Does baptismal regeneration violate the core teaching of justification by faith alone (sola fide)?

[UnitedWithChrist]

Some sects which are professing Christians claim that water baptism actually saves the person.

The act of water baptism accomplishes a spiritual benefit for the person, and conveys grace in some way, according to this view.

Church of Christ claims that water baptism actually saves people.

The evangelical view is that water baptism is a first act of obedience, rather than the point of salvation.

The question is simple...is it faith that saves, or is it baptism that saves? Is a person saved at the point of baptism, or is he saved at the point of faith?

And, what Scriptures would you use to support your view?

My position is that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. However, water baptism should follow this salvation. It is a public proclamation of the union that the believer shares with Jesus. After water baptism, the Lord's Supper reminds us of this union with Christ on a regular basis.

In other words, I do not believe that water baptism or the Lord's Supper conveys grace in the sense of salvation, but I believe it conveys grace in that it reminds the believer concerning their union of Christ, and it is a means of reminding the believer of their union with Christ.

Otherwise, it would become not much more than physical circumcision was in ancient Israel.

Therefore, I believe that baptismal regeneration is basically the equivalent of the Galatian error requiring physical circumcision from Gentiles.

I would support my view with Romans 6:1-14.

Romans 6:1-14 1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Why is this issue important? Baptismal regeneration is an error that is supported by major groups in the USA, including Church of Christ (Campbellites), Roman Catholicism, various other cults, and other Christian groups.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

I recommend a reading of all the scriptures about baptism. Both statements are incorrect, for different reasons.
There is a particularly good read about baptism and the purpose it serves in Romans chapter 6.

 

[Runningman]

Some sects which are professing Christians claim that water baptism actually saves the person.

The act of water baptism accomplishes a spiritual benefit for the person, and conveys grace in some way, according to this view.

Church of Christ claims that water baptism actually saves people.

The evangelical view is that water baptism is a first act of obedience, rather than the point of salvation.

The question is simple...is it faith that saves, or is it baptism that saves? Is a person saved at the point of baptism, or is he saved at the point of faith?

And, what Scriptures would you use to support your view?

My position is that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. However, water baptism should follow this salvation. It is a public proclamation of the union that the believer shares with Jesus. After water baptism, the Lord's Supper reminds us of this union with Christ on a regular basis.

In other words, I do not believe that water baptism or the Lord's Supper conveys grace in the sense of salvation, but I believe it conveys grace in that it reminds the believer concerning their union of Christ, and it is a means of reminding the believer of their union with Christ.

Otherwise, it would become not much more than physical circumcision was in ancient Israel.

Therefore, I believe that baptismal regeneration is basically the equivalent of the Galatian error requiring physical circumcision from Gentiles.

I would support my view with Romans 6:1-14.

Romans 6:1-14 1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Why is this issue important? Baptismal regeneration is an error that is supported by major groups in the USA, including Church of Christ (Campbellites), Roman Catholicism, various other cults, and other Christian groups.

In 1 Corinthians 1:14 Paul says he's thankful he didn't baptize certain people. If baptism were necessary for salvation, Paul's words could be translated to "I'm thankful they are not going to heaven." which would be entirely inconsistent with the rest of the Bible and would be considered heresy. By 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul says that he didn't come to baptize, but to preach the gospel of Christ.

There are actually verses that suggest that baptism is a necessary part of salvation, but since scripture clearly states salvation comes from faith alone then the random verses that say salvation comes from baptism, too, must have a different interpretation. The Bible does not contradict itself so this is the only logical conclusion.

I've talked to CoC and RCC people who passionately and wholeheartedly believe in baptism as part of salvation. The implication of this is that Christ's sacrifice was inadequate to purchase the salvation of every believer and that we must work to gain our salvation. That implies the mission of the cross failed.

Since this message is also inconsistent with the rest of scripture, I can only conclude people who adhere to water baptism as a prerequisite for salvation are at best ignorant of what the New Testament says about salvation, at worst recklessly disregarding the message of the cross being the power of God to save those who believe.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

This is just a quick reply. But the thief on the cross who was promised by Jesus only needed faith.

