Yes, @Samuel_23, I don’t believe in coincidences; God arranged it to emphasize it for us, perhaps to reinforce our estimate of his greatness and to accentuate our need to lift him up in praise! Just some quick thoughts, brother Sam!
Amen @Bruce_Leiter
Very True, thats what I feel
In Acts 10:43-47, we see that prior to receiving water baptism, these Gentile converts believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (spiritual gift that is only for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12:13) and were saved before water baptism.
In Acts 22:16, the cleansing happens as he calls on Christ, not by the water itself. The water is symbolic; the appeal to Christ’s name is the saving act. Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
The remission of sins has three applications: 1. Literally, by the blood of Christ - Matthew 26:28 2. Experientially, by faith in Christ - Acts 26:18 3. Figuratively, by water baptism - Acts 22:16
Acts 2:38 must be read alongside verses like (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) where forgiveness is explicitly tied to repentance/belief/faith and not the ritual itself. Water baptism is a sign of that reality but not the means of securing it.
So, the only logical and Biblical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ “implied in repentance” (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.
The omission of baptized with “does not believe” shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, “baptized or condemned.”
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions NINE different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Hi @Danthemailman good to see you here.
The Early Church Fathers write about baptism from within a living apostolic stream, not as theorists inventing doctrine…
The New Testament pattern they inherit is already fixed, as seen in ~Matthew 28 where Jesus commands, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with βαπτίζοντες functioning as a present active participle subordinate to μαθητεύσατε, showing that baptism is the expected action flowing from making disciples, not a suggestion, not an optional add on, but obedience under the authority of the risen Christ who will go to the cross before issuing this command.
In ~Acts 2 the KJV records Peter saying, 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, where βαπτισθήτω is an aorist passive imperative, a command addressed to the hearers, while λήμψεσθε, ye shall receive, is future indicative, marking Spirit reception as promise rather than command, a grammatical distinction the Fathers assume without argument.
The Didache reflects this same grammar in practice, giving instructions on how baptism is to be performed, assuming the command already stands, which mirrors the apostolic usage where form is discussed but obligation is never questioned, because the imperative force of Scripture is already settled.
Justin Martyr in First Apology echoes ~Acts 2 conceptually when he describes those who are persuaded and believe being brought to water, language that tracks the aorist movement from repentance to baptism to reception, while the KJV of ~Acts 22 records Ananias saying to Paul, And now why tarriest thou, arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord, where βάπτισαι is aorist middle imperative, stressing decisive obedient response, not sacramental delay, not inward abstraction.
Irenaeus frames baptism through ~Romans 6 which the KJV renders, Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, where συνετάφημεν is aorist passive indicative, describing a completed union with Christ grounded in the cross, while the ethical call flows from that finished act, a structure the Fathers consistently preserve.
Even when Tertullian raises pastoral cautions about timing, he never questions baptism itself, because Scripture itself never does, and the grammar supports this silence, since Spirit baptism is always described indicatively, as in ~1 Corinthians 12, For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, where ἐβαπτίσθημεν is aorist passive indicative, stating divine action already accomplished, while water baptism continues to appear in imperative constructions tied to confession and allegiance.
So when the pre Augustinian Fathers speak, they are not weighing two competing baptisms as alternatives, they are receiving Scripture as it stands, water baptism commanded and obeyed as outward submission to the crucified Christ, Spirit baptism bestowed sovereignly by God as inward incorporation into His body, and the absence of controversy is itself the loudest historical testimony that the modern debate is not apostolic, not grammatical, and not patristic in origin.
We were buried therefore with him by means of baptism unto death (sunetaphēmen oun autōi dia tou baptismatos eis ton thanaton). Second aorist passive indicative of sunthaptō, old verb to bury together with, in N.T. only here and Col_2:12. With associative instrumental case (autōi) and “by means of baptism unto death” as in Rom_6:3.
In newness of life (en kainotēti zōēs). The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ’s death and burial and to our death to sin (Rom_6:1), forwards to Christ’s resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave (F. B. Meyer). There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul’s majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.
RWP.
J.
The difficulty with the idea of “required” is it places the onus on human agency, rather than on God’s agency. Salvation is consistently described as God’s agency–what God does; God saves us and this occurs out of the abundance of God’s love, accomplished through the Person and work of Jesus, and we are the benefactors, the recipients, of a precious gift.
