Baptism

silvana_1st · February 2005

I have a question and I would really appreciate it if someone can answer it.

Our Church teaches that a person has to be baptised in order to enter the kingdom of God. But what if a non christian was born into a non Christian family but believed in his/her religion and never did anything that would make God angry, is there no chance that that person can enter heaven? will their soul be put in eternal damnation with all the sinners and wrong doers, even though they don't belong there?

Unknown · February 2005

Many of the people who were born nonchristians have been exposed to christinaity one way or another...they had the chance to accept it...no matter how good they are...they still have to be baptized to enter the kingdom of God.
I had another question thou...what about the babies that didn't have time to get baptized but their parents were Christians and were planning on baptizing them...

God Bless,
Marianne

jfranklin · February 2005

But what if a non christian was born into a non Christian family but believed in his/her religion and never did anything that would make God angry, is there no chance that that person can enter heaven

"All of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God", says the Word of God.Jesus Christ,the Lord of Glory,is the only human being that lived His life without sin.Hence all of us are in desperate need of a Saviour,one who can take away our sin,forgive our sin,break the power of sin in our lives.All men and woman need this Saviour.This Saviour and King who sets us free from man-made,false religion, and brings unto us the marvelous light and truth of the Holy Gospel,the final revelation of the true God.

God preaches and reveals this Gospel to all men at one time or another.Even to the remotest part of the earth,to those who have not heard of Jesus Christ by the preaching of man or reading of Word,even unto these will God reveal Himself and offer them the free gift of salvation in Christ Jesus. All who accept this message of Life will be saved,all who reject will be lost.All are without excuse.No man or woman can enter Heaven outside or apart from Christ Jesus the eternal,immortal,glorious Lord of Life.

socoolbishoy · February 2005

GOOD questions silvana_1st, and Marianne87, but NO ONE CAN ANSWER these questions, only GOD, so we can ask him when we see him....

jfranklin · February 2005

NO ONE CAN ANSWER

The Bible does answer your question in many places...whether we want to believe the Word of God or not is another question. :)

LauraForChrist · February 2005

[quote author=Marianne87 link=board=4;threadid=1225;start=0#msg20695 date=1108502609]

I had another question thou...what about the babies that didn't have time to get baptized but their parents were Christians and were planning on baptizing them...

God Bless,
Marianne

i am not sure but i think that if they do die before that they can still go to heaven... or if they're about to die, their parents can baptize them. like if they don't have any time to go to abouna or something..

Job 3:11-17
"Why did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb? Why were there knees to receive me and breasts that I might be nursed?
For now I would be lying down in peace; I would be asleep and at rest with kings and counselors of the earth,

who built for themselves places now lying in ruins, with rulers who had gold, who filled their houses with silver. Or why was I not hidden in the ground like a stillborn child,
like an infant who never saw the light of day? There the wicked cease from turmoil, and there the weary are at rest.

socoolbishoy · February 2005

[quote author=jfranklin link=board=4;threadid=1225;start=0#msg20700 date=1108506753]

NO ONE CAN ANSWER

The Bible does answer your question in many places...whether we want to believe the Word of God or not is another question. :)

well here is a question for you... ARE YOU 700% sure of your answers about baptism?

Unknown · February 2005

Silvana,

socoolbishoy is absolutely correct on this one. We have no idea what will happen to the souls for example of the pious Buddhist or the righteous living atheist, who are simply ignorant of Christianity, or for some other reason have never had the chance or the will to seriously consider it - after all, we who being born into the faith, are surely not "advantaged" over others - for God is just and fair to all men. God is the just and wise Judge, who knows the hearts of men, and deals with man according to His mercy, compassion and justice - we cannot judge the salvation of others, we can only do what we know we have to do, for we as Christians know what is required of us.

We know according to the book of Acts, that God has designated each and everyone of us to be born into a particular life for His own set purpose. The Bible further tells us in Romans 4 that "where there is no law there is no transgression." and in Romans 2:14 - "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."

The only thing we can say for sure, is that if a non-Christian ever does see the light of paradise, it is only possible because of Christs sacrafice which was done on behalf of the whole world (John 3:16).

Youstina S · February 2005

I dont know if this helps, in Matthew 12: 32, it says, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

CLawrence · February 2005

In the opinion of a protestant... We are saved by faith. Not by works, not by baptism. I would ask these questions: What about the thief on the cross? Definitely not baptised, yet Jesus promises to be with him in paradise. What about the child born into a Christian home, baptised, but never commits himself to following & serving Christ? Never trusts Jesus for his salvation? Will that person be in heaven? Instead, I suggest that we are saved by faith - that is why men like Abraham and Moses are in heaven, although they were not "baptised".

Another question from the protestant viewpoint: What scriptural support do you look to for the doctrine of infant baptism?

Seeking Truth with you,

CLawrence

silvana_1st · February 2005

C lawerence,

i did not mean that only through baptism will we inherit the kingdom of God, I know that u must have love, faith and christian deeds inorder to enter the Holy Kingdom. When I asked that question, I meant for those that are good and do all that is good but aren't baptised (non-christians), because there are many scriptures in the Bible that say that a person can only enter heaven if he/she is baptised (along with the good deeds etc). I also know that there are 2 types of baptism, the first being the baptism with the Holy water and the second being the baptism with Blood. And regarding the thief on the cross, I personally believe that when he declared Jesus as God and asked for his forgiveness his blood on the cross was his baptism and through Jesus' crucifixion that thief gained eternal life.

I'll give u an example of what I'm trying to get across. Take me for example, imagine if I was born into a non-christian family, I would find exteremly impossible to say the God of the Christians is the true God just as it is difficult for any christian to say the opposite about Jesus Christ. It's difficult to deny a faith that u were born into especially if u live all u're life believing it is the right path. Now what I wanted to know is, even if those people with all their hearts thought that the religion they were following was the correct one, and did no unrighteous acts will they still be put into damnation because they weren't baptised?

mmatt95 · February 2005

What about the thief on the cross? Definitely not baptised, yet Jesus promises to be with him in paradise.

oh yes he def was baptized, because what is baptism??

