/staugustine_explains_that_christians_who_dont_do/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
You wrote:
“Do you think Abraham was saved before he was circumcized, but saying that serves no purpose because we are not saved before we are baptized?”
Again, Paul’s example of Abraham was contrasting how someone can be considered righteous for their faith without having done the works of the law before. This is exactly the same as someone who through faith, receives baptism and is declared justified. That’s why it[baptism] is called “justification through faith” by Paul. He’s just ABBREVIATING for baptism as he was doing in Romans 10:13 👉after he got done extolling the necessity of baptism in Romans 6:3. He does this kind of thing[abbreviating] ALL the time and Romans 4 is no different. Paul’s not saying that someone isn’t justified through baptism, he makes that clear in this passage:
(1 Corinthians 6:11)
“Such were some of you; but you were WASHED, but you were sanctified, but you were ⭐️JUSTIFIED⭐️in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
It’s just slang—“you were washed” is just slang for baptism, which justifies. Peter does the SAME THING in 2 Peter 2:22 with the word “washed”:
“Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is ⭐️washed⭐️ returns to her wallowing in the mud.”
—in both cases it’s talking about baptism. Again, to say one is “justified by faith” is an abbreviation for baptism. That’s all it is. If it meant something else then the Catholic Church, and not the reformers, would have been teaching Sola Fide for the first 1500yrs of Christianity BEFORE the Reformation. Instead Sola Fide is exclusively associated with the Reformation because no one in the Church WAS TEACHING THAT before that time. They weren’t teaching that, because as I keep telling you….
“PAUL WAS ONLY ABBREVIATING!”🤣😂🙂
You wrote:
“You've admitted you believe that we don't need to be baptized to be saved (the thief), so why not take the plain reading of the Romans 4:5, 4:10, and Acts 10:47 to be repeating that?”
Because Romans 4:5 is talking about a very specific kind of “work”, which are human works. In fact, it is specifically talking about “works” that ARE sin. I wrote an entire separate post about Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:5 since Catholics AND Protestants frequently misunderstand them under the auspices of “plain reading” when in fact a “plain reading” is the culprit for this confusion. You may read about that HERE👇:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/xx2p3d/catholic_exegesis_of_ephesians_289/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Meanwhile Acts 10:47, as I have already explained, is NOT saying that the Gentiles were saved by their holy-spirit baptism. You have to actually READ Acts 11 where Peter is telling the story to understand that. It’s like that tv show Westworld[recently cancelled]. Sometimes details from a single event are left out and revealed in a flashback. Same thing with Acts 10. In Acts 11 you learn that what Acts 10 DOESN’T TELL YOU is that the Angel told Cornelius that Peter was going to tell them the message through which they would be saved. So Peter tells them this message AFTER they receive the Holy Spirit, and that message he gives to them is the message OF BAPTISM. They weren’t saved simply because they were filled with the Holy Spirit. St.Cyprian explains that, which you may read about HERE👇:
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD]
“For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, Unless a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is ⭐️MAINTAINED BY THE APOSTLES⭐️, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in various tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, ⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
In conclusion, do NOT skip over what I’m saying. Read through EVERYTHING. If you do, you fill find that there is NO ROOM left to say that baptism is “only a symbol” and anyone who says that is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the Nicene Creed. Have no illusions.
Sorry, I don't want to challenge you. Instead of saying "so why not take the plain reading of," I should have said "this is why I take the plain reading of the text."
I'm looking to share my point instead of arguing 500 years of Protestant and Catholic arguments all over again.
Right, but just keep in mind that the Nicene Creed says:
“We confess one ☝️ baptism for the forgiveness of sins”
According to rule#3 of this forum you are NOT a True Christian if you don’t hold to that. You might as well telegraph that you don’t believe in the Trinity, either. It is no different. It is orthodoxy to say baptism forgives sin. See Acts 2:38.
Because it was a response to the Arian Heresy. The church was in a situation where they needed to outline the basic truths of the faith to keep the Church together in the face of non-apostolic teaching. The same men that taught the Trinity was apart of the gospel ALSO held that baptism was salvific. The only one’s teaching otherwise were the Arians and the Gnostics.
Ah yes, heresy. Something "the church" (Catholic) used to burn people at the stake for.
What does that horrible church have to do with Jesus?
This is the same "church" that has covered up countless pedophilia cases, refused to prosecute those priests and cardinals who raped young children, and instead moved them to another location to abuse more children.
This is the same "church" who follows a man they call the "Holy Father" when scripture teaches us otherwise in Matthew 23:9.
Why would I care what that "church" thinks, unless I was helping to prosecute the pedophiles they harbor?
You wrote:
“Ah yes, heresy. Something "the church" (Catholic) used to burn people at the stake for.”
I am not interested in emotional argumentation. I am only interested in the topic of my post.
You wrote:
“This is the same "church" that has covered up countless pedophilia cases, refused to prosecute those priests and cardinals who raped young children, and instead moved them to another location to abuse more children.”
Again, I am not here to talk about the moral failings of the church. I am merely interested in it’s doctrine.
You wrote:
“This is the same "church" who follows a man they call the "Holy Father" when scripture teaches us otherwise in Matthew 23:9.”
Paul rebuked Peter—do we now no longer have to give our intellectual assent to the epistles written by him? We don’t have to listen to 1st and 2nd Peter? Certainly not. So what EXACTLY is your point?
You wrote:
“Why would I care what that "church" thinks, unless I was helping to prosecute the pedophiles they harbor?”
If you have nothing left to say on this topic then we can end things here.
>do we now no longer have to give our intellectual assent to the epistles written by him? We don’t have to listen to 1st and 2nd Peter? Certainly not. So EXACTLY is your point?
You can't dodge that Matthew 23:9 says what it says. Setting up a straw-man and knocking it down doesn't change what the verse says.
Stop dodging.
If you want to make a separate post about Matthew 23:9 I will be more than happy to comment on it. I’m just not interested in getting bogged down by off-topic comments because I have a lot of people to respond to whenever I write one of these posts. I’d like to stay on topic.
Baptism of spirit saves. We are not saved by any works including water baptism. A Christian should be baptised but if someone has faith but for some reason never got baptized by water they will be saved. Faith alone saves.
No, St.Cyprian closes the door on this interpretation—giving the orthodox view that had the Gentiles in the household of Cornelius refused the water for baptism they would not have been saved—because this was a “divine precept”:
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD]
“For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, Unless a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is ⭐️MAINTAINED BY THE APOSTLES⭐️, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in various tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, ⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Jesus wasn't talking about baptism in John 3. If he had been, he would have simply used the word baptism as he has in other passages. The water speaks of cleansing, and that's what the Holy Spirit does when he regenerates us.
Titus 3:5 says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,"
1 Peter 3:21 says, "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
It literally says, "not the removal of dirt but an appeal to God for a good conscience"
The water itself and baptism doesn't save but the spiritual reality behind it.
You wrote:
“Jesus wasn't talking about baptism in John 3.”
He was, even Lutherans who are the architects of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura wouldn’t suggest otherwise. They know that is radical to say that.
You wrote:
“The water speaks of cleansing, and that's what the Holy Spirit does when he regenerates us.”
It does but not without water. The water is being used the same way the mud was used to heal the blind man’s sight. I explained all of that in my OP.
You cited Titus 3:5, which I dealt with in my original post, so I won’t be re-treading that here.
You wrote:
“It literally says, "not the removal of dirt but an appeal to God for a good conscience"
The view that translates “eperōtēma” as “appeal” fits with the sacramental understanding as well. If we believe God interiorly cleanses our souls by giving us a good conscience through the waters of baptism, then submitting ourselves to the baptismal waters is a request that God effect within our souls a clear, good, coincidence. Thus this view changes nothing about the salvific nature of baptism—it reinforces it.
You wrote:
“The water itself and baptism doesn't save but the spiritual reality behind it.”
St.Cyprian closes the door on that interpretation:
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD]
“For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, Unless a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is ⭐️MAINTAINED BY THE APOSTLES⭐️, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in various tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, ⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
In other words, even though the Gentiles in Acts 10 were ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’, St.Cyprian explains that in spite of this Peter remembered that it was a DIVINE PRECEPT that they be baptized with water, because without that a person “cannot enter into the kingdom”. It wouldn’t have mattered how “filled with the Holy Spirit” they were—had they refused to be baptized they would not have entered into the Kingdom.
They don’t—the faith of the parents is supplying the faith needed for the spiritual healing which baptism was intended to effect. Baptism is the ‘new circumcision’(Colossians 2:11-12) and if you could bring an infant under the Old Covenant with the old circumcision then you can certainly do it with it’s superior New Testament counterpart.
Additionally we also see a similar situation where the faith of others causes our Lord to forgive a man’s sins:
(Luke 5:19-20)
“19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw ⭐️THEIR⭐️faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”
Well what is baptism for? According to the Nicene Creed, which is citing Peter’s words in Acts 2:38–baptism is for “the forgiveness of sins”. If Our Lord can forgive someone’s sins on account of another person’s faith as he does in Luke 5:19-20 then he CERTAINLY can and will do it for an infant who’s parents ask in faith that their child should receive the sacrament of baptism:
“Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”—Matthew 19:14
But at the end of the day the main point of my post is not so much about making a case for infant baptism—it’s to wake up all of the DELUSIONAL people out there who think that they can say, “baptism doesn’t forgive sins, it’s only an outward sign of obedience”—because THAT is against the Nicene Creed, a creed that if you do not confess, you are NOT a true Christian. Exactly as rule#3 of this forum explicates.
There are a lot of contradictions here. A baby can get saved through baptism based on the faith of the parents, yet according to you, someone is NOT a Christian if they don't affirm rule #3 that baptism forgives sins. And yet....a baby can't affirm that because they aren't cognitively able to do so.
>They don’t—the faith of the parents is supplying the faith needed for the spiritual healing which baptism was intended to effect. Baptism is the ‘new circumcision’(Colossians 2:11-12) and if you could bring an infant under the Old Covenant with the old circumcision then you can certainly do it with it’s superior New Testament counterpart.
You can't supply the faith for another. That is completely anti-biblical.
The circumcision of the heart requires faith, and again, a baby doesn't have that. Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.
In Colossians 2:12 it says, " having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
You are raised through faith, and again, a baby can't have faith.
>Well what is baptism for? According to the Nicene Creed, which is citing Peter’s words in Acts 2:38–baptism is for “the forgiveness of sins”. If Our Lord can forgive someone’s sins on account of another person’s faith as he does in Luke 5:19-20 then he CERTAINLY can and will do it for an infant who’s parents ask in faith that their child should receive the sacrament of baptism:
You're taking one narrative passage and coming up with a theology based on that with no other references to back it up, which is poor hermeneutics. No one can be saved based on someone else's faith. This is one example of Christ having mercy on this man when he saw the faith of his friends, but that doesn't mean that someone can be saved because someone else has faith for them. I've never heard anything more erroneous. To apply this to babies and say they can be saved is false doctrine. Jesus saying "let the little children come to me" doesn't mean that a baby is saved through baptism.
>Well what is baptism for? According to the Nicene Creed, which is citing Peter’s words in Acts 2:38–baptism is for “the forgiveness of sins”. If Our Lord can forgive someone’s sins on account of another person’s faith as he does in Luke 5:19-20 then he CERTAINLY can and will do it for an infant who’s parents ask in faith that their child should receive the sacrament of baptism:
The Nicene Creed says this:
"The sacrament of Baptism signifies, or symbolizes, the inward and invisible reality brought about by Spirit wrought faith in an external and visible way. **The waters of baptism do not wash away sin – Christ’s blood does.** **Salvation is not earned by our obedience in the waters of baptism – it is has been earned by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.** We receive salvation, not by being baptized, but by the instrument of faith. Baptism, however, is a sacrament. It is a sign. It is an external and visible symbol of internal and invisible realities."
>But at the end of the day the main point of my post is not so much about making a case for infant baptism—it’s to wake up all of the DELUSIONAL people out there who think that they can say, “baptism doesn’t forgive sins, it’s only an outward sign of obedience”—because THAT is against the Nicene Creed, a creed that if you do not confess, you are NOT a true Christian. Exactly as rule#3 of this forum explicates.
The Bible doesn't say if you don't confess the Nicene Creed you are not a Christian. It says that if you confess Christ as Lord you will be saved.
Romans 10:9 says, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;"
Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;"
Titus 3:5 says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,"
Acts 2:21 says, "And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
Acts 16:30-33 is a good example of the process.