So the question “Is Baptism required for salvation” can be interpreted to mean, “If I don’t get baptized, can I not be saved?” or “Is Baptism a work, a thing I must do, in order to attain salvation?”
Biblically baptism is presented not as an act one must do to attain salvation; nor is baptism presented as the sole means through which God works and acts. Rather baptism is presented as a means through which God accomplishes His saving work in us. Are we saved in baptism? The answer is abundantly and obviously yes. Scripture couldn’t be clearer: Baptism saves.
But baptism doesn’t save ex opere operato; as though the mere act of baptism saves; rather baptism saves because God, out of His own abundance and grace, meets us in baptism to give and do what He says He will give and do: Thus when we read in Acts 2:38 “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins” that is one of the promises being attached to baptism: forgiveness of sins. In Romans 6:3-4 we read that all who are baptized into Christ have been baptized into His death, have been buried with Christ in baptism–and if having died and been buried with Christ we are also alive–raised up–with Christ to new life. In Galatians 3:27 the promise is that the one who is baptized has “put on” Christ, clothed with Jesus Christ; having become a new man, a new creation. The clearest salvific statement comes from St. Peter who writes in 1 Peter 3:21 that “baptism now saves you”, speaking of baptism as the antitype of the water of the flood through which (on the ark) God saved Noah and his family–not because of some “magical” property of water “the washing of dirt from the body” but because of the inward change which God enacts and accomplishes “the pledge of a new conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.
So Paul can say in Ephesians 5:26, speaking of Christ’s love for His Church (which is to be the model which establishes the model of a husband’s service to his wife) that Christ has cleansed His Church through “the washing of water with the word”–this “water with the word”. It’s not the water, it’s the word which is with the water.
It’s the same salvific word which we read in Romans 10:17, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ”. God’s word isn’t dead, but alive (Hebrews 4:12) it actually accomplishes what God sets it forth to do (Isaiah 55:11).
When Christ said to the paralytic man, “Your sins are forgiven” his sins were forgiven.
When Christ said to the same man, “Get up and walk” he was healed.
When Christ said to Lazarus who was dead in the grave, “Lazarus, come forth” Lazarus got up and came out of the tomb.
When Christ said to the dead little girl, “Talitha koum” that child got right up with life again in her body.
When God in the beginning said, “Let there be light” there was light.
So when God declares His word to us, as He does in the waters of baptism, we ought to have every confidence. For “man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”. By His word He brought all things into existence, and by His word He proclaims our sins forgiven, He speaks life to us, He causes us to rise up and live. So when He says these things to us in our baptism we can know that we didn’t just get wet, we were adopted into the Household of God the Father.
For this same reason we can trust Christ that when He says of mere bread “this is My body” that it is His body, broken for us. That when He says of mere wine “This is My blood of the New Covenant” it is truly and really His blood–and that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life in them. Because it is no longer mere bread and wine, but the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. Even as in baptism it is no longer mere water, but water connected to and with the word of God. Even as when the preacher comes preaching the Gospel, it is not the mere word of a man, but the word of God.
The word of men cannot create faith. But the word of God can (see again Romans 10:17).
God’s use of the mundane to accomplish the profound is attested throughout the entirety of Scripture. Christ used spit and dirt to bring sight to a blind man. So it shouldn’t be shocking that God uses water, bread, and wine to accomplish His glorious will and purpose. God has always done this.
God doesn’t stand afar demanding we come up and find Him. He comes right down here and meets us, and He freely saves us out of His loving mercy. That’s what the Gospel is all about. Salvation isn’t sinners rising up to meet God, but God coming down to meet sinners.
The one text everyone runs to is ~1 Peter 3 where the KJV says, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and Peter himself immediately restricts the sense of saving by a clarifying negation, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, not fleshly cleansing, followed by a positive qualifier, ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα, an appeal or pledge of a good conscience toward God, grounding the saving effect explicitly in the resurrection of Christ, not in the water.
Grammatically, σώζει is present active indicative, which describes what baptism signifies and effects representationally, not mechanically, because Peter anchors the efficacy outside the rite itself and locates it in Christ risen, meaning baptism saves in the same sense that the ark saved Noah, instrumentally and typologically, not causally or meritoriously.
