Baptism Saves? Signs and Realities
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- To become a regular supporter on Patreon, go here: / anthonyrogers1
To support on Paypal, go here: www.paypal.com...
To help with books related to future show topics and debates, here is a link to my Amazon page:
www.amazon.com...
If you are interested in supporting my work among prisoners, you can give here: give.pcamna.or...
__________________
To follow on other social media platforms:
IG: anthony.rogers.12382
TikTok: Ousias1
Some of the posters in this thread have brought up historical theology. People received justification apart from baptism throughout the large majority of human history (the Old Testament era), which is relevant to appeals to continuity with the Old Testament era by figures like Jesus (Luke 19:9), Paul (Galatians 3:6-7), James (James 2:21-23), and Clement of Rome (First Clement, 32). We see many examples of people justified apart from baptism during Jesus' public ministry (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, etc.), so that even Tertullian, an advocate of baptismal justification, conceded that "in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord" (On Baptism, 13). But, contrary to Tertullian's claim that baptism was added as a requirement after Jesus' resurrection, we still see people justified apart from baptism after that point in time (Acts 10:44-48, Paul's assumption that receiving the Holy Spirit at the time of faith was normative in Acts 19:2, etc.). Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, referred to the non-regenerative, non-justificatory nature of the baptism of John the Baptist (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:2). Many of the earliest extrabiblical Christian sources refer to justification through faith without even mentioning baptism in those contexts (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, etc.), and some of them make other comments that seem to exclude baptism as a means of justification. Tertullian refers to people in his day who rejected justification through baptism, though he accepted it (On Baptism, 12-14). Early Christian conversion accounts often involve significant changes in the individual's life prior to his baptism, which increases the plausibility of regeneration and justification before baptism. For example, Minucius Felix mediated an exchange between a Christian, Octavius, and a non-Christian, Caecilius. Immediately after the exchange, without any involvement of baptism, Caecilius is referred to as being persuaded of Christianity (Octavius, 40). He comments, "I yield to God; and I agree concerning the sincerity of the way of life [Christianity] which is now mine". So, he's claiming to be living the Christian way of life, and he's doing so before baptism, becoming a catechumen, or anything like that. Minucius Felix refers to how Caecilius had "believed" (41) and was "converted…to the true religion" by his discussion with Octavius (1). Some of the church fathers who use highly efficacious language about baptism also use highly efficacious language, including language about the new birth and salvation, when discussing prebaptismal faith (e.g., Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil of Caesarea). However you explain that (that they viewed justification as a multistep process, that they were inconsistent, or whatever), it offers partial corroboration for the view that we're justified through prebaptismal faith. And some medieval sources advocated justification apart from baptism (e.g., some Waldensians, as discussed in Henry Vedder, "Origin And Early Teachings Of The Waldenses, According To Roman Catholic Writers Of The Thirteenth Century", The American Journal Of Theology, Vol. IV, no. 3, July 1900, pp. 482, 484-85; some Lollards, as discussed in J. Patrick Hornbeck II, et al., A Companion To Lollardy [Boston, Massachusetts: Brill, 2016], 118-19, 174).
It should be noted, also, that the extrabiblical sources who held a high view of the efficaciousness of baptism widely disagreed with each other about the nature of that efficaciousness. They often assigned things like regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, and the reception of the Holy Spirit to something other than baptism, like the laying on of hands or foot washing. G.W.H. Lampe provided many examples in his book The Seal Of The Spirit (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004). So, baptismal theology varied a lot in the pre-Reformation era, including among those who held a higher view of the efficaciousness of baptism. Anybody who's interested in more about belief in justification apart from baptism before the Reformation can search for a February 5, 2023 post at Triablogue titled "The History Of Belief In Justification Apart From Baptism".
Never heard it explained this way, and this really makes sense to me after years of years of thinking about this subject.
I was thinking about this yesterday,
and now this pops up🙏🏻✨️
Either God or YT reads your mind. Or both
@@ProfYaffle Probably both😅. A while back, I visited a elderly care facility, and that evening, YT gave me a cathether commercial.😂
@@marlena. quite!
Very well explained. I have never heard anyone explain it like that.
GOD BLESS YOU BROTHER ROGERS!! Write! How long have I waited to hear an acceptable explanation for the rite of baptism. Thank God for your work
I just recently was listening to sermons by a Lutheran whom I respect very much and this subject came up. I realized I don't know enough regarding this and want to hear more on the subject. I want it to be clear to me.
