Why does faith+works=not saved?

The actual water baptism isn't what saves you OR cleanses your sins, it's grace through faith. Baptism is obedience and a public confession. By saying baptism is needed for salvation is like saying that the blood Christ shed on the cross isn't enough. THAT is spitting in Jesus' face. On the other hand if you trust Jesus why would you NOT want to be baptized? You believe, you obey. I think that part of obeying is understanding that it's not the water that saves us, it's the blood of Jesus.

 

Dustin,

I think we both would agree that only the blood of Jesus can forgive sins. Without the shedding of His blood, there is no forgivenss of sins.

So the question is how do we come in contact with the blood?

What do the scriptures say?

Where did Jesus blood flow? At his death, right?

Ok, How do we come in contact with His death? That's right, the waters of baptism. Paul makes that clear in Rom 6:3-4, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Some don't like the clear meaning of this and want to say, this baptism can't be water baptism. Why not? Because they can't understand any connection between being dipped in the water and the forgiveness of sins?

According to Eph 4:5, there is just one baptism. You see, this presents a problem for some who try to deny this is water baptism. They want to believe there are two baptisms, not one. Even most baptist and maybe all baptist affirm that water baptism is a good thing to do. They want to have two baptism, but there is only one. If this is water baptism in Rom 6, it blows away their entire beliefs, so I understand why people oppose it so violently. If this is right, that means some may have dead loved ones that did not have their sins forgiven. If they accept this, that means momma was wrong and if it was good enough for her, it is good enough for me. It means they will have to change how and where they worship. There could be significant life changing events that are necessary if this is water baptism. No one likes to be wrong or shown where they are wrong, so we defend our positions at all cost, the truth be sacrificed.

If you look at baptism in water, it so perfectly fits the description Paul gave in Rom 6. What do you do with a dead person? You bury them. We die and are buried in the watery grave of baptism. We are raised out of the water to a new life.

If you try to take the water out of the baptism and make it some type of spiritual baptism, you instantly have problems. You are buried in the Spirit then raised up out of the Spirit. He would be using imagery of an unseeable event to describe a death, burial, and resurrection.

There is nothing in the text to suggest it means anything other than it normal meaning, such as the eunuch asked Philip, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Acts 8:36. No doubt, that Eunuch could look back and see how he was buried in the water and raised to walk in newness of life. No wonder he went on his way rejoicing.

The simple truth is, the commands in Matt 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16 are commands for people to be baptized in water. Neither you nor I can baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit, because Jesus said that was something He was going to do. That was a promise, not a command. Matt 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16 continue. We can baptize others in water. Therefore, by necessity, the one baptism in Eph 4:5 is water baptism and the baptism in Rom 6 is water baptism.

You see, we come in contact with the blood at baptism. Only the blood can forgive our sins. A comparison of Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38 shows that:

Blood = forgivness of sins (Matt 26:28)
Baptism = forgivness of sin (Acts 2:38)

So this fits with Jesus statement, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16)

or

Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16)

Or

Baptism now saves us (I Pet 3:21).

 

Dustin I agree with you. The one baptism- Eph 4:5 , I believe refers to the baptism in the Spirit that places all believers into the body of Christ. In the passage we can see that Paul is encouraging the Ephsians to walk in unity. 1 cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. When we accept Christ we are baptized in the spirit. I don't know about you but when I steped into that baptistry I came in contact with water, and my pastor. I created a picture of the work that God had done in my life. It was when I accepted Christ as my savior that the Holy Spirit took up residence in my heart. That was the moment when my eternity changed.
Rom 6:3-4, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Yes we die to ourselves at the moment of salvation and turn from our sin to walk as a new creation. Just as Jesus died and was resurrected. The water baptism is a command and a reflection of what Christ has done in us. The reflection is not the original work but a picture of it that we show to others. Its like standing in the mirror. I refer to the person in the mirror as me but the reflection is just a reflection.

 

ok, mman, we're on the same page sorta, where does it say that he who believes but is not baptised will be damned? It's the grace through faith that SAVES. Not faith in the water, faith in Jesus. Ok, say I trusted Jesus and I died before I got baptised or say I got baptised the wrong way, if there is such a thing. Would I be saved, even though I've trusted Jesus or would I go to hell?

