You are in Paul's Epistles. You will not find water baptism as a means to get anything, anywhere, anytime, in his epistles. As a matter of fact, he thanks God he did not water baptize but a few at Corinth. For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel.." 1 Cor. 17. And there is a reason Paul baptized a few, and was baptized himself.
IF water baptism for remission of sins is part of the gospel that saves, either Paul a). did not know this, yet had the nerve to thank God he didn't baptize but a few, or b). Knew the gospel he preached, that he received by direct revelations of the risen Christ, did not include water baptism for remission of sins.
Something changed. The 12 would NEVER had thanked God that they baptized so few, and then commented that Christ had sent them NOT TO BAPTIZE but to preach the gospel.
Anyone with eyes can see that something major had changed from Peter and the 11 to Paul. It's up to each of us to decide whether they care about the changes. But the changes cannot be denied.
One question just out of curiosity, Cronos: Why was Jesus baptized with water?
You're reading your own tradition into scripture, and nullifying Scripture by doing it -- exactly what Jesus chastised the Pharisees for doing. The word baptizo means "to wash, to dip, to plunge into water," and that's the meaning you should expect it to have in the absence of context indicating that it's a metaphor for something else.
If water baptism isn't what Scripture means by default when it speaks of baptism, please explain the episode of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts.
As a matter of fact, he thanks God he did not water baptize but a few at Corinth. For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel.."
By your own exegetical practice, how do you know he's not talking about SPIRITUAL BAPTISM here? Water is not mentioned, is it?
But it always amazes me when fundamentalists try to pretend Paul is somehow denigrating baptism here. Read it in context, people! People were bragging about being baptized by Paul, and using it to sow dissension within the Church. Paul's not denigrating baptism, he's telling people not to thump their chests because they were baptized by him.
What else is to be expected? The posts were direct copies of the work of others, posted without thought.
Scripture disagrees with you -- it was water AND Spirit
John 3:5
| 5Jesus 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. |
| 34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. |
1 Jn 5:6-8
| 6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. |
The controversy is btwn those who see Jn. 3:5 as referring to baptism, which they see as working ex opere operato, and as giving extra grace for those who lack extra grace for those who lack of perfect contrition, which holy sorrow Rome does allow can appropriate justification and entrance into the kingdom of God without baptism*, versus those who hold that faith appropriates justification, though that faith is expressed in baptism, as the faith that saves is a faith that follows. (Jn. 10:27,28)
Texts such as in Acts do refer to water baptism, which is normally concomitant with the faith decision, but as the case of the Gentile Pentecost shows, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) regeneration can precede baptism. But if Jn. 3:5 refers to baptism, and the “must” is an imperative, then there can be no exceptions.
The regeneration prior to baptism is due to faith out of a poor and contrite heart (Ps. 34:18) being what appropriates justification, (Rm. 4) but it is a kind of faith which effects obedience towards its Object, the Lord Jesus, confessing Him in word and deed, (Mt. 10:32; Jn. 10:27,28; Heb. 5:9; 10:36) and baptism is normally to be the first formal confession of that faith.
Rm. 10:9,10 states: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
And which confession may be seen being expressed by Cornelius and household prior to baptism. But there is no substantive difference between moving ones mouth in confessing the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord, and moving one's body in baptism, which is a confessing of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in “body language” if you will.
An unnecessary objection against baptism being necessary for regeneration is that it is a “work,” and it is, as prayer or any volitional response is, but salvation by faith does not mean the believer is passive in coming to faith, but that God draws the soul, (Jn. 12:32; 6:44;) and opens hearts, (Acts 16:14) and grants repentance and faith, (Acts 11:18; Eph. 2:8) which is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:1-18) and by which faith confession is made. (Rm. 10:10) Thus God enables and moves man to do what he could not and normally would not, but any positive response of man does not make him morally eternal life, as if he morally earned it, as if morally worthy, in contrast to earning death, which is the “wage” for sin, while eternal life is a free gift. (Rm. 6:23)
I hold that, as in Acts, baptism under water should immediately follow the faith decision in the heart, which moves the mouth and legs, and in some cases baptism may be the occasion that a person first effectually confesses Christ, but that regeneration takes place wherever a soul comes to faith, out of a poor and contrite heart which God looks to, (and rather than two kinds of contrition, only one is effectual), yet it is a denial of faith if a person refuses to be baptized when he understands it is commanded him to do.
The main thing is that a soul is properly convicted of his need for Christ and His salvation, such as that he is damned for his souls and destitute of any worthiness whereby he may escape his just and damnation and gain eternal life, and thus looks to God for mercy, and places all his faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save him by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9-5:1)
And having turned from darkness to light, (Jn. 3:19-21) to faith in the Lord Jesus from false gods (and whatever is our chief object of spiritual affection or source of security, or object of allegiance, is our god) then such a one, if his faith is true, will respond in obedience toward the will of its Object, according to light received, and repent when convicted of not doing so, as exampled by those whose election is affirmed. (1Thes. 1:3-8; contra 2Cor. 12:21; 13:5)
An additional note, is that Paul did not doubt he was saved, (Phil. 1:21-23; 2Tim. 4:7,8) though he sought to find full approval before God, (2Cor. 5:6-10) and spiritual perfection, which he had not yet arrived at. (Phil. 3:9-15) And 1Jn. 5:13 refers to the providence of criteria for assurance that one presently has eternal life, by appealing to private judgment no less. Nor does Trent absolutely deny one can know that they are saved, and will persevere, as it allows such certainty by “special revelation.” [No one, moreover, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; as if it were true, that he that is justified, either cannot sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance; for except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself. — Trent, The Sixth Session, CHAPTER XII, http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct06.html]
----------
*In Catholicism, baptism is the normative means of initially receiving salvific grace, of inner spiritual rebirth being produced by the visible sacrament of Baptism, which makes up for lack of perfect contrition, which allows for baptism by desire, "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57), though this is not without internal dissent according to interpretations, with this allowance usually dealing with martyrs.
Trent: “And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, at least in the desire thereof [aut eius voto], as it is written; '“unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”' Trent, Session 6, Justification, CHAPTER IV http://www.romancatholicism.org/trent-baptism.htm
Augustine observes,
"...the invisible sanctification has been given and has benefited to some without the visible sacraments [while] the visible sanctification, consisting of the visible sacrament, can exist but not benefit without the invisible sanctification (Augustine, super Levit. qu. 84).
St. Augustine (City of God, XIII.7) states regarding new converts who were slain by the pagan Romans before being baptised,
For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven"; and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."
Thomas Aquinas stated: “Objection: the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary “without which something cannot be” (Aristotle’s Metaphysics V). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism. Reply: the sacrament of baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as there can be no salvation for man unless he at least have it in desire which, with God, counts for the deed.” (Summa Theologica 3, 68, 2)
The Catechism of St. Pius X (9a. Qu. 29) teaches,
Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -
Most above references from: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bpdsir.htm
The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches,
"he who has fallen into grievous sin must either make an act of perfect contrition or supplement the imperfect contrition by receiving the Sacrament of Penance;" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm
"The detestation of sin arise from the love of God, Who has been grievously offended, then contrition is termed perfect; if it arise from any other motive, such its loss of heaven, fear of hell, or the heinousness of guilt, then it is termed imperfect contrition, or attrition." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02065a.htm
But there has been and is disagreement as to what constitutes contrition versus attrition, and how it relates to procuring forgiveness, and how the sacrament makes up for lack of perfect contrition. And research shows,
"The explicit distinction between contrition and attrition is not found in Catholic theology till well into the twelfth century. Pre-Scholastic and early Scholastic authors treat of only one sorrow for sin in connection with sacramental or ecclesiastical penance, and that is contrition, contritio cordis, the sorrow that is perfect enough to wipe out the sins before God even prior to confession to a priest." (Two concepts of attrition and contrition, P. DE LETTER, S. J. St. Mary's College, Kurseong, India, http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/11/11.1/11.1.1.pdf)
The current RC Catechism states, "For catechumens [new converts] who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament" (CCC 1259).
Finally, Vatican 2 also taught that Protestants, and not simply the Orthodox, of manifest faith, can be saved if they were baptized, though such typically do not hold that baptism is necessary for regeneration, or that is effects the new birth:
LUMEN GENTIUM: 16. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26)
For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...
They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood..