Apologetics for the Masses #507 - Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? (Part 2)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

The Protestant Facebook page - Advanced Apologetics - tackled the subject of Baptism vis-a-vis salvation. This is my response to what they said.

General Comments

Hey folks,

I have a prayer request. I've just delivered 7700 copies of a tract I wrote - The Roman (Catholic) Road to Salvation (a take off on the Baptist tract, The Romans Road to Salvation) - to the post office in Leeds, Alabama, for delivery to every household and business in the 35094 zip code (which encompasses Leeds and the surrounding area). Why Leeds, Alabama? Well, that's where my parish...St. Theresa of the Child Jesus...is located - just outside of Birmingham. A few months back I had mailed a Catechism of the Catholic Church to every non-Catholic pastor in Leeds, with a letter saying that, should they ever speak about the Catholic Church from the pulpit, in a Bible study, or in a Sunday school class, they could get their information "straight from the horse's mouth". Now, all of their congregants - along with a whole lot more people - will be getting The Roman (Catholic) Road to Salvation in their mailboxes. Should be quite a shock to many.

So, the prayer request is that these tracts will help to plant some seeds in regard to the truths of the Catholic Faith in the people receiving them and move them to maybe be a little bit curious about the Catholic Church and want to find out more. And, who knows, maybe get some folks who will sign up for the RCIA class at St. Theresa's this coming August.

If this first step of the project goes well, the plan is to repeat it in other zip codes - actually, all zip codes - in the Birmingham area so that, eventually, over 1 million people will have received, and hopefully read, the tract. I don't know of any other Catholic organization doing anything like this. We're doing it, though, because as Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, "The Catholic Church is like a lion in a cage, you don't need to defend it, you simply need to open the cage door." I hope this tract opens some cage doors.

By the way, if you're interested in getting a copy of the tract, let me know and I can send you one via email.

Introduction

Okay, last week I shared with you the anti-Baptism apologetics of a Protestant who posts under the nom de guerre of "Questions to Eden" on the Facebook page, "Advanced Apologetics". He's apparently an administrator or moderator for the page. In one of his posts on that page, "Eden" looked at seven Bible verses that he said are commonly used by those - particularly Catholics - who believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation, to justify their position, and he gave the true and correct meaning of those verses (according to Eden), which, of course, showed that those verses no way and no how support the concept of Baptism being necessary for salvation (according to Eden).

So, what I'm going to do is go through Eden's explanation of those verses, one-by-one, and analyze his arguments and point out where he went off the rails in regard to each and everyone of them.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

"Questions to Eden" (from the Facebook page, "Advanced Apologetics")

Is Baptism Required for Salvation?
I want a stern warning for this post. Too many people love to read and respond out of context. This post is not saying do not get baptized, but rather that salvation by baptism is unbiblical. If you are saved by faith in Christ, then you live by His commands (mentioned later in the post). Being baptized is the action following Faith, so please, if the title angers you or perhaps the opening paragraphs do, be patient and read the entire post before responding or coming to a conclusion. This is also one single post, so not every single question about Baptism is answered. Only answers concerning the posed question are provided, so if you read this and want to know more, there are plenty of resources shared on this page to help you, you can also message the page directly if you want 1 on 1 interaction. I am happy to answer any questions sent to the page! God bless you all and enjoy the article!

Baptism, a hot topic among Christians and Catholics alike, has been plaguing debate among believers. Some say it is required for Salvation, others say it isn’t. Some say you must baptize your babies so they’re saved, and some say otherwise. I want to cover some common verses that people use to justify salvation by Baptism, and that adding Baptism to Jesus’ sacrifice is work-based.

My Comments
I love his "stern warning" for the post. Although, he is quite correct that very often people respond to posts on Facebook in a manner that takes the original post out of context. Or, they don't read the entire post before commenting. And, that is pretty much where any and all agreement with Eden ends.