Romans 6:3-6 - Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

This is probably the most ideal baptism because he died a real death with christ and not "in the likeness of his death" as us. Same applies for all the martyrs who were martyred without baptism...

What about the child born into a Christian home, baptised, but never commits himself to following & serving Christ? Never trusts Jesus for his salvation? Will that person be in heaven? Instead, I suggest that we are saved by faith - that is why men like Abraham and Moses are in heaven, although they were not "baptised".

this child is not saved because along with faith comes works and struggle as paul explains in Hebrews 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin, and James 2:17 - Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

As for Abraham and Moses, they lived not in the New Testament, and were under the law. If they had lived in the OT they would have been baptized.

by HH:

If baptism is so important. were the prophets of the Old
Testament baptised?
If the commandment of baptism had existed in their days,
they would have been baptised. But this commandment is laid
down in Christianity. Why? Because baptism is dying with
Christ and Christ had not died in the Old Testament.
The prophets of the Old Testament practised what they
could in their days: the symbols of baptism such as circumcision
and crossing the Red Sea. They also celebrated the Passover
lamb, which symbolised the Blood of Christ. We should not
expect people to have obeyed a commandment, unknown to
them, as it succeeded their time/s.

What scriptural support do you look to for the doctrine of infant baptism?

good question, i will answer u from the words of HH Pope Shenouda to not exclude any point...

Paedobaptism
(Infant Baptism)
Our Protestant brethren do not baptise little children,
insisting on the necessity of belief before baptism and depending
on the Lord's saying: "He who believes and is baptised will be
saved" (Mark. 16:16) and also on the fact that little children do
not comprehend what is happening in baptism. So how can
baptism be administered without belief or without
comprehension?
But we insist on paedobaptism for the following reasons:
(1) We are concerned about the eternal life of children
because the Lord says: "...unless one is born of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John.3: 5). So
how can we prevent children from being baptised and expose
them to God's Judgement as long as the Lord did not exempt
children when He said the above words?
(2) Through baptism, little children are given the opportunity
to practise the life of the Church and enjoy the divine
Sacraments therein together with all their efficacious. They can
also enjoy all the means of Grace in the Church and their effects
on their lives. In this way, we practically prepare the infants for
the life of faith. If we excluded them from the Church we
would be depriving them of faith and of the means of Grace.

(3) The Lord's saying: "He who believes and is baptised will
be saved" is meant for adults who are capable of
comprehending the meanings of faith. That is why we cannot
baptise adults unless they believe, according to the Lord's
words in (Mark.16: 16). As for infants, we apply the Lord's
saying: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid
them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19: 14).
(4) From the point of view of faith, little children are in the
stage of believing and accepting everything; they do not refuse
or reject faith; the doubt, inquiring, questioning and reasoning
of adults have not yet entered their sphere. There is nothing in
them to prevent them from the kingdom of heaven. Baptising
them conforms to the principle of "Free Salvation" which is
believed in and strongly propagated by our Protestant brethren.
(5) If we were utterly strict on the condition of belief, we
would have forbidden from baptism many adults who were not
mentally mature to comprehend the facts and depths of belief,
such as the peasants, labourers, illiterates, the poorly educated
and those of too limited understanding to get into the depth of
the theological facts. May we ask: What would be the extent of
those people's belief? Should we prevent them from being
baptised, as little children should be?
(6) Some ask: What happens if the little child refuses the
faith when he grows up?
He will be considered an apostate. He may refuse the grace
he received in baptism by his own free will. We had done our
duty towards him and the matter is left to him. He will be like a
person who, after having begun in the Spirit, is now trying to be
made perfect by the flesh (Gal.3: 3).
Probably the little children who are baptised and live in the
Church, tasting all the means of Grace therein, are less liable to
perversion than those who are left without baptism until they
grow up.
(7) Those who deny paedobaptism are in fact denying the
necessity of baptism for salvation (Mark. 16:16); because if they
believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation, it would be a
serious matter to deprive little children of salvation.
Since our Protestants brethren hold that belief is a condition
for salvation and that little children have no belief, what then,
from their point of view, is the destiny of little children who are
unbaptised and have no belief? Will they be saved without
belief and baptism? The question remains unanswered.
(8) We baptise little children because the Holy Bible
indicates this. The Holy Bible mentions baptisms of whole
families or of a person with his entire household, and there is no
doubt that there must have been children in those families.
The following are a few of numerous examples:
(a) The baptism of the jailer at Philippi: St. Paul and St. Silas
said to him: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be
saved, you and your household" (Acts 16: 31). This means that
the jailer's belief would be the first step which would lead his
household to salvation. That is why it is said after that: "Then
they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in
his house" and then "immediately he and all his family were
baptised" (Acts 16:32,33). The Holy Bible did not exempt little
children from the household of the jailer at Philippi but said
about their baptisms: "...he and all his family", of course
including little children.
(b) In the event of baptising Lydia, the dealer of purple cloth,
it is written: "And when she and her household were baptised"
(Acts 16: 15).
(c) St. Paul the Apostle said: "Yes, I also baptised the
household of Stephanas" (1Cor.1: 16). Could all these
households have been without little children?
(d) The Holy Bible does not mention that there were no little
children among those who were baptised on the Day of
Pentecost.
(9) Paedobaptism was practised in history. Here we
remember the disagreement between St. Augustine and St.
Jerome on the origin of the soul: whether is it born or created?.
St. Augustine said that it is born with man and St. Jerome said
that it is created. St. Augustine asked: "If it is created, it does
not inherit Adam's sin. Why then do we baptise infants?" St.
Jerome could not reply to this question.
(10) There is not a single verse in the Holy Bible that forbids
paedobaptism.

(11) With regard to belief, we baptise little children on the
belief of their parents which in essence has many examples in
the Holy Bible:
(a) Circumcision in the Old Testament symbolised baptism as
we have previously explained. The circumcised was considered
a member of God's people according to the covenant between
God and Abraham (Gen.17: 11). It is known that circumcision
was to be done on the eighth day after birth, according to God's
command (Gen.17: 12). What understanding did the eight-day
old baby boy have regarding the covenant between God and
Abraham? To what extent was he aware of this membership in
God's people? Undoubtedly, he had nothing of the sort, but he
was circumcised on his parents' belief in such a covenant; he
became a member of God's people and was entitled to the
promises which God endowed upon our father Abraham. The
baby attained all these through the belief of his parents.
(b) The crossing of the Red Sea was a symbol of baptism or
a baptism itself as St. Paul the Apostle explained in (1Cor.10:
2). It represented salvation from the slavery of death, Satan and
sin. Adults who were aware of God's promise to the Prophet
Mosses crossed the Red Sea; they knew that they were slaves
to Pharaoh; they knew the meaning of salvation from slavery by
the Mighty Hand of God and when they crossed the Red Sea
(baptism), they were saved. What was the position of the little
children who were carried by their mothers and fathers across
the Sea? Of course they received salvation from slavery; they
were baptised, not on their own faith but on the faith of their
parents because those children were not aware of any of the
occurring events.
(c) Another important and very strong example is the

salvation of the little children, through the blood of the
Passover lamb, from the hand of the Angel who killed every
firstborn son. The Lord commanded Mosses to kill a one-year-
old male goat or sheep without any defect and put its blood on
the sides and tops of their doors, and said: "And when I see the
blood, I will pass over you" (Ex. 12:13).
The blood of the Passover lamb was a symbol of the Lord
Jesus Christ's Blood through which we have received salvation,
as St. Paul the Apostle said: "For indeed Christ, our Passover,
was sacrificed for us" (1Cor.5: 7).
And the question now is: What was the belief of the little
children who were saved by the blood of the Passover lamb?
What did they know about the covenant between God and
Mosses or of the Passover and the salvation from death by the
blood of the Passover lamb? Undoubtedly they were not aware
of anything but they were saved by the faith of their parents; the
parents who believed in the blood, its effect and the importance
of the blood of the Passover lamb for salvation from death.
These little children who were saved by circumcision, by the
blood of the Passover lamb and by the crossing of the Red Sea,
came to know the meaning of all these things later on when they
grew up. Nevertheless, they received salvation freely in their
childhood through the belief of their parents in God's promises
and covenants with men. When the children grew up, they
entered into this belief practically.

no we may ask the same question, does the bible indicate we should NOT baptise infants????

i also suggest u take a look at the book under the following link...

http://tasbeha.org/content/hh_books/Comptheo/index.html

CLawrence · February 2005

Now what I wanted to know is, even if those people with all their hearts thought that the religion they were following was the correct one, and did no unrighteous acts will they still be put into damnation because they weren't baptised?

In my opinion, they will not be put into damnation because they were not baptized - the only reason a person will be put into damnation is for rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord. Romans makes it clear that God has made witness for Himself through creation, and through the conscience of man. Scripture also teaches that if a person is seeking God he will find Him. So, a person born into a non-Christian home, who recognizes the true God and is faithfully seeking Him, I believe God will show Himself and teach that person the truth, usually through the witness of another believer. But just being a "good person" is not enough to save us from damnation - none of us could possibly be good enough.

CLawrence

CLawrence · February 2005

Hos Erof, thank you for your response, I found it very interesting. Regarding the thief on the cross, we must differentiate between water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit which comes at the point of belief/salvation. The thief was most certainly baptized in the Spirit by virtue of his belief in Christ. But he clearly was not baptized in water.

Regarding John 3:5 - we have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of this passage. I understand that Jesus is contrasting physical birth with spiritual birth. Nicodemus has asked if a many must go into his mother's womb a second time, and Jesus responds with the "born of water and the Spirit" comment. Jesus continues in verse 6 to say that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." Both of these are contrasting fleshly birth (of water) and spiritual birth (of the Spirit). I do not believe He is talking about water baptism in this passage.

Through baptism, little children are given the opportunity
to practise the life of the Church
I do not believe water baptism is necessary to practice life in the Church, nor can I find any scripture which supports this idea.

If we were utterly strict on the condition of belief, we
would have forbidden from baptism many adults who were not
mentally mature to comprehend the facts and depths of belief
I do not believe God holds us accountable for a level of belief we are unable to achieve due to age or mental capability. A mentally handicapped person can have a level of faith according to his ability, and be baptized on the basis of that faith.

The Holy Bible mentions baptisms of whole
families or of a person with his entire household, and there is no
doubt that there must have been children in those families.
This seems to me to be basing a doctrine on an assumption. The assumption is made that there are infants in each of those households, and yet in our church, there are only 4 or 5 families with infants/toddlers incapable of verbalizing even the slightest faith. I would say it is just as likely, if not more so, that those households did not have infants present. Either way, we simply do not know, and so it seems poor theology to base a doctrine on the possibility.

There is not a single verse in the Holy Bible that forbids
paedobaptism.
Nor one that promotes it. Every specific example of baptism, including that of our Lord, is one of a person who has believed and then becomes baptized.

While it is true that there are many symbolic examples in the Old Testament, such as circumcision and the blood of the Passover Lamb, I believe it is dangerous to make a straight across comparison to NT practices - unless specifically commanded in Scripture.

I do appreciate the thorough response, the only reasons I had heard previously for infant baptism were the "entire household" reasoning. And though we clearly disagree on this topic, I believe that we are of one mind and Spirit regarding Jesus' death being the basis of our salvation, and look forward to meeting you in heaven!