 

[Blain]

Well if I may give a testimony when I was first saved I woke up filled with life itself and joy on a level that to this day words cannot describe almost like an entirely different feeling all together and it felt as if a blazing fire was burning inside me and all around me with such power and life. However this happened to me when I in mt tears begged father to come into my heart not when I was baptized in fact I became baptized a year after that

 

[Roughsoul1991]

I believe this is truly important

Matthew 3:11 New International Version (NIV)
11 “I baptize you with[a] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[b] the Holy Spirit and fire.

 

[Blain]

I believe this is truly important

Matthew 3:11 New International Version (NIV)
11 “I baptize you with[a] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[b] the Holy Spirit and fire.

Yes that is sxactly what it was like for me

 

[7seasrekeyed]

telling people they were created to go to hell does not do anything for spreading the gospel

so do you belong to a sect?

and no, water does not save a person and neither does multiple threads on that subject either

 

[mailmandan]

This is just a quick reply. But the thief on the cross who was promised by Jesus only needed faith.

Amen! In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. Yet, moments later, we see that one of the thieves had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Yes that is sxactly what it was like for me

Agree that was the only experience I could explain.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Amen! In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. Yet, moments later, we see that one of the thieves had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

I completely agree.

 

[Blain]

telling people they were created to go to hell does not do anything for spreading the gospel

so do you belong to a sect?

and no, water does not save a person and neither does multiple threads on that subject either

Oh dear... ptsd from the predestination debates lol

 

[wattie]

Yah. .. John 3:16 has no baptism in it. Romans 10 doesn't have baptism. John 5:24 no baptism.

Classic case is the thief on the cross-- believing in Jesus..no baptism.

But you do see baptism by immersion quickly happening after eternal salvation is given in the New Testament. Most cases I think a professing of faith was accompanied by baptism straight away.

There are also differences between baptism by immersion for a believer.. and then what happened in the likes of Acts with a NT christian assembly being empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The illustration of this is in:

(Act 19:1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

(Act 19:2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

(Act 19:3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

(Act 19:4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

(Act 19:5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

(Act 19:6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

(Act 19:7) And all the men were about twelve.

Note-- they had previously believed on Jesus Christ. They were also disciples. Paul asked if they had received the Holy Ghost-- this is where I believe it is when a church is empowered by the Holy Spirit. So the group had not received the Holy Ghost 'in their midst'.. but they had already believed individually and so had received the Holy Spirit in their souls.

So Paul asks not about eternal salvation but about their baptism. Apollos wasn't baptising these disciples by the right way.. so Paul got them re-baptised, in the name of Jesus Christ.

Then you see in acts 19:6-- the Holy Spirit empowering the group.. coming upon them.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Yah. .. John 3:16 has no baptism in it. Romans 10 doesn't have baptism. John 5:24 no baptism.

Classic case is the thief on the cross-- believing in Jesus..no baptism.

But you do see baptism by immersion quickly happening after eternal salvation is given in the New Testament. Most cases I think a professing of faith was accompanied by baptism straight away.

There are also differences between baptism by immersion for a believer.. and then what happened in the likes of Acts with a NT christian assembly being empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The illustration of this is in:

(Act 19:1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

(Act 19:2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

(Act 19:3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

(Act 19:4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

(Act 19:5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

(Act 19:6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

(Act 19:7) And all the men were about twelve.

Note-- they had previously believed on Jesus Christ. They were also disciples. Paul asked if they had received the Holy Ghost-- this is where I believe it is when a church is empowered by the Holy Spirit. So the group had not received the Holy Ghost 'in their midst'.. but they had already believed individually and so had received the Holy Spirit in their souls.

So Paul asks not about eternal salvation but about their baptism. Apollos wasn't baptising these disciples by the right way.. so Paul got them re-baptised, in the name of Jesus Christ.

Then you see in acts 19:6-- the Holy Spirit empowering the group.. coming upon them.

My position regarding Acts 19 is that it is talking about Old Testament saints.

