Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Baptism Now Saves
http://billrandles.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/baptism-now-saves/ ^ | 02-20-12 | Bill Randles

Posted on 02/19/2012 4:28:52 PM PST by pastorbillrandles

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

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. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:(I Peter 3:20-21)

Today in our local church, we celebrate the hopeful end of a long draught… the first baptism in more than a year and a half. True, our two baptisms amount to a “cloud the size of a man’s hand” but we humbly rejoice! As it is written,”despise not the day of small beginnings”.

In contemplating baptism, I have been meditating on the scriptures above. In what sense could it be said that “baptism now saves us”? I know that it is faith in Jesus’ blood that has procured the pardon and status of righteousness that I needed in order to “flee the wrath” of a righteous and holy God!

The Christian author Watchman Nee, an early but profound influence on my discipleship is helpful here. In the book “Love Not The World” , Nee points out that the word “salvation” is used not in a general but in a specific sense.

Nee points out that every detail of our sinful and God estranged existence has been answered to by the work of God in Christ. For example, because of our spiritual death, God gives eternal life. Sin has ruined the old creation, but God makes a new creation. Since man is under a just but severe condemnation, through Jesus, God offers man justification by faith. Redemption is multi-faceted.

Another facet of man’s ruin is the fact that he has been born and raised, in this world. The term “the world” , in the new testament usually refers to God estranged humanity as it has organized itself, independently of and to the exclusion of the only true God. It is the greek word “Cosmos”, meaning ‘the order” or “adornment”.

Thus salvation is not so much a personal question of sins forgiven or of hell avoided. It is to be seen rather in terms of a system from which we come out. When I am saved, I make my exodus out of one whole world and my entry into another. I am saved now out of that whole organized realm which Satan has constructed in defiance of the purpose of God.(Watchman Nee,”Love Not The World”,Christian Literature Crusade)

The Word of God says of the World;

* It is already under a judgment- Jesus said, Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.(John 12:31) The sentence has already been passed, the world is already judged by God , the Lord is uncompromising in his resolution. As in the days of Noah, the execution of the sentence hangs over the world like a cloud, the day of Divine vengeance draws near!

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright(Psalm 11:5-7)

* The real ruler of the world is Satan- In the scripture above, Jesus referred to ‘the prince of this world’, who would be cast down, at the judgment of this world. Jesus would later proclaim that in the coming of Judas ,’the prince of this world comes….’. Who was he referring to? Satan, the real ‘god’ of this age, and the mind behind the ‘world system’.John, the Lord’s apostle warned us that “the whole world lies in the wicked one’s power”.

We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. (I John 5:19 NASB)

* The world hates Christ- If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you ( John 15: 17-18)

Don’t let the world deceive you with it’s platitudes about Jesus as a ‘good man’ or a philosopher, the world hates the real Jesus of the Bible. He offends them because he tells them that they aren’t right, and that they need to be saved, and worse yet, that they can’t even save themselves!

The world has crafted another christianity that is more to their liking, but it is anti-christ.They hate the real Christ and would crucify him again if given a chance.That is why the world has always persecuted christians wherever possible.

* The love of the world and the love of the Father are mutually exclusive - John reveals this truth to us, in this admonition of his epistle;

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (I John 2:15)

Therefore we are “saved” out of this world! In this sense do Peter and Mark proclaim that “baptism saves”, or that “he that believes and is baptized will be saved”. In baptism, we are stepping over the line of demarcation, exiting the doomed world, even as Noah did , through the water.

Remember that Israel never really left Egypt until she crossed the Red Sea. Egypt went in with her, but never came out the other side as she did. There is no real leaving of the ties of this world, without a valid new testament baptism whenever possible.

Two brothers, left the World today, calling upon Jesus! They went from one Kingdom to another, they crossed the Red Sea! They passed through the flood of Judgment into the Kingdom of Light! They justified God! Hallelujah!!


TOPICS: Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: baptism; cosmos; jesus; world
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-129 next last
To: pastorbillrandles

So I read all of 1 Peter 3 and still have to come to the conclusion your hypothesis or belief may be in error.

“The like figure....” is what throws me and it literally means “Similar but not the Same”.