CLawrence

beshoyrm · February 2005

Hey My bible teacher explained this to us
he said that there is to parts to baptism
the part in water and the other one
is asking jesus in your heart
he said that baptism with
water only is like a symbol
that u are a christian
asking jesus in your
heart makes
u af FULL christian

he gave us a example he
had a basketball team
jaket , it had a Logo
for the basketball team
he said this jacket is a
symbol that im a fan
of the basketball team
then he said thats
like baptism with water
its a symbol
then he said for me to be
on the team i have to ask
the coach , which is
asking Jesus into your
heart

Hope i helped
BeShOy

mmatt95 · February 2005

[quote author=CLawrence link=board=4;threadid=1225;start=0#msg20884 date=1108751107]

Regarding the thief on the cross, we must differentiate between water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit which comes at the point of belief/salvation. The thief was most certainly baptized in the Spirit by virtue of his belief in Christ. But he clearly was not baptized in water.

i never said he was baptized in the water, however he was baptized without a form of likeness i.e. he litteraly died with Christ as i explained before. Besides, can u tell me what more this person could have done, i mean he was hanging on a cross. If he had not been condemned to death as a criminal and had believed he would have been baptized. We see a billion examples of this in acts.
Can u tell me what the necessity is to baptize 3000 people in a single day (Acts 2:38). Can u tell me why the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized after Phillip explained to him the scriptures (Acts 8:36). Can u tell my why the great apostle Paul had to be baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). (see also Acts 16:15,23 and Acts 10:44,47). Can u tell my why the Lord Jesus Christ said in Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

it's clear that faith alone is not enough. Faith is the door that leads us to spiritual life, and the second step is to be baptized. Even though we are saved ONLY through the means of the redemptive work of the blood of Christ, we need more than faith to be worthy of that redemptive work.

Regarding John 3:5 - we have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of this passage. I understand that Jesus is contrasting physical birth with spiritual birth. Nicodemus has asked if a many must go into his mother's womb a second time, and Jesus responds with the "born of water and the Spirit" comment. Jesus continues in verse 6 to say that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." Both of these are contrasting fleshly birth (of water) and spiritual birth (of the Spirit). I do not believe He is talking about water baptism in this passage.

we disagree indeed, for how can u deny that it clearly states

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

he doesn't say of spirit only, he says WATER AND SPIRIT

moreover we say plenty of examples that illustrate the necissity of water according to the commandment of the Lord among one of them is the following:

Acts 10:47 - Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized

I do not believe water baptism is necessary to practice life in the Church, nor can I find any scripture which supports this idea.

i suggest u take a look at the previous quotes...

I do not believe God holds us accountable for a level of belief we are unable to achieve due to age or mental capability. A mentally handicapped person can have a level of faith according to his ability, and be baptized on the basis of that faith.

true...finnally something we agree on :D

This seems to me to be basing a doctrine on an assumption. The assumption is made that there are infants in each of those households, and yet in our church, there are only 4 or 5 families with infants/toddlers incapable of verbalizing even the slightest faith. I would say it is just as likely, if not more so, that those households did not have infants present. Either way, we simply do not know, and so it seems poor theology to base a doctrine on the possibility.

it's not the base of a doctrine, but it's one of the many examples to illustrate that there's nothing wrong with baptizing infants. In our church there's almost just families with infants. Why would u reject baptizing infants based on the assumption that there were no children in these families, while the bible clearly states the necessity of baptism????

There is not a single verse in the Holy Bible that forbids
paedobaptism.
Nor one that promotes it. Every specific example of baptism, including that of our Lord, is one of a person who has believed and then becomes baptized.

nor one that promotes forbidding it, so u cant say it's wrong.

I do appreciate the thorough response, the only reasons I had heard previously for infant baptism were the "entire household" reasoning. And though we clearly disagree on this topic, I believe that we are of one mind and Spirit regarding Jesus' death being the basis of our salvation, and look forward to meeting you in heaven!

CLawrence

thnk u too for ur response too. Jesus' death truly is the basis of our salvation. Without the shedding of the blood there's no remission indeed...

jfranklin · February 2005

he doesn't say of spirit only, he says WATER AND SPIRIT

We believe the "water" in this passage is refering to PHYSICAL Birth and not water baptism.When a woman gives birth their water breaks,etc.This is the first,natural birth...all of us come into the world this way.But Jesus says a person needs to be "born again"{born from above;born of the Spirit}.Hence there is need for a 2nd birth.We are born of the water in natural birth and we are "born from above" by the Spirit of God.

The whole context of this passage was Nicodemas asking how a man could enter his mothers womb and be born{the water of natural childbirth} a 2nd time.Jesus explained the birth he was refering to was not the natural birth{the water} but the spiritual operation of the Holy Spirit.The creation of a new man.

it's clear that faith alone is not enough. Faith is the door that leads us to spiritual life, and the second step is to be baptized.

Faith is what saves.Baptism,good works,etc are only effectial by the working of faith.They have no saving power in and of themselves.Salvation is not faith plus works but rather a living faith in Jesus Christ.A living and true faith always produces fruit{works} in obedience to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ.Trying to obtain salvation by works is exactly what the Old Testament Law was about.It failed.Man can never earn his salvation by works of any kind.We are saved by grace,through faith and this{faith} is not our own but a gift from God. :)

jfranklin · February 2005

Faith is the door that leads us to spiritual life

Faith is more than the door....indeed it is the very essence of our christian life."The righteous man shall live by faith",sayeth the Holy Word of God.Our entire life is one of faith.A "faith walk", a "journey of faith".The beginning and ending."Anything not of faith is sin","it is impossible to please God without faith" sayeth Holy Scripture.Works,good deeds,fasting alms,etc can never be pleasing to God without faith.Faith is what gives life to all of our christian deeds.Without faith they are worthless. :)

Unknown · February 2005

J,

Warning: Dont get upset again, attack the issue not the person.

When a woman gives birth their water breaks,etc.This is the first,natural birth...all of us come into the world this way.

Sorry, but that’s absolutely ridiculous. What factors, other than your own conjecture could lead you to this conclusion? None. Jesus equates being "born of WATER AND THE SPIRIT" with the phrase "born again" (compare verses John 3:3,5,7). Our physical birth is our “first birth”. When we are born again, this is our second birth, our spiritual birth, which is the birth by “water and Spirit."

Proffessor D.A.Carson in his commentary of the fourth Gospel, himself notes on page 191 in reference to the expression “born of water and the Spirit”, that “the Greek construction does not favor two births here…the entire expression ‘of water and The Spirit’ cries out be read as the equivalent of anothen, ‘from above’…this argues that the expression should be taken as a reference to but ONE BIRTH, NOT TWO.” (My emphasis added). So being born of water and spirit is how we are spiritually born into our second birth – The Spirit descending upon the literal water. So the water is not referring to our physical birth - period.

