Baptism is a rite, not salvation !

robycop3

Well-known member
Symbolism and efficaciousness are not antonyms. You're suggesting an inference with no mechanism to connect the dots.
It's in plain language.
You'll bend over backwards to defend your false doctrine. But God said there'd be an increase in such garbage in the end times.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
More biblical proof that salvation comes BEFORE baptism: Acts 16:
29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”


31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.


The false doctrine of 'regenerational baptism' stands no chance against the TRUTH.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
More biblical proof that salvation comes BEFORE baptism: Acts 16:
29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”


31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

The false doctrine of 'regenerational baptism' stands no chance against the TRUTH.

Peter must be confused eh?
 

Saint Jason

Active member
Read the WHOLE verse. I. E. "The water is a PICTURE of..." The saving baptism is that of the HOLY SPIRIT.
Peter is referencing the flood waters that pre-figure baptism, when he says "is a picture of".

New Living Translation-1 Peter 3: 21 And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from[g] a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

A Protestant translation insists it is effective, no not on its own, but because of the resurrection of Jesus. Which we see elsewhere in scripture.

Romans 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Through that baptism into his death we were buried with him, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,[a] so we too might begin to live a new life.

Acts 19:3 He asked, “Then how were you baptized?” They answered, “With the baptism of John.”

4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

This example in Acts shows that it is more than a ritual because they had already been baptized, but it was now necessary to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Jesus himself said to do it. How many optional commands did Jesus give?

Mark 16: 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

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,[e]


Did Jesus really tell us to do something essentially meaningless? If so I guess we can start casting doubt on anything else he said too.

Matthew 7: 12 “In everything, therefore, [n]treat people the same way you want [o]them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. This was just a suggestion apparently

Mark 10: 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” That old chestnut! He obviously left room for interpretation.

Luke 13: 3 No, I tell you, but unless you [b]repent, you will all likewise perish. Wait we have to repent or die? Jesus loves me as I am though, I'm sure he'll forgive me regardless, right?

Additionally I will ask, where in the Bible can we find evidence of baptism being only ritual and not connected to salvation? We already know from Peter that it does now save you. Where in the bible does it say it's simply ritual, or that it is not effective? As a Protestant this is critical, since Sola Scriptura demands you find this doctrine in the Bible or else it is man made....
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Additionally I will ask, where in the Bible can we find evidence of baptism being only ritual and not connected to salvation? We already know from Peter that it does now save you. Where in the bible does it say it's simply ritual, or that it is not effective? As a Protestant this is critical, since Sola Scriptura demands you find this doctrine in the Bible or else it is man made....

Concoct something up with your imagination. That's how they do it.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
What is plain language?
Language that means exactly what it says, understandable to all that language's users
What is a false doctrine?
One that isn't true, & may be a deliberate lie.
Your conclusions need to be defended. They don't need to serve as a pretext for a new slew of condemnation.
And they ARE defended, against your false "baptismal regeneration" doctrine. Please show me in Scripture where any unsaved person was baptized, then was saved.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Language that means exactly what it says, understandable to all that language's users
"and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." - Colossians 2:12 RSV​
We were raised up with Christ "in baptism." It doesn't get any plainer than that.
One that isn't true, & may be a deliberate lie.
Sorry, I dictated that, and it was transcribed incorrectly. The question should have been transcribed "what false doctrine?"
And they ARE defended, against your false "baptismal regeneration" doctrine.
I'm not a pedo-Baptist of any kind. Some pedo-Baptists defend a doctor and they call "baptismal regeneration" and I'll leave it to them to describe and defend it. I don't subscribe to what I understand to be the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" but I don't want to attribute my definition to people who actually hold that view.

My affirmation is much more modest. There is a point in time when the gifts of regeneration are bestowed on the convert, and that point of time is concurrent with baptism. This is the clear teaching of scripture. That's what I believe, because that's what the Bible teaches.
Please show me in Scripture where any unsaved person was baptized, then was saved.
Is that all it takes? Because we could've settled this issue a long time ago…

"And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls." - Acts 2:40-41 RSV​
So, was Peter advocating that the saved be saved, or the lost be saved? That's a rhetorical question. Obviously Peter was exhorting the lost to be saved, and as many as gladly received his words were baptized and only then Luke tells us they were added to their number. Clearly the point of salvation was baptism, demarcating the point in time of actual conversion.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
"and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." - Colossians 2:12 RSV​
We were raised up with Christ "in baptism." It doesn't get any plainer than that.
Yes-the baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT.
Sorry, I dictated that, and it was transcribed incorrectly. The question should have been transcribed "what false doctrine?"
The false doctrine of "regenerational baptism".
I'm not a pedo-Baptist of any kind. Some pedo-Baptists defend a doctor and they call "baptismal regeneration" and I'll leave it to them to describe and defend it. I don't subscribe to what I understand to be the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" but I don't want to attribute my definition to people who actually hold that view.