 

Mark 16: 9-20 is at best a spurious ending to Mark's Gospel, and we ought not to make doctrine from spurious verses. Other scriptures do not support the notion that one must be baptized in water to be the recipient of saving grace, the free gift of God.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The subject of baptism came up in Bible study class. The pastor said that people must be baptized, including children and babies: "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21 NASB). He emphasized the part of the verse that says "baptism saves you." I said, "It could be argued that you're adding works: Christ and baptism." The pastor responded, "Is baptism a work of God or a work of man?"

 

If baptism saves you, I wonder why Jesus had to be baptized?

 

Yes. It's some extra thing he has to go out of the way and do.

Who have you seen God baptize? (i.e. dunk someone in water) How can you even see God? Isn't it men who baptize? You would then go on to say this:

Which is it? Physical baptism by men, or a spiritual act by God?
Even if you say both, then since God is SPIRIT, there must be a spiritual aspect to baptism that accompanies the physical act*, and your whole argument about "two baptisms vs 'only one' baptism" falls flat. There must be a spiritual and physical aspect to the "one baptism", so nobody here is denying "one baptism". (The argument is that it is not the physical act that saves; thopugh it was originally supposed to mark the spiritual act).
So we're not buried "in the Spirit and raised up from the Spirit". Burial is symbolic (spiritual), so you cannot say that the water is the actual agent of burial (the "spiritual earth", you could say). It is just a symbol.

If one was saved by faith and works, then the people Paul writes to in Galatians and Romans were good to go.
To understand scriptures like this in John, we must remember that many people Jesus was dealing with, were hastily accepting Christ, but they did not understand what the purpose of His mission was. So they "believed" (as we also see in John 8:31), but eventually their true fruits surfaced (v.37ff). Most others of this class, while not disputing Jesus to His face would show their true colors when persecution would come and they quickly abandoned Him. It's in this context that we have all the scriptures on perseverance until the end. Like the others, these people "believed" and followed for the wrong reasons. Remember, Israel was looking for a Messiah for mostly political reasons, so many really did not understand His Gospel message—that they needed to be saved from sin; not the sin of the pagans, but their own sin. They still thought of themselves as the "good guys" waiting for God to put down the "bad guys", yet they were just as sinful as the ruthless pagans. There is no thought of any Spirit bearing witness with their spirit, or them thinking they were saved. They had their agenda, and Jesus showed that they were not really following Him, though they professed. As soon as He began speaking of dying, it knocked their whole agenda for a loop, and even the disciples were ready to deny Him and run and hide. Why believe in Him if He's only going to die and not rise up and crush the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel right now? Many gentiles had also fallen into a similar misunderstanding or misuse as well. (Such as those described who would rise up and apostasize, drawing away their own following, thus using the Church for control). Yet if people "confessed" (and then "persevered" in faith), then it would have shown that they truly understood Christ's purpose (i.e. the true Gospel). Today we have many cults, liberals, etc. who "believe" in Christ, but knowingly twist or reject parts of the Bible; in effect creating a whole different concept of Christ (as different as the political Messiah of Israel), and most do not even speak of thinking they are "saved", or if they do, they make up their own idea of how to be saved (being good, keeping certain works, being baptized into their group, etc.). All of these are the people who "believed in vain", not someone who really believed, but fell into sin, or were not baptized.

That can go both ways. If baptism and these other works are not what saves, then you would have to admit you were wrong, you are in a wrong group that you have to leave, AND that all these works you trust in were for naught, and after all that, you were probably not saved; if God should perchance judge you by your own system of works.

 

Yes, God chose something physical and spiritual, but since he spoke of "spirit and truth", it is the spiritual alone that saves, not both. The physical is only a symbol, designed for us to see, since we are physical. By fixating on that, you are "setting your sights on things below". Jesus came here to die, because he was fulfilling the legal atonement concept from the OT. God gave physical creatures a physical ritual, but that never saved. So God could have just forgiven without dying, but He had declared that without blood there is no remission of sins, so He Himself came down and fulfilled that.

 

If these CofC folks are correct about the efficiency of water baptism, then they should have no argument with Roman Catholics, who believe baptism is essential to redemption........albeit they have the wrong candidate and the wrong amount of water.....although, they did immerse the infants right up to the time of Queen Elizabeth I.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That makes as much sense as me saying baptist who minimize the true importance of baptism should have no arguement with the Muslims who do not think baptism is essential for salvation.

 

I dont even think that DHK would agree with you on that one. That is a novel approach. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Dr. Philip Schaff, President of the 1901 American Standard Committee said, "...the conclusion is historically authentic and true ... the section is found in most uncial and all cursive manuscripts, in most of the ancient versions, in all existing Greek and Syrian lectionaries as far as examined: and Irenaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing manuscripts, quotes verse 19 as a part of the gospel of Mark. A strong intrinsic argument for the genuineness is also derived from the extreme improbability, we may say impossibility, that the evangelist should have closed his gospel with 'for they were afraid."' (Companion To The Greek Testament And English Version, pp. 189, 190).

Only the MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have the account and they are fourth-century MSS. On the other hand the Peshitto, Curetorian, Coptic, Sahidic, and Tatian's Diatessaron Versions which are all second-century Versions do contain the account. I do not appeal to these versions as being, necessarily, accurate translations; rather, I appeal to them as evidence for the existence of and acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20, as being genuine. Furthermore, the MSS Washington, Alexandrian, Ephraim and Bezae do contain the account. If the Vaticanus is supposed to be the most reliable MS and he rejects Mk. 16:16, because it is not contained therein, then he must also reject I & 11 Timothy, Titus and Revelation because they are absent from that MS.

Are you willing to do that Jim?

And what shall we say for the Sinaiticus MS? Not only does it omit Mk. 16:9-20, but it also omits John 21:25; Hebrews 9:15, to the end of the book; Mk. 1:1; John 9:38; Luke 6:1; 22:43, 44; 23:34; John 19:33, 34; Eph. 6:1, and more.

I would suggest that Jim is on extremely dangerous ground when he omits not only Mark 16:9-20, but also the other passages from God's word, I would also suggest that instead of slicing Mark 16:16, from his Bible with one deft stroke of his pen, that he re-examine his theology to understand God's grace and man's proper trusting obedience. Jesus sent his apostles into the world with a powerful message designed to bring man back to God and make him righteous by forgiveness. If Jim or anyone else changes that message, he does not help in saving men. Contrariwise, he causes them to be deceived and lost.

 

Dustin, you are a logical person, aren't you?

Look at Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

This verse tells us what to do to be saved and what to do to be condemned.

While this is not God's only instruction on the subject, it is on the subject and should be included.

So, according to this verse, what is required for salvation?

What is required for condemnation?

One cannot be baptized without believing. One can be dipped in the water or submerged, but that is not baptism for the remission of sins.

The power is in the blood, not the water. If it were in the water, then everyone who went swimming would have the forgiveness of sins. No, there is no merit in being baptized in water. God does not owe us for obeying that command. It sounds foolish to many. It confounds many. You can't make the connection logically.

No, it done by faith, because God said to do it. Saul was told to "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord". - Acts 22:16

Why did Saul still have sins that needed to be washed away? He believed and had been praying for 3 days?

Did Saul ask, "Why didn't you tell me what would happen if I don't obey"?

To understand the purpose of baptism, look at the passages dealing with baptism, do go to passages that don't address the subject.

You will see that baptism is associated with, being saved, having the remission of sins, having sins washed away, putting into Christ, putting on Christ, and saving us.

We are not governed by what God did not say, but on what He did say.

 

You speak of two baptisms, yet Eph 4:5 clearly says there is one baptsim.

When and where was water baptism abolished?

 

That passage definately says something saves us.

You can twist it, ignore or, belittle it, but something saves us. What is it?

Baptism. This is obviously water baptism else his example is meaningless and off target.

But is this all God has to say about baptism? No.

The eunuch asked, "What hinders me from being baptized?" - Acts 8:37.

The reply was if you believe, you may. Can a baby believe?

Peter on the day of Pentecost told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins". Can a baby or small child repent? Repent of what?

Baptizing a baby or small child is without precedent and without biblical authority.

Baptizing an adult who believes and has repented, is with precedent and with biblical authority.

 

Nothing is required for condemnation, as if we were starting out in some neutral position.

Apparently the blood has no power without the water, so the power still must be in the water.
If God promised us salvation for being baptized in water, then if we do it, God does "owe" us-- if for no reason than He made the promise. But God has instead determined that it will not be by some physical thing we do that we will be saved, "lest any man should boast".

Then once again, those trying to be justified by keeping the Law were OK, then, because they were doing it "in faith" because God commanded them to. But then Paul and the book of Hebrews says they did NOT do it in "faith", so your definition of "faith" as merely doing something God commanded is wrong. Faith is connected to obedience, but there must be more to it than what you are saying.

 

Nothing is required for condemnation, as if we were starting out in some neutral position. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. And what did Jesus say? He that believeth not shall be condemned. Therefore baptism, is of necessity, also excluded.