What I want you to notice about these introductory comments of his, is that he is telling us that every interpretation of Scripture that he makes will be made through the lens of Sola Fide - Salvation By Faith Alone. That is his underlying interpretative context - Sola Fide. We see this when he says in the 1st paragraph above, "If you are saved by faith in Christ, then..." And, in the 2nd paragraph above he states, "...and that adding Baptism to Jesus’ sacrifice is work-based." So, what he is doing, as most Protestants do, is he is bringing his pre-set belief to the Bible, and he is going to force the individual verses of the Bible to fit that belief. He is going to make the Scriptures say what he needs them to say in order to support, or at least not contradict, his belief in Sola Fide.

One other thing to note. He makes it very clear that he is not saying not to get baptized. However, the practical result of his post is to say, essentially, that getting baptized does absolutely nothing for you. It has no meaning. It has no consequence. Yeah, Jesus said to get baptized, so get baptized, but to what end? Well, in the Sola Fide world, the answer is - to no end. Baptism is, essentially, completely unnecessary.

Eden
A quick Google search of “Verses that say Baptism is required for Salvation” results in a list of some verses, as well as some articles listing pretty much all similar passages. So here are 7 common bible Verses that “justify” salvation by baptism:

1) Mark 16:16 - “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
Some say that this verse is claiming that you must be baptized to be saved, and if you aren’t then you are condemned to hell. Notice that this verse does not say “whoever is not baptized is condemned” but rather it says “whoever does not believe will be condemned.” This verse says that whoever does not believe in Jesus Christ is condemned, and you have to think about the time and culture. The Church was outlawed and persecuted, so Believers needed a way to know who was Genuinely Born Again. This identification with Christ was Baptism, to go further, the context doesn’t even suggest this. Jesus is commanding the Disciples to preach the Gospel and that Whoever Believes and is baptized is saved, but does not include baptism in the requirement for non-condemnation.

The Authenticity of this verse not being found in some early manuscripts calls for using these verses to base any doctrine on in the first place. So these verses do not affect already established doctrine: that being faith alone saves without baptism. The manuscripts without verses 9-20 seem to have left room for the verses, indicating a knowledge of their existence. This verse is found in every other manuscript, so this concern is insignificant to begin with.

My Comments
This is, I'm sorry to have to say, just about one of the dumbest things I've ever read in regard to apologetics. And this Facebook page is called "Advanced Apologetics"?! Really?! Mark 16:16 says, very clearly, that salvation depends on believing AND being baptized. Which would mean, according to the normal rules of grammar, that, in order to be saved, you have to do those two things: 1) Believe, and 2) Be baptized. "Hold on there, pardner," says Eden, "Mark 16:16 goes on to say that if you don't believe, you will be condemned, but it doesn't say anything about you being condemned if you're not baptized."

Uhm...Eden...one question: If you don't believe, why would you be baptized? You wouldn't! Which means, it's not necessary for Jesus to say, "Whoever does not believe, and is not baptized, will be condemned." Because...guess what?...if you don't believe, it's assumed that you won't be baptized!!! Hello?! How many people who don't believe in Jesus Christ go around getting baptized? I've never heard of it happening. And please notice that Eden, after honing in on the 2nd half of the verse, never really explains why the 1st half of the verse says believing AND being baptized are necessary for salvation.

And this thing about Baptism being the means by which believers could tell true believers from false believers...again...really?! As if false believers, who were trying to "infiltrate" the ranks of the true believers, wouldn't get baptized in order to make people think they were true believers? Furthermore, if you're a true believer, and you're walking down the street, how could tell if the person talking to you about Jesus has been baptized or not? Will their hair be clean or something? I mean, how can you tell someone has been baptized just by looking at them? Do you see how, when someone starts twisting Scripture to get it to say what they want it to say, they have to do some pretty intense verbal gymnastics to try and get what they're saying to make any sense at all? In order to give Jesus a reason for saying "and is baptized," Eden has to give Baptism some sort of relevance. But his attempt to do so falls flat on its face.

Furthermore, at the time Jesus said this, right before His Ascension, the Church was not outlawed and was not being persecuted. The "Church" consisted of about 120 disciples and had not yet been made known to the world. That would happen several days later on the Day of Pentecost. So what Eden is saying here is completely ridiculous.

