Apologetics for the Masses #508 - Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? (Part 3)

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 the 2nd part of my response to what they said.

General Comments

Hey folks,

I've been getting lots of requests for copies of my tract - The Roman (Catholic) Road to Salvation - which is awesome! (It's awesome that I'm getting all the requests - I'll leave it to you guys to decide if the tract is awesome.) Again, as I said last week, I am happy to email it out to anyone who wants a copy. I've got a professor at a major state university who has posted it on a student bulletin board in his Arts and Science building. Other people who are using it to respond to non-Catholics in their families. Had an Anglican priest in England request a copy to hand out to some Evangelicals he deals with. One person was making copies to hand out to the 20-30 people in the Bible study at his parish. And so on. Many and sundry ways to use it. So, again, if you would like a copy, just let me know.

My parish priest and I have talked, and it looks like I'll be sending out a follow up mailing sometime in the not-too-distant future. This mailing will be of my tract: Which Church is THE Church of the Bible? (A Quiz for Christians). You can see the quiz that is in this tract here: Which Church is The Church of the Bible: A Quiz for Christians. Then, probably in late July, the plan is to send out a third mailing to invite everyone in the zip code to a "Come and See" night at the church. Please pray for the success of this project!

Introduction

Okay, last week I started my response to the anti-Baptism apologetics of a Protestant who posts under the nom de guerre of "Questions to Eden" on the Facebook page, "Advanced Apologetics". I found out his real name - Jason Pluebell - but I'll keep calling him "Eden" here for purposes of consistency. This week, I'll continue my response to his explanations vis-a-vis 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. He, of course, has the absolutely true and correct explanations of those verses which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Scripture does not support the concept of Baptism being necessary for salvation. (At least, according to Eden.) We'll see...

Oh, two other things:

1) I posted the following question on the "Advanced Apologetics" Facebook page: "Does a person need to repent of their sins before their sins are forgiven? And, if the answer is, 'Yes,' is repenting of one's sins a work?" Lit the page up! Had some fairly decent conversations with many different people. What truly fascinated me, though, was that on one Protestant FB page, there were so many different ways people approached, and attempted to answer, the question. It kinda highlighted the diversity of belief within Protestantism. And, the fact that apparently no one knew I was Catholic - one guy was suspicious, though - made the conversations free of anti-Catholic rhetoric. I'm going to be using that discussion in the future as an Apologetics Case Study.

2) I also asked the question on Eden's (Jason's) new website that he's set up, and he said he would be answering that question as his main post for the week - which will be out on Sunday. So, there may be more in store with him. I'll keep ya posted.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

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

Is Baptism Required for Salvation?
5) Romans 6:3-4 - “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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.”
The word Baptism originates from the Greek word Baptizah (ßaptisµa) which simply means immersion. Biblically speaking, the immersion doesn't really have to be water, this can be found in other verses like: Mark 1:8, where the immersion is by the Holy Spirit; Luke 12:50 where Jesus refers to His sacrifice as His Baptism; and 1 Corinthians 10:1–2 where the word is used to describe the immersion of Moses and the Israelites in clouds. This verse talks about immersion, all of us who were immersed in Christ (Faith) were also immersed in His death (death of the old Man). Death is our rejection of self (Luke 9:23).

My Comments
Oh, my, my...how "dishonest" can one man be? Remember in his previous comments how Eden had said that anyone who tries to argue that John 3:3-5 is referring to "Baptism" is being "dishonest" because the word "baptism" is nowhere found in that passage? Well, here he is saying that Romans 6:3-4 is referring to us being immersed in Christ by "Faith". Yet, nowhere does the word "faith" appear in the passage.

And his explanation leaves a lot to be desired. He comments about how the word "Baptism" is used to mean "immersion" in other New Testament passages. Well, actually, sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. He cites Mark 1:8 - "I have baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." Is the Holy Spirit conferred by "immersion"? Well, not according to the Bible. In Acts 2:17, 18, and 33, we see that the Holy Spirit is "poured" out upon people. He next cites Luke 12:50, "where Jesus refers to His sacrifice as His Baptism". Well, let's look at what Jesus said in Luke 12:50 - "I have a baptism to be baptized with and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" According to Eden, since "baptism" is referring to immersion, then what Jesus said was, "I have an immersion to be immersed with..." Huh...doesn't flow too well, does it?

