Baptism - Is it Innert or Effectual?

[Albion]

Now if we could get a “real Christian” (I mean ‘traditional Christian’) to just explain what it is that they believe Baptism does accomplish so we can end this confusion about whether God uses Baptism as a means of Salvation or not.

C'mon. All of this has been laid out in black and white many times before, and by different posters. To pick on just one part of your statement, the claim that has fueled many an Anabaptist reply--that we believe that Baptism confers salvation--has been rejected and a more accurate explanation of the sacrament given back time and time again and no further back than one of my own posts from yesterday. And yet here it is again as though that issue somehow has never been addressed.

 

[MennoSota]

Thought you would never ask!

Water washed away all mankind prior to Noah, so evil was that generation...

Water saved the Israelites from death in their flight from Egypt...

Christ inaugurated Baptism for His Followers in the Jordan by John...

The Bible tells us:

The Baptismal Waters are the Waters of Regeneration...
That we are Baptized INTO Christ...
That we must be born of Water and Spirit...
That Christ Baptizes us IN the Holy Spirit...
That we are Baptized for remission of sins...
That every Baptism recorded in Scripture is through water...

So if one wants to be reborn a Christian,
one must be Baptized
INTO Christ
BY Christ
IN the Holy Spirit
THROUGH Baptismal Waters

Baptism accomplishes our rebirth into Christ...

Without it, we have pre-Christian Old Testament Salvation...


Arsenios

So the thief on the cross was damned, even though Christ said he would be in Paradise?
I know...you have created a baptism of blood theory to overcome that dilemma.
The work of water baptism is your means of salvation. Is that a correct conclusion?

In my perspective, pre-Christian, OT salvation is by God's unmerited grace through faith. It is the same means of salvation provided to Christians. The only change on the timeline is that before Christ the promised one is future tense, while today the promised one is past tense.

 

[Arsenios]

So the thief on the cross was damned, even though Christ said he would be in Paradise?

Never! He confessed Christ in the agony of the cross...

I know...you have created a baptism of blood theory to overcome that dilemma.

The Church made that accounting from the beginnings, so important was Baptism into Christ...

The work of water baptism is your means of salvation. Is that a correct conclusion?

The Work of Christ Baptizing us through Water into Himself enters us into Christ...

In this New Birth, we must persevere to the end, in order that we SHALL be Saved...

Maintaining the purity given us in Baptism...

In vigilance of soul...

In the overcoming of sin...

In the Love of Christ...

In my perspective, pre-Christian, OT salvation is by God's unmerited grace through faith.
It is the same means of salvation provided to Christians.
The only change on the timeline is that before Christ the promised one is future tense,
while today the promised one is past tense.

Then for you there is no difference... (??)

Yet Christ said that the greatest of the Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist, whose hands Baptized the one he foretold, is less than the least in the Kingdom of Heaven... So it would seem that there is a profound difference between Salvation in pre-Christian times vs post Christian times...

Because now the Kingdom of Heaven is AT HAND...

Here and now on this earth, suffering violence...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Never! He confessed Christ in the agony of the cross...



The Church made that accounting from the beginnings, so important was Baptism into Christ...



The Work of Christ Baptizing us through Water into Himself enters us into Christ...

In this New Birth, we must persevere to the end, in order that we SHALL be Saved...

Maintaining the purity given us in Baptism...

In vigilance of soul...

In the overcoming of sin...

In the Love of Christ...



Then for you there is no difference... (??)

Yet Christ said that the greatest of the Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist, whose hands Baptized the one he foretold, is less than the least in the Kingdom of Heaven... So it would seem that there is a profound difference between Salvation in pre-Christian times vs post Christian times...

Because now the Kingdom of Heaven is AT HAND...

Here and now on this earth, suffering violence...


Arsenios

This is the very large chasm between your perspective and mine.
You add works that compel God to be gracious.
I understand that God will chose to be gracious to whom He wills, under no compulsion and with no merited basis on the part of the human involved.
This is a major difference and I suspect neither will be persuaded differently, except by the Holy Spirit's direction in guiding us through scripture.
It seems our task is to let go of our bias and let God teach us.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]
[MENTION=486]Arsenios[/MENTION]

This is the very large chasm between your perspective and mine.
You add works that compel God to be gracious.