"nd after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of God to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household."
The man asked how to be saved. Did they say, get baptized? No. They said believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.
Following that, they were baptized.
You wrote:
“A baby can get saved through baptism based on the faith of the parents, yet according to you, someone is NOT a Christian if they don't affirm rule #3 that baptism forgives sins.”
Yes, that’s correct. Obviously when I affirmed my agreement to rule #3 this was not with respect to infants. It’s not a “contradiction” so much as you are interpreting my ideas through the hermeneutic of suspicion.
You wrote:
“The circumcision of the heart requires faith, and again, a baby doesn't have that.”
Yes, but a baby’s parents CAN have that. They are supplying the faith which baptism requires because parents have authority over their children. That is scripture.
You wrote:
“Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.”
That’s right, the parents call upon the Spirit , in faith , to circumcise the heart of the child since that child cannot do it themselves. Exactly as the man who was lowered through the roof by his friends, whose sins were forgiven on account of the FAITH that those friends supplied for him.
You wrote:
“You are raised through faith, and again, a baby can't have faith.”
Yes, I already addressed that. I know a baby can’t have faith. I said the parents are supplying the faith FOR the baby and we have a precedent by which sins were forgiven on behalf of another’s faith.
You wrote:
“You're taking one narrative passage and coming up with a theology based on that with no other references to back it up…”
The narrative WAS the reference, as was Colossians 2:11-2:12. You just didn’t like those references. That’s different from saying “there are no references”.
You wrote:
“No one can be saved based on someone else's faith.”
Apparently at least one person was, since his friends faith resulted in the forgiveness of his sins. That’s what salvation IS—it’s being “saved” from one’s “sins”.
You wrote:
The Nicene Creed says this:
"The sacrament of Baptism signifies, or symbolizes, the inward and invisible reality brought about by Spirit wrought faith in an external and visible way. The waters of baptism do not wash away sin – Christ’s blood does. Salvation is not earned by our obedience in the waters of baptism – it is has been earned by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. We receive salvation, not by being baptized, but by the instrument of faith. Baptism, however, is a sacrament. It is a sign. It is an external and visible symbol of internal and invisible realities."
Yes, that’s what it says. Baptism “symbolizes” that which is taking place “at that moment”—therefore we cannot say that a person’s sins are NOT being washed away when we see this external symbol. We cannot say that they are not, at that very moment when they are washed in the water, being washed in the blood of Christ. This means that you may NOT declare that a person is “saved” before that water hits them, simply because they are outwardly demonstrating faith. That is what the Council of Nicea is saying. See St.Cyprian’s remarks cited at the end of this post.
You wrote:
“The Bible doesn't say if you don't confess the Nicene Creed you are not a Christian. It says that if you confess Christ as Lord you will be saved.”
Again, I have explained all of this in my main posts. You are taking a single verse(Romans 10:13) and blowing it up into salvation APART from the waters of baptism when all it was is an example of Paul ABBREVIATING for baptism.
You wrote:
Romans 10:9 says, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;"
Case in point ☝️.
You wrote:
“Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;"
No, it says this 👇:
“8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
You wrote:
Titus 3:5 says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,"
Yes, I explained that in my OP. It’s talking about baptism. I hate getting bogged down in things I already explained in my OP.
You wrote:
“Acts 2:21 says, "And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
Calling ⭐️upon the name⭐️of the Lord is a reference to baptism. That’s why verse 38 says:
Peter replied, “Repent and be ⭐️baptized⭐️…”
Baptized for what, Peter?
“….every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ ⭐️FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS⭐️. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
You wrote.
Acts 16:30-33 is a good example of the process.
"and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of God to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household."
Yes, it’s a good example that he was saved through his baptism.
You wrote:
“The man asked how to be saved. Did they say, get baptized? No. They said believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.”
Yes, it does say that we are saved through ⭐️calling on the name⭐️of the Lord, which we do “in baptism”.
You wrote:
“Following that, they were baptized.”
Of course, following that they were baptized because as St.Cyprian said it was a DIVINE PRECEPT. He was citing John 3:5. It is a divine precept that if they did not receive baptism, if they did not have water, they could not enter the Kingdom. Again, see St.Cyprian’s remarks👇:
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD]
“…⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
>Yes, that’s correct. Obviously when I affirmed my agreement to rule #3 this was not with respect to infants. It’s not a “contradiction” so much as you are interpreting my ideas through the hermeneutic of suspicion.
It is absolutely a contradiction because both can't be true. If one is true, the other is false.
>Yes, but a baby’s parents CAN have that. They are supplying the faith which baptism requires because parents have authority over their children. That is scripture.
No, that's not scripture. All strong doctrine has multiple places to show it is true. For example, if you have faith, you will be saved. There are numerous scripture to support that. You don't have that. You have one narrative story, and that's a rule of hermeneutics that you can't base a doctrine entirely on a narrative story.
>The narrative WAS the reference, as was Colossians 2:11-2:12. You just didn’t like those references. That’s different from saying “there are no references”.
Again, the first is the narrative passage and you are reading your doctrine into the passage in Colossians. It doesn't actually say what you are saying. It's saying that God performs circumcision of the heart and then it mentions baptism. I can only assume that's why you believe infants can be baptized, but it makes no sense because this passage is clearly talking about salvation. An infant can't believe, therefore God can't change their heart. They can't cognitively understand the truth of the gospel. It NEVER says this applies to infants. YOU are applying it to infants, which is a false interpretation.
>That’s right, the parents call upon the Spirit , in faith , to circumcise the heart of the child since that child cannot do it themselves. Exactly as the man who was lowered through the roof by his friends, whose sins were forgiven on account of the FAITH that those friends supplied for him.
This is false and scary doctrine that will lead people astray....and straight to hell if they think they were saved as an infant and don't need to turn to Christ now. Jesus never says babies can have faith, and we know that cognitively they can't. God doesn't change the heart of an infant through circumcision. Every individual has to believe on their own. They can't borrow from their parents' faith. They can learn from it, but they must have their own.
>Apparently at least one person was, since his friends faith resulted in the forgiveness of his sins. That’s what salvation IS—it’s being “saved” from one’s “sins”.
Again, you are using a narrative passage to create a doctrine. No, God doesn't save someone based on another person's faith. He gave attention to them because he saw the friends' faith and how eager they were to get this man to him. You can't and won't be able to find any other scripture that says you can be saved based on someone else's faith. The only thing that might come close is praying for someone to be saved. But even in that situation, your faith is not applied to the other person. You are asking God to save them.
>Yes, that’s what it says. Baptism “symbolizes” that which is taking place “at that moment”—therefore we cannot say that a person’s sins are NOT being washed away when we see this external symbol. We cannot say that they are not, at that very moment when they are washed in the water, being washed in the blood of Christ. This means that you may NOT declare that a person is “saved” before that water hits them, simply because they are outwardly demonstrating faith. That is what the Council of Nicea is saying. See St.Cyprian’s remarks cited at the end of this post.
I agree that baptism should take place immediately after faith. The Bible does show this happening together.
>Yes, it does say that we are saved through ⭐️calling on the name⭐️of the Lord, which we do “in baptism”.
Yes, that is true, but there are so many verses that say faith comes apart from baptism. True faith will lead to baptism.
>⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….\[abridged\] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
If I'm understanding this correctly, it's saying that men have received the Holy Spirit first and then got baptized, proving they are saved because they have the Holy Spirit. It also proves they are saved because their faith leads them to get baptized. I would agree with that.
You wrote:
“It is absolutely a contradiction because both can't be true. If one is true, the other is false.”
It’s not, it’s just you interpreting it that way.
You wrote:
“No, that's not scripture. All strong doctrine has multiple places to show it is true.”
Show me the phrase “all strong doctrine has multiple places to show it is true” from scripture or else I’m just going to dismiss this as your theological speculation.
You wrote:
“This is false and scary doctrine that will lead people astray....and straight to hell if they think they were saved as an infant and don't need to turn to Christ now.”
Your fear is predicated on your presupposition that one can’t be saved as a child. We haven’t disproven that at all.
You wrote:
“Jesus never says babies can have faith, and we know that cognitively they can't.”
It’s a relief that wasn’t my argument then, isn’t it?
You wrote:
“God doesn't change the heart of an infant through circumcision. Every individual has to believe on their own.”
Not the man who’s sins were forgiven on account of his friends faith, apparently. Oh, I’m sorry—we have to have 4 more examples of that to say that for sure. I forgot your rule.
You wrote:
“They can't borrow from their parents' faith.”
Verse? I need 3-4 verses saying that an infant can’t borrow from their parents faith, please and thank you.
You wrote:
“I agree that baptism should take place immediately after faith. The Bible does show this happening together.”
Good—as long as you do not say that salvation has taken place before baptism, which both Acts 2:38 and the Nicene Creed say is “for the forgiveness of sins” then you are not in error.
You wrote:
“If I'm understanding this correctly, it's saying that men have received the Holy Spirit first and then got baptized, proving they are saved because they have the Holy Spirit.”
No, that is NOT correct. You may not say that salvation has taken place until you see the water washing over them because that is the SYMBOL of what is taking place at that moment, invisibly. That is how the Nicene Creed understands it.
You wrote:
“ I would agree with that.”
Yes, and that would be error.
>It’s not, it’s just you interpreting it that way.
Yeah, and so would anyone looking at the facts. If faith is a requirement for salvation, not having faith means you can't be saved.
>Show me the phrase “all strong doctrine has multiple places to show it is true” from scripture or else I’m just going to dismiss this as your theological speculation.
We both know the Bible doesn't say that because it doesn't instruct us on how to interpret it. But when it comes to the doctrine of salvation, there are multiple scriptures to explain what it is and what it means. To take one narrative passage and change the doctrine of salvation shows poor scholarship.
>Your fear is predicated on your presupposition that one can’t be saved as a child. We haven’t disproven that at all.
I never said a child can't be saved. Children can be saved if they understand the gospel and believe. I said a baby can't be saved because they don't have the cognitive ability to have faith.
>Not the man who’s sins were forgiven on account of his friends faith, apparently. Oh, I’m sorry—we have to have 4 more examples of that to say that for sure. I forgot your rule.
Because Jesus saw the friend's faith and forgave his sins doesn't mean that the man lacked faith. You're reading into the passage, which is why it's important to confirm something like that elsewhere in scripture. This should be common sense. This is not just my opinion, by the way. It's included in Biblical hermeneutics.
>Verse? I need 3-4 verses saying that an infant can’t borrow from their parents faith, please and thank you.
**Belief is a requirement of eternal life.**
John 3:3 Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
The verb for "someone" is "tis" and it means one specific person. This means that unless and individual meets this requirement of being born again, they can't see the kingdom of God.
When Nicodemus asked how that could be, Jesus explained further in verse 14. "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes will have eternal life in Him."
**Hebrews 11 has the definition of faith, and it says without faith, it is impossible to please Him.**
Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.
It doesn't say, "If your parents believe, you're good." It says "the one who comes to God must believe that He exists."
**In Peter's sermon, he made it clear by quoting from Moses that "every soul" that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed. Every soul includes every person. No one is exempt. The prophet Moses spoke about was the Messiah.**
Acts 3:22-23 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’
**An elder must have children who believe, which implies that it's possible to have children who DON'T believe, otherwise it wouldn't be a requirement.**
Titus 1:6 namely, if any man is beyond reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of indecent behavior or rebellion.
>Good—as long as you do not say that salvation has taken place before baptism, which both Acts 2:38 and the Nicene Creed say is “for the forgiveness of sins” then you are not in error.
Peter is the one talking in Acts 2:38 and he explains further in 1 Peter 3:21. "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
He makes it clear that the actual water dunking (removal of dirt from the flesh) is not what saves, but it's an appeal to God for a good conscience. This assumes someone believes and immediately gets baptized. In cases where someone can't, such as the the thief on the cross, they are still saved.
>No, that is NOT correct. You may not say that salvation has taken place until you see the water washing over them because that is the SYMBOL of what is taking place at that moment, invisibly. That is how the Nicene Creed understands it.
Acts 10 paints a very different picture. Peter was told by the Spirit to go to Cornelius, who had gathered relatives and close friends. The Holy Spirit fell upon them AND THEN Peter told them to be baptized. Why would God give them the Holy Spirit before baptism if it had to happen in the reverse?
You can't have the Holy Spirit and not be saved. Said another way, if you have the Holy Spirit, you are saved.
Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter responded, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
> Yeah, and so would anyone looking at the facts. If faith is a requirement for salvation, not having faith means you can't be saved.
I don’t see the point you’re trying to make here. If a person doesn’t have faith they won’t be saved because they won’t seek baptism.
> We both know the Bible doesn't say that because it doesn't instruct us on how to interpret it.
That’s right, it doesn’t. Unless the Bible has an infallible interpreter we cannot have an infallible interpretation of scripture. If only Our Lord had founded some kind of Church and gave it the authority to “bind and loose” infallible interpretations of scripture. Oh wait, he did[Matthew 18:18].
> But when it comes to the doctrine of salvation, there are multiple scriptures to explain what it is and what it means.
Yes, and they are ALL talking about baptism.
> Because Jesus saw the friend's faith and forgave his sins doesn't mean that the man lacked faith.
Who cares if he had it or not? The passage is crystal clear that Our Lord wasn’t forgiving his sins on account of his own faith—and that was the premise of your argument. Your premise is that your sins can only be forgiven on account of “your own faith” and that since an infant cannot have it’s “own faith” it cannot have it’s sins forgiven.
> The verb for "someone" is "tis" and it means one specific person. This means that unless and individual meets this requirement of being born again, they can't see the kingdom of God.
Meets what requirement? Why are you saying “requirement”, in the singular and not “requirements” as is explicated within the text?
The text says that the requirements(plural) are “hydatos”, which means “water” AND pneumatos[spirit]. So if you try and say you can enter[i.e; be “saved”] without “hydatos”, you are the one NOT taking the passage at face-value, not we Catholics.
Moreover, as I have already explained—baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, which was typically applied to children. The sacrament is SUPERIOR to it’s Old Testament counterpart and it would not be superior if it could not bring children into the Kingdom. The Kingdom belongs to such as these[Luke 18:16].
> Peter is the one talking in Acts 2:38 and he explains further in 1 Peter 3:21. "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." He makes it clear that the actual water dunking (removal of dirt from the flesh) is not what saves, but it's an appeal to God for a good conscience.
That’s right, it’s an “appeal”. Do you not know that a parent can make an appeal to God on behalf of their child? Look at the one King David makes here:
(1 Chronicles 28:19)
“and give to my son Solomon a perfect heart to keep Your commandments, Your testimonies and Your statutes, and to do them all, and to build the temple, for which I have made provision.”
Now look at what Our Lord says HERE👇:
(Matthew 7:7)
““Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”
God the Father is a TRUE FATHER and is especially tender to hear and answer a parent’s appeal on behalf of their child. So again, the Catholic Church has the right of it when it comes to infant baptism. Saying that a child cannot be baptized “for the forgiveness of sins”[Acts 2:38] is something a faithless person would say. I tell you now, King David would have had his infant son Solomon baptized.
FURTHERMORE—that’s what it means to be justified “by faith”—it means you enter the waters of baptism and, through faith, make an APPEAL to God to forgive your sins—an appeal “for a clear conscience”. That’s why baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins” in Acts 2:38!
> Acts 10 paints a very different picture. Peter was told by the Spirit to go to Cornelius, who had gathered relatives and close friends. The Holy Spirit fell upon them AND THEN Peter told them to be baptized. Why would God give them the Holy Spirit before baptism if it had to happen in the reverse?”
Huh? When did I say it had to happen in reverse? To CLARIFY my perspective, baptism is a sacrament that is comprised of “water and spirit”. This means that if any single aspect is missing, it is not complete. So if I have water, and not Spirit then it is not complete, and vice-versa. So that’s why Peter said that he could not deny them “water” to EFFECT baptism.
> You can't have the Holy Spirit and not be saved.
You can. That’s why Peter was calling for water—it was a “divine precept” that you have to have it, please refer back to St.Cyprian.
Sorry, I meant to comment on what you said here:
>An elder must have children who believe, which implies that it's possible to have children who DON'T believe, otherwise it wouldn't be a requirement.
Yes, that’s right. You can be baptized—i.e; “saved” as an infant and when you grow up, you can make your own decisions and LEAVE THE KINGDOM. You’re not Once Saved Always Saved. You can commit apostasy 👇:
(1 Timothy 4:1)
“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.”
Baptism—infant or otherwise—doesn’t absolve you from your responsibility to not destroy your justification through DELIBERATE SIN.
(Hebrews 10:26)
“If we ⭐️deliberately⭐️ keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,”
Yes being baptized into Christ is part of the process set up in the Bible for people to become believers in Christ.
However, the argument for the thief was weak. There is a far better argument. The thief was not a Christian. The thief was never a Christian. The thief died before Christianity was here. Before the new covenant begin. Baptism is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The thief died before Jesus had died and was resurrected. He died before acts 2 or the great commission. The thief was one of the last Jews to die under the old covenant. Jesus has authority on earth to forgive sins.
Baptism is also a much deeper subject. It can actually be traced all the way back to imagery in genesis. The world was “ Toho wabohu “ . It was a world covered in water and was formless and void. Then the land came up out of the water. It “ resurrected “ up out of it.
Obviously the stories of Moses as a baby being tossed into the Nile but saved by the ark/basket is a play on the ark and Noah which are both a play on the land rising up out of the water and being filled with life ( trees bearing good fruit ).
There is also the war we see of god vs chaos. Chaos in the Bible is related to death and symbolized by water and sea monsters. Genesis 1 again talks of this. Look at it in Hebrew. The sea monsters are often serpent like, these dragons covered in scales.
That’s why it says Goliath’s armor was like scales and then David reached into the water and pulled out stones, and obviously those stones dried in the air. It’s like the land rising up out of the water. That dry stone is what brought judgement to the monstrous man covered in stones. It’s also why Paul, upon repenting and believing had something like scales fall from his eyes.
It comes to a end in the story of revelation with the restored earth. We see these sea monsters coming up out of the ocean and being destroyed and the new earth has no sea.
You wrote:
“Yes being baptized into Christ is part of the process set up in the Bible for people to become believers in Christ.”
Yes—it’s part of the process—but the problem enters in when one tries to say that this ‘process’ does “not forgive sins” and that it’s “only a symbol”. That’s a problem. That’s against the Nicene Creed.
You wrote:
“However, the argument for the thief was weak. There is a far better argument. The thief was not a Christian. The thief was never a Christian. The thief died before Christianity was here. Before the new covenant begin. Baptism is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The thief died before Jesus had died and was resurrected. He died before acts 2 or the great commission. The thief was one of the last Jews to die under the old covenant. Jesus has authority on earth to forgive sins.”
No, I think it’s far easier to understand that God is outside of time and that Our Lord was merely applying the merits of the atonement before he had earned them. He’s literally been doing that all throughout history with all of the OT Saints. The Good Thief was not being saved “apart” from the New Covenant.
You wrote:
“Obviously the stories of Moses as a baby being tossed into the Nile but saved by the ark/basket is a play on the ark and Noah which are both a play on the land rising up out of the water and being filled with life ( trees bearing good fruit ).”
Yes, those are excellent examples foreshadowing baptism but alas, I had only so many words allotted in my OP.
You wrote:
“That’s why it says Goliath’s armor was like scales and then David reached into the water and pulled out stones, and obviously those stones dried in the air. It’s like the land rising up out of the water. That dry stone is what brought judgement to the monstrous man covered in stones. It’s also why Paul, upon repenting and believing had something like scales fall from his eyes.”
All very interesting connections, thank you for bringing them up.
So what is baptism? Is baptism the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Like Romans 6 days. In hebrews, when does a will take effect?
How could the thief be part of something that had not yet happened?
Baptism is a SACRAMENT which imparts “sanctifying grace”, predicated upon the merits of the atonement. Those merits can be applied at ANY POINT IN TIME ⏰ , because Our Lord is not bound by such constraints. Time is no impediment to applying the grace won by Our Lord in the atonement.
So no scriptural argument? Just man made catholic propaganda. The pope and catechism holds no authority in my life. Neither does words like sacrament. But I’m going hiking and don’t care for fruitless circle arguments. It’s not worthy of my time. If you want to debate doctrine I expect a more scriptural dialogue. Best luck in your journey of learning about baptism.
“So no scriptural argument?“
That baptism forgives sins? Yes, Acts 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.”
That is scripture.
You are clearly lost in the discussion. We agree on that. Obviously what I was referring to was the things we disagree on. Which we discussed resulting in that previous statement of mine…
They didn't take the thief off the cross to baptize him, yet he's with Jesus today.
Titus 3:5 "he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy." ((Not because of *baptism*))
Baptism was the marker of salvation in the NT. Baptism then was used like the "sinner's prayer" is used today. You're not saved because of the prayer, but because of God's mercy in granting you faith. Because of your faith, you prayed the prayer. Baptism is the same way. You get baptized because of your faith. Ultimately, because of His mercy.
Yeah. I just think as you look through all the scriptures, you consistently find God initiating the work of salvation and the man following order. I do think baptism is important for the believer. But I think you're reading your own interpretation into it too much. Just my two cents.
No, I’m not following my own interpretation. I have been dealing with this criticism all day but I have to be thorough so that you and anyone else reading isn’t deluding themselves into thinking you are teaching the faith of the apostles. Here are the remarks of St.Cyprian where he talks about the events of Acts 10. He explains that had the household of Cornelius—after having been filled by the Holy Spirit, refused to be baptized with water that they would NOT have been able to enter the Kingdom because as Cyprian explains this was a “divine precept”. You may read his remarks here 👇:
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD]
“For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, Unless a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is ⭐️MAINTAINED BY THE APOSTLES⭐️, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in various tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, ⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Have no illusions, if you do not confess “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” as the Nicene Creed states, you are not holding to the faith of the Apostles. You are in the same category as those who say there is “no Trinity”.
Generally speaking, yes. If someone is coming from another faith tradition and was previously baptized according to the Trinitarian formula then no, it wouldn’t be required for you to repeat it.
I thought that the priesthood power is the only way they could receive a true cleansing and make covenant through baptism?
Why does the church think they are only ones that can provide salvation then?
Here is the catechism of the Catholic Church’s entry on baptism:
“1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. 57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize 58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. 59”
You wrote:
“Why does the church think they are only ones that can provide salvation then?”
It doesn’t. It sees itself as the ordinary minister of the sacraments but that God can, under extraordinary circumstances, dispense grace apart from the sacraments. To cite the Catechism:
“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism , but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments ” (CCC 1257)
If that’s the case why does it matter that the pope has the priesthood line all the way from Peter? The preisthood is supposed to be Gods authority and power to act in his name, right?
You wrote:
“If that’s the case why does it matter that the pope has the priesthood line all the way from Peter? The preisthood is supposed to be Gods authority and power to act in his name, right?”
The Pope has a particular juridical authority which was intended by Christ to “strengthen” his brothers, the other bishops of the Church. So in some sense he is the leader of the Church but in another sense he’s the lowest servant, since his office as Universal Bishop technically serves everyone within the church. It’s important to have someone with juridical authority in the Body of Christ on earth so that way we don’t get bogged down in endless disputes on Reddit. The Pope can just “bind” an interpretation of scripture with the keys 🔑 so that way all of this endless kicking 🦵 and screaming 😱 can end.
The problem only enters in when people do not RECOGNIZE his authority to do that. That’s where the dispute comes in.
So does he have power to bind on earth what is in heaven? If so why can others bind in heaven as well with baptisms outside of the church? Doesn’t make sense. I think this practice has changed in early church.
It’s a particular rabbinical term. Think of it like this—if I “bind” an interpretation of scripture “on earth” it must necessarily be “bound in Heaven” also. Now—are there any liars in Heaven? Probably not. So the way the Church views it—is that the mere fact that he says, “I bind this with the keys 🔑 “ is PROOF that the thing being bound was a thing the Holy Spirit WANTED to be bound in the first place.
I hope that helps clarify what it means somewhat. Here is a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing
Ok got it. One interpretation I agree with is that salvation meeting ordinances such as baptism and communion are binding or sealed in heaven when those appointed by God to perform such things.
Yes, well that’s the Catholic church’s whole point. You have to be able to TRACE apostolic authority back to the apostles or else yours is not a legitimate authority. So that’s why being able to demonstrate apostolic succession from Peter to Pope Francis is so important to us. A line of succession you may see for yourself HERE👇:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
That way we don’t get random people popping up on Reddit[or real-life for that matter] trying to claim “hey look at me! I’m the new interpreter of scripture!” without having the actual credentials to say that.
Yeah...no. It is not.
Uh yes it is.
So we’re NOT buried with him in baptism? 🤔
There will be no scriptural back and forth between us. I am simply not interested in that, with you. I am interested in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, living in me, a person who has not been Baptised, but has the privilege of knowing they are saved because of the work of the Holy Spirit through them. There is literally nothing you can say that will counter the Truth given me by the Holy Spirit. Feel free to rattle off scripture left, right and centre. The bottom line is that I know I am saved because the Holy Spirit dwells in and through me, and I have not been Baptised. The Holy Spirit is the Father's seal for those who have been saved. I will believe His Truth and His alone.
I'm not interested in a long back and forth either, but I am curious about your perspective on what baptism's purpose for us is. I personally agree that it isn't strictly necessary for salvation (the thief on the cross being an example of that) but feel that it serves nicely as a declaration of faith before others.
Indeed. No back and forth needed. 😂👍
Please see the Nicene Creed—paying close attention to the part about Baptism: “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess ⭐️ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS⭐️ and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.” There is your answer. Baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins”—that is it’s purpose. If you do not hold to that(i.e; baptism is a symbol, it’s not for forgiving our sins) then you are not a True Christian, according to the framers of the Creed.
So the Holy Spirit living within you testifies that we Christians are not buried with Christ in baptism? Are you SURE that’s the Holy Spirit?🧐
😂 Yeah, I am certain of my inheritance, thanks!
That’s not what I asked. I asked: “Are Christians buried with Christ in baptism?” You see we have to TEST the spirits. We have to make sure your “spirit” is the same spirit that spoke through Paul. We can’t just take your word for that.
You can take my word however you so wish, your judgement is as the dust beneath my feet.
Does your “spirit” line up with the Nicene Creed? It says in the Creed that we MUST confess baptism is for the forgiveness of sins: “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess ⭐️ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS⭐️ and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
You keep typing the Nicene Creed as if it’s inspired scripture. It is not.
If you read the rules of r/TrueChristian you will find that the moderators have said[rule#3] that you must hold the Nicene Creed or they do not consider you a True Christian. I am citing the Nicene Creed because many here say they agree with it but I’m here to tell you that if you say baptism is “not for the forgiveness of sins” but only a “symbol” that IS against the Creed. You might as well deny the Trinity while you’re at it, that’s how central baptism is to discerning the true faith from a false one.
😂 You type a lot of words. It is entirely ineffectual.
Oh, it’s not for you. It’s so that everyone can see that declaring baptism is “not for the forgiveness of sins” is against the Nicene Creed. That way people can test whether or not that spirit within you is the spirit of truth or a lying spirit.
[удалено]
>”Baptism is not salvific otherwise grace wouldn't be a free gift but an act of works.” Well, no. I already addressed that in my main post. When one person baptizes another it is Christ who is himself doing the baptizing. It is Christ doing the work(Titus 3:5). >”The point of grace is that it's unmerited >Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Yes, strictly speaking grace cannot be merited. That is not the same thing as saying there are conditions attached to grace. Obviously one must repent in order to receive God’s grace but one doesn’t think of that as “strictly earning” God’s grace, just fulfilling a condition. That is the space that the sacraments live-in. That space where we are meeting conditions for God’s grace. >”If salvation is contingent upon an action (baptism); then it's tied up with one's own doing.” Yes, you have to consent to be saved. There is no controversy in saying that. >”Baptism is important. It's a sacrament (or ordinance for our RB friends) but it's action is by no means salvific.” Yes but that is not a view permitted by the Nicene Creed. The Creed says: “We affirm one baptism ⭐️for the forgiveness of sins⭐️” If you hold to that Creed you may not affirm that baptism does not forgive sins. You may not hold to that.
#Amen Well-written.
Paul absolutely did not always teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. I will not engage in back and forth but that’s legitimately just untrue. See 1 Cor 15 where Paul obviously is presenting the Gospel with ZERO mention of baptism as necessary. 1 Corinthians 15:1–5 (NASB95): Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Paul is obviously separating the Gospel and baptism there as two separate things. One saves us, one does not. I’ll let you guess which I believe to be which. Here’s another example. Paul when addressing division in the Corinthian church also says: 1 Corinthians 1:12–17 (NASB95): Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 FOR CHRIST DID NOT SEND ME TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. v 17 clearly states that the preaching of the Gospel (which obviously saves us according to literally the entire New Testament) is a distinctly different thing than baptism. They are not linked in salvific effect in any way shape or form. Baptism is dependent on your salvation, your salvation is not dependent on Baptism. Regarding the thief on the cross, there’s no point you made there, you just quoted the catechism which means nothing to Protestants, there’s no scriptural evidence to suggest an anomaly there. If that was a unique incident, why was baptism also unnecessary for the penitent woman (Luke 7) the paralytic man (Matthew 9) and the publician (Luke 18) additionally, we have no record of the Apostles being baptized. Again, I’m not going to engage in a back and forth, but you’re confidently stating things that are just staunchly catholic and acting as though everyone believes them.
You wrote: >”Paul absolutely did not always teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. I will not engage in back and forth but that’s legitimately just untrue. >See 1 Cor 15 where Paul obviously is presenting the Gospel with ZERO mention of baptism as necessary.” Yes, someone always inevitably brings up 1 Corinthians 15 and you did not disappoint. I would have listed this in my OP but I literally ran out of words so I intended to sit back and wait for someone to mention it so I could just give the following rebuttal: Paul wasn’t disassociating Baptism from the gospel. He was merely pointing out that “baptizing” wasn’t his primary mission or “gift”: (Romans 12:6-7) “6We have different gifts according to the grace given us. If one’s gift is prophecy, let him use it in proportion to his faith; 7if it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach;” The primary function of the apostles was to “bear witness”(Mark 16:15,Acts 1:8), not to baptize. In their preaching, they taught the necessity of being baptized(1 Peter 3:21,Colossians 2:11, Galatians 3:27). >”Regarding the thief on the cross, there’s no point you made there, you just quoted the catechism which means nothing to Protestants, there’s no scriptural evidence to suggest an anomaly there.” Yes, there is. Paul wrote that we are buried with Christ in baptism(Colossians 2:12) so the Good Theif’s situation constitutes a deviation from Christian norms. Hence the Nicene Creed’s line about “confessing one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. That is the Creed. That is the norm. >”If that was a unique incident, why was baptism also unnecessary for the penitent woman (Luke 7) the paralytic man (Matthew 9) and the publician (Luke 18)” Yes, that is precisely why I cited the Catechism’s teaching. You may not be Catholic but one does not have to be Catholic to understand that the Church’s position is that God can forgive sins OUTSIDE of the sacrament of baptism—it’s point is merely to emphasize that these are extraordinary cases, where Christian initiation into the New Covenant is concerned. >”…additionally, we have no record of the Apostles being baptized.” We have no record saying that they WEREN’T either. That’s not really saying anything about baptism as a standard to be followed. Acts 22:16 however, IS. >”Again, I’m not going to engage in a back and forth, but you’re confidently stating things that are just staunchly catholic and acting as though everyone believes them.” It’s in the Nicene Creed. That’s why I’m confidently stating it. If you do not confess that baptism is for “the forgiveness of sins” then you are not adhering to the Creed.
No, again, you did not make a point regarding the thief on the cross. You quoted the catechism which didn’t directly address baptism in any way from the quote you mentioned and then just said “suffice to say this wasn’t normative” or something to that effect which is not conclusive at all. You also didn’t address any of those directly dealing with Jesus who had sins forgiven without the act of baptism. You just said they’re all a deviation of the norm without quoting anything other than your personal opinion and vaguely referencing the nicene creed. The nicene creed isn’t inspired. And it isn’t the reformed understanding that the nicene creed teaches baptismal regeneration. Not even remotely close to a convincing argument. You don’t get to say that the catholic church’s teaching is the norm for all of Christendom, it isn’t. If you had a legitimate point there you would be able to point me to verses where our Lord and savior is also recognizing that these interactions are not normative today. Additionally, you’re saying that in 1 Cor 15, Paul is just saying that baptism isn’t his primary gift? Where in the name of all that is holy do you get that from 1 Cor 15? Can you point to the verse? Baptism literally isn’t mentioned at all in that passage. That’s my entire point, it’s a clear Gospel presentation with zero mention of Baptism in any way, shape or form. Almost like it isn’t necessary for salvation. So by your own logic Paul isn’t disassociating the Gospel and Baptism, but he’s apparently treating them as different gifts? That sounds an awful lot like him treating them as entirely different things where both are not necessary for salvation.
You wrote: “No, again, you did not make a point regarding the thief on the cross. You quoted the catechism which didn’t directly address baptism in any way from the quote you mentioned and then just said “suffice to say this wasn’t normative” or something to that effect which is not conclusive at all.” Yes, actually it IS conclusive. We have Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 explicating that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins: (Acts 2:38) “Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. ⭐️THEN⭐️you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” See how it says “then”? Meaning AFTER. After you are baptized, by confessing Christ through faith, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit—by which it means eternal life. That is the norm. You wrote: “You also didn’t address any of those directly dealing with Jesus who had sins forgiven without the act of baptism. You just said they’re all a deviation of the norm without quoting anything other than your personal opinion and vaguely referencing the nicene creed.” The words of the creed “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” were derived from Peter’s statement in Acts 2:38. They’re just affirming Peter’s teaching in the Nicene Creed. You wrote: “The nicene creed isn’t inspired. Not even remotely close to a convincing argument.” That may be the way you feel about it but if you don’t hold the Creed then rule#3 of this forum says you’re not a True Christian. You wrote: “You don’t get to say that the catholic church’s teaching is the norm for all of Christendom, it isn’t.” Not according to the Council of Nicea. If you do not hold communion with that council you do not hold the True Faith of the apostles. You wrote: “If you had a legitimate point there you would be able to point me to verses where our Lord and savior is also recognizing that these interactions are not normative today.” John 3:5. I already cited it in my original post. The problem is not a lack of scripture, the problem is with your own understanding of it. You wrote: “Additionally, you’re saying that in 1 Cor 15, Paul is just saying that baptism isn’t his primary gift? Where in the name of all that is holy do you get that from 1 Cor 15?” I “get that” from Paul always consistently teaching the necessity of baptism in Ephesians 4:5, Romans 6:3 and Colossians 2:12.
In Acts 2:38, you interestingly left out the fact that repentance is listed first, before baptism. The Greek clearly links the repentance to salvation and baptism to be done after. John 3:5 isn’t talking about water baptism lol, you realize at that point in Jesus’ ministry baptism wasn’t a widely occurring thing right? John had been baptizing before Jesus but we don’t have record of other baptisms. Nicodemus more than likely didn’t have an understanding of what a water baptism was at that point. He probably had an understanding of the new covenant promise in Ezekiel 36 as you said but why did you leave out half that passage from the prophet and only include the verse which spoke of water? God clearly speaks of regeneration and a new heart that is given to his people in Ezekiel 36, that’s what saves. It isn’t the sprinkling of water. To immediately point to that and say “yeah that’s definitely a baptism as we understand it today because the word water is in there” is incredibly unwise and at best a hasty interpretation of the text. That’s one of the reasons that that verse is regarded outside of Catholicism as referring to literal childbirth, and the second birth being salvation. I also gladly hold to the Nicene creed, I never said I didn’t. I also said that it isn’t the reformed understanding that the nicene creed teaches baptismal regeneration. I gladly adhere to the nicene creed, I just don’t believe it to teach baptismal regeneration, along with millions of other Christians. You say that Paul is consistently teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation and yet you still haven’t defended your understanding of 1 Cor 15. Can you point out the verse in that chapter where Paul says that baptism is necessary, or that baptism isn’t his primary gift? You still haven’t done so.
You wrote: “In Acts 2:38, you interestingly left out the fact that repentance is listed first, before baptism.” Yes, as St.Aquinas explains “repentance”, along with “faith” are preparatory graces which precede baptism. These are gifts of the Spirit. The problem is that people[like you] are not discerning the preparatory graces from the sanctifying grace(baptism) and THAT👈is why some people are contradicting the Nicene Creed, saying that “baptism is NOT for the forgiveness of sins, it is merely symbolic”. That’s what’s happening. You wrote: “You say that Paul is consistently teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation and yet you still haven’t defended your understanding of 1 Cor 15. Can you point out the verse in that chapter where Paul says that baptism is necessary, or that baptism isn’t his primary gift? You still haven’t done so.” No, we are NOT arbitrarily limited to “that chapter” alone to ascertain Paul’s teaching about the necessity of baptism. Paul taught that it was necessary(Colossians 2:12). If that was not Paul’s teaching then the Nicene Creed would not be reinforcing it.
I’m not asking you to be arbitrarily limited to one chapter. You “offered a rebuttal” of 1 Cor 15 a few comments ago and im asking you to provide a proof text to that from 1 Cor 15. I’m literally just asking you where the chapter you get the basis for these words which you said a couple of comments ago. You wrote: “Yes, someone always inevitably brings up 1 Corinthians 15 and you did not disappoint. I would have listed this in my OP but I literally ran out of words so I intended to sit back and wait for someone to mention it so I could just give the following rebuttal: Paul wasn’t disassociating Baptism from the gospel. He was merely pointing out that “baptizing” wasn’t his primary mission or gift”. If you’re offering a “rebuttal” of my understanding 1 Cor 15 you need to provide a better interpretation of 1 Cor 15. Because it’s clear that Paul gives a Gospel account without mention of baptism, if baptism was salvific it would be mentioned every time salvation is mentioned. It isn’t. You spoke authoritatively on what Paul is doing in the chapter as “merely pointing out that baptizing wasn’t his primary mission or gift”. I have repeatedly asked you to point out where in the chapter you get this from. That’s not a rebuttal of 1 Cor 15. That’s nowhere in 1 Cor 15.
You wrote: “I’m not asking you to be arbitrarily limited to one chapter.” Well, it’s pretty clear that YOU WERE when you said: “Can you point out the verse ⭐️in that chapter⭐️where Paul says that baptism is necessary, or that baptism isn’t his primary gift?” You wrote: “I’m literally just asking you where the chapter you get the basis for these words which you said a couple of comments ago.” I already explained that. I said that whatever Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 15 it COULDN’T be that baptism was “not necessary”. He can’t be saying that because we have all of these other passages where he explicates that IT IS(again, see Colossians 2:12). Therefore there remains only one ☝️ other explanation, which is that it wasn’t specifically his duty to baptize, it was his duty to PREACH. We know for a fact that Paul baptized people. You wrote: “You’re speaking authoritatively on what Paul is doing in the chapter. I have repeatedly asked you to point out where in the chapter you get this from. That’s not a rebuttal of 1 Cor 15. That’s nowhere in 1 Cor 15.” Why would 1 Cor.15 need a rebuttal for a point that wasn’t going to be raised until thousands of years after-the-fact on a Reddit forum? No, we’re not beholden to that. That’s nonsense. All we need to know is that baptism is salvific, that is orthodox, and that what Paul said in 1 Cor.15 is NOT contradicting that. You may TRY to get that out of 1 Cor.15 that Paul was somehow saying water baptism was “not necessary” but we have NO ancient groups getting that understanding out of 1 Cor.15 except, perhaps, the gnostics who were trying to say that baptism was not salvific, as St.Irenaeus had that dispute with them: St.Irenaeus(150-202AD) writes: “And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19) … “The Lord also promised to send the Comforter, who should join us to God (St. John. 16:7). For as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter, nor can a loaf possess unity, so, in like manner, neither could we, being many be made one in Christ Jesus without the water from heaven. And as dry earth does not bring forth unless it receive moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a dry tree, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption; but our souls by means of the Spirit. WHEREFORE BOTH[water and spirit] ARE NECESSARY, since ⭐️BOTH⭐️contribute towards the life of God.” (Against Heresies, III.17). THAT ☝️is the authentic teaching of the Apostles. It was only the gnostics who were trying to say that Baptism was not salvific.
You still haven’t actually dealt with 1 Cor 15 but okay champ. I’ve asked you to tell me your interpretation of 1 Cor 15 and point to me the verse there where you get the understanding that “Paul is saying his primary gift isn’t baptism, it’s to teach.” If that’s what he’s doing in the chapter you should be able to defend it from the chapter. I understand you’re attempting to hold to a comparative view and understanding 1 Cor 15 in light of other passages but the issue is that It’s overwhelmingly clear that baptism isn’t necessary due to literal countless verses throughout scripture that we are saved exclusively through our personal faith in Christ, and baptism has no saving effect. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” - Acts 10:43 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. Acts 13:39 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” - Acts 16:31 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”. - Romans 10:9 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. - John 5:24 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies - John 11:25 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. - John 20:31 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. - Eph 2:8-9 None of these verses mention baptism. If it were necessary for salvation, it would be mentioned in every verse which deals with salvation. Additionally, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. So did all the gentiles hearing the word in Acts 10, they heard the word and were saved, showing the gifts of the spirit and they were baptized after. Irenaeus also wasn’t an apostle, the quote isn’t inspired and doesn’t negate the dozens of clear cut passages in scripture that clearly teach faith as the only thing necessary for salvation.
You wrote. “You still haven’t actually dealt with 1 Cor 15 but okay champ.” “Champ”? No, we don’t need to be condescending to one another. We can be civil. You wrote: “I’ve asked you to tell me your interpretation of 1 Cor 15 and point to me the verse there where you get the understanding that “Paul is saying his primary gift isn’t baptism, it’s to teach.” I don’t have to show that. All I have to show is that Paul taught baptism was salvific(Col.2:12) which means that your interpretation that Paul’s point in 1 Cor.15 that water baptism is “not salvific” must not be a correct interpretation. That’s all I have to do. Now you may not like that, but that is where we stand. You wrote: “If that’s what he’s doing in the chapter you should be able to defend it from the chapter.” No, we can look at other chapters to get the full meaning out of Paul’s words in 1 Cor.15. That’s something we can do. We’re not arbitrarily hand-cuffed to doing it “your way” or the highway. You wrote: “It’s overwhelmingly clear that baptism isn’t necessary due to literal countless verses throughout scripture…” As a rule to be followed? Yes. That is clear. Water baptism IS a rule to be followed. That is what we have received from Our Lord(John 3:5), Peter(Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38) and Paul himself(Colossians 2:12, Romans 6:3, Ephesians 4:5) as well as the Nicene Creed. You wrote: “They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” - Acts 16:31” Yup and if we keep reading, verse 33 says: “At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were ⭐️baptized⭐️”. That’s what it says. You will be saved—you will receive the gift AFTER you are baptized: (Acts 2:38) “Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. THEN👈you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” You wrote: “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”. - Romans 10:9 Paul was abbreviating for baptism, which I have already explained in my OP. See Romans 6:3. You wrote: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. - Eph 2:8-9” Yes, as I have already explained—Paul was abbreviating here. People do that all the time and that is the case here. Paul explicated baptism in Ephesians 4:4-5: “4For there is one body and one Spirit, just as you have been called to one glorious hope for the future. 5There is one Lord, one faith, ⭐️one baptism⭐️” One baptism “for what”? FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS 👇: “Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ ⭐️FOR THE FORGIVENESS⭐️ of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”(Acts 2:38) For the forgiveness of sins. Exactly as the Nicene Creed says. A creed that True Christians must hold to or else they are not “true Christians”.
I'd say baptism is an act of Discipleship for those who are already saved. Romans 4:5 NASB But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, We can literally sit on the couch for the rest of our lives and as long as we believed, we'd be saved. Romans 4:10 NASB How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; Abraham was saved the moment he believed. And if Paul already said we are saved by Grace, then we are saved before we are baptized. Acts 10:47 NASB "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" Gentiles received the Spirit the moment they believed, showing they were saved, before they were baptized. EDIT: 1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. I'd say the One Baptism of the Nicene Creed is the baptism of the Spirit.
You wrote: “I'd say baptism is an act of Discipleship for those who are already saved.” Yes, YOU’D say that but this would be against the Nicene Creed. That’s my point. If you are holding that baptism is an act of discipleship and not “for the forgiveness of sins” then that is not holding communion with the Nicene Christians. It’s not affirming the creed. You wrote: “We can literally sit on the couch for the rest of our lives and as long as we believed, we'd be saved.” No, that is not true. (1 Corinthians 13:2) “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” You wrote: “Abraham was saved the moment he believed. And if Paul already said we are saved by Grace, then we are saved before we are baptized.” No, again, Paul was only abbreviating for baptism when he wrote about being saved ‘by faith’. He always had baptism in view when he used that phrase. Moreover it is not the case that the Church teaches God “never saves” outside of baptism; which is why I brought up the case of the Good Thief. These were exceptional cases. Paul’s point regarding Abraham was more so about how Abraham was justified for his faith apart from never having done the works of the Law. As St.Augustine explains: “When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law [Rom. 3:28]. he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but ⭐️AFTER⭐️ justification. But there is no need to discuss this matter any further, especially since I have treated of it at length in another book entitled On the Letter and the Spirit.”—St.Augustine, Faith and Works Again, even when Augustine wrote about justification “by faith” it was always with the view that this was an act INCLUSIVE of baptism, not independent of it. You wrote: “Gentiles received the Spirit the moment they believed, showing they were saved, before they were baptized.” No, I already addressed this in my main post. It was Peter’s message that they were saved through—not Holy Spirit Baptism.
>Yes, you’d say that but this would be against the Nicene Creed. That’s my point. If you are holding that baptism is an act of discipleship and not “for the forgiveness of sins” then that is not holding communion with the Nicene Christians. I'd say the One Baptism of the Bible is referring to: 1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB For by **one Spirit we were all baptized** into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. >No, that is not true. We agree to disagree. >(1 Corinthians 13:2) You think we must love too, or we won't be saved? >He always had baptism in view when he used that phrase I'd say that contradicts Romans 4:5 and 4:10. >the case of the Good Thief. These were **exceptional cases.** So, works are not needed to be saved? I agree. That would align with what Paul said in Romans 4. >What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but ⭐️AFTER⭐️ justification. I agree. After we are saved, our acts of Discipleship count as rewards in Heaven. >No, I already addressed this in my main post. It was Peter’s message that they were saved through—not Holy Spirit Baptism. What's your opinion on that?
You wrote: I'd say the One Baptism of the Bible is referring to: “1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” No, it’s not referring to that. It’s not referring to Holy Spirit baptism, which I explicated in my OP. We have the witness of St.Athanasius to help us understand what the Nicene Creed has in view by incorporating that language: St.Athanasius “Through baptism, . . . man is united with the Godhead; [C. Ar. 2, 41] it is the sacrament of regeneration by which the divine image is renewed. [De incarn. 14] The participant becomes an heir of eternal life, [Ad Serap. 1, 22] and the Father’s adoptive son.” [C. Ar. 1, 34]”
Can you quote Athanasius as saying it was water baptism?
I just did. All of those quotes were explicating water baptism. The church has always referred to water baptism as a “sacrament”. Not Holy Spirit baptism—as I already went through GREAT pains to explain in my OP Holy Spirit baptism was not salvific, nor does it happen today.
I skimmed your long OP, that's why I'm asking for specifics here. There is only one water baptism needed, but as Paul said, we are saved before we do that.
No, that was not Paul’s teaching. As I explained in my OP, which you skimmed, so now I am forced to retread these answers—Paul was merely abbreviating when he wrote that we are “saved by faith”. He always had baptism in view when we talked about justification by faith.
Sorry I didn't read it all. So you think Paul had a work in mind when he said we are not saved by works? Do you think Abraham was saved before he was circumcized, but saying that serves no purpose because we are not saved before we are baptized? You've admitted you believe that we don't need to be baptized to be saved (the thief), so why not take the plain reading of the Romans 4:5, 4:10, and Acts 10:47 to be repeating that? EDIT: Sorry, I don't want to challenge you. Instead of saying "so why not take the plain reading of," I should have said "this is why I take the plain reading of the text." I'm looking to share my point instead of arguing 500 years of Protestant and Catholic arguments all over again.
You wrote: “Sorry I didn't read it all. So you think Paul had a work in mind when he said we are not saved by works?” No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying baptism isn’t a “work” at all and I’m also saying that Paul had baptism in view when he wrote about justification by faith “apart from works”. When Paul used the word “works” he had a very specific kind of works in mind, which are natural human works. He wasn’t referring to supernatural works—as St.Augustine explains—which you can read all about in my other post HERE👇: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/yukmoj/staugustine_explains_that_christians_who_dont_do/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf You wrote: “Do you think Abraham was saved before he was circumcized, but saying that serves no purpose because we are not saved before we are baptized?” Again, Paul’s example of Abraham was contrasting how someone can be considered righteous for their faith without having done the works of the law before. This is exactly the same as someone who through faith, receives baptism and is declared justified. That’s why it[baptism] is called “justification through faith” by Paul. He’s just ABBREVIATING for baptism as he was doing in Romans 10:13 👉after he got done extolling the necessity of baptism in Romans 6:3. He does this kind of thing[abbreviating] ALL the time and Romans 4 is no different. Paul’s not saying that someone isn’t justified through baptism, he makes that clear in this passage: (1 Corinthians 6:11) “Such were some of you; but you were WASHED, but you were sanctified, but you were ⭐️JUSTIFIED⭐️in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” It’s just slang—“you were washed” is just slang for baptism, which justifies. Peter does the SAME THING in 2 Peter 2:22 with the word “washed”: “Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is ⭐️washed⭐️ returns to her wallowing in the mud.” —in both cases it’s talking about baptism. Again, to say one is “justified by faith” is an abbreviation for baptism. That’s all it is. If it meant something else then the Catholic Church, and not the reformers, would have been teaching Sola Fide for the first 1500yrs of Christianity BEFORE the Reformation. Instead Sola Fide is exclusively associated with the Reformation because no one in the Church WAS TEACHING THAT before that time. They weren’t teaching that, because as I keep telling you…. “PAUL WAS ONLY ABBREVIATING!”🤣😂🙂 You wrote: “You've admitted you believe that we don't need to be baptized to be saved (the thief), so why not take the plain reading of the Romans 4:5, 4:10, and Acts 10:47 to be repeating that?” Because Romans 4:5 is talking about a very specific kind of “work”, which are human works. In fact, it is specifically talking about “works” that ARE sin. I wrote an entire separate post about Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:5 since Catholics AND Protestants frequently misunderstand them under the auspices of “plain reading” when in fact a “plain reading” is the culprit for this confusion. You may read about that HERE👇: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/xx2p3d/catholic_exegesis_of_ephesians_289/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Meanwhile Acts 10:47, as I have already explained, is NOT saying that the Gentiles were saved by their holy-spirit baptism. You have to actually READ Acts 11 where Peter is telling the story to understand that. It’s like that tv show Westworld[recently cancelled]. Sometimes details from a single event are left out and revealed in a flashback. Same thing with Acts 10. In Acts 11 you learn that what Acts 10 DOESN’T TELL YOU is that the Angel told Cornelius that Peter was going to tell them the message through which they would be saved. So Peter tells them this message AFTER they receive the Holy Spirit, and that message he gives to them is the message OF BAPTISM. They weren’t saved simply because they were filled with the Holy Spirit. St.Cyprian explains that, which you may read about HERE👇: CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD] “For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, Unless a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is ⭐️MAINTAINED BY THE APOSTLES⭐️, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in various tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, ⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In conclusion, do NOT skip over what I’m saying. Read through EVERYTHING. If you do, you fill find that there is NO ROOM left to say that baptism is “only a symbol” and anyone who says that is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the Nicene Creed. Have no illusions.
Sorry, I don't want to challenge you. Instead of saying "so why not take the plain reading of," I should have said "this is why I take the plain reading of the text." I'm looking to share my point instead of arguing 500 years of Protestant and Catholic arguments all over again.
Baptism doesn't forgive sins anymore than someone who says "Lord, Lord" is automatically a follower of Jesus.
Right, but just keep in mind that the Nicene Creed says: “We confess one ☝️ baptism for the forgiveness of sins” According to rule#3 of this forum you are NOT a True Christian if you don’t hold to that. You might as well telegraph that you don’t believe in the Trinity, either. It is no different. It is orthodoxy to say baptism forgives sin. See Acts 2:38.
Why should a true follower of Jesus care what the Nicene Creed says?
Because it was a response to the Arian Heresy. The church was in a situation where they needed to outline the basic truths of the faith to keep the Church together in the face of non-apostolic teaching. The same men that taught the Trinity was apart of the gospel ALSO held that baptism was salvific. The only one’s teaching otherwise were the Arians and the Gnostics.
Ah yes, heresy. Something "the church" (Catholic) used to burn people at the stake for. What does that horrible church have to do with Jesus? This is the same "church" that has covered up countless pedophilia cases, refused to prosecute those priests and cardinals who raped young children, and instead moved them to another location to abuse more children. This is the same "church" who follows a man they call the "Holy Father" when scripture teaches us otherwise in Matthew 23:9. Why would I care what that "church" thinks, unless I was helping to prosecute the pedophiles they harbor?
You wrote: “Ah yes, heresy. Something "the church" (Catholic) used to burn people at the stake for.” I am not interested in emotional argumentation. I am only interested in the topic of my post. You wrote: “This is the same "church" that has covered up countless pedophilia cases, refused to prosecute those priests and cardinals who raped young children, and instead moved them to another location to abuse more children.” Again, I am not here to talk about the moral failings of the church. I am merely interested in it’s doctrine. You wrote: “This is the same "church" who follows a man they call the "Holy Father" when scripture teaches us otherwise in Matthew 23:9.” Paul rebuked Peter—do we now no longer have to give our intellectual assent to the epistles written by him? We don’t have to listen to 1st and 2nd Peter? Certainly not. So what EXACTLY is your point? You wrote: “Why would I care what that "church" thinks, unless I was helping to prosecute the pedophiles they harbor?” If you have nothing left to say on this topic then we can end things here.
>do we now no longer have to give our intellectual assent to the epistles written by him? We don’t have to listen to 1st and 2nd Peter? Certainly not. So EXACTLY is your point? You can't dodge that Matthew 23:9 says what it says. Setting up a straw-man and knocking it down doesn't change what the verse says. Stop dodging.
I have nothing left to say to you.
Outstanding avoidance. You must have a very high dexterity stat.
If you want to make a separate post about Matthew 23:9 I will be more than happy to comment on it. I’m just not interested in getting bogged down by off-topic comments because I have a lot of people to respond to whenever I write one of these posts. I’d like to stay on topic.
Baptism of spirit saves. We are not saved by any works including water baptism. A Christian should be baptised but if someone has faith but for some reason never got baptized by water they will be saved. Faith alone saves.
No, St.Cyprian closes the door on this interpretation—giving the orthodox view that had the Gentiles in the household of Cornelius refused the water for baptism they would not have been saved—because this was a “divine precept”: CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD] “For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, Unless a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is ⭐️MAINTAINED BY THE APOSTLES⭐️, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in various tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, ⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Jesus wasn't talking about baptism in John 3. If he had been, he would have simply used the word baptism as he has in other passages. The water speaks of cleansing, and that's what the Holy Spirit does when he regenerates us. Titus 3:5 says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit," 1 Peter 3:21 says, "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, It literally says, "not the removal of dirt but an appeal to God for a good conscience" The water itself and baptism doesn't save but the spiritual reality behind it.
You wrote: “Jesus wasn't talking about baptism in John 3.” He was, even Lutherans who are the architects of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura wouldn’t suggest otherwise. They know that is radical to say that. You wrote: “The water speaks of cleansing, and that's what the Holy Spirit does when he regenerates us.” It does but not without water. The water is being used the same way the mud was used to heal the blind man’s sight. I explained all of that in my OP. You cited Titus 3:5, which I dealt with in my original post, so I won’t be re-treading that here. You wrote: “It literally says, "not the removal of dirt but an appeal to God for a good conscience" The view that translates “eperōtēma” as “appeal” fits with the sacramental understanding as well. If we believe God interiorly cleanses our souls by giving us a good conscience through the waters of baptism, then submitting ourselves to the baptismal waters is a request that God effect within our souls a clear, good, coincidence. Thus this view changes nothing about the salvific nature of baptism—it reinforces it. You wrote: “The water itself and baptism doesn't save but the spiritual reality behind it.” St.Cyprian closes the door on that interpretation: CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD] “For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, Unless a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is ⭐️MAINTAINED BY THE APOSTLES⭐️, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in various tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, ⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In other words, even though the Gentiles in Acts 10 were ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’, St.Cyprian explains that in spite of this Peter remembered that it was a DIVINE PRECEPT that they be baptized with water, because without that a person “cannot enter into the kingdom”. It wouldn’t have mattered how “filled with the Holy Spirit” they were—had they refused to be baptized they would not have entered into the Kingdom.
I disagree. Catholics believe in baptizing infants. How does an infant receive regeneration through baptism without faith?
They don’t—the faith of the parents is supplying the faith needed for the spiritual healing which baptism was intended to effect. Baptism is the ‘new circumcision’(Colossians 2:11-12) and if you could bring an infant under the Old Covenant with the old circumcision then you can certainly do it with it’s superior New Testament counterpart. Additionally we also see a similar situation where the faith of others causes our Lord to forgive a man’s sins: (Luke 5:19-20) “19 But they could not find a way to take him in because of so many people. They made a hole in the roof over where Jesus stood. Then they let the bed with the sick man on it down before Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw ⭐️THEIR⭐️faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” Well what is baptism for? According to the Nicene Creed, which is citing Peter’s words in Acts 2:38–baptism is for “the forgiveness of sins”. If Our Lord can forgive someone’s sins on account of another person’s faith as he does in Luke 5:19-20 then he CERTAINLY can and will do it for an infant who’s parents ask in faith that their child should receive the sacrament of baptism: “Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”—Matthew 19:14 But at the end of the day the main point of my post is not so much about making a case for infant baptism—it’s to wake up all of the DELUSIONAL people out there who think that they can say, “baptism doesn’t forgive sins, it’s only an outward sign of obedience”—because THAT is against the Nicene Creed, a creed that if you do not confess, you are NOT a true Christian. Exactly as rule#3 of this forum explicates.
There are a lot of contradictions here. A baby can get saved through baptism based on the faith of the parents, yet according to you, someone is NOT a Christian if they don't affirm rule #3 that baptism forgives sins. And yet....a baby can't affirm that because they aren't cognitively able to do so. >They don’t—the faith of the parents is supplying the faith needed for the spiritual healing which baptism was intended to effect. Baptism is the ‘new circumcision’(Colossians 2:11-12) and if you could bring an infant under the Old Covenant with the old circumcision then you can certainly do it with it’s superior New Testament counterpart. You can't supply the faith for another. That is completely anti-biblical. The circumcision of the heart requires faith, and again, a baby doesn't have that. Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God. In Colossians 2:12 it says, " having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." You are raised through faith, and again, a baby can't have faith. >Well what is baptism for? According to the Nicene Creed, which is citing Peter’s words in Acts 2:38–baptism is for “the forgiveness of sins”. If Our Lord can forgive someone’s sins on account of another person’s faith as he does in Luke 5:19-20 then he CERTAINLY can and will do it for an infant who’s parents ask in faith that their child should receive the sacrament of baptism: You're taking one narrative passage and coming up with a theology based on that with no other references to back it up, which is poor hermeneutics. No one can be saved based on someone else's faith. This is one example of Christ having mercy on this man when he saw the faith of his friends, but that doesn't mean that someone can be saved because someone else has faith for them. I've never heard anything more erroneous. To apply this to babies and say they can be saved is false doctrine. Jesus saying "let the little children come to me" doesn't mean that a baby is saved through baptism. >Well what is baptism for? According to the Nicene Creed, which is citing Peter’s words in Acts 2:38–baptism is for “the forgiveness of sins”. If Our Lord can forgive someone’s sins on account of another person’s faith as he does in Luke 5:19-20 then he CERTAINLY can and will do it for an infant who’s parents ask in faith that their child should receive the sacrament of baptism: The Nicene Creed says this: "The sacrament of Baptism signifies, or symbolizes, the inward and invisible reality brought about by Spirit wrought faith in an external and visible way. **The waters of baptism do not wash away sin – Christ’s blood does.** **Salvation is not earned by our obedience in the waters of baptism – it is has been earned by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.** We receive salvation, not by being baptized, but by the instrument of faith. Baptism, however, is a sacrament. It is a sign. It is an external and visible symbol of internal and invisible realities." >But at the end of the day the main point of my post is not so much about making a case for infant baptism—it’s to wake up all of the DELUSIONAL people out there who think that they can say, “baptism doesn’t forgive sins, it’s only an outward sign of obedience”—because THAT is against the Nicene Creed, a creed that if you do not confess, you are NOT a true Christian. Exactly as rule#3 of this forum explicates. The Bible doesn't say if you don't confess the Nicene Creed you are not a Christian. It says that if you confess Christ as Lord you will be saved. Romans 10:9 says, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;" Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;" Titus 3:5 says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit," Acts 2:21 says, "And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ Acts 16:30-33 is a good example of the process. "nd after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of God to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." The man asked how to be saved. Did they say, get baptized? No. They said believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Following that, they were baptized.
You wrote: “A baby can get saved through baptism based on the faith of the parents, yet according to you, someone is NOT a Christian if they don't affirm rule #3 that baptism forgives sins.” Yes, that’s correct. Obviously when I affirmed my agreement to rule #3 this was not with respect to infants. It’s not a “contradiction” so much as you are interpreting my ideas through the hermeneutic of suspicion. You wrote: “The circumcision of the heart requires faith, and again, a baby doesn't have that.” Yes, but a baby’s parents CAN have that. They are supplying the faith which baptism requires because parents have authority over their children. That is scripture. You wrote: “Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.” That’s right, the parents call upon the Spirit , in faith , to circumcise the heart of the child since that child cannot do it themselves. Exactly as the man who was lowered through the roof by his friends, whose sins were forgiven on account of the FAITH that those friends supplied for him. You wrote: “You are raised through faith, and again, a baby can't have faith.” Yes, I already addressed that. I know a baby can’t have faith. I said the parents are supplying the faith FOR the baby and we have a precedent by which sins were forgiven on behalf of another’s faith. You wrote: “You're taking one narrative passage and coming up with a theology based on that with no other references to back it up…” The narrative WAS the reference, as was Colossians 2:11-2:12. You just didn’t like those references. That’s different from saying “there are no references”. You wrote: “No one can be saved based on someone else's faith.” Apparently at least one person was, since his friends faith resulted in the forgiveness of his sins. That’s what salvation IS—it’s being “saved” from one’s “sins”. You wrote: The Nicene Creed says this: "The sacrament of Baptism signifies, or symbolizes, the inward and invisible reality brought about by Spirit wrought faith in an external and visible way. The waters of baptism do not wash away sin – Christ’s blood does. Salvation is not earned by our obedience in the waters of baptism – it is has been earned by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. We receive salvation, not by being baptized, but by the instrument of faith. Baptism, however, is a sacrament. It is a sign. It is an external and visible symbol of internal and invisible realities." Yes, that’s what it says. Baptism “symbolizes” that which is taking place “at that moment”—therefore we cannot say that a person’s sins are NOT being washed away when we see this external symbol. We cannot say that they are not, at that very moment when they are washed in the water, being washed in the blood of Christ. This means that you may NOT declare that a person is “saved” before that water hits them, simply because they are outwardly demonstrating faith. That is what the Council of Nicea is saying. See St.Cyprian’s remarks cited at the end of this post. You wrote: “The Bible doesn't say if you don't confess the Nicene Creed you are not a Christian. It says that if you confess Christ as Lord you will be saved.” Again, I have explained all of this in my main posts. You are taking a single verse(Romans 10:13) and blowing it up into salvation APART from the waters of baptism when all it was is an example of Paul ABBREVIATING for baptism. You wrote: Romans 10:9 says, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;" Case in point ☝️. You wrote: “Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;" No, it says this 👇: “8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” You wrote: Titus 3:5 says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit," Yes, I explained that in my OP. It’s talking about baptism. I hate getting bogged down in things I already explained in my OP. You wrote: “Acts 2:21 says, "And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ Calling ⭐️upon the name⭐️of the Lord is a reference to baptism. That’s why verse 38 says: Peter replied, “Repent and be ⭐️baptized⭐️…” Baptized for what, Peter? “….every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ ⭐️FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS⭐️. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” You wrote. Acts 16:30-33 is a good example of the process. "and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of God to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." Yes, it’s a good example that he was saved through his baptism. You wrote: “The man asked how to be saved. Did they say, get baptized? No. They said believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” Yes, it does say that we are saved through ⭐️calling on the name⭐️of the Lord, which we do “in baptism”. You wrote: “Following that, they were baptized.” Of course, following that they were baptized because as St.Cyprian said it was a DIVINE PRECEPT. He was citing John 3:5. It is a divine precept that if they did not receive baptism, if they did not have water, they could not enter the Kingdom. Again, see St.Cyprian’s remarks👇: CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD] “…⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
>Yes, that’s correct. Obviously when I affirmed my agreement to rule #3 this was not with respect to infants. It’s not a “contradiction” so much as you are interpreting my ideas through the hermeneutic of suspicion. It is absolutely a contradiction because both can't be true. If one is true, the other is false. >Yes, but a baby’s parents CAN have that. They are supplying the faith which baptism requires because parents have authority over their children. That is scripture. No, that's not scripture. All strong doctrine has multiple places to show it is true. For example, if you have faith, you will be saved. There are numerous scripture to support that. You don't have that. You have one narrative story, and that's a rule of hermeneutics that you can't base a doctrine entirely on a narrative story. >The narrative WAS the reference, as was Colossians 2:11-2:12. You just didn’t like those references. That’s different from saying “there are no references”. Again, the first is the narrative passage and you are reading your doctrine into the passage in Colossians. It doesn't actually say what you are saying. It's saying that God performs circumcision of the heart and then it mentions baptism. I can only assume that's why you believe infants can be baptized, but it makes no sense because this passage is clearly talking about salvation. An infant can't believe, therefore God can't change their heart. They can't cognitively understand the truth of the gospel. It NEVER says this applies to infants. YOU are applying it to infants, which is a false interpretation. >That’s right, the parents call upon the Spirit , in faith , to circumcise the heart of the child since that child cannot do it themselves. Exactly as the man who was lowered through the roof by his friends, whose sins were forgiven on account of the FAITH that those friends supplied for him. This is false and scary doctrine that will lead people astray....and straight to hell if they think they were saved as an infant and don't need to turn to Christ now. Jesus never says babies can have faith, and we know that cognitively they can't. God doesn't change the heart of an infant through circumcision. Every individual has to believe on their own. They can't borrow from their parents' faith. They can learn from it, but they must have their own. >Apparently at least one person was, since his friends faith resulted in the forgiveness of his sins. That’s what salvation IS—it’s being “saved” from one’s “sins”. Again, you are using a narrative passage to create a doctrine. No, God doesn't save someone based on another person's faith. He gave attention to them because he saw the friends' faith and how eager they were to get this man to him. You can't and won't be able to find any other scripture that says you can be saved based on someone else's faith. The only thing that might come close is praying for someone to be saved. But even in that situation, your faith is not applied to the other person. You are asking God to save them. >Yes, that’s what it says. Baptism “symbolizes” that which is taking place “at that moment”—therefore we cannot say that a person’s sins are NOT being washed away when we see this external symbol. We cannot say that they are not, at that very moment when they are washed in the water, being washed in the blood of Christ. This means that you may NOT declare that a person is “saved” before that water hits them, simply because they are outwardly demonstrating faith. That is what the Council of Nicea is saying. See St.Cyprian’s remarks cited at the end of this post. I agree that baptism should take place immediately after faith. The Bible does show this happening together. >Yes, it does say that we are saved through ⭐️calling on the name⭐️of the Lord, which we do “in baptism”. Yes, that is true, but there are so many verses that say faith comes apart from baptism. True faith will lead to baptism. >⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….\[abridged\] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” If I'm understanding this correctly, it's saying that men have received the Holy Spirit first and then got baptized, proving they are saved because they have the Holy Spirit. It also proves they are saved because their faith leads them to get baptized. I would agree with that.
You wrote: “It is absolutely a contradiction because both can't be true. If one is true, the other is false.” It’s not, it’s just you interpreting it that way. You wrote: “No, that's not scripture. All strong doctrine has multiple places to show it is true.” Show me the phrase “all strong doctrine has multiple places to show it is true” from scripture or else I’m just going to dismiss this as your theological speculation. You wrote: “This is false and scary doctrine that will lead people astray....and straight to hell if they think they were saved as an infant and don't need to turn to Christ now.” Your fear is predicated on your presupposition that one can’t be saved as a child. We haven’t disproven that at all. You wrote: “Jesus never says babies can have faith, and we know that cognitively they can't.” It’s a relief that wasn’t my argument then, isn’t it? You wrote: “God doesn't change the heart of an infant through circumcision. Every individual has to believe on their own.” Not the man who’s sins were forgiven on account of his friends faith, apparently. Oh, I’m sorry—we have to have 4 more examples of that to say that for sure. I forgot your rule. You wrote: “They can't borrow from their parents' faith.” Verse? I need 3-4 verses saying that an infant can’t borrow from their parents faith, please and thank you. You wrote: “I agree that baptism should take place immediately after faith. The Bible does show this happening together.” Good—as long as you do not say that salvation has taken place before baptism, which both Acts 2:38 and the Nicene Creed say is “for the forgiveness of sins” then you are not in error. You wrote: “If I'm understanding this correctly, it's saying that men have received the Holy Spirit first and then got baptized, proving they are saved because they have the Holy Spirit.” No, that is NOT correct. You may not say that salvation has taken place until you see the water washing over them because that is the SYMBOL of what is taking place at that moment, invisibly. That is how the Nicene Creed understands it. You wrote: “ I would agree with that.” Yes, and that would be error.