The verse is an analogy not an absolute.


51 posted on 02/20/2012 1:07:00 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Baptism is like putting on a wedding ring - the ring doesn’t make you married, but it serves as an open symbol of the union. Asking Christ into your heart as your Savior, in acknowledgement of His sacrifice as a forgiveness of your sinful nature, is what saves you - it’s a personal relationship and requires no outside entity or substance to seal the deal - His Love and Grace do that.


52 posted on 02/20/2012 3:52:34 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles

Baptism remains what it is referred to as being in Scripture.
Baptism cannot save-it is only a sign of our salvation.Meaningless unless one believes in his heart that Jesus is our Salvation.Without prior belief and repentance Baptism is just a dunking.Little different than the Jewish ritual washing.


53 posted on 02/20/2012 4:16:18 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles

It is much more than that. It is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. It does *not* save you nor is water baptism needed to save you.


54 posted on 02/20/2012 5:36:34 AM PST by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sigzero

Baptism does save you, as an appeal to God for a good conscience according to the apostle Peter-


55 posted on 02/20/2012 7:14:13 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

NOone is saying that belief in Jesus is un- neccessary! I am reffering to scriture in my article! It is Peter who said Baptism saves,”not as a washing of filfth, but as a appeal to God for a good consceince!” I seriously doubt many of you even rea the article, just the title. Your arguing against Peter, the apostle, not me!


56 posted on 02/20/2012 7:17:29 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Yes Similar and not the same to the way that by the flood, Noah escaped the judgment of his world, and by baptism(which is an appeal to God for a good conscince through the ressurection of Jesus), we seperate ourselves from this doomed world.


57 posted on 02/20/2012 7:20:25 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: trebb

No one is saying that being baptised “makes you a christian”. Have you read the article? or are you merely reacing to the title and some of the comments of others who obvioously didn’t read the aticle ? In the article itsellf I stated that I know that Jesus’ blood purchased our pardon... therefore I was exploring how is it that Peter is saying “Baptism now saves...”. “Saves” as used by Peter is in refference to “the world”, that by our public confession of the death, resurrection of Jesus we break off our relationship with Peter.


58 posted on 02/20/2012 7:28:11 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
I Peter isn't an "attempt" it is a scripture, the words of the Lord's Apostle. If you had read the article you would have seen that I state that "Jesus blood proccured the pardon and righteousness that we need" or something to that effect.

n 1 Peter 3:18, Peter gave the gospel, the fact that "Christ died for sin once and for all , the just for the unjust, to bring us to GOd..." so the real question is how after that could he state that Baptism saves?

This is the context of I Peter 3:20-21. It is how the flood of Noah relates to baptism; as Noah was delivered from his doomed world by the waters of God's judgment, even so the waters of Baptism serve to deliver us,(Not the washing of filth, for baptism doesn't "cleanse" or :"redeem us), but as an"Appeal to God for a good conscience through the ressurrection of Jesus. I

Your last statement contains part of what I believe Peter is getting at, The act of baptism is to show others I have literally been washed, died of my old life and risen in my new life. Baptism saves in the sense that we clearly seperate ourselves from the doomed world in which we were once a part.

59 posted on 02/20/2012 7:46:30 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles

No, you have to throw out a lot of other scripture to even support that.

Acts 16:30-31:

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Nothing about baptism.

Romans 10:9 -13 “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Nothing about baptism.

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.”

Nothing about baptism.

Ephesians 1:13-14 “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.”

Nothing about water baptism.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Nothing about (water) baptism.

Saying baptism saves you just isn’t supported by scripture. Baptism is an EXTERNAL proclamation of what has spiritually already happened to you.


60 posted on 02/20/2012 10:44:08 AM PST by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“...but he that believeth not shall be damned.(Mark 16:16)”

The answer is right there. It isn’t about baptism AT ALL. It is all about belief. It is said over and over, if you don’t believe, you aren’t saved. Scripture NEVER says “If you aren’t baptized, you aren’t saved.”.

You have a bad hermeneutic here and you need to look at other parts of scripture that prove this CANNOT mean what you say it does.