Strange timing for this as well, because I couldn't find a whole lot here on youtube as of yet.
@ousias1 do you have any other videos on Covenant Theology and Baptism
If the new covenant is more real than the old, and baptism replaces circumcision, baptism is more than a sign contrary to circumcision.
Penal substitution is typically a court room setting contrary to Jesus establishing the new covenant on holy Thursday night. Therefore the Calvinists don't have access to the new covenant without access to Jesus in the Eucharist mediated by his ministers affecting the sacramental, Passover sacrifice.
The reformation denial of gospel sacramentality has led to the current secularisation of the West and its ultimate demise.
so awesome anthony!!! been waiting for this
When Jesus said it is Finished, he meant it. He paid the price. My salvation is a Free gift from God. Adding to salvation means that Christ didn't do it All on the Cross. We should Never add to Salvation. As always great job brother Anthony, God bless you and your ministry!
@patriceagulu8315 Do you want to expound on what you are trying to say, or is unintelligible nonsense your game???
What happened? You called me a Calvinist except I'm not one! Same Old Script, when one can't Defend they Distract! Too funny! 😜
Exactly,
And no record of the apostles being baptised too, Jesus pronounced them clean in John 15:3
Baptism is the first step of obedience , symbolic of discipleship and identification with Jesus' death and resurrection, it is the tradition the apostles taught along with taking part in communion!
Hey, that’s me
What verses are you referring to in your question?
@@YouMayKnowMeAsNate 1 Peter 3:21 & Titus 3:5
@@frankmercurio Just typed this out in another comment, but a direct response to both of those verses you questioned:
1. Luke notes in Acts 10:47 that Peter's stated EXAMPLE (ie, not just a command or term interpreted according to your religion's bias, but rather an application of that command or term in its contextual practice (and there isn't even one person in Scripture that was said to be saved by baptism)) is that baptism is for those that are ALREADY saved (such as Cornelius and his family when they bore outward signs of the Holy Ghost already in them). And hence, Peter was speaking of a different sort of baptism when he said in 1 Peter 3:21 that "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)" echoing Paul's words of grace/salvation being received by faith alone in places such as Romans 10:8-10, Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-9, and notably also Romans 4:5-6. And just as Anthony made reference to using other verses besides this one that both baptism and circumcision are mere signs of salvation ALREADY RECEIVED by faith (as with Abraham's belief according to Paul and James, etc), Peter says in this verse of 1 Peter 3:21 that water baptism is a FIGURE. The problem with assuming figures of the saviors are your saviors (such as Paul addressed about bulls and goats being sacrificed in Heb. 10) is that you conflate and confuse (following the author of confusion in regards with Scripture in Matthew 4 and Luke 4) flesh and spirit, which cannot BOTH be served: Galatians 5:17.
2. There is nothing in Titus 3:5 that states "baptism saves you". That is just seeking a verse to justify a doctrin(al bias) rather than reading a verse and developing a doctrine based on the actual words of that verse. Rather, the words "the washing of regeneration" Paul referred to is the washing of the INSIDE of the cup, BY "the renewing of the Holy Ghost", OPPOSITE of water baptism (which has no power to save, being an outward observance like circumcision and animal sacrifice). Water baptism is a work of man (who have no power to save), the washing away of sins inwardly (hence regeneration and being born again (only once)) is a work of the Saviour (who is Almighty and infinite to save). You can't just start with "Catholicism teaches this" and then go cherrypick Bible verses, saying "this sounds like what Catholicism teaches", as Muslims and Pharisees do. Rather, you have to know who Christ is according to the Bible and what sins and salvation from sins are according to the Bible in order to understand what the Bible teaches: see 2 Timothy 2:15 & John 9:5.
In 1992 I voiced the marriage contract in the back of my New Testament and accepted Christ as my personal savior.
I instantly felt the Holy Spirit enter my body. It was an incredible experience.
I can only imagine that baptism, while not necessary, is a similar joyous and public wedding ceremony.
What do you think about the KJV translation where it says "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us", which would seem to imply that what saves us is the thing that is like baptism, which is to say Jesus's death burial and resurrection
@KC_Streams Finish the verse: "(NOT the putting away of the filth of the flesh (rather than of the heart/spirit, where it proceeds from), but the answer of a good CONSCIENCE toward God)", just as Paul states in Romans 10:8-10. That's why Peter SHOWED (not just "arguably said", as per the presumptions of those that teach baptismal regeneration) that baptism is a mere sign/confession (or figure, as he called it in 1 Peter 3:21) in Acts 10:47 after he witnessed Cornelius and his family saved before circumcision OR WATER BAPTISM (just as Paul states concerning Abraham in Romans 4:9-11 and concerning David's description in Romans 4:6-7).
This makes a ton of sense to be honest. Now, what are your thoughts on the Scotts confession on baptism/the supposed reformed consensus in support of baptismal efficacy?
Sacramental Nestorianism. Just begome Anglican.
@@Anglochog1 Anglicanism is pretty based
Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but-(δέ) one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
δέ - (but), *moreover, and,* etc.
{ie. Water AND Spirit}
The word “but-(δέ)” is not being used as an oppositional conjunction but a continuative one. If it was in opposition, that would be the word ἀλλά as in Luke 5:32 for example.
Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but-(ἀλλά) sinners to repentance.
ἀλλά - (but), nevertheless, notwithstanding, an objection, an exception
Yes treu. Amen.
Salvation is a miracle. No prayer, no ritual, no work can save you. We put our faith in Him and what He did by His grace, we confess Him as our Lord and Savior, we repent and turn from evil and dead works, but He gives us a new heart, we MUST have assurance by His Spirit that we are the children of God. "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." John 1:12,13.
Great explanation, Anthony.
Wow, just found this channel roaming thru Jeff and So be it channel. So far a great understanding of scripture although lots of big words are used lol.
It’s hard to find ppl who have a similar understanding of the scriptures.
The baptism Yeshua received was definitely a sign, as the spirit ascended like a dove. It’s was also a proselytizing ceremony so that Yeshua would be able to teach in temple.
Thank you - can you debate Trent horn ?
The problem with this is that it's ignoring the sacramental union between sign and thing signified, whereby when one receives the sign, he also receives the thing signified.
"And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food for our souls." (Scots Confession chap. 21)
Cornelius and the Gentiles were saved before their water baptism.
@@kardiognostesministries8150 And in Acts 8:17 the Samaritans didn't yet have the Holy Spirit even though they believed and were baptised but they needed the laying on of hands. You are pointing to an exception to make the rule, and I could do a similar thing with the passage in Acts 8 if I wanted to prove that no one can have the Holy Spirit until they have an Apostle lay hands on them. The issue is that the book of Acts is descriptive, not prescriptive in these passages.
@@Anglochog1 You are pointing to an exception.
The conversion of these Gentiles appears 3 times within the Book of Acts (Acts 10, 11 and 15). There is no other clear cut case of any Gentile receiving the Holy Spirit that would differentiate what is described in these 3 sections of Scripture.
By the washing of regeneration I have no doubt that he alludes, at least, to baptism, and even I will not object to have this passage expounded as relating to baptism; not that salvation is contained in the outward symbol of water, but because baptism tells to us the salvation obtained by Christ. Paul treats of the exhibition of the grace of God, which, we have said, has been made by faith. Since therefore a part of revelation consists in baptism, that is, so far as it is intended to confirm our faith, he properly makes mention of it. Besides, baptism - being the entrance into the Church and the symbol of our ingrafting into Christ - is here appropriately introduced by Paul, when he intends to shew in what manner the grace of God appeared to us; so that the strain of the passage runs thus: - “God hath saved usby his mercy, the symbol and pledge of which he gave in baptism, by admitting us into his Church, and ingrafting us into the body of his Son.”
Now the Apostles are wont to draw an argument from the Sacraments, to prove that which is there exhibited under a figure, because it ought to be held by believers as a settled principle, that God does not sport with us by unmeaning figures, but inwardly accomplishes by his power what he exhibits by the outward sign; and therefore, baptism is fitly and truly said to be “the washing of regeneration.” *The efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by him who shall connect the sign and the thing signified, in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and inefficacious, and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him.* Although by baptism wicked men are neither washed nor renewed, yet it retains that power, so far as relates to God, because, although they reject the grace of God, still it is offered to them. But here Paul addresses believers, in whom baptism is always efficacious, and in whom, therefore, it is properly connected with its truth and efficacy. But by this mode of expression we are reminded that, if we do not wish to annihilate holy baptism, we must prove its efficacy by “newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4)
John Calvin on Titus 3:5
So good
FINALLY….. please do more videos on this from the Church fathers 💪💪
Jesus commanded water baptism. The Apostle's commanded water baptism. Water baptism itself doesn't save us, yet it is commanded to do . So if we don't have to obey it as many say these days, then why obey any commands ?
Why do so many people fight water baptism when it only takes 10 minutes to do ? Baptism in water does not give life, only the Spirit does. Yet those in Acts who received the Spirit first, were still commanded to be water baptized.
Water Baptism is our public confession of our being dead to sin and our old life and now a follower of Christ.
All of our past sins being washed away, and us taking Christ as our new life .
Why would anyone have a problem with water baptism is beyond me.
Yes baptism is important, it is the first step of obedience for a Christian and one of 2 traditions the apostles taught and Jesus too, the other being taking part in the communion supper,
But the problem is with belief in baptismal regeneration which nullifies the finished work of Jesus on the cross!
Sorry, but it's more than just being something important or a tradition, ITS A COMMAND. It doesn't nullify the work on the cross, but actually fulfills it in a person's life by being buried with Christ and then raising with Christ.
Why following a simple command of Christ is so hated these days is beyond me. If we don't have to follow it, then we don't have to follow any other command we don't agree with either, right ? We don't have to repent of our sins, we don't have to love our brother, we just make up our own gospel. When the Jews asked Peter what they needed to do after hearing Christ preached, what did Peter say ?
Repent and be BAPTIZED !
Not just REPENT, AND be Baptized.
Every one of you.
Not some, not if ya wanna or if ya don't feel like it today.
For, for for. For What ?
For the remission of sins !
No baptism, no remission.
And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Who did Peter then say this was for ? Find out by reading Acts 2:39.
Then read Acts 10:48 and 19:5
What happens if you don't get baptized?
Depends on the reason why. If it's because they didn't have the chance to before they passed, nothing. If it's because they didn't want to, then that raises questions about the sincerity of their conversion.
It's only a matter of time before we start seeing Catholics claim that "Jesus was saved when he was baptized." They value the carnal rites that they can see more than the spiritual things they can't (such as Romans 10:8) because they are carnal and not born again to be spiritual, being whitewashed sepulchres that clean only the outside of the cup.
To address the two verses that guy brought to Anthony initially:
1. Luke notes in Acts 10:47 that Peter's stated EXAMPLE (ie, not just a command or term interpreted according to your religion's bias, but rather an application of that command or term in its contextual practice (and there isn't even one person in Scripture that was said to be saved by baptism)) is that baptism is for those that are ALREADY saved (such as Cornelius and his family when they bore outward signs of the Holy Ghost already in them). And hence, Peter was speaking of a different sort of baptism when he said in 1 Peter 3:21 that "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)" echoing Paul's words of grace/salvation being received by faith alone in places such as Romans 10:8-10, Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-9, and notably also Romans 4:5-6. And just as Anthony made reference to using other verses besides this one that both baptism and circumcision are mere signs of salvation ALREADY RECEIVED by faith (as with Abraham's belief according to Paul and James, etc), Peter says in this verse of 1 Peter 3:21 that water baptism is a FIGURE. The problem with assuming figures of the saviors are your saviors (such as Paul addressed about bulls and goats being sacrificed in Heb. 10) is that you conflate and confuse (following the author of confusion in regards with Scripture in Matthew 4 and Luke 4) flesh and spirit, which cannot BOTH be served: Galatians 5:17.
2. There is nothing in Titus 3:5 that states "baptism saves you". That is just seeking a verse to justify a doctrin(al bias) rather than reading a verse and developing a doctrine based on the actual words of that verse. Rather, the words "the washing of regeneration" Paul referred to is the washing of the INSIDE of the cup, BY "the renewing of the Holy Ghost", OPPOSITE of water baptism (which has no power to save, being an outward observance like circumcision and animal sacrifice). Water baptism is a work of man (who have no power to save), the washing away of sins inwardly (hence regeneration and being born again (only once)) is a work of the Saviour (who is Almighty and infinite to save). You can't just start with "Catholicism teaches this" and then go cherrypick Bible verses, saying "this sounds like what Catholicism teaches", as Muslims and Pharisees do. Rather, you have to know who Christ is according to the Bible and what sins and salvation from sins are according to the Bible in order to understand what the Bible teaches: see 2 Timothy 2:15 & John 9:5.
Hello everybody, in Jesaja 44:6 some translations in dutch take away the word "and" before redeemer. For example:
Jesaja 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Jesaja 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
They say it's because of Wāw copulativum. Anyone who knows the Hebrew, can you maybe explain this to me a bit for a layman.