Finally, on this particular point, the way Eden is interpreting Mark 16:16, according to the last sentence in that first paragraph under #1, has that verse essentially saying this: "Whoever believes and is baptized is saved, but whoever believes and is not baptized is still saved." Again, why be baptized?

Oh, and that 2nd paragraph under #1 above, about the authenticity of the verse. Completely irrelevant, so no need for comment on that.

Eden
2) John 3:5 - "“Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
The claim here is that water baptism is being born again. This verse is often used by practicing Catholics or those who support work-based faith. But to gather that from this verse is to be dishonest to the context. The word baptize is not even found in this verse, the only idea of it comes from the mention of being born of water. The context is Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus about being Born Again. In this conversation, Nicodemus gets confused because he thinks Jesus is referring to Physical Birth. So Jesus had to clear up his confusion, so He got His definitions straight and created a division between being Born Again and Physical Birth. He refers to what Nicodemus says as water birth, and what He says as Spiritual Birth. So the water birth in this verse is Jesus agreeing with Nicodemus, but expanding it with Spiritual Birth. Jesus pretty much says “Yes, a person must be Naturally born (to be in existence) as well as Spiritually Born again to be saved”. Being Born of the Spirit refers to when the Father draws a person by the Holy Spirit to Faith in Christ and a Loving relationship with Him. Moreover, John 3:6 clears this up by saying “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” which makes it obvious that Baptism is not the topic.

My Comments
The first thing I want to point out is what he says in these three sentences: "This verse is often used by practicing Catholics or those who support work-based faith. But to gather that from this verse is to be dishonest to the context. The word baptize is not even found in this verse..." So remember that - since the word "baptize" is "not even found in this verse", then that means you are being dishonest to interpret this verse as having anything to do with Baptism. Keep that in mind as we go through this analysis.

"He refers to what Nicodemus says as water birth, and what He says as Spiritual Birth." Let me ask you, do you guys see anywhere in John 3:3-5 where Jesus uses the terms "water birth" and "Spiritual Birth" and makes a clear distinction between the two? The phrase "water birth" is not even found in this verse. The phrase "Spiritual Birth" is not even found in this verse. Isn't Eden, then, being a bit dishonest? At least, according to his standards?

Also, why is it that the word "and" seems to mean something different here than it did in Mark 16:16? In John 3:5, according to Eden, when Jesus says you must be "born of water and the Spirit" to enter the Kingdom of God, that means you have to be born physically ("of water") and spiritually ("of the Spirit") in order to be saved. Both are necesssary for salvation. Yet, in Mark 16:16, when Jesus says you must "believe and be baptized" in order to be saved, that just means you need to believe, but you don't need to be baptized, in order to be saved. Only one is necessary. "And" means both things are necessary in John 3:5, but "and" only means one thing is necessary in Mark 16:16.

"Being Born of the Spirit refers to when the Father draws a person by the Holy Spirit to Faith in Christ and a Loving relationship with Him." Uhm...where does John 3:3-5 say what being "Born of the Spirit" refers to? Nowhere in that passage does it say what Eden says it says. So, again, by his standards, is he not being a bit dishonest since nowhere in that passage does it define being "Born in the Spirit" in the manner Eden defines it?

Finally, Eden talks about the context of this passage. So, okay, let's look at the context of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. For example, what happens immediately after Jesus talks to Nicodemus? Well, Scripture tells us: "After this [the conversation with Nicodemus] Jesus and His disciples went into the land of Judea; there He remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized," (John 3:22-23). So, the "context" of Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus is...guess what? Water baptism.

What is going on here is that Eden, already having decided that water baptism cannot be necessary for salvation, let's his predisposition determine how he is going to interpret the Scriptures come hell or high water, instead of letting the Scriptures speak for themselves. Eden's way of interpreting this passage has Jesus talking about physical birth and spiritual birth to Nicodemus - but nothing at all to do with water baptism...no sir!...we're not talking water baptism - and then immediately after the conversation with Nicodemus Jesus and his disciples go out and do what? Water baptize...along with John the Baptist doing what? Water baptizing.

