I have been discussing this with an Evangelical Lutheran, and he has been using this verse to support that we must be water baptized in order to have sins forgiven and to be regenerated? He also has been standing upon Acts 2:38 on this issue also.
1. It seems that many if not all of the comments by church fathers on the matter think that baptism was crucial to salvation. 2. How do we know that the thief on the cross wasn't one of the thousands of people baptized by John the Baptist? 3. I don't think it stretches Calvinism too much to assume that God will infallibly decree both the fact as well as the means of salvation for all of His elect. If baptism were necessary to salvation, then I would assume that God's Providence would ensure that baptism came to each one of the elect. 4. Comments on Points 1-3 above notwithstanding (I merely mentioned them for sake of argument), I don't believe that Mark 16:16 or any other passage of scripture teaches that salvation is impossible without water baptism. I believe that water baptism is a normal means of grace, but He is certainly within His sovereign prerogative to work in extraordinary ways in extraordinary cases if He so wills. EDIT TO ADD [For the benefit of future spectators]: This post was in reply to a post that has since been deleted.
We are saved by Grace alone, received through faith alone, but he did state that both Mark and Acts in the Greek text itself ties salvation into the water baptism?
Moderator Note: Unless a paedo-baptist has a serious question, let's let the credo-baptists respond in this thread.
I would agree with you that once we have been saved, in order to be in fullobedience to Jesus, should then be water baptized, but you are not agreeing with Him that the rite regenerates us, are you?
No one on PB is going to agree that water baptism regenerates anyone. WCF: "V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." LBC: "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."
That would be the place where the Lutheran took great exception to, as His view was that Acts and Mark indicate we must be water baptized, as that is a God ordained channel/means of grace.
David, did you intend to put this in the credo answers forum or the general baptism forum? It's not clear to me why you'd limit it to Baptists. An antipaedobaptist immersionist who believes you have to be baptized to be saved is in the company of Campbellites and Oneness Pentecostals.
I do think there is a sense in which baptism is our profession of faith, rather than an "altar call" or the sinner's prayer or some other act. We baptistic folks are wont to emphasize that in pagan cultures, it is often baptism that gives rise to persecution moreso than a profession of faith or other actions. In the NT it is "Believe and be baptized" over and over again but we want to wait for weeks, months, or even a year or more baptizing those who have evidently been converted. We want to avoid false converts as much as we can and we want to avoid implying that baptism saves or that it is absolutely necessary for salvation. But I wonder if too much of a divorce is made in an attempt to get as far away as we can from those errors.
I was not sure where to place this question, so did it here, as was a question concerning water baptism proper. Lutherans have always been hard for me to fully understand, as while not catholic, they do seem to be close enough to how they view water baptism and the Sacraments to really question what they do hold with and why?
It does, as I still at times have a hard time in discerning the terminology being used by some here in regards to reformed theology.
Thanks, and the point that makes most sense to me is the way that whoever does not believe in the Lord Jesus, even if they had received water baptism, will be damned, would refute infant baptismal regeneration.
Dachaser, The question to ask is what do you believe? Are you in agreement with what our confession has to say about baptism? Have you settled in your mind that baptism is not a requirement for salvation? This does not diminish baptism's importance or significance. Outright refusal to be baptized reveals a rebellious heart which may indicate an individual has not come to genuine faith in Christ. Knowing the truth helps protect us from dangerous teachings.
I hold that the scriptures teach that we are water baptism after we have already received Jesus as our Lord, as we have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit Himself, and then we get immersed in the water.
That is the correct view. Hold firm to the truth and do not let erroneous doctrines trouble you. Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