Paul is even more explicit in ~Titus 3 where the KJV states, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, where ἔσωσεν is aorist active indicative with God as subject, and the washing language is immediately tied to regeneration and renewal by the Spirit, not to human ritual, which rules out baptism as an independent saving cause.
Likewise ~Ephesians 2 states, For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, where σεσῳσμένοι is perfect passive, salvation already accomplished and applied by God, and baptism never appears in this text as an instrument of justification, which would be inexplicable if baptism itself saved in the strict sense.
At the same time Scripture does not hesitate to speak robustly about baptism because it is the God ordained moment of public union with Christ, as ~Romans 6 says, Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, where συνετάφημεν is aorist passive indicative, describing participation in Christ’s death already accomplished, meaning baptism proclaims and enacts identification with the saving work of the cross, not the creation of that saving work.
So the biblical answer is deliberately tight, baptism saves in a derivative, declarative, and covenantal sense, as the appointed confession of faith that unites the believer outwardly with Christ and His people, but salvation itself is effected by God through Christ crucified and risen, received by faith, applied by the Spirit, and never produced by water.
If baptism saved in the same sense Christ saves, then Paul could not say in ~1 Corinthians 1 that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel, yet he says it without hesitation, because the gospel saves, Christ saves, and baptism bears witness to that salvation, powerfully, obediently, and publicly, but never independently.
So I would agree, baptism saves, but only as Scripture defines saving here, not as a work that earns grace, not as a ritual that regenerates by itself, and never as a substitute for the cross, because the New Testament is relentless on this point, salvation belongs to the Lord, baptism belongs to the obedience of faith that answers Him.
Where I would disagree with you is…
Regeneration is never caused by water, ritual, or human action, it is consistently attributed to God alone acting through the Spirit on the basis of Christ’s finished work on the cross, as the KJV states in ~John 1, Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, where ἐγεννήθησαν is aorist passive indicative, divine action with no human agent contributing.
Paul is explicit in ~Titus 3, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, where ἔσωσεν has God as subject and the washing language is grammatically governed by renewal of the Spirit, not by water baptism as an independent cause.
Peter himself blocks that reading in ~1 Peter 3 when he says baptism saves, immediately adding, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, which is a direct denial that physical water effects inward regeneration, and then grounding the entire statement in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not in the act itself.
Paul further seals the issue in ~1 Corinthians 12, For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, where ἐβαπτίσθημεν is aorist passive indicative describing Spirit action already accomplished, not commanded, not sought, and not mediated by water.
So text governed and grammar driven, regeneration precedes and grounds obedience, baptism follows as confession and identification, and reversing that order is nowhere taught in Scripture, nowhere assumed by the apostles, and nowhere defended by the early church.
Water baptism does not cause regeneration, Christ crucified and risen does, applied by the Spirit, received by faith, and baptism stands as the commanded outward answer of that regenerated life, not its source.
J.
Also, as another biblical example to add to those @Johann has shared…
At the home of Corneilus…
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. Acts 10:44-48 (NKJV)
The order of events is worth noting.
KP
1 Like
Same here…
Act 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
And here…
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
J.
Faulty hermeneutics here, though I know it is not intentional on your end, brother @Danthemailman.
Since you are conflating two different questions and then using that collapse to argue that baptism is unimportant, and Mark 16:16 does not allow that move once the grammar is respected.
In ~Mark 16:16 the KJV reads, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. The first clause uses πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθείς, two aorist participles joined by καὶ, forming a single composite description of the normal response to the gospel. Believing and being baptized are presented together as the expected pattern, not as competing options and not as detachable behaviors. This is not incidental pairing but syntactic coupling describing discipleship as Jesus intends it to occur in ordinary cases.
The second clause shifts purposefully, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. Here ἀπιστήσας, aorist active participle, unbelieving, stands alone as the sufficient condition for condemnation. Baptism is omitted not because it is unimportant, but because unbelief already renders baptism void. An unbeliever is condemned whether baptized or not, therefore baptism is irrelevant to the judicial ground of condemnation, not to the obedient shape of faith. Omission defines sufficiency, not insignificance.
So far your argument assumes that if baptism is not named in the condemnation clause, it must be optional or marginal, but that logic collapses everywhere else in Scripture. In ~John 3:18 condemnation rests on unbelief alone, yet no one argues that repentance, confession, or obedience are therefore unimportant. Jesus is defining the basis of judgment, not listing every act of covenant faithfulness.