Secondly, you take this verse out of its historical context. Dr D.A.Carson notes on the same page, how “some have understood [the water] to refer to the amniotic that breaks from the womb shortly before childbirth, or to refer metaphorically for semen. But there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as being ‘from water’, and the few that use ‘drops’ to stand for semen, are rare and late.”

So despite the fact the linguistical context confirms what the early church already proclaimed (i.e. that the water is a reference to our spiritual birth rather than physical birth); what you’re doing here, is taking an expression - "born of water...", defining it as you wish from a 21st century perspective, and then imposing that definition on a 1st century Jewish text and a cultural milineu that never used such expressions at all to refer to a woman breaking water. This is not proper exegesis.

But Jesus says a person needs to be "born again"{born from above;born of the Spirit}.

To be born again, is to be baptized. We are first born physically, we are then born again of the WATER and Spirit – The womans water breaks in the first birth – our second birth is by literal WATER and Spirit, there is no way you can escape the clear and blatant reading of the text. Proffessor Carson notes; “….the simple word ‘water’ is understood by the majority of contemporary commentators to refer to Christian Baptism” (page 192). So not only does history overwhelmingly and unanimously disagree with you - even the majority of your contemporary scholars (who are usually conjecturing on issues that the early church made clear), disagree with you.

After all J, the reference is made in the near context to Jesus’ own baptismal ministry (3:22; 4:1), and John has connected water and Spirit in a baptismal context before (1:33, 34). Genesis 1 is also an interesting passage to take into account, especially considering the fact that many scholars argue that the introduction to John's prologue is an illusion to the beggining of Genesis.

Im sorry to say J, but its clear that today the expression of being “born again” has been abused by most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Despite the fact you guys agree with the Orthodox position that it is a “new birth” i.e. spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which is necessary for our salvation (e.g. John 3:3-9; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Tit. 3:5), your Protestantism generally disagree that it is through the Sacrament of Baptism, through which the Holy Spirit saves by regenerating the person, such that all our sins that were committed prior to our Baptism, become washed away and forgiven by the power of Christ (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Rom 6:1ff; Gal 3:27; Col 2:11ff; Eph 5:26f; 1 Peter 3:21; etc etc)

It is simply modern day conjecture and heresy to interpret the words of Christ as stated in John 3, to suggest that He is merely saying we should “accept Him as our personal savior by faith alone.” No Orthodox or Catholic Christian would ever deny that they have Jesus Christ as their personal savior, and that their faith is in Him, but the fact remains that the Sacrament of Baptism is NOT merely a "symbolic" gesture lacking spiritual efficacy – it is through baptism (water and spirit) that we are born again, and regenerated by the Spirit of God.

The wider context of the first 4 chapters of John's Gospel also show that by "water and the Spirit" - it is water BAPTISM which was what our Lord meant (John 1:29; 3:22; 4:1), a Sacrament instituted by Christ himself at the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16) - which is shortly followed by St. Peter's command to be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (In Acts 2:38).

This sound and proper understanding of Baptism was the unanimous and universal teaching of the earliest Christians in the apostolic era, who immediately followed the apostles. Every Christian of the apostolic church, every church scholar, exegete, fathers, bishop, and saint who lived in the times of the apostles and after them interpreted our Lord's words in John chapter 3 that to be "born again" i.e. the SECOND birth which is equated with being "born of water and the Spirit", is a clear refers to the Sacrament of Baptism – no exceptions whatsoever, and even Protestant scholars cant deny this fact, and indeed they admit it – See”The History of the Christian Church” by reformed scholar Phillip Schaff, “Early Christian doctrines” by the Anglican scholar J. Kelly's, and “The Christian tradition” by Lutheran (and now Orthodox) scholar Jaroslav Pelikan.

Baptism,good works,etc are only effectial by the working of faith.
It goes both ways J. Faith is only effectual by good works, Baptism, etc etc. or its faith in vein. Its this sort of Protestant attitude that has corrupted the morality of the Christian world, as many become relaxed on how they live their life etc.
Salvation is not faith plus works but rather a living faith in Jesus Christ.A living and true faith always produces fruit{works} in obedience to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You’re just playing semantics with us J – you cannot disconnect works and faith, simple as that. If I do good works, it is because of my faith. If I do not do good works, I have no real living faith.

So lets reformulate your conclusion using your own premises:

Premise 1: Salvation is… a living faith in Jesus Christ.

Premise 2: A living and true faith always produces fruit{works} in obedience to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Conclusion: Salvation is a living faith which produces good works.

Therefore everyone, must strive to do good works (which they will achieve, through perserverence, effort, repentence, prayer and the assistance of divine grace in response to alll these things), to justify their faith as a living one, so that they may be saved by this living faith. Simple.

Again, this Protestant corruption which tries to fit our salvation into a nice little box, which they label “Faith alone” is not true to the scriptures in their appropriate context.

The sacraments, good works, repentance, personal perserverence and effort; these are all stressed in the context of salvation, hundreds and hundreds of verses, they cannot be overlooked – they justify a faith as a living and acceptable faith, there is no way to escape this fact.

The righteous man shall live by faith",sayeth the Holy Word of God.

So we have righteousness, and faith, in the same sentence, in the context of salvation – again proving that the two are inseparable, you cannot disconnect one from the other, you cannot emphasize one and leave the other in the background. Works are the shadows of faith. If there’s no shadow of faith, there is no faith, its just an illusion. You must do good works (amongst other things – repentance, Eucharist, baptism, confession etc.) to prove your faith, simple as that.

Faith is what gives life to all of our christian deeds.

Again, more semantics – Likewise; Christian deeds is what gives life to our faith.

Without faith they are worthless.

More semantics – Likewise; Without deeds, faith is worthless.

Unknown · February 2005

CLawrence,

Regarding John 3:5 - we have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of this passage. I understand that Jesus is contrasting physical birth with spiritual birth. Nicodemus has asked if a many must go into his mother's womb a second time, and Jesus responds with the "born of water and the Spirit" comment. Jesus continues in verse 6 to say that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." Both of these are contrasting fleshly birth (of water) and spiritual birth (of the Spirit). I do not believe He is talking about water baptism in this passage.