61 posted on 02/20/2012 10:52:24 AM PST by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles
No one is saying that being baptised “makes you a christian”. Have you read the article? or are you merely reacing to the title and some of the comments of others who obvioously didn’t read the aticle ?

It looks like you peruse all comments to find some to refute. My comment was to another who said that Baprism saved. I read all your articles, and while I agree on most points, they seem to be essays on how the Catholic Church sees things. I became non-denominational because I got tired of all the religious differences. Over 32,000 sects of Christianity and they all have their own pet interpretations of what the Bible says and some of the interpretations seem a bit contradictory to the words. I don't need a relationship with Peter, although I cherish what he and others did to start Christianity and to carry the Divinely inspired Word. Jesus walked the earth as 100% Man and 100% God so He copuld show us that we could have a personal relationship with Him. I don't pray to the saints because I have a direct route - why go to the waiter when you can go directly to the manager?

I'm not trying to slam or cut down the works you offer - I appreciate the effort to carry the Word. I just disagree with a few of the statements, even as I agree with the greater part. God Bless.

62 posted on 02/20/2012 11:20:31 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: trebb

Thanks for the civil tone trebb- its not true that I peruse for refutation, it is that in the midst of this discussion with others, I failed to see the heading on your comment. No harm intended.

I promise you I am not trying to push the Catholic poit of view, having been saved out of the Roman church thirty years ago. In fact I believe that the Mass is idolatrous. Nor am I saying we “need a relationship with Peter” other than to believe in the revelation entrusted to him.

All I was attemtping is to take a look at what Peter could have possibly meant when he said “Baptism now Saves...”. I had alrady stated in the article that our redemption was purchased by Jesus’ blood alone.

Thanks again for the civil tone and for your word of encouragement- God bless


63 posted on 02/20/2012 11:57:13 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: sigzero
SIGZERo show me where I have thrown out any of those scriptures in this article. You can't because I didn't do that. I suspect you are commenting without really having read the article. In the article I clearly state thqt redemption is by the blood of Jesus. What part of the article denies that?

You gave me a list of salvation scriptures... wonderful! I believe everyone of them, although I would contest your denial that any of them have anything to do with Baptism. As I said in the article "our pardon was purchased by the blood of Jesus.

Peter goes on to call water baptism "An appeal to God for a good conscience"

Scripture does support the idea of the necessity of a public confession of Jesus and identification with his death, burial and ressurection in baptism. In that sense Baptism serves to clearly mark the line between the world and the confessing christian.

No where in the Bible do any of the Apostles diminish the importance of Water Baptism as many who have commented on this article do. True Paul was glad that he didn't baptize the Corinthians, and did say that Christ appointed him to preach the gospel, not baptize. But none of them make assertions such as "Baptism is just an outward sign of an inward rality, or as others have said 'baptism is little different from Jewish ritual baths", or as one commenter called "dunking".

I hope this clarifies ...

You said Saying baptism saves you just isn’t supported by scripture. but yu will have to take that up with Peter, for it is he who I quoted. I have not said that "Baptism gives you the rebirth", or that "by baptism we have eternal life", for that would be heresy, and I don't believe it.

All I have said is that Peter meant something when he said Baptism now saves...we should seek to understand what he was referring to...

64 posted on 02/20/2012 12:15:32 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles

Peter goes on to call water baptism “An appeal to God for a good conscience”


65 posted on 02/20/2012 12:17:01 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles

Thank you sir. keep up the good works as they are thought-provoking. I too dropped out of the Roman institution and became an agnostic for years. Finally got it while sitting in a non-denom church after aching for the hole to be filled. God is good....


66 posted on 02/20/2012 12:22:59 PM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: trebb

Amen He is!


67 posted on 02/20/2012 12:25:55 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles

With respect to your charge asking if I had read the article posted.I admit I had responded to the question posed.And had not read the article. Having read the article it appears you did speak of the sign-or the one you were expounding on.
Baptism is a sign.Even Peter !Peter 3-20-21 strongly suggests he is speaking of the sign . Equating general Baptisms with the ark and symbolically water saved 8 Adamic souls,and two of every creature. (v.20) and in like manner Baptism can be said to save those baptised in that it “provides a good conscience toward God.” having considered some of the early commentary I find Tertullian (c.198,W) 3.674,675 and (c.198,W) 3.676 —p. 53 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs David Bericot ,Ed Hendrickson publisher 1998 reflect favorably on what you post-and I wish I had read it before I replied the first time.


