Would love to get your take on this. Now, I disagree with the vast majority of what this guy says on basically everything, but since it seems as though he's misrepresenting your views on baptism, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Life is lived in the ellipses...


(he truncated that quote so much that when I google the phrase, the only thing that comes up is his tweet)

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Life is lived in the ellipses...


(he truncated that quote so much that when I google the phrase, the only thing that comes up is his tweet)

---

Oh, that doesn't surprise me at all. Do you know what the full quote is?

I don't and that is what I was looking for.

It could say anything inside of those 3 dots.

I don't understand even the intent of the tweet. Is he trying to drive a wedge between baptism on one side and faith and grace on the other? What a strange position for a Christian to take.

Or that baptism is a work and therefore not saving? Obviously the works and acts of God are salvific. The scriptures say baptism is the circumcision of our souls not done by human hands, ie it's done by God. By this limited argument he is saying that God's work does not save. Very strange.

Tbh, I'm confused at his tweet, although based on what I've seen of him, he's really just trying to make the argument that RCC and the Orthodox aren't actually Christian. His history points to believing that the RCC and EO teach works-based salvation and reject salvation by faith. To him, apparently, baptism is a "work of man".

The intellectual side of the faith isn't really in my wheelhouse, and I'd rather not speak incorrectly by accident. I'm game if you want to talk about love or something though.

Thanks for that. Yeah, he completely misrepresented it.

Quote:

---

1 Cor. 10:1-3 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food;

---

Baptism in the NT is more of a generic term. When most people see this word they always assume water baptism and in many cases attached a spiritual significance that doesn't exist in the NT.

If one says: One must be baptized in water to go to heaven AND if that person is NOT baptized in water they go to hell, then this is the exact opposite of what the Bible teachers. When one trusts in their church attendance, circumcision, choir participation, baptism, denomination, for salvation they are not trusting in Jesus.

Gospel trumps baptism.
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Why?
13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvationhaving also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

What is this gospel?
15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

dermdoc said:

---

Sorry, but I can not see God condemning unbaptized babies to hell.

---

I agree with you.

Gator03 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sorry, but I can not see God condemning unbaptized babies to hell.

---

I agree with you.

---

I agree as well...There is a lot that I don't understand or know but this is one thing I'm sure of..God welcomes them into the kingdom with out stretched arms...

Quote:

---

As k2 said above, why drive a wedge between things that are good and salvation? And regarding baptism, what do you make of:

---

If one's reads the NT one will find quite a few wedges driven between what is good and what is required for salvation. Examples: Work of the law, the law, circumcision, works, deeds done in righteousness. Furthermore the Bible is clear that one is saved by a gift of grace, through faith in Jesus. Given the reasons for the wedges in these other good areas I believe we should also drive a wedge into water baptism being a requirement for salvation.

Quote:

---

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.While this is an interpretive option one could choose it doesn't fit in with the discussion and the clarification in verse 6.

---

How does one make the case that this is talking about water baptism? While this is an interpretive option it really doesn't fit in with the discussion. I think we have a better interpretive option.

v3. except a man be born again.
v4. How can a man enter 2nd time into a mothers womb and be born?
v5. must be born of water and of Spirit
v6. explanation: that which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of Spirit is Spirit

A better interpretation of being born of water means - physical birth or born of flesh. A woman water breaks before given birth and the baby comes out of the womb. Being born of Spirit or receiving the Holy Spirit is clear in other passages and is not tied to baptism.

Quote:

---

Quote:
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

---

1. It specifically says baptizing them "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" not water.
2. How would they baptize them in this name?
3. By teaching them to observe all things i've commanded you.

One could interpret this as being baptized in water but let's look again at many of the verses in the NT. 8 different baptisms below and only 2 are related to water.

1Cor. 15: Paul: so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
1 Cor 10 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
Gal 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Acts 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

Now let's interpret the verse 19 as water baptism. The text does not say, "19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: because water baptism will save them from their sins.

Quote:

---

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

---

1. I believe Mark chapter 16 stops at verse 8. Stopping here is the most thought provoking cliff hanger I may have ever seen in any literature piece. It begs the question, "What do we do with this information."
2. Verses 9-19 are in a different writing style than the previous entire book and these verses are not in the early manuscripts. You should see a foot note in the Bible.
3. If this means water baptism is required then one should also take this will the full context and be willing to drink deadly poison, pick up poisonous snakes and I would submit there would no longer be any hospitals as it would only take the laying on of hands for someone to recover.
4. Given points 1-3 and that the rest of the Bible equates salvation with belief, I do not have enough evidence to stake my eternity of this inconsistency.

Quote:

---

Quote:
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

---

1. They were cut to the heart? What happened here and why were they cut to the heart? The answer is, "They just heard the gospel of who Jesus is and what realized what they had done do Him.
2. If we take this to mean water baptism is required for the forgiveness of sins and the receiving the gift of the Holy spirit then we have a dilemma. There are more verses Acts 19:2, Eph. 1:13-14, John 7:39 that equate receiving the Holy Spirit with 'belief'
3. Acts 10 shows that people received the Holy Spirit before baptism.

How should we understand Acts 2:38 then. The key word I think is 'repent'. lit. change your mind. Change your mind about what? They needed to change their mind about how they viewed the Chris who they just murdered. This is synonymous with believing.

The verses that you listed can easily cause one to think that Baptism is requirement, however when one reads through the entire NT our picture is clear. If water baptism is required for eternal life then Jesus and Paul failed to mention it in these 30 places when talking about eternal life.

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
John 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
John 5:38 You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
John 6:40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
John 7:38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'"
John 7:39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,
John 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"
John 12:46 I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.
John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Romans 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Romans 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
Romans 4:17 (as it is written, "A father of many nations have I made you") in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.
Romans 4:18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "So shall your descendants be."
Romans 4:24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Romans 9:33 just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 10:11For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed."
Romans 10:14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvationhaving also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
1 Cor 15 1-4 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Maybe it's my sinful ecumenical nature, but I have never understood the point of certain brands of Christianity trying to knock down other brands of Christianity. Also included would be spending enormous time and resources to "convert" Christians to a different brand of Christianity. It just always seemed there were plenty of non-Christians out there that need to hear the Gospel, and less of those people get reached if we are targeting people who are already Christian.

Now I really enjoy when people talk up their own brand of Christianity. Everyone thinks they are doing things the best way, and there is a lot to be learned from the different approaches and perspectives that each brand has. That's not what is happening in the OP though. He is literally just trying to tear down Orthodoxy, and it makes him look petty

---

Agree. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. The devil truly is in the details.

From this thread, I learned something new and interesting...

down a rabbit hole I go... dang I needed to wall mount a bike rack, make some pumpkin pie, and unscrew a shelf.

88Warrior said:

---

We all make this harder than what it is.....

---

Amen

Quote:

---

You completely missed the point of the wedge comment. By creating these useless categorizations you're de facto suggesting people do not need to do this or that because it's not "required".

Spiritual and Christian minimalism results, when the reality is the scriptures teach maximalism.

And if you'll note... no one has said baptism is "required" to be saved. The Roman catechism is just as clear as the orthodox position. This does not mean that baptism is not salvific.

---

Am I the one driving the wedge between these practices or does the plain reading of Biblical text do this?

1. Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
2. 1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves younot the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good consciencethrough the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
3. Rom. 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
4. Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
5. Gal. 2:3 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
6. Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Quote:

---

Spiritual and Christian minimalism results, when the reality is the scriptures teach maximalism.

---

Where did I teacher or suggest that a person should not do good works or be baptized? I'm simply drawing the distinction about what is and what is not required for salvation or part of the gospel.

Quote:

---

And if you'll note... no one has said baptism is "required" to be saved. The Roman catechism is just as clear as the orthodox position. This does not mean that baptism is not salvific.

---

How is baptism salvific if it's not required to be saved?

Jesus did all of the work required for my salvation and yours. Faith always has an object. We are either placing our faith in Jesus or placing our faith in something that we have done or can do.

No, it's definitely you. There is no opposition between confession, good works, belief, faith, baptism, and grace in the scriptures.

As for what is required to be saved, the answer is "yes." Everything and nothing. Nothing we do can save us. But likewise we are told to be pure, perfect, and sinless. These things also are not in opposition. Your entire approach creates a divide where there is none.

Quote:

---

No, it's definitely you. There is no opposition between confession, good works, belief, faith, baptism, and grace in the scriptures.

As for what is required to be saved, the answer is "yes." Everything and nothing. Nothing we do can save us. But likewise we are told to be pure, perfect, and sinless. These things also are not in opposition. Your entire approach creates a divide where there is none.

---

To claim claim there is no opposition means that you have not read the NT. I listed 6 areas above with clear opposition.

Matt. 5:48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The standard of God is absolute moral perfection. Not our idea of perfection but perfection in the exact same way as God is perfect. We cannot achieve this moral perfection through your baptism, confession, baptism, etc.

This is why Jesus died. We are sinners, flawed, imperfect, separated from God. If we could save our selves through our confession, baptism, obedience, pathetic attempts at perfection, there's no need for Jesus to die. Once we come to Christ trusting in Him alone and nothing of ourselves credits that very moment of faith as righteousness.

When we see law or moral commands of Christ they serve 2 purposes in the scriptures. 1. To show the sinner how much they fall short and need a savior so that they trust Jesus. 2. To give those who have accepted the free gift of God's grace how they should live. 3. The only commands we can obey that will save is is to 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ'.

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8 "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account."

Ephesians 2:3-10 was the epistle for today, paired with the gospel of the rich young ruler from Luke 18. Love the lesson in the combination of the two.

You keep wanting to blame the Reformers, for everything.

Maybe it was really the Reformers that caused the East/West schism...

Quote:

---

The scriptures are not a haphazard collection of pithy sayings or quotes we pick out of context to weave a logic-based, intellectually rigorous, iron-clad proof of belief. Yes, I know this is the protestant tradition. But this is a necessary consequence of beginning with sola scriptura, which means that this was never the approach before sola scriptura. Since we it is a matter of historical inquiry and fact that sola scriptura was never used in this way before the Reformation, we know this was not the faith taught by the Apostles.

---

Whatever your complaint is here, it's not on the Reformers or Reformation.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is? I don't see where I've blamed anyone for anything?

As far as the schism, I think the link between the schism and this kind of post-Reformation view of scripture, baptism, and so on is the tendency for the West to follow a more legalistic and rationalistic approach to the faith. That doesn't mean the East didn't ever employ a juridical model, or that the West didn't ever view things mystically. It's a recognition of broad tendencies. The Reformation inherited these tendencies and in some cases amplified them. In other words, the trend that produced this view of scripture was chiefly western and really came about through the environment of the post-Schism western tradition.

Certainly the west is/was a more legalistic/moralistic society, but that's more a function of Rome Catholics than the Reformers.