And, when all is said and done, what is it you can always say to Eden regarding his interpretation of John 3:3-5? "As a Catholic, I agree - 100%! - with what that passage says. However, I do not agree with your private, fallible interpretation of that Scripture. I believe the Word of God, I do not believe the Word of Eden."

Eden
3) Acts 2:38 - “And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
The Context has people asking Peter “what shall we do?”. They were not asking what to do about salvation, they already believed and had Faith in Jesus, what they were seeking was what to do now that they were saved. Peter then tells them to get baptized FOR the forgiveness, not in the sense to “get” forgiveness, they already had it, but because of the forgiveness they have received. It was Peter pretty much saying, “Join Me in the Church now that you are my Brothers and Sisters.”

The wording here is similar to “taking ibuprofen FOR back pain”. I didn’t say to take ibuprofen to get the back pain, but because it is already there. An example of this is what John the Baptist said in Matthew 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance”, the repentance wasn’t done by the baptism, it was because of the repentance that already took place. He then says in the rest of the verse that Jesus is coming to baptize with the Holy Spirit instead of water. This right here just put baptizing by the Spirit above water, which reveals that it doesn’t have the power to save, only God does. We are to be baptized following Faith in Jesus, it should take place after the acceptance and forgiveness of sin by Grace through Faith. To identify yourself with His Body, The Church.

My Comments
"They were not asking what to do about salvation, they already believed and had Faith in Jesus, what they were seeking was what to do now that they were saved." Remember what Eden said about John 3:3-5, that it is dishonest to interpret that passage as referring to Baptism since the word "Baptism" is never mentioned? Yet, here he is referring to "Faith in Jesus" when the word "faith" is nowhere mentioned. One rule for thee, and another rule for me.

Furthermore, Eden says that these folks were already saved when they asked the question: "What shall we do?" Which means, Eden believes people can be saved even before they repent of their sins. I mean, when they asked, "What shall we do?" what did Peter say? "Repent and be baptized." So it's obvious that had not yet repented, but Eden says they were saved nonetheless. What do you want to bet that if I go on the "Advanced Apologetics" page and ask Eden if repentance is necessary for salvation, that he'll say, "Yes, of course it is?" I'm going to do just that, so I'll let you know how it goes.

But, another question I have is this: Why did Peter tell them to be baptized if, as Eden previously said, baptism was only necessary because the Church was outlawed and being persecuted. On the Day of Pentecost, the Church was most definitely NOT outlawed nor was it being persecuted. Eden's own words reveal the underlying contradictions in his interpretations. And where does Peter say, "Be baptized so that we can tell the true believers from the false believers?" Do you see how bad theology causes so many problems - i.e., contradictions - with biblical interpretation within Protestantism?

And his analogy to taking Ibuprofen FOR back pain...oh my goodness! Eden mentions that Peter says to be baptized "FOR the forgiveness". In other words, because you've already been forgiven. But, notice what he does here? He leaves out the word "repent". Peter says "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins." Eden's interpretation has Peter saying, "Repent and be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven!" Which is ridiculous. Their sins were forgiven and they were saved before they ever repented?! They should repent AFTER they've been forgiven? Why? Once again, Eden's pre-determined beliefs result in all sorts of ridiculous and bizarre interpretations. All through the New Testament it is made very clear that you must repent in order to have your sins forgiven. But, apparently, according to Eden, on Pentecost it was forgiveness of sins first and then a call to repentance.

To further show how ridiculous his analogy is, consider this: "I repent FOR the forgivenss of my sins." According to Eden, again, that means that I repent because my sins have already been forgiven...before I repented. "I believe in Jesus for my salvation." According to Eden, that means I believe in Jesus because I've already been saved...before I believed. "I have faith for my salvation." According to Eden, that means I get my faith because I've already been saved...before I had faith. I could go on and on along those lines. Suffice it to say, that Eden's analogy is based solely on the fact that he came to Scripture with a pre-set belief and he has to do everything he can, no matter how utterly ridiculous, to fit Scripture to his belief.