You then appeal to John’s Gospel as if it erases baptism, but John is consistently addressing the ground of eternal life, not the outward confession of allegiance. In ~John 5:24, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, where ἔχει is present active indicative, possession now, and μεταβέβηκεν is perfect active indicative, a completed transfer from death to life. John is speaking judicially and soteriologically, not ecclesiologically. That does not nullify Jesus’ command elsewhere, it simply keeps categories clean.
The same Jesus who says believe and live also commands baptism as obedience. In ~Matthew 28 βαπτίζοντες functions as a present active participle subordinate to μαθητεύσατε, showing baptism as part of disciple making under His authority. Commands are not issued for things that do not matter.
Acts confirms this pattern repeatedly. In ~Acts 2 Peter commands βαπτισθήτω, aorist passive imperative, let each of you be baptized. Imperatives are not issued for optional or insignificant acts.
And yet Peter never treats baptism as the cause of forgiveness apart from faith, because the promise of the Spirit follows belief, not water.
Now the order salutis as Scripture presents it, without importing systems the text does not state.
First comes the proclamation of the word, as ~Romans 10 says, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Second comes faith itself, πιστεύειν, the human response to the gospel, as consistently stated by Jesus and the apostles.
Third comes salvation in its judicial sense, justification and life, as ~Ephesians 2 states, For by grace are ye saved through faith, where σεσῳσμένοι is perfect passive, salvation accomplished by God and received through faith.
Fourth comes the reception and sealing of the Spirit, as ~Ephesians 1 says, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, where πιστεύσαντες precedes ἐσφραγίσθητε, sealing follows believing.
Fifth comes baptism, the commanded outward act of obedience that publicly identifies the believer with Christ crucified and risen, as ~Romans 6 states, Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, where συνετάφημεν is aorist passive indicative, describing participation in Christ’s death already accomplished.
So baptism is not the cause of regeneration, not the instrument of justification, and not the ground of salvation, but neither is it dispensable, marginal, or optional. It is the required act of allegiance that follows faith, marks entry into the visible community of Christ, and visibly confesses union with His cross.
Mark 16:16 does not weaken baptism, it assumes it. It does not elevate baptism above faith, it places it beside faith as obedient confession. And it does not teach two standards, it teaches one gospel response, faith that obeys, and unbelief that condemns.
Reducing baptism to insignificance is not fidelity to the text, it is a category mistake driven by fear of sacramentalism rather than submission to what Jesus actually commanded.
Hope this clears up some common misconceptions about baptism.
Shalom to you and family Dan.
J.
Same here @Danthemailman
What you are calling “perfect harmony” is actually harmonization by omission, and that is a hermeneutical move, not a biblical one.
Yes, remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are grounded in faith and repentance, and none of the passages you list teach baptismal regeneration as a causal mechanism. On that point we agree. But you then take the next step and quietly remove baptism from the category of commanded obedience in order to protect justification by faith, and Scripture does not allow this.
Take ~Acts 2:38. Peter issues two coordinated aorist imperatives, μετανοήσατε and βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος. Repent and let each of you be baptized. These are commands, not implications. The promise of the Spirit follows as future indicative. Saying repentance “implies” faith and therefore absorbs baptism is not exegesis, it is inference layered on top of the text. Peter did not imply baptism, he commanded it.
In ~Acts 3:19 Peter again commands repentance because he is addressing a specific Jewish audience in a different rhetorical moment. Narrative variation is not doctrinal negation. Harmony does not require every element to be repeated in every sermon.
~Acts 10 actually undermines your claim rather than supporting it. Cornelius receives the Spirit upon believing, before water baptism, which proves baptism is not the cause of salvation or Spirit reception. But Peter then immediately commands water baptism afterward. If baptism were merely implied or functionally unimportant, Peter’s command in verse 48 makes no sense. Priority proves non causality, not non necessity as obedience.
~Acts 15:7–9 states that hearts are cleansed by faith, καθαρίσας τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν τῇ πίστει. That is a soteriological statement about justification, not an ecclesiological statement about covenant entry or public allegiance. Luke never uses this to erase baptism, and neither does Peter elsewhere.