Thx and Godbless.
Affixed to the beginning of the word 'redeemer' in Isaiah is the letter 'vav' (sometimes spelt 'waw'). It ordinarily represents the conjunction 'and'. Hence the common reading: "and His Redeemer the Lord of hosts". Sometimes a 'vav' can function as a copula, i.e. a form of the verb 'be,' but that isn't its ordinary usage. On this uncharacteristic use of the vav the text would mean: "[who] is His Redeemer the Lord of hosts". The claim that the 'waw' in Isaiah 44:6 should be understood in the latter sense rather than in the ordinary way is not impossible but it is not the most natural way to take it. Anyone arguing for an uncommon use at this point would have to give a cogent argument that is not simply driven by their theological bias.
@Ousias1 When I asked, the reply I got was the comment you just explained but also they added this at the end.
"A translation with "and" could cause misunderstandings, because here we speak of the Lord who saves."
And I want to thank you Tony for all the work you do, it's a real help to me in my study of Gods word. Greetings from the Netherlands.
Like a polo shirt....🤔...
Anthony Rogers, water baptism doesn't save. People in the Bible were saved before they were baptised as a witness that they belong to Jesus. The translators have misled Biblically ignorant people with Acts 2: 38. Acts 22: 16. 1 Pet 3: 21.
Egregiously poor argumentation.
Believe the Bible.
Baptism saves as it is the work of God that normatively confers the Holy Spirit and effects regeneration.
I’d call your statement “egregiously poor argumentation,” but you didn’t make an argument. All you did is assert and emote. Great job.
Believe the Bible, which calls the sacraments signs and has a clearly established pattern of speaking.
Heresy. All of this was started by the Anabaptists in 1522, promulgated by Nicholas Storch, who was the first to say “baptism is an outward sign of a previous inward change”.
Please do your research. Only Satan asks the question “did God really say?”
God says baptism saves you. Why question that?
But Ephesians 2:8-9 says faith is what saves.
@@Taipei_103 baptism delivers by faith, forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit both creates and strengthens faith. No on can say Christ is LORD except by the Holy Spirit. So since baptism gives the Spirit, and the Spirit creates faith, thus, Peter declares baptism saves you and Paul identifies it as the washing of regeneration.
So to your statement I say, amen. It’s both/and not either/or.
@@SRGN_SavedSinnerThat makes a mess out of Acts 10. It requires you to say that the God used Cornelius to show that he was opening his covenant to the Gentiles, but didn't follow the normative pattern of Baptism going forward. The idea that God made it clear that he was breaking down the barrier between Jew and Gentile, bringing them together into one single people by granting Cornelius The Spirit in a way that no Jew had ever received The Spirit before, and no Gentile ever would after. Especially seeing how Peter had already gotten the message in verses 34-35, prior to the whole display.
@@NeededGR13F
It makes no mess of anything.
It confesses the scriptures as they are written. Human reason is a tool in the house, it is not the master. If God said something that doesn’t fit in our box of understanding we don’t try to make it fit, we say amen.
Jesus said baptize before He said teach… do we take issue with the order in which Yeshua commands us to carry out the great commission?
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
God did not ask us to create norms and rules. The Holy One of Israel said to go invite people to the Kingdom, tell them to turn from darkness and walk in the Light, repent of sins and follow truth, be born again of water and Spirit.
Peter under inspiration of the Holy Ghost says:
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
God says come get this baptism, receive the Spirit, do the same for your children.
God doesn’t specify age for our children… why do we feel we can stand in His place and say what He DID NOT SAY.
@@SRGN_SavedSinnerAnd that sounds nice until you realize that God chose written human language as his method of communicating his word. All written human language requires interpretation, and human interpretations can be fallible. And the easiest way to tell if you've made an incorrect one is by holding it up to the rest of Scripture to look for inconsistencies. Yours winds up having God demonstrate that he is not distinguishing between Jew and Gentile by making that Gentile convert distinct from all of the Jewish converts up until that point. That's an inconsistency.
Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but-(δέ) one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
δέ - (but), *moreover, and,* etc.
{ie. Water AND Spirit}
The word “but-(δέ)” is not being used as an oppositional conjunction but a continuative one. If it was in opposition, that would be the word ἀλλά as in Matt 5:15 for example.
Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but-(ἀλλά) sinners to repentance.
ἀλλά - (but), nevertheless, notwithstanding, an objection, an exception
The particle “de” is functioning contrastively.