Also, please notice how, once again, by his own standards, Eden is being incredibly dishonest in his interpretation of this verse. Look at what he says, "He [John the Baptist] then says in the rest of the verse that Jesus is coming to baptize with the Holy Spirit instead of water." That is a complete fabrication. Tell me, do any of you see the word "instead" anywhere in Matthew 3:11 or the following verses? It's not there. Yet, Eden says it is. Also, Eden leaves out the fact that John the Baptist says Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and "with fire". And remember, the word "and" is not, according to Eden, indicative of a causal relationship, so that means we all need to be baptized with the Holy Spirit AND also with fire...fire that is not related to the Holy Spirit. So, do you think Eden had his hair lit on fire as part of his baptism?

He closes his comments on this verse by saying: "We are to be baptized following Faith in Jesus, it should take place after the acceptance and forgiveness of sin by Grace through Faith. To identify yourself with His Body, The Church." Not only are those words not found anywhere near Matthew 3:11, but they are not found anywhere in Scripture. So, by his own standards, he is being incredibly dishonest here.

What Eden refuses to consider, is that it is not either/or regarding water and the Holy Spirit when it comes to Baptism, it is both/and. In all 4 accounts of Jesus' Baptism, what do we see? He is baptized with water and then what happens? The Holy Spirit descends upon Him. Water and the Spirit, just like John 3:3-5 talks about. But when you have on your Sola Fide blinders, what otherwise would be very obvious, becomes very obscure.

Eden
4) Acts 22:16 - “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
This verse does not say rise and be baptized To wash your sins, but the wording uses the Greek word “Kai” which translates to “and”. Kai is used elsewhere in the NT, and it connects the nouns in an additive sense, not a causal sense. In Matthew 1:2 “begat Judas and(Kai) his brethren;” so “and” here is connecting baptism and washing, not expressing that baptism causes the washing of sins. “To” would be a word used to express that baptism is the precedent/cause or source of the washing of sins.

My Comments
And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse. Talk about nitpicking. It doesn't say "To" wash away your sins, it says "and" wash away your sins. Oh my. So, if I tell my son to, "Go and get in the car and pick up your mother," that means getting in the car and picking up your mother essentially have nothing to do with one another? They are independent one from the other? After all, I didn't say, "Go and get in the car TO pick up your mother." Or, how about this: "Go and drink the water and quench your thirst." Drinking the water and quenching your thirst are related in an "additive sense" but not a "causal sense"? "Rise and send out your resume' and get a job." Sending out your resume' and getting a job are not related in a causal sense?

Then there's always this, straight from the Bible: "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean," (2 Kings 5:10). The verse doesn't say, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times TO restore your flesh," so obviously there is not a causal relationship here between washing in the Jordan seven times and having his flesh restored, right?

But, again, he has to come up with this interpretation - or some other equally absurd intepretation - because he is viewing all of Scripture through his predetermined Sola Fide lens. So he has to deny, through some verbal gymnastics, that being baptized has anything to do with the forgiveness of sins. That Sola Fide belief has him hamstrung to deny the obvious in favor of the Sola Fide interpretation. Eat My flesh and drink My blood and you will have eternal life. Nothing "causal" there, right?

Oh, and what about Ezekiel 36:25-27? "I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses [sins] and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you and a new spirit I will put with you...And I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to observe My ordinances." So, absolutely no causal relationship between the sprinkling of clean water on a person (aka Baptism) and the forgiveness of sins and reception of God's Spirit (aka the Holy Spirit). After all, God didn't say, "I will sprinkle clean water upon you TO make you clean from all your uncleannesses..." Yeah...right.

Alright, that's enough for this week. I'll finish up with this guy in the next issue...

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week! And, remember, please pray that the mailing of that tract to all the homes and business in the 35094 zip code will plant some seeds that the Holy Spirit can build on.

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter