The Early Church & BAPTISM
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 25. 09. 2022
- How did the early church understand baptism? Many modern day Christians consider baptism merely as a public declaration of faith and nothing more, while across the ages and since the beginning, the first Christians (and the church fathers) almost unanimously understood and believed the word of God to mean that baptism was the means in which one was saved, born again, for forgiveness of sins, and the way in which we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit đđ»âïžđđŠ
..
More music & talks at www.chrisbraymusic.com
. .
#baptism #bornagain #salvation #saved #christian #catholic #Faith #believe #Scripture #tradition #churchfathers #apologetics #AllThatCatholicStuff #catholicreels #catholicvideos #catholicspeaker #catholicchurch #catholicanswers #earlychurchfathers #catholicprotestant
. .
HERMAS
ââI have heard, sir,â said I [to the Shepherd], âfrom some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.â He said to me, âYou have heard rightly, for so it isââ (The Shepherd4:3:1-2 [A.D. 80]).
JUSTIN MARTYR
âAs many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, âExcept you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heavenâ [John 3:3]â (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
TERTULLIAN
âHappy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism-which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes-by taking them away from the water!â (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
âWithout baptism, salvation is attainable by noneâ (ibid., 12).
HIPPOLYTUS
â[P]erhaps someone will ask, âWhat does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?â In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: âAmen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.â Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvationâ (Homilies 11:26 [A.D. 217]).
ORIGEN
âIt is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptismâ (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
âIf any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
Love your videos.. keep em coming. Thank you! And dont listen to the haters... you speak the truth!
I appreciate that
Thanks for the teaching
One would then ask if faith is attached to baptism then why would you baptized babies? How would you respond? Thanks
I would take them to
1 Corinthians 7:14; its the faith of the Parents. Just has the OT jews circumsized their babies at 8 days old to enter the Covenant. Hope that helps
@@onlylove556 I agree thank you
There is a big difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Being part of the Old Covenant people of Israel DID NOT SAVE. The NT is chock full of references to remind the Jews that their circumcision did not save them. Consider what the New Testament teaches about our father of the faith, Abraham and his circumcision in Romans 4...
v. 6 - Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
v. 7 - Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
v. 8 - Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
In v. 6 we see Paul teaching the imputation of RIGHTEOUSNESS WITHOUT WORKS. This refers to the application of Christ's perfect righteousness to the account of those who do not have righteous works, even as far as referring to the "ungodly" as seen in v. 5. This also deals with the forgivness of sins as seen in v. 7. God does not hold them accountable for their sins because they are forgiven. As a whole, it deals with our justification before God. But look at what Paul states as he continues...
v. 9 - Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Paul asks the question - Does this blessedness (righteousness without works, forgiveness of sins) come only upon those who are circumcised? Or does it also come upon those who are not circumcised? He then looks to the experience of Abraham to give an answer.
v. 10 - How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
This "justification by faith" came upon Abraham when he believed God (Genesis 15:6) when he was uncircumcised... this was before he would later be circumcised in Genesis 17. Paul continues...
v. 11 - And he received THE SIGN OF CIRCUMCISION, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
v. 12 - And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Paul describes circumcision as a "sign" and a "seal" of the righteousness of the faith which he had when he was uncircumcised. To be clear, the righteousness that is imputed is BY FAITH... the circumcision is a sign and seal of it. Abraham is described as the father of ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE including uncircumcised people that they may have righteousness imputed (applied to their account) even though they are NOT CIRCUMCISED. Verse 12 says that Abraham is the father of faith to two groups of people: To the circumcision (circumcised Jews) as well as those who walk in the steps of the faith that Abraham had BEFORE he was circumcised.
As for 1 Corinthians 7:14, that says nothing about baptism. It definitely says nothing about the baptism of infants. To be clear, the Bible says nothing about the baptism of infants in any verse whatsoever. It is not the same as the Jews circumcizing babies at 8 days old. The Old Testament prescribed the circumcision of infants... however, that circumcision did not save. The New Testament DOES NOT PRESCRIBE the baptism of infants. The only texts that we do have about baptism requirements teach that repentance and faith are required. One might argue for parallels... but that is reading something into the text which simply is not there...
So what does 1 Corinthians 7:14 speak about? It speaks about marriages between believers and unbelievers. Although these marriages were prohibited, they existed. Paul says that the believing wife should not depart from the unbelieving husband (v. 13). He says...
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
First, he teaches that the unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" by the believing spouse. The word sanctify is the verb form of the word that is translated "holy" or "set apart." Based upon this first teaching of the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse, he then concludes "else were your children unclean; but now they are holy." So, we see that the unbelieving spouse is first sanctified by the believing spouse... and as a result the children are called "holy" or "sanctified." So... whatever happens to the unbelieving spouse (sanctified) also happens to the children (called holy). Does this refer to either baptism or salvation? If we are consistent in thinking that this refers to baptism, then we must believe this refers to both the baptism of the unbelieving spouse and the baptism of the child. If this refers to salvation, then we must believe this refers to the salvation of an unbeliever as well as the salvation of the child on the basis of one believing parent... But is that REALLY what this is teaching? Consider what Paul says 2 verses later...
1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Paul here says that the reason for preserving these marriages is for the hope of salvation of the unbelieving spouse... It is to say that there is hope that such a person can become saved. The question is: How would that unbelieving person be saved? Do we really think that such an unbeliever will be saved simply for remaining in the marriage? No... There is no salvation apart from faith in Christ. The Scriptures speak to this same topic elsehwere describing the influence that a godly wife can have on her unbelieving husband. Consider what the Apostle Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3...
Verse 1 - Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
Verse 2 - While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Peter tells such wives to be in subjection to their husbands, saying "they also may without the word be won by the conversation of their wives; while they behold your chase conversation coupled with fear." That is to say that the godly wife can have a positive influence and "win" him over to the faith by her godly example and testimony. So... let us return to 1 Corinthians 7:14. This does not teach that the unbelieving spouse is "saved" by the believing spouse or even that the child is saved by the faith of the parents. So what, then, does it teach? Paul here is using Old Testament language referring to things as "holy" and "unclean." The two are opposites. According to the OT law, things were declared holy or unclean... or more accurately "set apart" as legal or deemed "unclean" or illegal. This did not always refer to things being spiritually or innately holy or unclean, but ceremonially pure or profane, legal and illegal. This is clearly seen in the OT prohibition of certain meats that were illegal and deemed âunclean.â Paul uses the same language in 1 Timothy 4...
Verse 4 - For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Verse 5 - For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
We see that meats that were formerly prohibited and deemed âuncleanâ can be âsanctifiedâ or âset apartâ as legal and permissible by the word of God and prayer. This sanctification does not refer to salvation, but rather âmade legalâ and âpermissableâ to be eaten.
So, in 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul is saying that although it is prohibited to marry an unbeliever, those who are already married should not get divorced... the unbelieving spouse is deemed "legal" and the children, too, are deemed "legal" "set apart" or "holy" instead of "unclean." They are not considered to be bastards, but rather legitimate children of legitimate marital unions. The preservation of these marriages do not save unbelieving husbands or unbelieving children or make them spiritually holy apart from faith in Christ, but are deemed âlegalâ and may be able to result in their future salvation as the believing person gives a godly testimony to the truth of the faith of Jesus Christ.
Salvation is always by grace through faith in Christ. The preservation of such unions is to help lead the unbelieving people to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
@@Jeremyb2023 it does say repentance and baptism but not in that order for example in Matthew 25. It teaches them to baptize and teach them to obey everything Jesus teaches. Just because thereâs no reference to infants baptism doesnât mean it didnât happen. The baptism examples arenât very detailed in scripture as to who should be baptized since Jesus never put an age restriction. We can follow church history from the first century of Christianity and see that it was practiced. You are operating by reason and not by faith that baptism is Godâs work and you think your participating in baptism saves you. Therefore your work contributes to salvation so you believe that youâre saved by what you do. You need to check your theology and study church history
Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Peter said so
When asked what one must do to be saved, the apostle Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..." They were baptized because they believed. Baptism is for saved people... not the means by which we are saved.
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
You say âbaptism doesnât saveâ but Peter literally says âbaptism⊠now saves youâ - âBaptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christâ 1 Peter 3:21
@@chrisbraymusic Hi Chris, I understand where you are coming from. At the very least, I have to give you credit as this verse appears to teach that we are saved by Baptism. However, before discussing the text, let me ask you what you think the previous verse means.
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Do you believe that Noah and his family were literally saved by the flood waters? We must interpret these texts in a way which does justice not only to the immediate context, but also to the broader context of the entire testimony of Scripture.
Hi J B
Thanks for your thoughtful response. We seem to have three different threads going, so I thought Iâd put the responses all together in one (in case your wondering about those others).
Amen, we agree we are saved by Jesus only, by grace, through faith. The question is, is there anything required for us? HOW do we respond in faith. Faith + what?
Eph 1:13 says âAFTER you believedâ. It doesnât say the moment you had faith alone, but didnât do anything else. You might be adding that to the word of God⊠Guess what else happens after you âbelieveâ - you get baptized!
So what happens when you âBELIEVEâ? Believing is a verb. Itâs an action word. Itâs something WE do (only possible by Godâs grace at work in us prior enabling, but still itsâ OUR response in faith).
Itâs not a straw man argument. Let me ask you - can you be saved without repenting? Can you be saved if you donât confess your sins? Can you be saved if you have never professed Jesus as Saviour?
If you cannot be saved without doing either of those then those are things YOU need to do (again, through faith, and only possible by Godâs grace given prior to enable us to do so). That is what I mean by Faith + something. But Repenting, Confessing and Professing are all works, done by us in response to faith. If youâre claiming baptism is adding to the finished work of Christ, then youâd have to explain how repenting, or confessing or professing (all works/acts) are also not adding to the finished work of Christ. Iâm not sure youâve demonstrated that. Both ârepentingâ & âbaptismâ are works/acts. Both are done in faith. Both are only possibly by first receiving Godâs grace. We definitely both agree that doing it legalistically (with an earning mentality or motivation) is unbiblical. We cannot earn it. But salvation is given to us by believe and obeying HOW he commands us to receive it.
Iâm not sure if you are aware or not, but The Catholic Church actually teaches whatâs called âBaptism of Desireâ. That if someone, by grace, through faith, desires salvation in Christ, may attain it (if for example are prevented from being baptized etc.).
So if you mean to say (which I sort of feel like you were getting at) that someone who TRULY loves God will believe, repent, confess, and be baptized, is justified, then we can agree. As if a person desired to follow God and His commands, but were prevented from doing so through no fault of their own, then their faith would save them, having not able to be baptized etc. However, though it is the faith of the person (by grace) that a person is brought into relationship with God, one cannot say that God does not save people through the act itself (especially when the Bible says quite clearly it is the act of baptism itself that âsavesâ, âforgivesâ and gives the Holy Spirit).
God saved the Israelites from the bondage of slavery with the sacrifice of the lamb. He saved them, but He saved them through that sacrifice. They had to sacrifice and eat that lamb and put the blood over their door - if they didnât they wouldnât have been saved. God led them to the promised land, but they had to follow the cloud leading them. If they didnât follow, they wouldnât have been saved. God saved them, the Israelites didnât save themselves. But God saved them THROUGH their faith in Him AND the act He commanded.
Likewise with Noah. In 1 Peter 3:21 - Noah and his family were SAVED through water. You asked if I believed Noah was literally saved by the flood waters. Yes, I do. Scripture says it in 1 Peter 3:20 âEight souls were saved BY WATERâ. Saved from what is probably the most importantly question. They were saved from the sin of the earth! And peter goes on to say, likewise baptism now saves you. By dying to sin and being born again into eternal life.
Peter says baptism âsave youâ and is the âappeal to God for a clear conscienceâ.
Peter says REPENTANCE AND BAPTISM is âfor the forgiveness of sinsâ & to receive the Holy Spirit.
How would you explain these conflicting words of Peter to your theology?
We agree there are exceptions (we are bound by the ways God instructs, but He is not). But He also clearly gave the ordinary and normative method for a Christian.
Jesus said âThe one who believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be savedâ (Mark 16:16).. After all James reminds us, even the demons believe.
So to say baptism doesnât save, and baptism isnât for the forgiveness of sins, and baptism isnât how we receive the Holy Spirit, or that itâs not believing AND being baptized that one is saved, is the exact opposite of the word of God. Would love you to prayerfully consider that.
Also, the church fathers overwhelmingly and majoritively understood these passages (and many others) to teach baptismal regeneration right from before the last book of the New Testament was written long into history. Have you checked out their writings by chance?
Sorry, that was a lot. God bless!
â@@chrisbraymusic Hi Chris, I believe that we must distinguish between faith and works of faith. Hebrews 11 speaks of many works of faith. The Bible distinguishes the two... so we must do so as well. These works are the result of faith. As for Ephesians 1:13 I have already clarified that with Galatians 3:12, 15 which explain that it is through the hearing of faith... not the baptism of faith. This is seen in Acts 10.
No... one cannot be saved without repenting. Repentance literally means a "change of mind." It happens prior to any external change or act from the person who repents. I believe that confession is something that one does after believing but does not bring salvation, but rather cleansing from their sin. As for profession, I do not believe that profession itself saves, but rather is a result of faith. In other words, I believe that the Scriptures teach that when a person repents in their heart and believes upon Christ, they are born again. Confession, profession, baptism all proceed from faith... but I would not say that they save. Please don't misunderstand me... I am not saying that they are not necessary... they are necessary for obedience and one who refuses to do so very well may not be a true believer... but I don't believe that we are to tie salvation to these things...
How are you defining repentance? It seems that you are making it a work. Biblically speaking, the word literally means a change of mind. I believe it implies a change of heart... in other words, a decision from the heart to turn from sin and believe upon Christ.
I was not familiar with the baptism of desire. Are you saying that it is like an exception for water baptism? Such as the thief on the cross? It sounds like that to me. To me, I believe that this exception from the norm bears witness to the fact that it is not water baptism that saves... but rather faith in Christ.... but it is presented that way in order to not underestimate the importance of obeying Christ's command for us to be baptized. If I am right about it being an exception, I would ask you to consider this... is there any exception for faith in Jesus Christ? I would say that there is no exception... The reason because FAITH is the means by which we receive salvation. Baptism is very, very closely tied to salvation... but it does not bring salvation and there are exceptions. Faith does bring salvation and there is no exception.
Your mention of the Exodos brings this to mind - There are many people who ate the passover sacrifice but who did not believe. These people died in the wilderness for unbelief. In the same way, there are many who are baptized but have never repented and believed upon Christ. These too will die in their sins. However, there are none who truly repent and believe upon Christ who will die in their sins. Those who truly believe and repent are born again and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of God unto the day of salvation. This is another reason why I think we must be careful not to emphasize baptism as being what saves... but rather faith in Christ. Many baptized people will one day be in hell because they trusted in their water baptism to save (many being baptized as babies... but many as adults too) instead of repenting from their sins and believing upon Christ. It is a lot like the Pharisees who were circumcised but not saved.
As for 1 peter 3, Peter clarifies saying, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." In other words, it is not the cleansing of baptism water which saves, but rather the answer of a good conscience towards God... a repentant and believing heart. Biblically speaking, repentance was a requirement for John's baptism of repentance. Faith and repentance were necessary for water baptism in Acts 2. In Acts 8, it was necessary for the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch. In other words, because Baptism represents our union with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, it is necessary for that person to actually have that union with Him before professing it publicly in baptism. Like I said, I believe that it is extremely closely tied to faith. However, there are exceptions for baptism... there are no exceptions for faith.
I have checked out some of the writings of the church fathers. However, I would state that we only have some records from the early church. Unfortunately, some of the councils of the early church in the time of Constantine and onwards had some really messed up stuff. Those whose teaching did not conform to the church in Rome were to have books burned by penalty of death among other things... I am not making this up. So, when I read church history, I have to keep in mind that there is a certain portion of it that was erased. There were a lot of messed up things. Anyways, I'm sure that we are both busy people. I am glad to respond to any other questions. At the very least, I hope we can understand one another more.