68 posted on 02/20/2012 12:40:16 PM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

Thanks Stony brook I appreciate it. I think at least this thread got a lot of people thinking and opening Bibles! God bless you-


69 posted on 02/20/2012 12:47:22 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sigzero
Sigxero, when you say You have a bad hermeneutic here and you need to look at other parts of scripture that prove this CANNOT mean what you say it does. I can see you don't seem to get what I have been saying.

I have never posited that baptism equates eternal life, or that it in any way justifies us or causes us to be born again. I have only sought to understand what Peter was saying when HE SAID,"Baptism now saves, not the washing away of the sins of the flesh, but the appeal to God for a good conscience based on the ressurection of Jesus..."

My conclusion? That Baptism "saves" in the sense that by publically undergoing this ordinance of our Lord, one makes clear his seperation from this doomed world, How could anyone have a problem with that simple understanding of what Peter was saying?

Remember that it is Peter that I am quoting. And that in the article I made clar that it was the blood of Jesus which purchased our pardon and redemption. I hope this helps!

70 posted on 02/20/2012 1:01:38 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: sigzero

A bad hermeneutic??? I have to look that up but, I think you were posting to someone else.


71 posted on 02/20/2012 3:33:45 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles

Instead of talking about what baptism doesn’t mean, let’s look at what the Bible actually teaches about baptism:

1. Baptism is for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38)

2. There is one baptism. (Ephesians 4:5)

3. We are buried with Christ in baptism. (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12)

4. Baptism saves, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I Peter 3:21)

5. It (baptism) was administered to those who believed. (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12;18:8)

6. It was administered to those who received the word. (Acts 2:41)

7. It was administered to those who repented. (Acts 2:38)

8. Through baptism our sins are washed away. (Acts 22:16)

9. We are baptized into Christ. (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27)

10. We are baptized into the one body—the church. (I Corinthians 12:13 [vid. Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:22-23; 5:23])


72 posted on 02/20/2012 4:48:28 PM PST by Engraved-on-His-hands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

Luke 7 also says Baptism justifies God!


73 posted on 02/20/2012 5:49:46 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

Luke 7 also says Baptism justifies God!


74 posted on 02/20/2012 5:50:06 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

You wrote:

“Baptism is not grace.”

No, but we receive grace through Baptism.

“It is an outward act that shows an inward change.”

No. It is an outward sign of an inward movement of grace.

“The thief that died with Jesus on the cross was not baptized, yet he went to paradise.”

Which says nothing against Baptism. The thief on the cross could not be baptized.

“It is not the act itself that saves.”

Grace saves. We recieve grace through Baptism.

“But it is an outward expression and a declaration to the world of the inward change.”

No. It is an outward sign of an inward movement of grace. Grace makes the true change, not merely a cerebral belief or even a change in attitude or even a determination to follow Christ. Grace is transformative. It truly has power.


75 posted on 02/20/2012 9:12:51 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: trebb

You wrote:

“Baptism is like putting on a wedding ring - the ring doesn’t make you married, but it serves as an open symbol of the union.”

No. When the crowd came to believe what St. Peter preached on Pentecost they asked him what they must do. He said repent and be baptized for the FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS (Acts 2:38). When St. Paul was converted he was baptized for the FORGIVENESS OF HIS SINS (Acts 22:16).

“Asking Christ into your heart as your Savior, in acknowledgement of His sacrifice as a forgiveness of your sinful nature, is what saves you - it’s a personal relationship and requires no outside entity or substance to seal the deal - His Love and Grace do that.”

That’s a start, but as St. Peter and St. Paul showed you must be baptized. That’s exactly what St. Peter urged people to do when they asked him what they must do.


76 posted on 02/20/2012 9:23:44 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles
>>In baptism, we are stepping over the line of demarcation, exiting the doomed world, even as Noah did , through the water.