John the Baptist baptized Jews. This was not a Christian baptism, but was a baptism that demonstrated the Jews themselves needed spiritual cleansing. Many Jews thought that they were righteous by virtue of being a descendant of Abraham.

The reality is that they were not spiritually cleansed. And, regarding salvation, they didn't even know that Jesus was the Messiah to die for their sins at this point. Baptism is actually identification with Jesus, and they didn't even know he was their Savior. Read Romans 6:1-14.

I don't think they believed at John's baptism in the same sense as Christian belief, because they did not know Jesus was Messiah. They were an Old Testament saint, and were saved, but they were not identified with Christ yet.

With this baptism, they became identified with Christ and were given the Holy Spirit.

The theme of the book of Acts relates to Acts 1:8. The gospel was to go out of Jerusalem, and reach various people groups. Speaking in languages (I won't use the word tongues because I think it's an ignorant translation) accompanied receipt of the Holy Spirit. Laying on of hands accompanied baptism, and a manifestation of the Holy Spirit occurred at the same time.

Various subgroups within the early church are recognized throughout the narrative.

Jews
Samaritans
God-fearers
Ordinary, non-God fearing Gentiles
Old Testament saints

This shows a fulfillment of Acts 1:8.

I will provide a few commentaries (and for those who don't like me providing external information, TOUGH):

Acts 1:8 1:8 This is both the general outline and central theme of Acts. The gospel will proceed from Jerusalem (chs. 1–7), to Judea and Samaria (chs. 8–12), and to the ends of the earth (chs. 13–28). Thematically, the disciples’ role is to be Jesus’ “witnesses.” Their power is the Holy Spirit. Their task is to take this message from “Jerusalem . . . to the ends of the earth.” This movement is both geographic (from Jerusalem to Rome) and ethnic (from Jews to Gentiles). The movement also continues what started in Luke’s Gospel. While the great central section of Luke’s Gospel describes Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem to accomplish God’s salvation (Luke 9–19), Acts describes the outward movement from Jerusalem to proclaim God’s salvation everywhere.
(NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible)

Acts 1:8 Verse 8 is the thematic statement for all of Acts. It begins with the Spirit's power that stands behind and drives the witness to Jesus. Then it provides a rough outline of the book: Jerusalem (chs. 1-7), Judea and Samaria (chs. 8-12), and the end of the earth (chs. 13-28).
(ESV SB Notes)

Acts 1:8 my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. Jesus’ words forecast the geographical expansion of the church narrated in the book of Acts. The Jerusalem witness (ch. 2) gives in miniature form God’s worldwide ministry: “Jews . . . from every nation” (2:5) and Gentile proselytes (v. 11) who hear and believe carry the message far and wide. In the rest of Acts, the gospel spreads throughout Jerusalem (3:1-8:1), then to Judea and Samaria, including Antioch of Syria (8:1-12:25), and finally to the ends of the earth (13:1-28:31). Recall that Acts 1:8 is an outline for the entire book (see the Introduction to Acts: Literary Features).
(Reformation SB)

Specifically regarding Acts 19:1-6, I will add these notes, which I think are accurate:


Acts 19:1-6 19:1 disciples. Either believers in Jesus (like Apollos, 18:25) or followers of John the Baptist. The latter is perhaps more likely because they have not yet received the Spirit. In either case, they have insufficient knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah and do not know about the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (v. 2; 2:14–39).
19:4 John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. It prepared for the coming of the Messiah (10:37; 13:24–25; Luke 3:3, 8, 16).
19:5 baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Qualitatively different from John’s baptism of repentance; it symbolizes the regenerating work of the Spirit through the death and resurrection of Christ and entering the new age of salvation.
19:6 placed his hands on them. For the laying on of hands to receive the Spirit, see 8:15–17. tongues. Accompanies the bestowal of the Spirit at Pentecost (2:4, 11) and at the home of Cornelius (10:46), but not in every case of conversion in Acts (8:17). The book of Acts covers a period of transition, and there is no single model or pattern for the coming of the Spirit or its accompanying signs. The general pattern, however, is reception of the Spirit at the time of conversion.
(NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible)

And, again, for those who scoff at me for using study bibles, I really don't care what you think on this. Somehow you think that your opinion based on your professed independent reading should be the only thing that is discussed. I find great value in presenting the educated opinions of scholars such as DA Carson or Wayne Grudem or any other number of brothers in Christ, who have a good knowledge of the Bible, church history, and original languages.