@Moses hillocks Hi Moses, I believe that you are making assumptions about my beliefs regarding baptism. I, too, believe in getting believers baptized as soon as possible. I believe that obedience to the Lord's command to be baptized is an evidence of true, saving faith. I disagree with people who profess faith yet disobey the Lord regarding baptism. I believe that their profession of faith is to be questioned until they follow through with Baptism. However, I believe that even a person who professes faith AND is biblically baptized may not be a true, repentant believer in Christ. That is one of the reasons why I am very cautious about people trusting in their baptism for salvation instead of Christ's saving work. It is Christ's death, burial, and resurrection which saves us. That salvation is by grace (not works) through faith in Christ. I will respond to your other comment regarding the more technical doctrine of baptism. --- By the way, I have considered deleting my comments from this video. To be honest, I don't know why I stumbled across it. It is not my intention to derail or hurt Chris' ministry. I have found his responses to be pretty genuine and on the more biblical end of Catholocism. I don't mean to sound condescending, but I have spoken to so many who are ignorant of the Gospel and merely trust in "being Catholic" or "being a good person" to be saved. I am under the impression that Chris is trying to bring them to a more Biblical type of faith.
Peter baptized these people BECAUSE they believed the Gospel and had already received the Holy Spirit... They did not receive the Holy Spirit by means of their baptism.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
I would agree that God has saved people exceptionally, but also instructs a NORMATIVE means of salvation and reception of the Holy Spirit. How would you reconcile Acts 2:38? When they asked how to be saved, Peter responded by saying ârepent AND BE BAPTIZED for the FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS and your will RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRITâ. You are stating thatâs not how we receive the HS, but scripture plainly states the opposite. How would you reconcile this?
@@chrisbraymusic Hi Chris, again, I would commend you for appealing to Scripture on this. This verse does appear to teach that we receive the Holy Spirit through Baptism. I would also agree that there are normitive teachings of Scripture as well as exceptions. To keep it short, I believe that the normitive experience is to receive the Holy Spirit at the time of faith/repentance. However, throughout the book of Acts we see a transition and the experiences of baptism and Holy Spirit are frequently different. That's why Pentecostals, Baptists, and Catholics can all pick out verses that appear to support their doctrine. The book of Acts is a historical account, not an instructional book. However, anyone who believes and repents will receive the Holy Spirit. So... when Peter says, "If you repent and be baptized you will receive the Holy Spirit" I have no problem with this because we receive the Holy Spirit at the time of repentance (as I showed in the verse I gave in Acts 10. Other texts, apart from the historical account, would also include:
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,
You might say, well "it says AFTER" and their baptism was after... Technically, that is true... but you would sound a lot like a baptist if you said that. Sorry, I'm joking with you... I know words don't convey the heart. I don't mean that as a mean jab, but a lighthearted one. Anyways, where else does the Scripture give added clarity?
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or BY THE HEARING OF FAITH?
...
Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or BY THE HEARING OF FAITH?
These are rhetorical questions. The clear answer is that the normitive experience is to receive the HOly Spirit through the hearing of faith. This is consistent with the Acts 10 and has no contradiction with the Acts 2 verse you shared.
I find it shocking that you keep emphasizing "faith in the act of baptism." NO... we are saved by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Jesus shed his blood for our sins and gave his life as a sacrifice. It is the blood of Christ which washes away our sins... not the water of baptism. To be clear, baptism is a symbol that represents our unity to Jesus Christ through faith in His blood.
We agree that Jesus is who saves us. However, were you saved from conception? If not, did you need to something to accept Jesus (such as âconfessingâ or ârepentingâ or âprofessingâ etc)? And if so, arenât you also adding to the finished work of Christ then, by your definition? Peace,
@@chrisbraymusic Hi Chris, first of all, I would like to thank you for responding. I don't know you but you seem like a good guy and you are trying to share your faith. As for your question... no... I was not saved from conception. I believe that the Scriptures teach that we receive the saving grace of Jesus through faith... not any faith... but through faith in Christ. It seems that you believe that you are presenting a "gotcha" question by suggesting that I am adding to the finished work of Christ. You also believe that these things are necessary. So you understand that I am not adding to the finished work of Christ, but rather think that I am doing so by my own definition. It is a straw man argument, but I will explain why it does not hold up.
When we speak of biblical terms such as "salvation," "grace," "faith," and "works," we must use them as the Bible uses them. First, I would like to show that we are saved by grace and not by works.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
So, we can go ahead and conclude that these two things (grace and works) are related, but are different. We are saved by one (grace) and not by the other (works). The very next verse (v. 10) explains that we are created in Christ Jesus (this is referring to our being born again in Christ) FOR good works... but not through them. James 2 also explains that good works are the fulfillment of prior faith. I know these are separate topics and I would be glad to discuss them separately. For now, let's try to keep this on track.
As we see in v. 8 we are saved "by grace." Grace is something good that we do not deserve. That is why it is called a gift. That is why it is contrasted from works. Works are what we do and if salvation was by works then it could be said that we deserved it and could boast about it... Paul teaches that salvation is by grace and not works. Paul contrasts what we deserve and what God freely gives in Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." For our sins, we deserve death. However, by God's good grace which he freely offers, He gives eternal life. Christ died for all... but all are not saved.
Next, we see that this saving grace or "saved by grace" is "through faith." Faith is what we believe. However, it is more than mere belief of the truth (head knowledge) but it is a belief of the heart and is always coupled with repentance (change of mind and heart). So, we are saved BY God's grace but THROUGH faith in Christ. In other words, "faith" is the means by which we receive God's saving grace. If one TRULY believes upon Christ, he will confess his sins, he will call upon the Lord, he will obey the Lord's command to be baptized, he will follow in the path that Christ has given us... however, we must not confuse faith with the changes that it produces. If you read Hebrews 11, you will see that all of those people were saved by faith. Literally, ever since Abel salvation has always been through faith... yet there was not a single one of those people who were baptized. Sure, we live under a different covenant or dispensation, but the means of salvation has always been by God's grace through faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
@Moses hillocks Hi Moses, when you say that baptism represents those things, I would agree completely. I assume that you are Catholic. If that is true, then you hold church authority and tradition as virtually equal with Scriptural authority. With that belief, it is near impossible to understand Scripture any way that is inconsistent with the church traditions that you have been taught. However, I would remind you and Chris that even the early church fathers had dissenting opinions on some of these doctrinal issues... and that doesn't include the writings of those who were mostly erased from history. However, my point in saying this is that I would encourage you to at least consider some of what I am going to put explain to you.
As for Romans 6:1-11, this is not speaking about water baptism. I know that this may be hard to comprehend within the framework of Catholic theology, but this speaks of our spiritual union with Christ... not our water baptism. Consider some of the other terms that Paul uses to express our union with Christ.
v. 3 - BAPTIZED into Christ and baptized into His death
v. 4 - we are BURIED with Christ
v. 4 - we are RAISED with Christ
v. 5 - We are PLANTED together in the likeness of his death and resurrection.
v. 6 - We are CRUCIFIED with Christ
We are not physically buried, raised, planted, or crucified with Christ... so why insist that the baptism of v. 3 refers to a physical water baptism? These are spiritual realities effected through our union with Christ. However, I do believe that our "baptism into Christ" refers to the initial act of being brought into union with Christ. The word "baptism" generally means "to place into". So this refers to our initial placement into Jesus Christ. You may agree. But then we must ask: by what means does that occur? Thankfully, there are other texts which speak of this.
1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1Co 12:13 For BY ONE SPIRIT are we all BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to DRINK INTO ONE SPIRIT.
How are we baptized into Christ's body (spiritual union with Christ)? According to v. 13 it is "by one Spirit." In other Words, this is the work of the third person of the Holy Trinity, The Holy Spirit. Prior to faith in Christ, we were in Adam and dead in our trespasses and sins. However, it is the Holy Spirit of God which baptizes us into Christ. This is further seen in the end of v. 13 as it says that we have been made to "drink into one Spirit." So, we see that we are given the Holy Spirit and the Spirit Himself does this work. Next, I want to distinguish between the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Baptism in water.