My affirmation is much more modest. There is a point in time when the gifts of regeneration are bestowed on the convert, and that point of time is concurrent with baptism. This is the clear teaching of scripture. That's what I believe, because that's what the Bible teaches.

Is that all it takes? Because we could've settled this issue a long time ago…

"And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls." - Acts 2:40-41 RSV​
So, was Peter advocating that the saved be saved, or the lost be saved? That's a rhetorical question. Obviously Peter was exhorting the lost to be saved, and as many as gladly received his words were baptized and only then Luke tells us they were added to their number. Clearly the point of salvation was baptism, demarcating the point in time of actual conversion.
The point of salvation is when one repents of sin & BELIEVES ON JESUS AS SON OF GOD & SAVIOR FROM ONE'S SINS. You simply cannot show us from Scripture where anyone was baptized, THEN saved. Notice it says "those who RECEIVED HIS WORD".
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Yes-the baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT.
Paul tells us very clearly that there is only one Christian baptism in Ephesians 4:5. Luke tells us very clearly that Christian baptism involves immersing people in water in Acts 8:36 through 39. In fact, the only reason that baptism was not translated into the English word immersion is that King James threatened to execute anyone who did so. This is how it is that we have the transliteration of the Greek baptizo into baptism.
The false doctrine of "regenerational baptism".
You're gonna have to discuss "baptismal regeneration" with people who describe their doctrine of baptism with that expression. I don't, so I'm not going to try to define it, in order to defend it.
The point of salvation is when one repents of sin & BELIEVES ON JESUS AS SON OF GOD & SAVIOR FROM ONE'S SINS. You simply cannot show us from Scripture where anyone was baptized, THEN saved
I just did in Colossians 2:12.
. Notice it says "those who RECEIVED HIS WORD".
Notice Peter specifies that they were all lost until baptism.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Paul tells us very clearly that there is only one Christian baptism in Ephesians 4:5. Luke tells us very clearly that Christian baptism involves immersing people in water in Acts 8:36 through 39. In fact, the only reason that baptism was not translated into the English word immersion is that King James threatened to execute anyone who did so. This is how it is that we have the transliteration of the Greek baptizo into baptism.
And faith comes before baptism.
You're gonna have to discuss "baptismal regeneration" with people who describe their doctrine of baptism with that expression. I don't, so I'm not going to try to define it, in order to defend it.
It's easy! It's the false belief that baptism saves & nothing else is necessary.
I just did in Colossians 2:12.

Notice Peter specifies that they were all lost until baptism.
No, he doesn't.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Water baptism IS the gospel
Nope - it's nothing but "Theology". The "Gospel" is that GOD HAS MADE A WAY for sinful man to be cleansed. Baptism has nothing to do with that, since one is BORN AGAIN by FAITH in the SIN OFFERING of Jesus on Calvary. THEN you can be baptized as a testimony of what HAS HAPPENED in your life.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
And faith comes before baptism.
The definitive step of faith is baptism. You can't say on the one hand, you believe the promises, promised to baptism yet I refuse to be baptized. That would be the opposite of faith. Saving faith and its antithesis by definition cannot be the same thing.
It's easy!
So you would have it. I suspect that you have created a simplistic strawman that you wish to beat up on. I will leave it to someone who describes their doctrine of baptism as "baptismal regeneration" to describe it. However that may be, I don't describe my doctrine of baptism in those terms so I shall remain silent on the topic.
It's the false belief that baptism saves & nothing else is necessary.
What makes you think you can describe someone else's doctrine better than they can? I am simply not going to engage in a series of charges, and counter charges, about one a doctrine that I do not hold allegedly asserts.
No, he doesn't.
Did Peter tell the saved to be saved, or did Peter till the lost to be saved? People are in one condition or the other so obviously this is a rhetorical question. Peter specifies that no one was saved before they were baptized and Luke makes that dispositively clear.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
The definitive step of faith is baptism. You can't say on the one hand, you believe the promises, promised to baptism yet I refuse to be baptized. That would be the opposite of faith. Saving faith and its antithesis by definition cannot be the same thing.

So you would have it. I suspect that you have created a simplistic strawman that you wish to beat up on. I will leave it to someone who describes their doctrine of baptism as "baptismal regeneration" to describe it. However that may be, I don't describe my doctrine of baptism in those terms so I shall remain silent on the topic.

What makes you think you can describe someone else's doctrine better than they can? I am simply not going to engage in a series of charges, and counter charges, about one a doctrine that I do not hold allegedly asserts.

Did Peter tell the saved to be saved, or did Peter till the lost to be saved? People are in one condition or the other so obviously this is a rhetorical question. Peter specifies that no one was saved before they were baptized and Luke makes that dispositively clear.
Please show us from Scripture where someone was baptized before salvation. Otherwise, all regenerational baptism arguments are moot.
 
Top