So..on one end of the spectrum I have ME. I am an untrained, fallible man. In the middle, I have YOU. I don't even know your background, but you likely have worse training than me, and even the ones that profess seminary training may be lying. To the far right, I have published, sound, conservative teachers. And, over all, I have God and the Holy Spirit leading me and hopefully you and them too.

I really dislike it when some people discount conscientious brothers in Christ who have dedicated their lives to studying and teaching. I dislike it A LOT.

By the way, I'm not addressing you, wattie..I doubt you hold that view...I just find that when I quote study bibles some get contentious with me on this

Additionally, for those who don't know this, OliveTree has a wonderful, reasonably priced application for both PC and cell phone that displays your preferred text, side by side with your preferred study bible notes. You can change the notes or text at will.

I love this application. Logos has something that is similar, but it is more expensive.

I built up my collection of study Bibles while I was in the hospital with a broken neck, back, and hip. Thank God, I had the resources to spend on this. I couldn't even read a book easily with the broken neck, as I had a halo device installed that held my head onto my shoulders

This was such a blessing to me and I thank God that he provided me with a great Iphone and these tools. I could talk to some of my Christian friends online, do some study, and listen to great Christian music under conditions most would find unbearable. I really recommend developing such tools in case you ever wind up in the hospital or nursing home.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

This topic of baptism raises the point whether Acts should be considered normative for today.

I don't think that Acts is normative for today. I believe it records a transitional period where the people of God goes from the nation of Israel to the Church, and the leaders of God goes from the priests to the apostles, and the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant.

I believe the activities witnessed during this time period supported authoritatively this transition.

The position of many Restorationist churches is that the book of Acts is normative. This may also be the position of the Roman Catholic church as well. I would not agree with this.

For instance, when people today are saved, they don't experience tongues of fire landing on their heads. So, as much as folks claim that Pentecost is re-created in each individual believer, I would not hold that view because I don't see flames of fire landing on their heads.

I believe that the way things occurred in Acts was designed by God to establish a foundation involving a unified church. How so? In many cases, what the outlying groups experienced was reflective of Pentecost in Jerusalem. And, the fact that the Holy Spirit was given with languages accompanying it reinforced this idea, as often it was the apostles who laid hands upon the people at that point in time. This pointed the new believers back to the Jerusalem church and the apostles as their authority.

God did not want the Samaritans, who were enemies of Jews, to go off and form their own church, which was antagonistic and hostile toward the Jews in Jerusalem. Therefore, the Holy Spirit carefully crafted the situations in the book of Acts in order to create the type of foundation God wanted.

I believe this view would be supported by a book called "New Wine: A Study of Transitions in the Book of Acts" by Dwight Pentecost if anyone wants to read it. However, I have not read the book yet, and Pentecost is a dispensationalist so I would likely disagree with some of his points. However, I have heard from friends who read it that this is the basic gist of the book.

This topic is interesting to me because I came from a cult who taught that water baptism was, in essence, the point of regeneration, but they were specifically focused on laying on of hands. In their theology, they taught that God impregnates the believer with the Holy Spirit at this point. It required laying on of hands by an Armstrongite minister. This, in effect, places salvation under the control of the cult, because only the Armstrongite minister could impart the Holy Spirit. I remember my Armstrongite pastor grasping my head firmly at the moment when this occurred, as if squeezing my head harder would cause more of the Holy Spirit to be drained into my body

If I'm not mistaken, Roman Catholics claim similar authority with regards to baptism and laying on of hands. But, I might be wrong on this.

https://smile.amazon.com/New-Wine-S...w+wine+dwight+pentecost&qid=1586568803&sr=8-1

Anyways, it's been my observation that many weird groups, including cults, use Acts to justify their doctrines. The subject merits close attention. One must ask whether Acts is normative or transitional, and which teachings can be considered normative and which teachings can be considered transitional.