Paul’s preaching in ~Acts 13, ~Acts 16, and ~Acts 26 focuses on belief because he is answering the question of how one is justified before God, not how one formally identifies with Christ and His people. Different questions produce different emphases. That is not tension, and it certainly is not contradiction.
The real problem is the phrase “implied in repentance.”
Scripture never treats repentance as a container that swallows baptism. Repentance is inward turning, faith is trust, baptism is outward submission. They are distinct, and implication does not nullify imperatives.
So no, this is not perfect harmony. It is harmony achieved by subtraction.
The actual harmony of Scripture is this. Faith and repentance are the means by which sins are forgiven and the Spirit is received. Baptism is the commanded act that follows faith, publicly identifying the believer with Christ crucified and risen and with His body. Baptism does not cause salvation, but it is not optional, not implied away, and not rendered insignificant by texts that are addressing a different category.
Perfect harmony comes from letting each text speak in its own context, not from silencing the ones that complicate a system.
Shalom.
J.
tou baptismatos eis ton thanaton). Second aorist passive indicative of sunthaptō, old verb to bury together with, in N.T. only here and Col_2:12. With associative instrumental case (autōi) and “by means of baptism unto death” as in Rom_6:3.
In newness of life (en kainotēti zōēs). The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ’s death and burial and to our death to sin (Rom_6:1), forwards to Christ’s resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave (F. B. Meyer). There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul’s majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.
RWP.
J.
Well said. Wasn’t that AT Robertson?
Yes Dan, A.T. Robertson.
J.
Since you are conflating two different questions and then using that collapse to argue that baptism is unimportant, and Mark 16:16 does not allow that move once the grammar is respected.
I was not implying that baptism was unimportant. Receiving water baptism is a command that we are expected to obey. However, it’s not obedience to this command that saves us, but our believing in Jesus Christ for salvation (Mark 16:16(b) just as we see in (Acts 10:43-47). As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - The omission of baptized with “disbelieveth” would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation.
There are a handful of “alleged” proof texts which are often cited to prove that the Bible makes baptism mandatory for salvation. A careful examination of each of these texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, though they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, these texts only prove that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.
1 Like
All I wanted to hear brother.
J.
1 Like
Great points about Baptism, Butch P66, in your August 15th text. Common sense alone tells us that many, many people who have sincerely received Christ as their true Savior and Lord will not have had the opportunity to be baptized before their deaths. This is probably one of the reasons that we have the Biblical account of the situation of the thief on the Cross! We know from the totality of the complete context of the entire Bible that these individuals will surely not be turned away from their eternal heavenly reward! Thanks again for showing us how to carefully reason from the Scriptures!
Bruce,
Greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ!
This is in reference to your July 26th e-mail text to Stephen Andrew, stating that you had difficulty with his way of “writing English,” making it very hard for you to understand what he was saying about “One Spirit One Family, etc., etc. I agree, along with you, that this should be referring to the future!
I was just wondering if I could be of any further assistance to you regarding the technicalities of the English language being used. If you could text me back explaining the exact issues, I would be more than glad to try to help!
Yours Most Sincerely In The Lord,
Mr. Damiaan Connor-USA
@daconnr (Damiaan)
Bruce has not been very active on here lately, and Stephen Andrew has been silenced by the administrators. What Bruce was talking about back then was the difficulty understanding what Stephen Andrew was saying because of his unique writing style and use of English.
For example if X = what Stephen Andrew said:
"In thinking forward, there are two becomings from created failed from the spirit through the created souls of all for the flesh, the Body in both natures, spirit and life, to become again in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, rationally.
In all generalization, From death to life in the flesh is through the spirit for the soul in the Body from two natures, spirit and life, God and Temple becoming to resurrection life in the flesh from the living waters of Baptism.
Death to life through the Holy Spirit is from Sacrifice through Penance, forgiven to be able to become again glorified and transfigured, in all generalization.
Can you solve for X?
I can’t
In Jesus
KP
I would ask that you go back and look again at what I wrote, and where in what I said would lead you to think that I believe regeneration is caused by “water, ritual, or human action” or where I in any way suggest it isn’t “God alone acting through the Spirit on the basis of Christ’s finished work on the cross”.
Because if you go and read what I aid, you’ll notice:
-
I explicitly reject the idea that baptism saves ex opere operato.
-
I explicitly reject the idea that we can attribute salvation to our actions.