1 Cor 10:1-2 where the word baptism "is used to describe the immersion of Moses and the Israelites in clouds." What? 1 Cor 10:1-2, "I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea..." The "clouds" that Eden said Moses and the Israelites were immersed in was actually "a" cloud. One. The cloud of God that led the Israelites by day in the desert, and which presented as a pillar of fire at night - it was the Spirit of God Himself. Furthermore, the Israelites were not "immersed" in the cloud, if they had been, they probably would have died. It is that same cloud that overshadowed the Tent of Meeting in the desert and the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Solomon - where the Ark of the Covenant was kept - which caused, in both instances, everyone to get out of Dodge because God was in the house! No, the Israelites were not immersed in the "clouds".

Plus, notice the big omission here? He didn't mention that 1 Cor 10:1-2 says the Israelites were also baptized in the "sea". I wonder why? Could it be because the "sea" is composed of water? Have to avoid mentioning "baptism" and "water" in the same place now, don't we? He also didn't mention 1 Peter 3:20-21 which states, very specifically, that Baptism "corresponds to" being "saved through water". No, no, no...we cannot associate Baptism and water. Talk about twisting the Scriptures!

What he was trying to do with his "dishonest" explanation was completely disassociate "Baptism" from "water". In so doing, he came up with explanations that distorted, and ignored, what the Scriptures actually said. Now, back to Romans 6:3-4. Being "buried" with Jesus through Baptism is indeed a reference to immersion...to being covered up. However, the symbolism is based upon being immersed...covered up...buried...in water - the water of Baptism - not simply to being immersed in the Holy Spirit through faith. Because, again, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as shown in Acts 2, speaks of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, not immersion in the Holy Spirit. So, if you confine "baptism" to just one aspect - the cloud...the Holy Spirit - and you ignore the other aspect - the sea...the water - the symbolism doesn't hold. The symbolism of immersion in water - by which we receive the Holy Spirit - makes a whole lot more sense than anything Eden was saying.

One last note, there are places in the Gospels where the word "baptism" - baptizo in the Greek - doesn't mean "immersion", it is simply used to mean "wash". For example: Luke 11:38, “The Pharisee was astonished to see that He [Jesus] did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” Was the Pharisee expecting Jesus to be totally immersed in water before eating dinner? Nope. We see from Mark 7:3-4, that the Pharisees had, as did all the Jews, a tradition of washing their hands before eating. Mark 7:3-4, “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash [baptizo] themselves.” So, "baptism" doesn't necessarily translate to "immersion". Eden was wrong about that, as well.

Eden
6) 1 Peter 3:21 - “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Since it says baptism corresponds with being saved, baptism is required for salvation… Is the claim of people who use this verse, which debunks itself. The Context is drawing this to Noah’s flood. But the flood in Noah’s day wasn’t salvation, it was judgment. So this can't be using water as a means of salvation, it doesn't logically follow from the comparison. The Ark was the Salvation of the Flood: So being immersed in Christ, He is now our Ark that saves us from judgment, just like Noah’s example. To read this and conclude Baptism for Salvation is to kind of read your meaning into the text (Eisegesis). Any Eisegesis, Honest or not, must be confirmed by Honest Exegesis. When this is done here, we see how unbiblical the doctrine of salvation by baptism really is.

Not to kick him when he’s already knocked out, but the verse says that this immersion is not to remove dirt from the body but to train a good conscience out of Love for God. That is: affirming Jesus' sacrifice, and by identifying with Christ and living by His will, you slowly train yourself to be more Christ-like, which is the ultimate Good!