There will be fierce differences of opinion on this issue amongst various cults and even some groups within normal evangelical Christianity.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

This topic of baptism raises the point whether Acts should be considered normative for today.

I don't think that Acts is normative for today. I believe it records a transitional period where the people of God goes from the nation of Israel to the Church, and the leaders of God goes from the priests to the apostles, and the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant.

I believe the activities witnessed during this time period supported authoritatively this transition.

The position of many Restorationist churches is that the book of Acts is normative. This may also be the position of the Roman Catholic church as well. I would not agree with this.

For instance, when people today are saved, they don't experience tongues of fire landing on their heads. So, as much as folks claim that Pentecost is re-created in each individual believer, I would not hold that view because I don't see flames of fire landing on their heads.

I believe that the way things occurred in Acts was designed by God to establish a foundation involving a unified church. How so? In many cases, what the outlying groups experienced was reflective of Pentecost in Jerusalem. And, the fact that the Holy Spirit was given with languages accompanying it reinforced this idea, as often it was the apostles who laid hands upon the people at that point in time. This pointed the new believers back to the Jerusalem church and the apostles as their authority.

God did not want the Samaritans, who were enemies of Jews, to go off and form their own church, which was antagonistic and hostile toward the Jews in Jerusalem. Therefore, the Holy Spirit carefully crafted the situations in the book of Acts in order to create the type of foundation God wanted.

I believe this view would be supported by a book called "New Wine: A Study of Transitions in the Book of Acts" by Dwight Pentecost if anyone wants to read it. However, I have not read the book yet, and Pentecost is a dispensationalist so I would likely disagree with some of his points. However, I have heard from friends who read it that this is the basic gist of the book.

This topic is interesting to me because I came from a cult who taught that water baptism was, in essence, the point of regeneration, but they were specifically focused on laying on of hands. In their theology, they taught that God impregnates the believer with the Holy Spirit at this point. It required laying on of hands by an Armstrongite minister. This, in effect, places salvation under the control of the cult, because only the Armstrongite minister could impart the Holy Spirit. I remember my Armstrongite pastor grasping my head firmly at the moment when this occurred, as if squeezing my head harder would cause more of the Holy Spirit to be drained into my body

If I'm not mistaken, Roman Catholics claim similar authority with regards to baptism and laying on of hands. But, I might be wrong on this.

https://smile.amazon.com/New-Wine-S...w+wine+dwight+pentecost&qid=1586568803&sr=8-1

Anyways, it's been my observation that many weird groups, including cults, use Acts to justify their doctrines. The subject merits close attention. One must ask whether Acts is normative or transitional, and which teachings can be considered normative and which teachings can be considered transitional.

There will be fierce differences of opinion on this issue amongst various cults and even some groups within normal evangelical Christianity.

This gets into the question of different types of writings in Scripture. Historical narratives are not always meant to be assumed as normative for all time. Acts is a historical narrative. We must consider the different genres when reading and interpreting the Bible and its meaning for us today. Paul's writings are largely didactic and meant for teaching principles. They are more abstract and definitive. Historical narratives could contain some didactic teaching, but they are not necessarily meant to define church doctrine in all cases, especially when the apostles' didactic teachings are clear.

 

[garee]

This topic of baptism raises the point whether Acts should be considered normative for today.

I don't think that Acts is normative for today. I believe it records a transitional period where the people of God goes from the nation of Israel to the Church, and the leaders of God goes from the priests to the apostles, and the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant.

I believe the activities witnessed during this time period supported authoritatively this transition.

The position of many Restorationist churches is that the book of Acts is normative. This may also be the position of the Roman Catholic church as well. I would not agree with this.

For instance, when people today are saved, they don't experience tongues of fire landing on their heads. So, as much as folks claim that Pentecost is re-created in each individual believer, I would not hold that view because I don't see flames of fire landing on their heads.

I believe that the way things occurred in Acts was designed by God to establish a foundation involving a unified church. How so? In many cases, what the outlying groups experienced was reflective of Pentecost in Jerusalem. And, the fact that the Holy Spirit was given with languages accompanying it reinforced this idea, as often it was the apostles who laid hands upon the people at that point in time. This pointed the new believers back to the Jerusalem church and the apostles as their authority.

God did not want the Samaritans, who were enemies of Jews, to go off and form their own church, which was antagonistic and hostile toward the Jews in Jerusalem. Therefore, the Holy Spirit carefully crafted the situations in the book of Acts in order to create the type of foundation God wanted.

I believe this view would be supported by a book called "New Wine: A Study of Transitions in the Book of Acts" by Dwight Pentecost if anyone wants to read it. However, I have not read the book yet, and Pentecost is a dispensationalist so I would likely disagree with some of his points. However, I have heard from friends who read it that this is the basic gist of the book.

This topic is interesting to me because I came from a cult who taught that water baptism was, in essence, the point of regeneration, but they were specifically focused on laying on of hands. In their theology, they taught that God impregnates the believer with the Holy Spirit at this point. It required laying on of hands by an Armstrongite minister. This, in effect, places salvation under the control of the cult, because only the Armstrongite minister could impart the Holy Spirit. I remember my Armstrongite pastor grasping my head firmly at the moment when this occurred, as if squeezing my head harder would cause more of the Holy Spirit to be drained into my body

If I'm not mistaken, Roman Catholics claim similar authority with regards to baptism and laying on of hands. But, I might be wrong on this.

https://smile.amazon.com/New-Wine-S...w+wine+dwight+pentecost&qid=1586568803&sr=8-1

Anyways, it's been my observation that many weird groups, including cults, use Acts to justify their doctrines. The subject merits close attention. One must ask whether Acts is normative or transitional, and which teachings can be considered normative and which teachings can be considered transitional.

There will be fierce differences of opinion on this issue amongst various cults and even some groups within normal evangelical Christianity.

This gets into the question of different types of writings in Scripture. Historical narratives are not always meant to be assumed as normative for all time. Acts is a historical narrative. We must consider the different genres when reading and interpreting the Bible and its meaning for us today. Paul's writings are largely didactic and meant for teaching principles. They are more abstract and definitive. Historical narratives could contain some didactic teaching, but they are not necessarily meant to define church doctrine in all cases, especially when the apostles' didactic teachings are clear.

Acts is normative for today. God does not change.

I do not think the Bible represents giving authority to the hands of men (apostles) .He who name is Jealous simply will not share his glory with the corrupted clay. The apostles are simply those sent of God as prophets declaring the words God has given them. Abel is the first recorded lively stone that makes up the spirutl house of God the church .First recorded martyr also.

The baptismal regeneration of washing our hearts is one of faith. The result of God's labor of love.The cleansing power of the gospel. A unseen faith authority of the hidden glory. It does not come by looking at what the eyes see but by believing as he gives us his understanding to make it possible.

The ceremonial baptisms called dead works use water (the temporal thing seen) It is used when a new priest had a desire to be come a priest. It is one ceremonial law that transfers over and continues through the new testament. The new manner of priest from all the nation men and woman alike coming after Christ (Melchizedek) revealed by the Son of man Jesus. (John 3:25)

New ceremonial laws as a sign to the world are given in 1 Corinthians 11. They were added making it three shadows for teaching of the representative object as shadows of the greater unseen glory .

 

[MattforJesus]

If baptism is necessary for salvation then it is part of the Gospel of Christ, so it does not violate faith alone, for anything after the Gospel of Christ would violate faith alone if it is works.

For if baptism is a work but part of the Gospel of Christ then repentance is also a work.

And the truth is everything we think and do is a work.

It is a work to believe, to have faith, to confess Christ, to repent of our sins.

1Th 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father.

2Th_1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power.

Faith is a work so if they say we do not have to be baptized for it is a work then how can it be faith alone if faith is a work.