Remember that Israel never really left Egypt until she crossed the Red Sea. Egypt went in with her, but never came out the other side as she did. There is no real leaving of the ties of this world, without a valid new testament baptism whenever possible.

Remember also what happened to Jesus when He was baptized, how the Father said, This is my Son and the Holy Spirit was seen in the form of a dove.

Jesus is transforming the old testament baptism into the new covenant baptism, one with the power of God by His Grace working through it, to make us sons and daughters of God by the Holy Spirit.

77 posted on 02/21/2012 5:20:08 AM PST by bvmtotustuus (totus tuus Blessed Virgin Mary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

Great post. All true.

For those who believe baptism is required for salvation... I’ve always wondered how the thief on the cross would be with Christ in Heaven that day if baptism were a requirement for salvation. Not a lot of time for the thief to jump down, be baptised, and hop back on his cross.

When He said, “My grace is sufficient for thee”, I’m guessing He meant it.

Also, Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn’t say “By grace and baptism and communion are ye saved...” Just grace.


78 posted on 02/21/2012 5:46:29 AM PST by MayflowerMadam (Don't blame me; I voted for the American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sigzero; pastorbillrandles
No, you have to throw out a lot of other scripture to even support that.

Acts 16:30-31:

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Nothing about baptism.

Gee... why did you stop at verse 31? Let's continue, shall we?

Acts 16:32 And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

Interesting... there was something in your Scripture citation about Baptism after all!

Here's the point... "believe" isn't a passive word for the Christian. If we believe in God and trust is what has been given us by Christ's Sacrifice, we will DO all that He commands--just as my children can believe that school is important but it doesn't do them any good unless they get out of bed and participate in school. Yes, we are to believe... but in believing, we are to accomplish His purpose. If He said we could walk off cliffs without falling, we may believe (passively) that what He says is true... but it will be a true act of faith to step off the cliff. That is the lesson of Abraham... he believed God but his faith was in attempting to sacrifice his son at God's command.

Jesus didn't instruct His Apostles to write a book for all to memorize. He told them to Baptize in the Name of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) [Matt 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, Rom 6:3, 1 Cor 1:13, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27]. If we believe, we are to be Baptized into His Holy Family as well.

79 posted on 02/21/2012 7:29:08 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: sigzero; pastorbillrandles
“...but he that believeth not shall be damned.(Mark 16:16)”

Wow. There's cherry-picking your citations and then there's this! In order to make your own point, you truncate the Word of God which directly contradicts the point you yourself are making! You are absurd! Here is the full Scripture citation:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

80 posted on 02/21/2012 7:34:34 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam

Thanks for the vote, and for that logical perspective about the thief on the cross. Obviously a few others here strongly do not agree. In their perspective, I guess conversions for the dying is impossible, if they were never baptized. People like my Dad who accepted Christ while in hospice care, the day before he passed away with all of us around him as he said the acceptance prayer with youthful twinkle in his eye like I have not seen in years. They would tell me, “so sorry, but you should have had him baptized, his acceptance did not go far enough”.

But We know better.


81 posted on 02/21/2012 7:35:59 AM PST by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles; trebb
I promise you I am not trying to push the Catholic poit of view, having been saved out of the Roman church thirty years ago.... All I was attemtping is to take a look at what Peter could have possibly meant when he said “Baptism now Saves...”.

What's funny about this is that your contortions lead you near the Catholic point of view... which is elegant in its simplicity and powerful in its humility. Your essay makes a confusion out of what is already known in an attempt to find any other answer but the one taught by the Church. When you peal back the confusion you will find that Baptism saves because Baptism is the rebirth (being born again [John 3:3-5]) into God's Family. It's that simple... It's that powerful.

82 posted on 02/21/2012 7:41:55 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

Nice straw man , congratulations that you were able to to knock it down! No one on this thread has suggexted any such thing! If you had read anything beyong the title of my article you would have seen that I stated firmly, that it is Jesus’ blood that has procured our pardon and given us righteousness!


83 posted on 02/21/2012 7:43:33 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Thanks, Vlad, for giving some bearing to a wandering thread.