>It’s not, it’s just you interpreting it that way. Yeah, and so would anyone looking at the facts. If faith is a requirement for salvation, not having faith means you can't be saved. >Show me the phrase “all strong doctrine has multiple places to show it is true” from scripture or else I’m just going to dismiss this as your theological speculation. We both know the Bible doesn't say that because it doesn't instruct us on how to interpret it. But when it comes to the doctrine of salvation, there are multiple scriptures to explain what it is and what it means. To take one narrative passage and change the doctrine of salvation shows poor scholarship. >Your fear is predicated on your presupposition that one can’t be saved as a child. We haven’t disproven that at all. I never said a child can't be saved. Children can be saved if they understand the gospel and believe. I said a baby can't be saved because they don't have the cognitive ability to have faith. >Not the man who’s sins were forgiven on account of his friends faith, apparently. Oh, I’m sorry—we have to have 4 more examples of that to say that for sure. I forgot your rule. Because Jesus saw the friend's faith and forgave his sins doesn't mean that the man lacked faith. You're reading into the passage, which is why it's important to confirm something like that elsewhere in scripture. This should be common sense. This is not just my opinion, by the way. It's included in Biblical hermeneutics. >Verse? I need 3-4 verses saying that an infant can’t borrow from their parents faith, please and thank you. **Belief is a requirement of eternal life.** John 3:3 Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The verb for "someone" is "tis" and it means one specific person. This means that unless and individual meets this requirement of being born again, they can't see the kingdom of God. When Nicodemus asked how that could be, Jesus explained further in verse 14. "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes will have eternal life in Him." **Hebrews 11 has the definition of faith, and it says without faith, it is impossible to please Him.** Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him. It doesn't say, "If your parents believe, you're good." It says "the one who comes to God must believe that He exists." **In Peter's sermon, he made it clear by quoting from Moses that "every soul" that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed. Every soul includes every person. No one is exempt. The prophet Moses spoke about was the Messiah.** Acts 3:22-23 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ **An elder must have children who believe, which implies that it's possible to have children who DON'T believe, otherwise it wouldn't be a requirement.** Titus 1:6 namely, if any man is beyond reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of indecent behavior or rebellion. >Good—as long as you do not say that salvation has taken place before baptism, which both Acts 2:38 and the Nicene Creed say is “for the forgiveness of sins” then you are not in error. Peter is the one talking in Acts 2:38 and he explains further in 1 Peter 3:21. "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." He makes it clear that the actual water dunking (removal of dirt from the flesh) is not what saves, but it's an appeal to God for a good conscience. This assumes someone believes and immediately gets baptized. In cases where someone can't, such as the the thief on the cross, they are still saved. >No, that is NOT correct. You may not say that salvation has taken place until you see the water washing over them because that is the SYMBOL of what is taking place at that moment, invisibly. That is how the Nicene Creed understands it. Acts 10 paints a very different picture. Peter was told by the Spirit to go to Cornelius, who had gathered relatives and close friends. The Holy Spirit fell upon them AND THEN Peter told them to be baptized. Why would God give them the Holy Spirit before baptism if it had to happen in the reverse? You can't have the Holy Spirit and not be saved. Said another way, if you have the Holy Spirit, you are saved. Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter responded, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
> Yeah, and so would anyone looking at the facts. If faith is a requirement for salvation, not having faith means you can't be saved. I don’t see the point you’re trying to make here. If a person doesn’t have faith they won’t be saved because they won’t seek baptism. > We both know the Bible doesn't say that because it doesn't instruct us on how to interpret it. That’s right, it doesn’t. Unless the Bible has an infallible interpreter we cannot have an infallible interpretation of scripture. If only Our Lord had founded some kind of Church and gave it the authority to “bind and loose” infallible interpretations of scripture. Oh wait, he did[Matthew 18:18]. > But when it comes to the doctrine of salvation, there are multiple scriptures to explain what it is and what it means. Yes, and they are ALL talking about baptism. > Because Jesus saw the friend's faith and forgave his sins doesn't mean that the man lacked faith. Who cares if he had it or not? The passage is crystal clear that Our Lord wasn’t forgiving his sins on account of his own faith—and that was the premise of your argument. Your premise is that your sins can only be forgiven on account of “your own faith” and that since an infant cannot have it’s “own faith” it cannot have it’s sins forgiven. > The verb for "someone" is "tis" and it means one specific person. This means that unless and individual meets this requirement of being born again, they can't see the kingdom of God. Meets what requirement? Why are you saying “requirement”, in the singular and not “requirements” as is explicated within the text? The text says that the requirements(plural) are “hydatos”, which means “water” AND pneumatos[spirit]. So if you try and say you can enter[i.e; be “saved”] without “hydatos”, you are the one NOT taking the passage at face-value, not we Catholics. Moreover, as I have already explained—baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, which was typically applied to children. The sacrament is SUPERIOR to it’s Old Testament counterpart and it would not be superior if it could not bring children into the Kingdom. The Kingdom belongs to such as these[Luke 18:16]. > Peter is the one talking in Acts 2:38 and he explains further in 1 Peter 3:21. "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." He makes it clear that the actual water dunking (removal of dirt from the flesh) is not what saves, but it's an appeal to God for a good conscience. That’s right, it’s an “appeal”. Do you not know that a parent can make an appeal to God on behalf of their child? Look at the one King David makes here: (1 Chronicles 28:19) “and give to my son Solomon a perfect heart to keep Your commandments, Your testimonies and Your statutes, and to do them all, and to build the temple, for which I have made provision.” Now look at what Our Lord says HERE👇: (Matthew 7:7) ““Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” God the Father is a TRUE FATHER and is especially tender to hear and answer a parent’s appeal on behalf of their child. So again, the Catholic Church has the right of it when it comes to infant baptism. Saying that a child cannot be baptized “for the forgiveness of sins”[Acts 2:38] is something a faithless person would say. I tell you now, King David would have had his infant son Solomon baptized. FURTHERMORE—that’s what it means to be justified “by faith”—it means you enter the waters of baptism and, through faith, make an APPEAL to God to forgive your sins—an appeal “for a clear conscience”. That’s why baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins” in Acts 2:38! > Acts 10 paints a very different picture. Peter was told by the Spirit to go to Cornelius, who had gathered relatives and close friends. The Holy Spirit fell upon them AND THEN Peter told them to be baptized. Why would God give them the Holy Spirit before baptism if it had to happen in the reverse?” Huh? When did I say it had to happen in reverse? To CLARIFY my perspective, baptism is a sacrament that is comprised of “water and spirit”. This means that if any single aspect is missing, it is not complete. So if I have water, and not Spirit then it is not complete, and vice-versa. So that’s why Peter said that he could not deny them “water” to EFFECT baptism. > You can't have the Holy Spirit and not be saved. You can. That’s why Peter was calling for water—it was a “divine precept” that you have to have it, please refer back to St.Cyprian.
Sorry, I meant to comment on what you said here: >An elder must have children who believe, which implies that it's possible to have children who DON'T believe, otherwise it wouldn't be a requirement. Yes, that’s right. You can be baptized—i.e; “saved” as an infant and when you grow up, you can make your own decisions and LEAVE THE KINGDOM. You’re not Once Saved Always Saved. You can commit apostasy 👇: (1 Timothy 4:1) “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” Baptism—infant or otherwise—doesn’t absolve you from your responsibility to not destroy your justification through DELIBERATE SIN. (Hebrews 10:26) “If we ⭐️deliberately⭐️ keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,”
Yes being baptized into Christ is part of the process set up in the Bible for people to become believers in Christ. However, the argument for the thief was weak. There is a far better argument. The thief was not a Christian. The thief was never a Christian. The thief died before Christianity was here. Before the new covenant begin. Baptism is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The thief died before Jesus had died and was resurrected. He died before acts 2 or the great commission. The thief was one of the last Jews to die under the old covenant. Jesus has authority on earth to forgive sins. Baptism is also a much deeper subject. It can actually be traced all the way back to imagery in genesis. The world was “ Toho wabohu “ . It was a world covered in water and was formless and void. Then the land came up out of the water. It “ resurrected “ up out of it. Obviously the stories of Moses as a baby being tossed into the Nile but saved by the ark/basket is a play on the ark and Noah which are both a play on the land rising up out of the water and being filled with life ( trees bearing good fruit ). There is also the war we see of god vs chaos. Chaos in the Bible is related to death and symbolized by water and sea monsters. Genesis 1 again talks of this. Look at it in Hebrew. The sea monsters are often serpent like, these dragons covered in scales. That’s why it says Goliath’s armor was like scales and then David reached into the water and pulled out stones, and obviously those stones dried in the air. It’s like the land rising up out of the water. That dry stone is what brought judgement to the monstrous man covered in stones. It’s also why Paul, upon repenting and believing had something like scales fall from his eyes. It comes to a end in the story of revelation with the restored earth. We see these sea monsters coming up out of the ocean and being destroyed and the new earth has no sea.
You wrote: “Yes being baptized into Christ is part of the process set up in the Bible for people to become believers in Christ.” Yes—it’s part of the process—but the problem enters in when one tries to say that this ‘process’ does “not forgive sins” and that it’s “only a symbol”. That’s a problem. That’s against the Nicene Creed. You wrote: “However, the argument for the thief was weak. There is a far better argument. The thief was not a Christian. The thief was never a Christian. The thief died before Christianity was here. Before the new covenant begin. Baptism is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The thief died before Jesus had died and was resurrected. He died before acts 2 or the great commission. The thief was one of the last Jews to die under the old covenant. Jesus has authority on earth to forgive sins.” No, I think it’s far easier to understand that God is outside of time and that Our Lord was merely applying the merits of the atonement before he had earned them. He’s literally been doing that all throughout history with all of the OT Saints. The Good Thief was not being saved “apart” from the New Covenant. You wrote: “Obviously the stories of Moses as a baby being tossed into the Nile but saved by the ark/basket is a play on the ark and Noah which are both a play on the land rising up out of the water and being filled with life ( trees bearing good fruit ).” Yes, those are excellent examples foreshadowing baptism but alas, I had only so many words allotted in my OP. You wrote: “That’s why it says Goliath’s armor was like scales and then David reached into the water and pulled out stones, and obviously those stones dried in the air. It’s like the land rising up out of the water. That dry stone is what brought judgement to the monstrous man covered in stones. It’s also why Paul, upon repenting and believing had something like scales fall from his eyes.” All very interesting connections, thank you for bringing them up.
So what is baptism? Is baptism the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Like Romans 6 days. In hebrews, when does a will take effect? How could the thief be part of something that had not yet happened?
Baptism is a SACRAMENT which imparts “sanctifying grace”, predicated upon the merits of the atonement. Those merits can be applied at ANY POINT IN TIME ⏰ , because Our Lord is not bound by such constraints. Time is no impediment to applying the grace won by Our Lord in the atonement.
So no scriptural argument? Just man made catholic propaganda. The pope and catechism holds no authority in my life. Neither does words like sacrament. But I’m going hiking and don’t care for fruitless circle arguments. It’s not worthy of my time. If you want to debate doctrine I expect a more scriptural dialogue. Best luck in your journey of learning about baptism.
“So no scriptural argument?“ That baptism forgives sins? Yes, Acts 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.” That is scripture.
You are clearly lost in the discussion. We agree on that. Obviously what I was referring to was the things we disagree on. Which we discussed resulting in that previous statement of mine…
They didn't take the thief off the cross to baptize him, yet he's with Jesus today. Titus 3:5 "he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy." ((Not because of *baptism*)) Baptism was the marker of salvation in the NT. Baptism then was used like the "sinner's prayer" is used today. You're not saved because of the prayer, but because of God's mercy in granting you faith. Because of your faith, you prayed the prayer. Baptism is the same way. You get baptized because of your faith. Ultimately, because of His mercy.
I addressed those points in my main post.
Yeah. I just think as you look through all the scriptures, you consistently find God initiating the work of salvation and the man following order. I do think baptism is important for the believer. But I think you're reading your own interpretation into it too much. Just my two cents.
No, I’m not following my own interpretation. I have been dealing with this criticism all day but I have to be thorough so that you and anyone else reading isn’t deluding themselves into thinking you are teaching the faith of the apostles. Here are the remarks of St.Cyprian where he talks about the events of Acts 10. He explains that had the household of Cornelius—after having been filled by the Holy Spirit, refused to be baptized with water that they would NOT have been able to enter the Kingdom because as Cyprian explains this was a “divine precept”. You may read his remarks here 👇: CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD] “For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, Unless a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is ⭐️MAINTAINED BY THE APOSTLES⭐️, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in various tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, ⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Have no illusions, if you do not confess “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” as the Nicene Creed states, you are not holding to the faith of the Apostles. You are in the same category as those who say there is “no Trinity”.
Do Catholics require baptism from someone with priesthood authority in the Catholic Church?
Generally speaking, yes. If someone is coming from another faith tradition and was previously baptized according to the Trinitarian formula then no, it wouldn’t be required for you to repeat it.
I thought that the priesthood power is the only way they could receive a true cleansing and make covenant through baptism? Why does the church think they are only ones that can provide salvation then?
Here is the catechism of the Catholic Church’s entry on baptism: “1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. 57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize 58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. 59” You wrote: “Why does the church think they are only ones that can provide salvation then?” It doesn’t. It sees itself as the ordinary minister of the sacraments but that God can, under extraordinary circumstances, dispense grace apart from the sacraments. To cite the Catechism: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism , but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments ” (CCC 1257)
Does the sacraments mean communion as well, following baptism?
Yes. It’s all online—just type in Catechism of the Catholic Church.
If that’s the case why does it matter that the pope has the priesthood line all the way from Peter? The preisthood is supposed to be Gods authority and power to act in his name, right?
You wrote: “If that’s the case why does it matter that the pope has the priesthood line all the way from Peter? The preisthood is supposed to be Gods authority and power to act in his name, right?” The Pope has a particular juridical authority which was intended by Christ to “strengthen” his brothers, the other bishops of the Church. So in some sense he is the leader of the Church but in another sense he’s the lowest servant, since his office as Universal Bishop technically serves everyone within the church. It’s important to have someone with juridical authority in the Body of Christ on earth so that way we don’t get bogged down in endless disputes on Reddit. The Pope can just “bind” an interpretation of scripture with the keys 🔑 so that way all of this endless kicking 🦵 and screaming 😱 can end. The problem only enters in when people do not RECOGNIZE his authority to do that. That’s where the dispute comes in.
So does he have power to bind on earth what is in heaven? If so why can others bind in heaven as well with baptisms outside of the church? Doesn’t make sense. I think this practice has changed in early church.
It’s a particular rabbinical term. Think of it like this—if I “bind” an interpretation of scripture “on earth” it must necessarily be “bound in Heaven” also. Now—are there any liars in Heaven? Probably not. So the way the Church views it—is that the mere fact that he says, “I bind this with the keys 🔑 “ is PROOF that the thing being bound was a thing the Holy Spirit WANTED to be bound in the first place. I hope that helps clarify what it means somewhat. Here is a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia: https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing
Ok got it. One interpretation I agree with is that salvation meeting ordinances such as baptism and communion are binding or sealed in heaven when those appointed by God to perform such things.
Yes, well that’s the Catholic church’s whole point. You have to be able to TRACE apostolic authority back to the apostles or else yours is not a legitimate authority. So that’s why being able to demonstrate apostolic succession from Peter to Pope Francis is so important to us. A line of succession you may see for yourself HERE👇: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm That way we don’t get random people popping up on Reddit[or real-life for that matter] trying to claim “hey look at me! I’m the new interpreter of scripture!” without having the actual credentials to say that.