My Comments
Okay, now he mentions 1 Peter 3:21. But, more and more dishonesty from Eden. He should be ashamed of himself. "The Context is drawing this to Noah’s flood. But the flood in Noah’s day wasn’t salvation, it was judgment. So this can't be using water as a means of salvation, it doesn't logically follow from the comparison." The only way he can say such a thing is to completely ignore "The Context"! Look at 1 Peter 3:20. "...who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water." "Saved through water!!!" Eden says the passage is not talking about being saved, but verse 20 states specifically that the comparison to Baptism is about people being "saved"! And, how were they saved? "Through water." At worst, he's lying through his teeth, and, at best, the only thing I could possibly say is what my old friend, Bugs, used to always say, "What a maroon."

So, again, verse 21: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." Baptism corresponds to what? Verse 20: Persons being "saved through water". What "doesn't logically follow from the comparison" is Eden's interpretation.

Then...oh my gosh!...then he talks about how the "immersion" is "not to remove dirt from the body". Well, think about that for a second. What is it you would be immersed in that could possibly remove dirt from your body? The Holy Spirit? Uhm...no. Water! Hello?! It's obvious that Peter is talking about water Baptism. Water Baptism which was not for the removal of dirt from your body, but for the reception of the Holy Spirit. If water wasn't involved here, then the part about the removal of dirt from your body would make absolutely no sense, whatsoever! This guy is killing me! I'm going to have to go and baptize my mouth...not as a removal of dirt from my mouth...well, yeah, as a removal of the dirt of the bad language I am sorely tempted to use.

Eden
7) Galatians 3:27 - “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
This verse is not speaking about Baptism as a requirement for salvation. Notice how it says, following Baptism, that one has “put on Christ”. This wording illustrates that through faith in Jesus, a person becomes part of the Church, and baptism is the public identification with Christ and the Church. Even then, this verse is saying that all immersed in Christ, have put Him on, which supports this idea. This act of baptism shows a person's decision to live according to Jesus’ teachings and a willingness to leave their old ways behind in favor of God’s Will.

My Comments
As Gomer Pyle would always say, "Shame, shame, shame!" Or, in this case, to use Eden's own term, "Dishonesty, dishonesty, dishonesty!" Nowhere does this verse say a word about the act of baptism "show[ing] a person's decision to live according to Jesus' teachings." Nowhere does this verse say a word about "faith in Jesus" being how a person "becomes part of the Church". Nowhere does this verse say anything about baptism being "the public identification with Christ and the Church." He violates his own rules over and over and over again. "Dishonesty, dishonesty, dishonesty!"

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Let's see, putting on Christ is necessary for salvation, right? Well, that's pretty obvious. And, Gal 3:27 says that those who have put on Christ are the ones who have been "baptized into Christ". So, it seems pretty clear that being baptized into Christ is necessary for salvation, at least, according to the Word of God. According to the Word of Eden, however, being baptized into Christ is not "a requirement for salvation". So, who are you gonna believe...the Word of God, or the Word of Eden?

And notice how Eden simply waves his hand to dismiss baptism as a requirement of salvation after quoting the verse that clearly says it is. "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Wave of Eden's hand and, voila: "This verse is not speaking about Baptism as a requirement for salvation." Oh, okay. Well, the way you laid out your premise, presented the arguments, and came to a logical conclusion based on those arguments...hey, I'm convinced.

Eden, give me one verse that actually says, "Baptism is the means by which an already saved believer demonstrates their public identification with Christ," or anything even vaguely similar. Just one. Again, this is an example of coming to the Bible with your beliefs predetermined and then having to twist various verses and passages of the Bible to make them say whatever they need to say in order to fit your predetermined beliefs. It is, in a word, pathetic.

Eden
[The Example of the Thief]
“One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:39–43).”

Here we have an example of someone being saved without the claimed baptism. The Thief on the Cross had no physical ability to be baptized, he also was wicked enough to have deserved his position. But here, he humbles himself and admits what he deserves, that which Jesus doesn’t. Instead of mocking Jesus, or baiting Him to use His divinity, the Thief asked Jesus if He could remember him. Through this simple request of humility Jesus responded with “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

My Comments
1) Minor point: Where does the Bible say that the good thief was never baptized? It doesn't. So, Eden, once again, is claiming something that he cannot verify from the Scriptures.