Please read my response to JFranklin, which refutes the notion that the “water” refers to the physical birth. In addition to my brief comment on the historical aspect of baptism in JFranklins post in which i referred to reputable evangelical and ex-Protestant scholars, I will paste a few of these historical sources which prove my point. Again, we would appreciate you being consistent in your approach – if History was good enough to affirm the doctrine of divine presence, then why disregard it everywhere else? Especially when this particular issue is so clearly taught in the scriptures.

Just some of the early historical support for water baptism:

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (c. A.D. 70) (11:1-10)

THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (c. A.D. 140) (4:3:1-2; 9:16:2-4)

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 148-155) (1 Apology 65)

ST. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (c. A.D. 181) (To Autolycus 2:16)

ST. IRENAEUS (c. A.D. 190) (Fragment 34)

TERTULLIAN (A.D. 200-206) (On Baptism 1:1; 5:6; 7:2, 12:1)

ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 202) (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1)

ORIGEN (A.D. 244) (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 A.D.) (To Donatus 4)

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. A.D. 350) (Catechetical Lectures 3:10,12)

List goes on and on and on….

I do not believe God holds us accountable for a level of belief we are unable to achieve due to age or mental capability.

I think you missed H.H. point. If such is the case, and you agree, then you have no case against Infant baptism, simple as that.

This seems to me to be basing a doctrine on an assumption.

It’s a sound and safe assumption to make. You also assume the contrary, for ofcourse the Bible doesn’t get into detail, yet your contrary assumption would not be labbellled sound or probable.

Either way, we simply do not know, and so it seems poor theology to base a doctrine on the possibility.

If indeed a theological doctrine was based on one assumption. The plausibility of a theological doctrine is strengthened by safe, sound and probable assumptions - and other possible inferences. This assumption was never the root or base of H.H conclusion on Baptism – rather all of the above mentioned factors (and more which have not yet been mentioned) plus the clear testimony of history itself. I will now provide historical evidence for infant baptism, again proving that the tradition passed down by the apostles in their own era, and which formulated the faith of the early church which did not have a properly compiled or circulated codex of the scriptures, supported the notion of infant baptism. Again we ask for your consistency and objectivity in these matters:

Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140)
Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156)
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165)
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180)
Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190),
Tertullian, On Baptism, 18 (A.D. 200/206)
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215)
Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233)
Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244)
Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244
Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58 (64):2,6 (A.D. 251)
Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365),
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism,40:17 (A.D. 381)
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism,40:28 (A.D. 381)
Chrysostom John,Ad Neophytos, (A.D. 388)
Ambrose, Abraham,2,11:79 (A.D. 387)
Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist,4:24:31 (A.D. 400),
Jerome, To Laeta,Epistle 107:6 (A.D. 403)
Augustine, On forgiveness of sin, and baptism,39[26] (A.D. 412),
Augustine, Epistle 166:8:23(A.D. 412),
Council of Carthage, Canon 2, (A.D. 418),
African Code, Canon 47/51(A.D. 419),
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 7 (A.D. 428),

and the list goes on...

Id like to conclude by emphasising that the church views baptism as a normative necessity rather than an absolute necessity, to gain salvation. i.e. there are exceptions. I can get into the issue of the thief on the cross and others, very easily, but since there is no notion of absolute necessity then i'll leave it for now until the other issues are addressed. We recognise that God can and does save people who dont know that they need to be baptized but would have if they had known, or people who simply have never had the opportunity . God doesnt hold against someone what they are unable to obtain or that which they innocently don't know they need. I guess this brings us back to the main issue of what this thread was created for.

Those who know that baptism is necessary however, or those who wilfully reject Baptism - is another issue.

Peace

Unknown · February 2005

hmm the "insert list" function is stuffing up onmy computer - i will properly list the sources that were meant to appear in list format in my previous post, next time im online.

minasoliman · February 2005

It is illogical to say that "water" in this passage is referred to the placenta, for this is the mere sarcasm that Nicodemus was questioning. To be "born AGAIN" means to be "born of water and Spirit." Christ did not define born "again" as born "of Spirit," but added the water component with it. Baptism and faith go hand-in-hand. There is ample proof in the Book of Acts. To be born "again" with placental "water" is affirming Nicodemus' sarcasm.

In addition, faith and works MUST go together. Martin Luther mentioned how St. James' Epistle is a "book of straw" because of the overemphasis on works. If I have the faith to move mountains, but no love, then the faith in Christ profits me nothing.

In addition, the necessity for a baby's baptism comes from the RESPONSIBILITY of the parents. To not baptise your child is similar to helping your child "reject" Christ (even if you don't really mean to). When the Apostles were pushing away the children, Christ asked them not to, "for such is the kingdom of God."

When God sent the flood to Noah's Ark, it was necessary that Noah and his family be in a boat. Those outside the boat (which probably included families with children) were drowned! The Bible in the NT connects baptism with Noah's Ark! Would you give your infant free will to enter the boat as he/she pleases? Obviously not! The baby relies on spiritual food of his/her parents to keep him/her alive. Once the baby grows into a free thinking adult, the adult may leave the boat and drown himself if he/she wishes. The Book of Acts shows ample proof that on the faith of the man of the family, the WHOLE family was baptised, and many families were baptised. Surely, you can't deny that there were baptism of babies.

If you read Church history, you will understand EXACTLY what the NT Church did and how it was preserved up until Orthodoxy today. Paedobaptism and belief of "faith and works" is not something new in Christianity, but have always existed every since the Pentecost.

May God bless you.

thesoccerstar10 · February 2005

CLawrence,

Why would you want to deprive an infant from his freewill??? by not baptizing an infant, you leave him "open" for the devil to take over.

It works the opposite way, many protestants will say that you're depriving the kid from his freewill..no we're not...we're allowing him to have his freewill through baptism.

It's just like when a kid is born, you give him all the immunity he needs, you don't let him grow up without immunization and say that he needs to understand what they do first, and believe that they can protect him against the certain diseases and then he can get the immunizations!!! Same with baptizm, you don't want to leave a chance for the virus (devil) to get to the kid before the immunization (baptism).

Like it was mentioned above, the Bible says: "let all the children come unto me and do not forbid them for like those is the Kingdom of God" and then he says several times that baptism is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. So by not baptizing kids, you are breaking God's commandments, because you are not allowing the kids to go to him!!

God bless,
Mike

silvana_1st · February 2005

I can see that my questions have brought up alot of differing views between the churches, But I'd like to say something regarding Baptism.

Firstly, why is baptism one of the seven sacrements of the church? wether it's for adults or children?
It's because we believe that through our baptism we are literally receiving the HOLY SPIRIT (it's not just a symbol), just as Christ received the Holy Spirit when he was baptised by John the Baptist. And if you notice, Jesus did not start his testimony to the Jews until he was baptised and fasted in the desert. So noone can deny that baptism is important.

Secondly, regarding the baptism of babies. If we ourselves say that if we are not baptised and receive Holy communion frequently then we are subjected to the works of the devil, then how can we not baptise our Children? how can we deny them from the Body and blood of Christ, that will strengthen and save them from the devil?

As for Baptism only being a symbol, I completely disagree with that. I will tell u a story of why.
There was a family who were Jehovah's witnesses living in egypt, they had a really sick son. The mother was friends with a Christian lady who told her to take the boy and give him communion in the church and he will be healed. The mother asked the Christian lady, but won't Abouna know that I am not Christian, and the Christian lady replied, there will be so many people there Abouna won't notice.The mother agreed to take the child to Church because they'd tried all the doctors and found no result. The mother took her son into the church and told him to go and take communion while she stood at the back waiting for him. When Abouna saw the boy taking communion he was suspicious, so he said to him where is your mother. The boy pointed to his mother at the back of the church and the Priest asked the boy to call his mother. The priest then asked the mother, are you Christian, and she answered NO. Abouna said you have to baptise this boy now or else he will die. The mother said No I can't we are Jehovah's witnesses and if his father found out what I've done he will surely divorce me. But Abouna insisted that the boy be baptised but the mother refused and took him home. The next day, the mother found her son had died in his sleep and on his chest was a burn made from fire in the shape of a cross.

Christi_03 · February 2005

hey mike
first off, welcome to the site... i see you're new here... hope you enjoy your stay...

secondly, wow.. i really liked your analogy of immunization and viruses with the devil and baptizm...very nice... lol

silvana_1st,
nice story! that's pretty freaky how abouna knew what would happen, and what actually happened...

keep up the great posting guys!

take care and God bless

Unknown · February 2005

I have just modified my last post to CLawrence with the list of historical evidence for infant baptism.

jfranklin · February 2005

So we have righteousness, and faith, in the same sentence, in the context of salvation – again proving that the two are inseparable, you cannot disconnect one from the other, you cannot emphasize one and leave the other in the background. Works are the shadows of faith. If there’s no shadow of faith, there is no faith, its just an illusion. You must do good works (amongst other things – repentance, Eucharist, baptism, confession etc.) to prove your faith, simple as that.

Iqbal,

I agree with you....will miracles never cease...lol... ;)....
Works do prove your faith.In a sense they justify your faith by proving it to be living,vibrant,real,saving trust in the living God instead of the dead,powerless faith(which really is not true faith at all)exercised by devils. Works,good deeds,etc. go hand in hand with faith since faith by its very essence is aggressive,an action,a verb if you will.Faith is never passive or a simple mental acknowledgement of the Divine.Rather it is a living,active trust(a clinging to,a relying on)in the living God which totally ecompasses every part of our life.Thats why faith is so important,why it is impossible to please God without it,why anything done apart from faith is sin.Faith is the conduit between God and man,the key that unlocks the blessings of God.

It is faith alone which brings righteousness,justification,
sanctfication,the gift of the Holy Spirit...works never make a man righteous or holy...faith is the substance....faith is the power....faith is what moves mountains,what moves heaven....just as the Book of Hebrews states:" By faith the men of old did all these mighty deeds and found approval before God".They did many mighty works but it was the faith that justified them before God.Because the works they did were done in reliance and trust in the LORD God.It was their faith that gave meaning and justification to the acts themselves.Faith was the power of the deed.The works and deeds were meaningless without the grace of faith.

Baptism,repentance,Holy Communion,works,good deeds,etc are all dependant on faith.They have absolutely no power apart from faith.Without faith you can never truly repent.Without faith you can go into the water ten thousand times and nothing will happen,you will still be in your sins.Without faith every good work or deed is in vain just as the writer of Hebrews expressed"...being saved from dead works..." Without faith all your good deeds are vain and are not pleasing to God as the scripture says"Without faith it is impossible to please God".

Faith is the substance.Faith works.Faith is active.Good deeds are the mirror reflecting the substance of faith.Good works are the byproduct but not the substance.The ray but not the Sun.Works are the footprints,the signature,the evidence of the passing reality.

We are not saved by faith plus works.We are saved by grace through faith and this{faith} is not our own but it is the gift of God.True faith is active.True faith works.If you have no works then you have no true faith.But we do not trust in works, as some do, for we know that man will never be justified by the works of the Law{or any works for that matter}.It is faith which justifies.The works show forth our faith but they in no way contribute to salvation or the FREE gift of eternal life.Hundreds and hundreds of Scriptures bear witness to this fact.The book of Galatians bears witness to this fact.The book of Romans bears witness to this fact.The Holy Spirit bears witness to this fact.

Unknown · February 2005

Jfranklin

Again, I believe my issues with you, with regards to the concept of faith/works are concerned with phraseology. On many occasions you say things which I have no trouble with, but on occasions you make certain statements that a worded in a manner, such that it seems like you're almost contradicting yourself.

For example, you quoted my paragraph in which i said:

So we have righteousness, and faith, in the same sentence, in the context of salvation – again proving that the two are inseparable, you cannot disconnect one from the other, you cannot emphasize one and leave the other in the background. Works are the shadows of faith. If there’s no shadow of faith, there is no faith, its just an illusion. You must do good works (amongst other things – repentance, Eucharist, baptism, confession etc.) to prove your faith, simple as that.

...And you stated that you concur with me.

But then you go on to make a statement such as the following:

We are not saved by faith plus works.

Now the construction of that statement, directly contradicts the paragraph you claimed to agree with. Because when you speak of “faith PLUS works” you are implicitly separating them as if theyre two exclusive categories, disconnecting one from the other, such that they're not longer intricately intertwined and intimately related as most of your post suggests.

I mean lets use your own analogy of faith being like the sun, and works beings like the rays. Now just as you said “we are not saved by faith PLUS works”, it follows from your logic that one may make the statement: “We do not see the day because of the sun PLUS its rays.” Now of course, you must agree with me, that this sounds absurd. We see the day because of the activity of the rays which originate from the Sun – it IS indeed “Sun PLUS rays” we cannot separate the two - so your analogy backfires against you in this regard.

If you agree with what I have said in this post, then we have no problems, and indeed we have the same concept in mind, and any disagreement thus far can be attributed to a mere misunderstanding based on semantics and careless articulation.

jfranklin · February 2005

We are not saved by faith plus works.

Works are not a seperate entity apart from faith.God does not save us because we merit or earn salvation{through good deeds or works of righteousness} but soley on the basis of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ... because of the Grace of God manifested in the perfect Life,Death,and Resurrection of His beloved Son Yeshua.

Faith is the substance,works are the visible manifestation of the power of faith.They are the fruit growing on the vine.When I see the fruit I know the tree is alive.Christ is the Vine,we are the branches.We can do NOTHING apart from the life of the Vine.When we abide in Jesus, and He in us, we manifest the Life of Christ bearing the good fruit, performing deeds of righteousness.These deeds do not save us rather they are the visible manifestation of our union in Christ Jesus.They contribute nothing to the salvation we have freely recieved in Christ.As Saint Paul said,"For by grace you have been saved through faith.And this is not your own doing;it is the gift of God,NOT A RESULT OF WORKS,so that no one may boast.For weare His workmanship,created in Christ Jesus for good works,which God prepared beforehand,that we should walk in them".
So you can see we are saved not by works but by grace through faith.By faith we are a new creation.A new creation who's very nature is to perform good works which God has prepared for us to accomplish,to fulfill our destiny.Just as Jesus was baptised{though He had no need to be made clean}to fulfill all righteousness,so we also perform good works,not for the sake of salvation,but in order to fulfill our destiny and the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus.The works did not save us but we were saved by grace,made new in Christ;abiding in Christ the Vine we bear good fruit,good deeds.

jfranklin · February 2005

“We do not see the day because of the sun PLUS its rays.” Now of course, you must agree with me, that this sounds absurd. We see the day because of the activity of the rays which originate from the Sun – it IS indeed “Sun PLUS rays” we cannot separate the two - so your analogy backfires against you in this regard.

We do indeed see the day because of the sun plus rays but the rays are not the source of our illumination but rather the origin and substance of our sight belongs to the Sun.Faith is the subtance,the cause and effect of our spiritual life while works and good deeds are but the visible manifestation of the true source,which is the grace of faith.The rays are meaningless without the source of the sun.Truly they derive their power fom the sun's glory.Works have no value apart from faith,they derive their power from the glory of faith.

I know the analogy is flawed from a scientific point of view because the sun and rays are of the same substance.The analolgy was not meant to be taken literally. :)

Unknown · February 2005

We do indeed see the day because of the sun plus rays

J, that’s all I need to hear from you. If you submit that to see the day, we need Sun + rays (regardless of their direct relationship), then likewise you must submit that salvation is faith plus works – simply because faith minus works, is not a saving faith, as both you and I have already acknowledged!! We’re running in circles here.

the rays are not the source of our illumination but rather the origin and substance of our sight belongs to the Sun.

This is irrelevant. What is relevant is that both the Sun and rays are necessary elements – PERIOD. No one is denying that saving faith is the source/origin of our works – it is indeed this very affirmation which leads us to conclude a faith + works = salvation formula, since faith – works = 0.

rays are meaningless without the source of the sun.

And the sun cannot exist without the rays. St James makes it perfectly clear, a faith without works is DEAD, thus a faith with works is LIVING, and a living faith saves. Therefore faith + works = salvation. Its really ABC stuff.

works are the visible manifestation of the power of faith.

Works are the manifestation of faith period. Without works, there is no faith.

,"For by grace you have been saved through faith.And this is not your own doing;it is the gift of God,NOT A RESULT OF WORKS,so that no one may boast.For weare His workmanship,created in Christ Jesus for good works,which God prepared beforehand,that we should walk in them".

Let me give you an analogy. I would like to get to the top of a building (The Kingdom of God), however it is structured in such a way that there is no way I can climb (good works, sacraments, repentence) to the top on my own. A friend (Christ) comes along, and gives me a ladder (His incarnation, Sacrifice, and grace). By climbing (good works) this ladder (faith) alone can I reach the top of this building. I didn’t build the ladder. I didn’t earn it. It was given to me. Now, is the ladder going to take me to the top of that building, or am I going to have to put in some effort and climb it? Can I say I will reach the top of the building by the ladder without my own effort? Certainly not. I accept this free gift from my friend, by which alone am I capable of reaching my required destination – for without the ladder, my own efforts would never be sufficient.

It is a ladder that we were given J, not an elevator.

I can quote many verses regarding the connection between works and salvation – but again, we understand them in the context that I have described in my posts so far, and in the context of the above analogy.

Since we do not wish to drift off topic here, we will get back to the main issue which is baptism. As I have proven, the sacrament of baptism is what our Lord was referring to when He stated that in order to be saved, one must be “born again” which is the spiritual birth from water and spirit. So here is one specific case, where a sacrament is spoken of in the context of salvation – for, it is by the sacrament of baptism, that we are inter alia regenerated so that we may receive God’s grace and Spirit, to do good works, that we may prove our faith as a living and saving faith.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Baptism

Comments