Friend, that's YOUR entire point on your Anabaptist dogmas.... your entire mantra is that God CANNOT be gracious .... unless the receiver FIRST does x,y,z. On baptism, your entire doctrine is that the receiver MUST FIRST do his/her works and only then is God removed from His impotence to bless and be gracious.

Friend, you have the views of Arsenios and yourself completely confused.

This is a major difference and I suspect neither will be persuaded differently, except by the Holy Spirit's direction in guiding us through scripture.

You THINK that Arsenios agrees with you that in Baptism, God cannot be gracious until the person adds his/her work. I think you are wrong about the view of Arsenios (?), but that's your perspective. So,IF you are right about his view, from your perspective, the two of you agree. You keep forgetting, all your baptist dogmas were invented in the late 16th Century by radical synergists - NOT because of anything in the Bible about Baptism (they never even CLAIMED that) but because the orthodox, traditional, universal view (for 1500+ years) seemed to conflict with their radical synergism - and the rationale they give (which you largely echo) was because they saw the traditional, universal view as not synergistic. Funny.... as I observe the two of you on this topic - you SENSE some small sense of synergism in our friend (and you may or may not be right) but not the radical, extreme synergism in your own Baptism apologetic.... In every one of your posts to Arsenios, I think of Jesus' "log/speck" point.... and wonder if you EVER will realize it.





.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]
[MENTION=486]Arsenios[/MENTION]





Friend, that's YOUR entire point on your Anabaptist dogmas.... your entire mantra is that God CANNOT be gracious .... unless the receiver FIRST does x,y,z. On baptism, your entire doctrine is that the receiver MUST FIRST do his/her works and only then is God removed from His impotence to bless and be gracious.

Friend, you have the views of Arsenios and yourself completely confused.






You THINK that Arsenios agrees with you that in Baptism, God cannot be gracious until the person adds his/her work. I think you are wrong about the view of Arsenios (?), but that's your perspective. So,IF you are right about his view, from your perspective, the two of you agree. You keep forgetting, all your baptist dogmas were invented in the late 16th Century by radical synergists - NOT because of anything in the Bible about Baptism (they never even CLAIMED that) but because the orthodox, traditional, universal view (for 1500+ years) seemed to conflict with their radical synergism - and the rationale they give (which you largely echo) was because they saw the traditional, universal view as not synergistic. Funny.... as I observe the two of you on this topic - you SENSE some small sense of synergism in our friend (and you may or may not be right) but not the radical, extreme synergism in your own Baptism apologetic.... In every one of your posts to Arsenios, I think of Jesus' "log/speck" point.... and wonder if you EVER will realize it.





.

Not dogma so shove that one where the sun don't shine, Josiah.
Let's discuss my biblical view, from scripture. Let's discuss your biblical view, from scripture.
But, are you capable of doing such a thing...or can you not think outside of your denominational box that you have created?
I dare you to let your Lutheranism go and just live in God's word. Can you do that? Cause this foolish dogma mantra of yours is pathetically old and useless for all involved.

 

[Lamb]

Not dogma so shove that one where the sun don't shine, Josiah.
Let's discuss my biblical view, from scripture. Let's discuss your biblical view, from scripture.
But, are you capable of doing such a thing...or can you not think outside of your denominational box that you have created?
I dare you to let your Lutheranism go and just live in God's word. Can you do that? Cause this foolish dogma mantra of yours is pathetically old and useless for all involved.

You keep giving the same argument. Maybe you should stop with that and just stick to scripture?

 

[MennoSota]

You keep giving the same argument. Maybe you should stop with that and just stick to scripture?

I have. Then someone comes along and calls it dogma. Go figure.

 

[Josiah]

Let's discuss my biblical view, from scripture. Let's discuss your biblical view, from scripture.

For SEVEN PAGES of posts, that's what you have been evading. I have asked (since post one, we're now on post 67) is for you to post your list of Scriptures and quote from early Christians that Baptism is just an inert, ineffectual ritual "that does nothing", your Anabaptist dogma that (water) baptism is "just an outward symbol of an inner accomplishment of the receiver." Just to compare our two lists of Scriptures and quotes. But you won't do that (or at least have evading it for 7 pages of posts).

Again, I did in the OP what you seek. I listed some of the Scriptures and some quotes of early Christians that suggest to me that Anabaptist dogma and your baptism insistence is wrong. You have not given one Scripture about (water) baptism or even one quote from anyone (not even a non-Christian) that indicates your view. Maybe you haven't done so because you have nothing to share. All you do is parrot the denominational tradition of the Anabaptists (albeit perfectly). Maybe that's all you've got. But everyone sees the obvious, the undeniable.... I've shared a number of Scriptures and quotes that support Baptism as something God can use, you have not even attempted to share ANYTHING on the topic. Obviously. As everyone can see for themselves.




.

 

[MennoSota]

For SEVEN PAGES of posts, that's what you have been evading. I have asked (since post one, we're now on post 67) is for you to post your list of Scriptures and quote from early Christians that Baptism is just an inert, ineffectual ritual "that does nothing", your Anabaptist dogma that (water) baptism is "just an outward symbol of an inner accomplishment of the receiver." Just to compare our two lists of Scriptures and quotes. But you won't do that (or at least have evading it for 7 pages of posts).

Again, I did in the OP what you seek. I listed some of the Scriptures and some quotes of early Christians that suggest to me that Anabaptist dogma and your baptism insistence is wrong. You have not given one Scripture about (water) baptism or even one quote from anyone (not even a non-Christian) that indicates your view. Maybe you haven't done so because you have nothing to share. All you do is parrot the denominational tradition of the Anabaptists (albeit perfectly). Maybe that's all you've got. But everyone sees the obvious, the undeniable.... I've shared a number of Scriptures and quotes that support Baptism as something God can use, you have not even attempted to share ANYTHING on the topic. Obviously. As everyone can see for themselves.




.

Josiah, you can go to other posts on the other baptism topics and read my comments on every verse pertaining to baptism within Acts and the epistles. It has been thoroughly covered, yet you just go "16th century dogma" without ever having gone through each verse. Truth is you have no intention to go verse by verse through every passage. If you do, then quote the verse and passage, then exegete that verse so we can see how you extrapolate your theology from the verse. I have already done this. It's your turn. My bet is you will refuse and ignore doing this because it reveals to you the weakness of your position.

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota,

Read the opening post.

I did in the OP what you seek but what you refuse to do. I listed some of the Scriptures and some quotes of early Christians that suggest to me that Anabaptist dogma and your baptism insistence is wrong. You have not given one Scripture about (water) baptism or even one quote from anyone (not even a non-Christian) that indicates your view concerning the ineffectualness of (water) Baptism. Maybe you haven't done so because you have nothing to share. All you do is endlessly parrot the denominational tradition of the Anabaptists (albeit perfectly). Perhaps that's all you've got.

Everyone sees the obvious, the undeniable.... I've shared a number of Scriptures and quotes that support Baptism, you have not even attempted to share ANYTHING on the topic, not one Scripture and not one Christian (or even an non-Christian) from before 1500 that supports your view of an inert, ineffectual, "worthless" (water) Baptism that is "only an outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment." Obviously. As everyone can see for themselves. I'm pretty sure all reading this have come to the same conclusion: IF you had anything, in 70 posts, you would have posted it. All you have is the Anabaptist claim, tradition and dogma , which you parrot endlessly, with not one Scripture, not one Christian voice (before that radical synergistic Anabaptist) that supports it. Obviously.




.

 

[atpollard]

Lutherans ARE "real Christians".

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, Lutherans are real Christians. For that matter, I believe that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are also real Christians. At lest to the extent that anyone is a real Christian based on church affiliation ... ultimately, Jesus decides who the real Christians are and who He never knew.