So they cannot prove baptism is not necessary for salvation by saying faith alone, and baptism is a work.

Also it is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that is the Gospel, not the death, and resurrection.

So if baptism is necessary for salvation then they are trying to cut out the middle man.

So they cannot prove baptism is necessary for salvation for it is a work, and it is faith alone, for it is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Also charity, love in action, is greater than faith and hope, and faith works by love.

So it is not faith alone, but love alone and everything stems from love, which love is the fulfilling of the law, and the 2 greatest laws is love God, and love people.

If baptism is part of the Gospel of Christ then baptism is necessary for salvation.

1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Bible says that baptism in water does now save us, not the washing away of the filth of the flesh, but a good conscience toward God.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

When we are baptized in water then we are baptized in to Christ's death.

For if we have been planted in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection.

So it appears as if we have to identify with the man Christ Jesus which the sins of the world were placed upon Him, and we repent of our sins, and He laid down those sins in burial, and we lay down our sins by being water baptized which is for the remission of sins, and He rose again, and we rise to newness of life by the Spirit.

It is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, so we cannot cut out the middle man water baptism, and if we are buried in the likeness of His death then we shall rise in the likeness of His resurrection.

And people who say the thief of the cross did not get water baptized, but the thief had no way to get water baptized so it can be bypassed, and when Jesus talked to the thief Jesus had not died yet so the New Covenant did not go in to affect yet the Gospel of Christ.

Jesus said to baptize in water.

When the Jews asked Peter what they must do to be saved water baptism was part of the process.

Jews, and Samaritans, and Gentiles, were all water baptized in Jesus' name, and the people that were baptized unto John's baptism had to be baptized in Jesus' name.

For the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is Jesus.

For Jesus said the name, not names, and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles, not names.

Jesus said He came in the Father's name.

The Son inherited the name from the Father.

The Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus.

All we do in word and deed we are to do all in the name of Jesus.

There is no other name by which we are saved but the name Jesus.

Act 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

They say that being water baptized causes a person to be a member of a Church.

But Philip baptized the Ethiopian man but did not do it so he could be a member of a Church for it was only the 2 of them, and Philip was caught away and the Ethiopian man never seen him again, so the Ethiopian man was alone and not told of any Church affiliation except for follow Christ.

The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, so all 3 steps is necessary for salvation.

And we have to identify with the man Christ Jesus who died, was buried, and rose again, by repenting, being water baptized, and receiving the Holy Spirit.

 

[Blain]

This topic of baptism raises the point whether Acts should be considered normative for today.

I don't think that Acts is normative for today. I believe it records a transitional period where the people of God goes from the nation of Israel to the Church, and the leaders of God goes from the priests to the apostles, and the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant.

I believe the activities witnessed during this time period supported authoritatively this transition.

The position of many Restorationist churches is that the book of Acts is normative. This may also be the position of the Roman Catholic church as well. I would not agree with this.

For instance, when people today are saved, they don't experience tongues of fire landing on their heads. So, as much as folks claim that Pentecost is re-created in each individual believer, I would not hold that view because I don't see flames of fire landing on their heads.

I believe that the way things occurred in Acts was designed by God to establish a foundation involving a unified church. How so? In many cases, what the outlying groups experienced was reflective of Pentecost in Jerusalem. And, the fact that the Holy Spirit was given with languages accompanying it reinforced this idea, as often it was the apostles who laid hands upon the people at that point in time. This pointed the new believers back to the Jerusalem church and the apostles as their authority.

God did not want the Samaritans, who were enemies of Jews, to go off and form their own church, which was antagonistic and hostile toward the Jews in Jerusalem. Therefore, the Holy Spirit carefully crafted the situations in the book of Acts in order to create the type of foundation God wanted.

I believe this view would be supported by a book called "New Wine: A Study of Transitions in the Book of Acts" by Dwight Pentecost if anyone wants to read it. However, I have not read the book yet, and Pentecost is a dispensationalist so I would likely disagree with some of his points. However, I have heard from friends who read it that this is the basic gist of the book.

This topic is interesting to me because I came from a cult who taught that water baptism was, in essence, the point of regeneration, but they were specifically focused on laying on of hands. In their theology, they taught that God impregnates the believer with the Holy Spirit at this point. It required laying on of hands by an Armstrongite minister. This, in effect, places salvation under the control of the cult, because only the Armstrongite minister could impart the Holy Spirit. I remember my Armstrongite pastor grasping my head firmly at the moment when this occurred, as if squeezing my head harder would cause more of the Holy Spirit to be drained into my body

If I'm not mistaken, Roman Catholics claim similar authority with regards to baptism and laying on of hands. But, I might be wrong on this.

https://smile.amazon.com/New-Wine-S...w+wine+dwight+pentecost&qid=1586568803&sr=8-1

Anyways, it's been my observation that many weird groups, including cults, use Acts to justify their doctrines. The subject merits close attention. One must ask whether Acts is normative or transitional, and which teachings can be considered normative and which teachings can be considered transitional.

There will be fierce differences of opinion on this issue amongst various cults and even some groups within normal evangelical Christianity.

This gets into the question of different types of writings in Scripture. Historical narratives are not always meant to be assumed as normative for all time. Acts is a historical narrative. We must consider the different genres when reading and interpreting the Bible and its meaning for us today. Paul's writings are largely didactic and meant for teaching principles. They are more abstract and definitive. Historical narratives could contain some didactic teaching, but they are not necessarily meant to define church doctrine in all cases, especially when the apostles' didactic teachings are clear.

Actually the book of acts and the things done it in are not done away with. I mean true you don't see tongues of flames on anyones heads but since when was seeing believing when it come to God? I may not not be
exactly drawn to the idea of laying of hands but I wouldn't limit God either. I mean true enough I have never seen it work but I still believe in it not because I have seen or experienced but because of what I know of God himself. I understand you are very much opposed to pentacostal but I wouldn't limit your understanding simply because you oppose the idea. I mean I am not pentecostal but have had many supernatural expereinces especially with fire. I also do not agree with the Catholic church but because I had a willing heart I learned a great deal from a catholic friend of mine. God can and will use anything and anyone to teach us if we have a teachable heart but that would require for us to not blind ourselves simply because we disagree with something

 

[Guojing]

In 1 Corinthians 1:14 Paul says he's thankful he didn't baptize certain people. If baptism were necessary for salvation, Paul's words could be translated to "I'm thankful they are not going to heaven." which would be entirely inconsistent with the rest of the Bible and would be considered heresy. By 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul says that he didn't come to baptize, but to preach the gospel of Christ.

There are actually verses that suggest that baptism is a necessary part of salvation, but since scripture clearly states salvation comes from faith alone then the random verses that say salvation comes from baptism, too, must have a different interpretation. The Bible does not contradict itself so this is the only logical conclusion.

I've talked to CoC and RCC people who passionately and wholeheartedly believe in baptism as part of salvation. The implication of this is that Christ's sacrifice was inadequate to purchase the salvation of every believer and that we must work to gain our salvation. That implies the mission of the cross failed.

Since this message is also inconsistent with the rest of scripture, I can only conclude people who adhere to water baptism as a prerequisite for salvation are at best ignorant of what the New Testament says about salvation, at worst recklessly disregarding the message of the cross being the power of God to save those who believe.

Good point, one way to reconcile would be to recognize the distinction between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace

Jesus was on Earth to fulfill the promise of a kingdom to the Jews, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 4:17).

Under that Kingdom, all Jews are supposed to accept Jesus as their King, and then be priests that will spread the message of the King to every nation.

The timeline was supposed to be Jews are to be saved first, once they accept Jesus as the Messiah, then the Kingdom will be established in Jerusalem and the Jews will then be priests spreading that blessings to all the Gentiles.

So in order for Jews to fulfill the role of priests, all of them must be water baptized. This was not a requirement before John and Jesus came on Earth, but because both of them came in preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, water baptism became required as part of the salvation process.