2) Major point: The New Covenant had not yet been instituted. That began on the Day of Pentecost. Which means, the good thief was operating under the law of circumcision, which, as Col 2:11-12 tells us, is the Old Covenant prefiguring of Baptism. In the Old Covenant, one came into covenant with God through circumcision; in the New Covenant, it is through Baptism. Which means, Eden's point about the thief on the cross not being baptized, is completely...totally...undeniably...100%...irrelevant to the argument of the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

3) Question: If the good thief had remained silent, would he have been saved?

Eden
[Adding Baptism to Salvation Makes it Work-Based, and That is Unbiblical]

Some of you may read this, and still not be convinced. You may think that this isn’t that important, or that I may be digging too deep. That baptism isn’t a work because God is still the one saving. But I have to ask you: Doesn’t the existence of a Gap of time between initial commitment to Jesus, and Baptism signify, and require that you must act on behalf of God to enable God to fulfill the promised salvation? In other words, don’t you still have to act? This makes salvation Jesus’ Sacrifice, plus what you do. It makes it 50 percent God’s offering, and 50 percent your actions. This by definition is not Grace, you don’t pay halfies on a free gift. “For by grace, you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8–9.)”

My Comments
"[Adding Baptism to Salvation Makes it Work-Based, and That is Unbiblical]" Sola Fide. Predetermined doctrine which he brings to the Bible and through which he interprets the Bible. No matter what the Bible says, no matter how clear it can be (e.g., Baptism, which corresponds to this [being saved through water], now saves you.), it doesn't matter. It can't say what it obviously says because it has already been predetermined that Sola Fide is THE operational and interpretive principle, bar none. Which means there are a whole lot of Bible verses, on a whole lot of doctrines, that Eden, and most folks like him (i.e., Protestants), have to "explain" away.

"In other words, don’t you still have to act? This makes salvation Jesus’ Sacrifice, plus what you do." That begs the question: Don't you still have to have faith? Doesn't that make salvation Jesus' Sacrifice, plus what you do? Again, this "Jesus plus" idiocy that tends to deny not only the Bible, but common sense and logic, as well.

Folks who hit me with this Jesus+ stuff will, 100% of the time, get the following question from me: The Bible tells us that Jesus redeemed all men's sins on the Cross (1 John 2:2; 1 Tim 4:10), yet all men are not saved. So, what is the difference between the redeemed and saved, and the redeemed and unsaved? Is it something Jesus did for the saved person that He didn't do for the unsaved person, or is it something the saved person "did" that the unsaved person didn't "do"?

That question exposes the flawed logic of the folks who argue that salvation cannot be Jesus + anything. Oh, except for having faith. Uhm...having faith...believing...isn't that an "act" of the intellect and "act" of the will? Oh, and accepting Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior. Aren't those things you do? Oh, and saying a sinner's prayer. Isn't that something you do? Oh, and confessing with your lips and believing in your heart that Jesus is Lord. More actions, right? Jesus doesn't make you do any of those things. And He doesn't do any of those things for you. You have to "do" them. You do them by the grace of God. You do them by Jesus working in you and through you for salvation. But you do them. You have to decide to cooperate with God's grace and act on that grace.

So, yes, salvation is Jesus +. Col 2:24, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is the church..." What on earth could be lacking in Jesus' afflictions for the sake of His church?! Nothing! Except...our participation in His sufferings. And, how are we joined to Him so as to participate in His suffering and death? The Bible tells us - through Baptism.

Eden
I pray that this post can clear up any confusion you have about the state of your salvation. If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He Died for Sins, and that God has forgiven you, you are saved and forgiven. Works are the fruit of our salvation, not the root of it (James 2:14–26; John 15:5, 8; and more).

My Comments
His post, and the posts of anyone who spews out the errors of Protestantism such as Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura and Once Saved Always Saved and the Rapture and on and on, can do nothing but cause confusion about a person's salvation. That is why it is so important for us, as Catholics, to evangelize at every opportunity God gives us.

So gird your loins, folks, and make haste to battle!

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week! Please pray for us, and please know that we continually pray for you!

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