Mat 3:11 I INDEED BAPTIZE YOU WITH WATER unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: HE SHALL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY GHOST, and with fire:
John baptized those who repented with water... but he reminded them that there is another baptism of the Holy Ghost. God, Himself (Jesus Christ, second Person of Trinity) is the one who does this. So... man baptizes with water... but God, and God alone, is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. This initially happened on Pentecost, but as you will see in my other posts, the normitive experience is for this to happen at the time of faith (See Acts 10:44-48, Ephesians 1:13, Galatians 3:2, 3:5). So... Jesus baptizes those who believe with the Holy Spirit at the time of faith, and the Holy Spirit Himself is He who baptizes us into Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13). I don't mean this condescendingly, but I know this is different than what most are taught. I will give further Scripture to support this.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God BY FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ.
Here we see v. 27 addresses the topic of our baptism "into Christ." It begins with "for" linking it to the previous thought in v. 26. Here we see that we are made children of God BY FAITH. In other words, we are baptized into Christ (spiritual union) through faith... not water baptism. But there is more...
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
As you will see in v. 12-13, this "baptism into Christ" has the same terminology as Romans 6:1-11. Notice that it says that it is "through the faith in the operation of God." In other words, this is what God does... this is not what the church does when a man baptizes us into water. You might be inclined to think that this, indeed, does refer to water baptism. This is when I would point you to verse 11. Notice that he refers to our circumcision "made without hands." As you know, in the Old Testament male circumcision was a sign of the covenant with Abraham... it was done in the flesh with human hands... Paul would later contend that "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (1 Cor. 7:19)" So, if physical circumcision was "nothing" and did not save, then which circumcision is Paul speaking about that does save? It is a circumcision "made without hands." It is a circumcision of the heart. It is the operation of God in us through faith.
Can you follow where I am going? Under the Old Covenant it was essential for obedience and I expect that all believing Jews obeyed the ordinance... however, there were circumcised people who trusted in their circumcision for salvation and were not saved. The saving power of man's soul was never in the outward ordinance, but rather in the operation of God in man's heart through faith. We presently live under a new covenant in the blood of Christ. Baptism is the ordinance given to the church for believers. It is an outward symbol which represents our spiritual union with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. However, that union with Christ does not occur by means of WATER BAPTISM but rather the work of God, Himself, when the Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ giving us a spiritual union with the Godhead.
I do believe that water baptism is how we are made members in the local church and visible body of Christ. You mentioned Luke 24:47. I say that baptism is FOR repentance... but it IS NOT repentance. Biblically, faith and repentance were prerequisites for baptism. John the baptist turned away unrepentant people telling them, "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: " (Matthew 3:8). So... if WATER BAPTISM and REPENTANCE were one in the same thing, then why did he tell them to first bring forth the FRUITS meet for repentance?
I understand that these are complex topics and that our view of the doctrines relies upon our interpretations of a web of various Scriptures. However, I can assure you that the other verses you mentioned are all things that have explanations. I would be glad to take the time to explain them to you from a non-Catholic perspective. If you believe that it is impossible for catholic tradition and true Scriptural interpretation to ever not line up perfectly, then I would be wasting my time since revealing any other interpretation would be rejected before it would be considered. Anyways, please understand that I say these things in love. It is not my intention to give people an excuse to be baptized. I would encourage anyone who rejects baptism to examine whether they are in the faith because baptism is a commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ and it is to be the first step of obedience.
@Moses hillocks Hi Moses, of course I do. I am fully Trinitarian in doctrine. As for the "living water" he was not referring to water baptism, but rather the Holy Spirit. He says that those who BELIEVE on Him shall receive Him... not those who are baptized in water. And again, I understand that those who believe will be baptized... however, baptism comes after faith and is an external expression of the spiritual reality that takes place at the time of faith.
Son u don't know the bliblia let me show u