Apparently the blood has no power without the water, so the power still must be in the water. If God promised us salvation for being baptized in water, then if we do it, God does "owe" us-- if for no reason than He made the promise. But God has instead determined that it will not be by some physical thing we do that we will be saved, "lest any man should boast".</font>[/QUOTE]No, you still don't understand. The power is in the blood. The water is how we come in contact with the blood.

Your twisted logic would put the power in a brass snake. There is no virtue in a brass snake, yet when the people who had been injected with the deadly poison, they would live when they looked upon it. They could stay in their tent all day and believe, yet until they got up and went to the center of the camp and looked at the snake, they could not expect to receive healing.

Now, was the power in the brass snake or in God? Is this really that hard for you to see or are you that desperate to minimize the importance of baptism.

By your logic, God would owe them a cure. Well, if there were virtue in looking at a brass snake, then let's destroy all anti-venom and replace it with brass snakes. God would owe it to everyone who performed the same actions.

The same could be said for the waters of the Jordan River. God used it to cure leprosy. Now do you really think that the power was in the water or in God? Did Naaman's obedience earn him a cure for leprosy? If you think so, then everyone who will dip in the Jordan river 7 times can be cured of leprosy, because God would owe it to them.

Naaman was told to wash and be clean, so are we. Naaman had a different idea of how God would cleanse him. He had it in his mind how he thought God ought to do it. When God chose something foolish in the mind of Naaman, he got angry. Later, he washed and was cleansed. To minimize the power of God and wrongfully place the power in the water is a grave mistake.

You do err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God.

Why is it beyond your ability to understand that the power is in God?

When Peter told them in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, was he mistaken to give them that instruction?

Eph 5:25-26 "...just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word"

Accept it for what is says. You don't have to figure it out or understand it.

Col 2:12, "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

God is the one working. I am buried with Him (who? With Christ) and raised through faith in the working of God. God raised Jesus from the grave, He can also raise me as a new man from the watery grave of baptism. I don't have to know what work God does to accomplish this and more than I have to understand how he raised Jesus from the dead. But, I know that God has the power to raise Jesus from the dead and has the power to raise me with Him (Christ) from the watery grave, as a new man (See also Rom 6:3-17)

Then once again, those trying to be justified by keeping the Law were OK, then, because they were doing it "in faith" because God commanded them to. But then Paul and the book of Hebrews says they did NOT do it in "faith", so your definition of "faith" as merely doing something God commanded is wrong. Faith is connected to obedience, but there must be more to it than what you are saying. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, your attempt is unsuccessful. Your example and logic is flawed. There is no way that someone can keep the old law when the new law was in effect, "by faith", because the new law abolished the old law. When someone does something in sincerity does not equate them to doing it "by faith".

Paul/Saul was persecuting christians. He was living as though there were no new law. The things he was doing were right and required under the old law. However, he was not doing them by faith, but he was doing it in sincerity (Act 23:1).

Later Paul writes, "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." - Gal 3:24-25

Faith had come but he was still living as though under the law, therefore, his actions were not "by faith".

In the next verses he states, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Gal 3:27-29

Who are the heirs? Those who are Christ's.

How do we belong to Christ? We are baptized into Christ and put on Christ.

How is this done? Through faith.

 

Well, I can't really argue with you about anything mman, as I've been baptized already. Now I'm not familiar with the CofC, but regardless of any differences, you are my brother in Christ and He calls for unity in His Church. God Bless.

Dustin

 

That passage definately says something saves us.

You can twist it, ignore or, belittle it, but something saves us. What is it?

Baptism. This is obviously water baptism else his example is meaningless and off target.

But is this all God has to say about baptism? No.

The eunuch asked, "What hinders me from being baptized?" - Acts 8:37.

The reply was if you believe, you may. Can a baby believe?

Peter on the day of Pentecost told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins". Can a baby or small child repent? Repent of what?

Baptizing a baby or small child is without precedent and without biblical authority.

Baptizing an adult who believes and has repented, is with precedent and with biblical authority. </font>[/QUOTE]You asked whether or not a baby can believe. The pastor said that they can and that God works faith in the heart of an infant. He also defended infant baptism by quoting Matthew 28:19, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He said that babies are part of all nations. He also said that when the jailor from Acts 16 was baptized, he and his whole family were. He said that would have included children.

 

I am so happy to hear that you were baptized in order to have your sins forgiven.

It is really refreshing to see that type of trusting faith.