My comment was intended as a bit of an inside joke. Around this site, Paedobaptists have a tendency to emphasize the ‘traditional Church’ with a 2000 year history (of which they are all part) versus the new doctrines of the last 400 years. While generally a valid historic fact, it is employed as an attack implying that the ‘traditional beliefs’ remain unchanged from the lips of Jesus to the modern church ... which is not a historic fact ... and imply that the ‘new doctrines’ are written by men with no basis in scripture (as if we were offering the Book of Mormon). This is also inaccurate.

So I was offering a tongue in cheek challenge to those who oppose ‘Believers Baptism’ to explain exactly what it is that baptism “effectively” accomplishes. Sometimes it sounds like you (Covenant Baptists) are claiming that God works His salvation through the sacrament of baptism, and then at other times you protest when we suggest that you believe that baptism ‘effects’ the salvation of infants.

No offense was intended to anyone. The implication was that MennoSota and I were not “real Christians”, like those of you with 2000 year old Apostolic traditions.

[That said, I really would like clarification in what it is that you think Baptism “effects” since it seems to me to be a constantly changing target.]

 

[atpollard]

Thought you would never ask!

Water washed away all mankind prior to Noah, so evil was that generation...

Water saved the Israelites from death in their flight from Egypt...

Christ inaugurated Baptism for His Followers in the Jordan by John...

The Bible tells us:

The Baptismal Waters are the Waters of Regeneration...
That we are Baptized INTO Christ...
That we must be born of Water and Spirit...
That Christ Baptizes us IN the Holy Spirit...
That we are Baptized for remission of sins...
That every Baptism recorded in Scripture is through water...

So if one wants to be reborn a Christian,
one must be Baptized
INTO Christ
BY Christ
IN the Holy Spirit
THROUGH Baptismal Waters

Baptism accomplishes our rebirth into Christ...

Without it, we have pre-Christian Old Testament Salvation...


Arsenios

This is what we “Believers Baptism” advocates thought Paedobaptism/Covenant Baptism believers thought. Then we get accused of misrepresenting you if we suggest that you believe that the water baptism of an infant accomplishes what you just described. So for the record, do YOU believe that what you wrote above is true for the baptism of an Orthodox Infant as well as an adult?

 

[atpollard]

C'mon. All of this has been laid out in black and white many times before, and by different posters. To pick on just one part of your statement, the claim that has fueled many an Anabaptist reply--that we believe that Baptism confers salvation--has been rejected and a more accurate explanation of the sacrament given back time and time again and no further back than one of my own posts from yesterday. And yet here it is again as though that issue somehow has never been addressed.

What post number?
I can honestly tell you that I clearly remember seeing a rejection of the claim that baptism confers salvation, but cannot remember seeing an explanation of what it is that baptism does confer.

Not that I would ever bind you to the opinions of another, but does Arsenios’ reply appear to claim that baptism confers salvation or does it not?

 

[atpollard]

C'mon. All of this has been laid out in black and white many times before, and by different posters. To pick on just one part of your statement, the claim that has fueled many an Anabaptist reply--that we believe that Baptism confers salvation--has been rejected and a more accurate explanation of the sacrament given back time and time again and no further back than one of my own posts from yesterday. And yet here it is again as though that issue somehow has never been addressed.

So I went and reread this whole stupid topic from the beginning. What the heck are you talking about? You only made 1 post on this topic yesterday. Here it is ...

Nothing will be resolved by these debates, unfortunately. Thats because one party will always resort to an endless repetition of claims that are unrelated to the subject, all the while also implying that some or most of us believe in them, even though we do not. Calling sacraments "magic" for instance, or saying that orthodox Christians believe that being baptized confers salvation.

But so what? It makes for discussion, one might say. On the contrary, it is killing the forum. Hardly anything new ever appears in the theological areas here, despite the fact that a guest would logically assume from the title of the website that such is our main focus. We have to stop this! The ignore function works well, but not if everyone else goes on entertaining the nonsense.

Where has my question “been rejected and a more accurate explanation of the sacrament given back” in the above post?
So where are these “many posts” explaining YOUR position?
You claim that baptism is “effectual”, but that you do not claim that it saves infants. So in what way do you claim it is effectual? What effect did it have?
You don’t need to answer again, just point me to a previous answer that represents what YOU believe since YOU are the one claiming that your effectual baptism does not save infants (and want ‘Anabaptist’ to stop accusing you of believing that it does).


PS. Here are the rest of your earlier posts from this topic and I see nothing close to an explanation in any of them either:

Yes. This is the key to the whole issue. If there is no scripture saying that baptism is merely an obligation we go through to show God something or other (as though that makes any sense)...and the entire anabaptist argument is exposed for what it is--a human invention.

That depends on what we think Paradise means, I suppose.

Well, not only that but he was also speaking with God face to face. No one we know today has had that experience.

Lamm did not imply any such thing.

Next question.

Nice treatment of a subject that is full of land mines, but on the final paragraph, the danger is of people taking the case of the Good Thief and talking like his experience is applicable to everybody, so you can just choose to be baptized--or refuse it--as you like. I have run into this POV more often than I care to remember.

 

[atpollard]

But back to the issue. Does baptism do NOTHING (as Baptists, etc., claim), is it ONLY a meaningless ritual that accomplishes nothing more than getting the person wet, is it "useless" (as a poster here at CH stated), is it merely "an outward SIGN of a inner personal accomplishment" as those embracing the Anabaptists reinventions claim? OR is that dogma baseless, and the reality is that baptism can be effectual?

I listed some Scriptures and early Christians that, together, seem to suggest the Baptist dogma is wrong. I invite you to list your list of Scriptures and early quotes to show that Baptism is an ineffectual, inert ritual that "does nothing," "an outward SIGN of an inner accomplishment of the receiver." Let's compare our Scriptures and quotes.

- Josiah
.

See post 51 for my response to the OP.
I was avoiding it until Albion started making noises like he wanted the board to pursue some higher ground, but the fact that the conversation led nowhere suggests that there is no real desire to change the status quo.

I am not a 16th Century anabaptist. I do not believe what you accuse them of believing. I have no intention of defending a belief that I do not hold on a playing field created to be a “killing zone” for a well crafted straw man.

If you ever want to have a real biblical discussion on Baptism, the question is:

Which is the One Baptism that saves, the Water Baptism or the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

That is where Particular Baptists (not descended from the Anabaptist) differ from the Lutherans.

 

[Arsenios]

It seems our task is to let go of our bias and let God teach us.

Thank-you for our, our, and us...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Which is the One Baptism that saves, the Water Baptism or the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

I agree with the Bible that there is one baptism. Ephesians 4:5

And if you read the Scriptures and quotes from the opening post, it's pretty clear this baptism involves water and the Holy Spirit.



Now, back to the issue....

 

[atpollard]

I agree with the Bible that there is one baptism. Ephesians 4:5

So do I.

And if you read the Scriptures and quotes from the opening post, it's pretty clear this baptism involves water and the Holy Spirit.

I disagree, but to discuss what I BELIEVE on this topic would be off-topic since this topic is about a belief that I do not hold.

Now, back to the issue....

Here is where I must leave YOU and any that hold the ‘belief’ you are looking for someone to slaughter in your killing field to carry on without me.
The belief you are looking for someone to defend is not MY belief.

 

[Albion]

I agree with the Bible that there is one baptism. Ephesians 4:5

And if you read the Scriptures and quotes from the opening post, it's pretty clear this baptism involves water and the Holy Spirit.

Exactly so. The other ”baptisms” mentioned in scripture, along with the concept that some churches speak of--”Baptism of Desire” and ”Baptism of Fire”--are baptisms BY ANALOGY only.

What fundamentalists and similar kinds of Christians refer to as ”water Baptism” is the sacrament of (Christian) Baptism. Call it an ”ordinance” instead, and it is still the only one that meets the description of Baptism as given in the New Testament.