-
I explicitly locate salvation as the unique and sole work of God.
A difficulty I have often found when having debates about the Sacrament of Baptism is very often what is given are–and I do not say this to be rude, only to be honest–canned arguments.
I grew up in a tradition that taught baptism was merely an external “ordinance” which served as an act of public profession of faith. And so I want to be clear that I am very familiar with many of the arguments against attributing baptism any salvific significance whatsoever. And because I personally used those same arguments.
Paul’s statement that he wasn’t sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel? I’ve used that exact argument 20 years ago when I debated against the historic Christian doctrine of baptism.
The principle stumbling block for me was I couldn’t see past the idea that baptism was a human work. And so every anti-baptism argument I gave–the arguments I was taught–was based on viewing baptism as a human work, and if salvation is God’s work alone, then baptism can’t be salvific in anyway. Which is also why I had to find ways to dismiss Scripture. I didn’t think I was dismissing Scripture, but that’s what I was doing–explaining the plain meaning of the text away because it didn’t fit my pre-built theological framework.
The eureka moment came for me when I finally began to realize that baptism isn’t a human work, but God’s work. And I also began to see my own hypocrisy, as with the same breath I argued that God can’t use baptism for His salvific work in our life because baptism is a human work–and that same breath arguing that the human act of coming forward to approach the altar and say a specific prayer WAS salvific. In spite of the fact, of course, that the Altar Call and Sinner’s Prayer have no basis in Scripture but are inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries.
But let’s circle back. Let me be clear: Baptism saves because salvation is by grace alone through faith alone on Christ’s account alone. Baptism saves because God alone saves us by the work of His Holy Spirit on the basis of Christ’s finished work.
It’s not human work in addition to. It’s that baptism is God’s work. God alone acts, God alone saves, this happens by the power and work of the Spirit alone working and creating faith. That’s why baptism saves. Because baptism is God’s work of regenerating, forgiving, and making us new in Christ, on the basis of what Christ has done.
For evidence of this, go back and look at all the relevant passages of Scripture about baptism. But take a fresh objective look at them, without the filter of human tradition and modern dogma. The texts say what they say.
I was buried with Christ in baptism. That’s not just a pretty metaphor for some symbolic gesture. That is what actually happens in baptism.
Other words, you believe in baptismal regeneration, correct @TheologyNerd ?
Scripture itself provides an internal correction against baptismal regeneration by consistently locating regeneration, justification, and reception of the Spirit in relation to faith in Christ rather than in the physical administration of water, and this can be demonstrated without importing later theology by allowing the KJV text to interpret itself canonically.
First, regeneration and becoming a child of God are explicitly tied to believing, not to baptism, John 1 12 to 13 KJV says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” the new birth is defined by belief pisteuō and divine agency, and baptism is not mentioned, which is decisive because John is explicitly explaining how one is born of God.
Second, Scripture provides clear examples where the Holy Spirit is given prior to baptism, which is incompatible with regeneration being tied to the water, Acts 10 44 to 47 KJV says, “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished… because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” the aorist reception of the Spirit precedes baptism, and Peter explicitly grounds baptism on a salvation already received, not one yet to be effected.
Third, Paul sharply distinguishes the gospel that saves from baptism itself, which would be impossible if baptism regenerated, 1 Corinthians 1 17 KJV says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” if baptism were the instrument of regeneration, Paul’s statement would fracture the gospel itself, yet he locates saving power in the preached word received by faith, not in the rite.
Fourth, Scripture explicitly states that justification is by faith apart from works, and baptism is something performed in time and space, Romans 4 5 KJV says, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,” the verb logizetai establishes reckoning at the point of faith, not at a later ritual act, and Paul deliberately uses Abraham prior to circumcision to make the point, Romans 4 10 to 11 KJV shows the sign follows justification rather than causes it, which directly undermines sacramental causality.
Fifth, the New Testament explicitly denies that external washing produces inward cleansing, Hebrews 9 13 to 14 KJV says, “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, How much more shall the blood of Christ… purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” the contrast is between external rites and internal purification, and baptism, like Old Covenant washings, cannot accomplish what only Christ’s blood does.
Sixth, Peter himself denies physical efficacy in baptism, even while using saving language, 1 Peter 3 21 KJV says, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” the saving element is explicitly identified as the inward appeal or response toward God grounded in the resurrection, not the water, which means baptism cannot regenerate apart from faith.
Seventh, Paul explicitly locates the washing language in the word and the Spirit rather than the rite itself, Ephesians 5 25 to 26 KJV says, “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,” the instrument is the word, not the element, and this aligns with Titus 3 5 when read carefully, where the washing is inseparable from renewal of the Holy Ghost, not from water application.
Here, you are Lutheran, correct brother?
Yes?
J.
It would be correct to say that I understand that John 3:5 is an explicit reference to Baptism. I also believe that Titus 3:5 is an implicit reference to Baptism.
If you were to ask me if regeneration can only take place in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, I would–of course–answer no. But yes, God uses Baptism to work His work of regeneration in us, not according to the water, nor according to the human minister, but according to the power and work of the Spirit and the word creating and working faith in the heart.
In the Reformed tradition there is often talk about what is known as the Ordo Salutis, or “Order of Salvation”, and this leads to intra-Protestant debates about whether regeneration precedes faith or if faith precedes regeneration. It may be valuable information to know that Lutherans reject both of those positions, arguing that faith and regeneration are the same; the one cannot precede the other, because faith is regeneration–a person who is born again has faith, the one who has faith is born again. Let’s keep that in mind here going forward.
Scripture itself provides an internal correction against baptismal regeneration by consistently locating regeneration, justification, and reception of the Spirit in relation to faith in Christ rather than in the physical administration of water, and this can be demonstrated without importing later theology by allowing the KJV text to interpret itself canonically.
I fear that you are about to engage in a straw man argument. Let me be clear, I do not believe that “regeneration, justification, and reception of the Spirit” is located apart from or outside of faith in Christ. So an argument that points to faith alone is, of course, one I’m going to enthusiastically agree with and is not going to be a counter-argument to anything I believe or have thus far argued.
First, regeneration and becoming a child of God are explicitly tied to believing, not to baptism,
This is what I mean. This is a straw man argument.
Further: I deny that we can separate faith and baptism. We can’t point to Scripture that speaks of faith and then discard what Scripture says of baptism. This is pitting Scripture against Scripture.
Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, says the new birth is “of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5. I know that in modern Protestant circles there are many ways to re-interpret the meaning of “water” to mean something other than water. But water is water–it’s not amniotic fluid, it’s not an allegory for repentance. Water here refers to plain, ordinary, H2O. The conclusion, then, isn’t to attribute any special property to water, but to understand the context and how God is using plain, ordinary, nothing special water to accomplish His work.
So, yes: Scripture explicitly locates regeneration in the water of Baptism–not because of the water itself; for it is not merely of water, but of “water and the Spirit”. Thus we cannot separate Baptism from the Spirit. Not water. But “water and the Spirit”. Not water. "But “water with the word”.
So I want to be very clear: Presenting Scripture that locates regeneration in relation to faith, in relation to God’s grace, in relation to the power and work of the Holy Spirit does not negate the function and significance of baptism as a means of Grace which God uses–because the testimony of Scripture remains clear about the meaning and significance of Baptism.
1 Corinthians 1:17 cannot be divorced from the context. This passage cannot be used to say that baptism is ineffectual–because that is not what Paul is saying. No, Paul’s statement would not fracture the Gospel if baptism is a means of grace. The proclamation of the Gospel, too, is a means of grace.
I feel inclined to remind, once again, to avoid straw man arguments.
and baptism is something performed in time and space
So it preaching the Gospel. A preacher preaches in time and space, and in a specific time and space a person hears the Gospel.
Would you, therefore, argue that preaching the Gospel is ineffectual?
That something happens in time and space doesn’t make it a human work. God is perfectly able to act in time and space. For evidence: The Exodus, the call of Abraham, God’s work through the ministries of Israel’s prophets. The Incarnation.
Sixth, Peter himself denies physical efficacy in baptism, even while using saving language, 1 […] baptism cannot regenerate apart from faith.
Once again, straw manning the argument. As though the argument had been that baptism saves ex opere operato, or purely by the act itself, or as though the physical element of water alone is sufficient, or as though the argument is that “baptism, without faith, saves”. When I have been exceptionally clear on this.
I mean no disrespect to you. But I fear that you are not engaging in a good faith debate on this subject. You are not addressing my position. Your arguments do not address my arguments.