84 posted on 02/21/2012 7:50:40 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam
Mayflower, show me one place in my article where I denied deathbed conversion! You cqn't do it because its not there. Rather than ridiculing the article by silly non sequitars such as "Not a lot of time for the thief to jump down, be baptised, and hop back on his cross.", it would be nice to actually read beyond the title, and try to understand what I am trying to say rather than knee jerk distortions. I firmly stated in the article that it is the blood of Jesus that has procured our pardon and righteousness.The rest of the article is an exploration of what Peter meant by saying "Baptism now saves..." The conclusion? Baptism is the way we clearly and openly renounce our association with "the world"!
85 posted on 02/21/2012 7:50:54 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles

“No one on this thread has suggested any such thing! “

Oh yes they did. Two replies to me suggested just that.


86 posted on 02/21/2012 7:59:07 AM PST by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

My Contortions? I am not contorting anything, to my knowledge. I do not believe in any form of Baptismal regeneration. My essay is an attempt to understand what Peter meant when he said “Baptism now saves...” . People are tripping over Peter, not me, and they seem to be so insecure about their own salvation, they can;t seem to get over the title, which as you know is a quote from Peter. I am not a roman catholic, although my evangelicalism is “catholic” ie the universal faith! Thanks though, for your comments .


87 posted on 02/21/2012 8:00:44 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

Well certainly not my article. You will not be able to find any such thing in my article. I maintained in it and through this thread that it is Jesus’ blood and faith in it that saves us for eternity, and procures our pardon.


88 posted on 02/21/2012 8:04:15 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
I was going to ignore your post and just leave the tread alone... but then I got caught up in another discussion. As long as I'm here...

So, I can try to understand scripture for myself and risk being wrong or I can accept the Roman interpretation and not run any risk of being wrong but rather have complete assurance of being wrong. I'll take my chances where I at least have a chance.

So... you fashion yourself as smarter and more gifted by the Spirit than St Thomas Aquinas? Have you ever read the Summa Theologica? You have a greater understanding than St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Catherine of Siena, St Gregory the Great, St John Chrysostom, and St Teresa of Avila (just to name a few)?

Thank you but I will keep my humility to Holy Church Who has studied, expounded and taught the faith unbrokenly and without contradiction since the Deposit given them by Christ. I certainly do not think my graces and gifts are beyond those of the Apostles, their successors and the saints who have helped us understand so much over the ages.

The recent debate over contraception shows the wisdom of the Church. She is one of the only "groups" of Christians who continues to hold the view given by Christ as evidenced by the Didache. She is also the "sine qua non" of Christianity in the world... you hold in contempt She Who protects your ability to worship through Her Graces.

89 posted on 02/21/2012 8:13:29 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Thanks for the response.

So... you fashion yourself as smarter and more gifted by the Spirit than St Thomas Aquinas? Have you ever read the Summa Theologica? You have a greater understanding than St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Catherine of Siena, St Gregory the Great, St John Chrysostom, and St Teresa of Avila (just to name a few)?

Im not at all smarter than quite a few people.

Thank you but I will keep my humility to Holy Church Who has studied, expounded and taught the faith unbrokenly and without contradiction since the Deposit given them by Christ. I certainly do not think my graces and gifts are beyond those of the Apostles, their successors and the saints who have helped us understand so much over the ages.

Here is the problem for me. When I read scripture and it contradicts the teachings of the Roman Church, do I submit to scripture or to Rome? Rome makes a grand claim but their teachings are contrary to the work of God. I would likely be as deceived by Romes claims of authority as you are if they actually taught doctrines that are scriptural. However, since they teach quite a few heresies and are extremely corrupt, it makes it easy to see that their claims are false.

I don't have to be as smart or talented as Thomas Aquinas or Lucifer for that matter to know that I should trust the apostles’ interpretations of the gospel and not the pontiff's. The apostles are the ones who interpreted scripture and the teachings of Jesus for us. We have their writings in the new testament. I don't have a problem with learning from other Christians and gaining knowledge and understanding from their interpretation of scripture but I can't just take them as an authority, I have to confirm what they are saying with scripture myself. Paul commended the Bereans for doing this.

In matters of doctrine, its clear from your post that you hold Rome to be the ultimate authority while I consider God's Word to be the ultimate authority.

Hypothetically, if Rome came out and said that Jesus was the arc angel Michael, what would you do? Would you still believe that they have the authority and infallibility they claim? I suspect you would. How far off do they have to stray from truth before you see that they are false?

90 posted on 02/21/2012 9:32:24 AM PST by Tramonto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
When I read scripture and it contradicts the teachings of the Roman Church, do I submit to scripture or to Rome?

Pick one and let's talk about it.

In matters of doctrine, its clear from your post that you hold Rome to be the ultimate authority while I consider God's Word to be the ultimate authority.

The problem for your position is that I can actually find mine in Scripture and you can't... Since I know we'll go down this road next, let me go ahead and support my position...

In 1 Cor 11:2, St Paul praises the Corinthians that they keep the ordinances he delivered to them. This is his "first" letter to the Corinthians, so he isn't referring to Scripture or prior letters. He didn't bring Scripture for them to read, he brought the teachings of Christ in his words and deeds. This is also said to the Phillipians in Phil 4:9.

In 2 Thess 3:6, St Paul admonishes the Thessolonians to withdraw themselves from those who do not walk in the traditions taught by the Apostles.

The idea that each of us is supposed to read the Bible and understand it authoritatively is thoroughly discredited by 2 Peter 1:20. And if we aren't supposed to read it and understand it individually, then there is no Sola Scriptura... someone must have the authority to teach. In fact, St Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:16 that the contortions we go through in trying to understand difficult Scripture is actually leading us to destruction.

Finally, Scripture doesn't refer to Itself as authoritative (I'm not saying It's incorrect. I'm speaking of authority, not infallibility), it points to the Church as the pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

91 posted on 02/21/2012 9:53:13 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
Hypothetically, if Rome came out and said that Jesus was the arc angel Michael, what would you do?

Silly hypothetical. The Church has been teaching for nearly 2000 years... and Her teachings are not hidden. If you want to understand why She teaches what She does, it doesn't take much research... The Catechism of the Catholic Church would be a great starting point.

If, on the other hand, you have no interest in what the Church teaches, then you would be wise to stop assailing what you have no desire to understand.

"Few Americans hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they think is the Catholic Church." -- Bishop Fulton Sheen

92 posted on 02/21/2012 9:59:12 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles
No not your post. I am referring to replies to me like post #16 and #38. Clearly stating their views that you must be baptized to be saved.
93 posted on 02/21/2012 11:38:03 AM PST by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Pick one and let's talk about it.

How about calling priests "father"? What is the scriptural support for this?

94 posted on 02/21/2012 2:22:45 PM PST by Tramonto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto

“How about calling priests “father”? What is the scriptural support for this?”

I’ve always wondered where that came from, too, as Matthew 23:9 specifically forbids calling a man “father”.

Even having the title/position of “priest” in a church hierarchy is non-scriptural. All born-again Christians are priests, as we have direct communication with God.


95 posted on 02/21/2012 2:39:33 PM PST by MayflowerMadam (Don't blame me; I voted for the American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto; MayflowerMadam
How about calling priests "father"? What is the scriptural support for this?

This is an excellent challenge, thank you. It is so often misunderstood and is such a focus for so much angst.

The first place to look is in our own families. If we were to take Jesus literally in Matt 23:9 about calling NO MAN FATHER on Earth, we could not refer so to our own biological fathers. That would be absurd, however, as it is through our own earthly fathers that we come to understand our Heavenly Father. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood. Besides, the Bible gives many examples of father-son biological relationships, so that can't be what Christ meant... he would be arguing against His Own Word.

In the Bible, the concept of fatherhood is not just restricted to biological relationships and God. It is also used as a sign of respect to those who have a special relationship. For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8). Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21). We'll come back to Eliakim in a moment.

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

Those are Old Testament examples. Perhaps the New Testament is different? If it is, it's only because there are far more examples!

First, since the imperative to "call no man father" does not logically apply to biological fatherhood, we can also see it applied to ancestors as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, when noting that a biological or ancestral relationship can't be what Christ is referencing, we can assume He is speaking hyperbole. I know, you'll initially recoil at such a suggestion... but let's talk about it. The whole passage in Matthew doesn't just mention fatherhood, it also says, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ."

Christ specifically appointed certain men to be teachers in His Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt 28:19-20). Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

Did you know that the word "doctor" is actually the Latin word for teacher? Even the simple words "mister" and "mistress" are forms of the word "master"... which was also mentioned by Jesus. If we take Jesus literally, then, we would all be just as guilty for calling men "teacher" or "doctor" or "mister" or "mistress" as we would be for calling them "father." There has to be another answer because such an admonition would be unbiblical and illogical... as I have already shown.

So what did Jesus mean? Jesus had many harsh words for the Jewish leaders who loved "the places of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called 'rabbi' by men" (Matt 23:6-7). Jesus's admonition in just a few later verses uses hyperbole in demonstrating the sinfulness and pride of the Scribes and Pharasees in not looking to God as the source of all teaching, fatherhood and authority. Rather, they set themselves up as such. Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher. No, this is not what Catholics do with the Pope. The Pope is elevated to an office established by Christ in a commission to "feed [His] sheep." He is not a self-appointed guru nor the center of a cult of personality... despite what outsiders may think.

Let's look at the example of the Apostles. The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

So, the next question is... are the Apostles priests? The Jews would have agreed they were. Let's look at the Last Supper. In this narrative, we have all of the elements of the traditional Passover meal... well, almost. You see, there was no lamb mentioned (and it was central) and there was no priest (only the Levitical priests could spill a blood sacrifice). We know, as Christians, that the Lamb was present in Christ... as was the priest (though He was not a Levite). Note what He says next, though... "Do this in remembrance of Me." He is instructing His Apostles to offer this sacrifice as He had done. To the Jews of the time, that would be easily understood as Christ making the Apostles priests.

From there, the Church traces the lineage of its priesthood all the way back to the Apostles and we carry on Christ's Work as His Body present in the world today. Remember the reference to Eliakim above? Well, here's the verse after 21 (which mentioned fatherhood to Israel)... Isaiah 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. That should sound familiar because it's very like what Christ said to St Peter after his confession of faith.

Note: I borrowed heavily from an article posted on Catholic.com (mostly Scripture citations). The article from which I borrowed was found to have no defects of faith by the Bishop of San Diego. I pray that my additions and paraphrases do not alter that assessment. May any failures of mine not cause any reader to stumble. Amen.

96 posted on 02/21/2012 10:43:34 PM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Matthew 23:8-12

8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

This isn't to be taken as hyperbole or completely literally but rather in context. Jesus is talking about the equality of all believers. We have direct access to God and don't have to go through a “Father”, “Rabbi” or "instructor” but can come to God directly.

9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

If you simply read this verse, it is easy to see that Jesus is talking about calling someone “father” in place of our heavenly Father. This is exactly what Rome does however. They claim that the pope or a priest stands in place of God as the Alter-Christ and is to be called “father” in this context. This is a direct and specific violation of Jesus’ teaching.

97 posted on 02/21/2012 11:22:59 PM PST by Tramonto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles

The rest of the article is an exploration of what Peter meant by saying “Baptism now saves...” The conclusion? Baptism is the way we clearly and openly renounce our association with “the world”!

True enough! And from you further postings that point is made more clear. That being said, I think that in some cases we can clearly and openly state it in another fashion.

If I remember I’ll read through the article again with fresh eyes and head, but on a different slant. I always have a difficult struggle with the “who is in charge of Earth” aspect of things!


98 posted on 02/21/2012 11:57:55 PM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

True,I agree with you. As for “the Whole world lies in the wicked One”, I do believe that God is absolute Sovereign over the earth, but the word “World” in the sense John was using it is a spiritual affinity. The Wicked one is marshalling the human opposition to God.


99 posted on 02/22/2012 6:34:05 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: pastorbillrandles
In light of 1 Peter, baptism which now saves you, why is it that you believe that baptism has no effect on salvation, i.e. does not confer Grace ?
100 posted on 02/22/2012 6:42:13 AM PST by bvmtotustuus (totus tuus Blessed Virgin Mary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson