Found this on The Christian Post. Piper sums it up well.
The following is an edited transcript of the audio.
What are the most basic things a person needs to believe in order to be saved?
Paul says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” He says, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.”
So I take texts like that and begin at the core-the death of Jesus. He died for our sins, which means I must believe I am a sinner. A person that doesn’t believe he is a sinner can’t be saved. If there is nothing to forgive, Jesus didn’t do anything for me. If he didn’t do anything for me, I’m not believing him for salvation. If I’m not believing him for salvation, then I’m not saved. So you must believe you are a sinner.
You must believe that there is a God who has created the possibility for sin. That is, sin by definition is the falling short of the expectations of your Creator. So there has to be a Creator God out there who has expectations of humans. God expects humans to trust him, love him and live for him. And we fail.
Which leads us to the third thing we must believe. Because we fail to trust, love and live for God we are under his holy judgment-his wrath. You’ve got to believe that.
If you are a sinner and there is a holy God, and if you are defining sin as a falling short of that God, then in order to understand what he is doing to make things right you must understand that God is angry about sin. He is a good and just judge.
So, what has he done to solve the problem of our alienation from him? He has sent his Son into the world. You’ve got to believe in the deity of Jesus. Psalm 49 says that no man can pay a ransom for another man. A few verses later, in verse 15, it says God will pay the ransom.
He couldn’t have used John, or Peter or Paul to die for us. He had to have the God-man die for us. So the deity of Jesus is essential.
You also must acknowledge what Jesus did. He lived the perfect life. I don’t think you can believe that Jesus sinned and still be saved. Because then the sacrifice made for you was not what God required, and you aren’t believing in what God did for you. So Jesus is the sinless Son of God and he gives himself up to die in my place.
This substitutionary dimension of the death of Christ for my sins is necessary. There are lots of ways the Bible talks about this and I think you can be very confused about some of them while still being saved. I don’t want to start listing off all the ways the Bible talks about the atonement and how confused you can be about them while still being saved. Let’s just say that what is required is the core of the gospel-that the remedy is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who never sinned got in my place and took the wrath of God for me. He died in my place.
If he had stayed dead, we would still be in our sins. So you must believe he rose from the dead. So now he has risen from the dead.
I am willing to stop there. This is the cluster of essentials for salvation. You might be able to bring to mind some things that are so theologically attached to this cluster that I would say, “OK that has to be included as well.” But if someone asks, “What do I have to believe to be saved?” My answer is, you must believe this cluster of things about yourself, about God, and about the cross.
One more thing. I am assuming something because the question was, “What do I have to believe?” But I should make clear that you have to believe something about belief. Meaning, you must believe that belief is required. If you say, “I get all of what was said, but now I’m going to work so that God can make all of this count for me. I’m going to keep the law 85% so that all this redemptive work will count for me,” then you’ve missed it. You’re not saved.
For salvation you must believe that instead of working for this salvation, Jesus has already done what needs to be done. We receive it. “As many as received him, who believed in his name, he gave them the right to become the children of God.” So I think sin, God, cross and faith. That is the summary, the core of truth surrounding those four things.
Would someone need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?
They certainly wouldn’t have to know that word, and they wouldn’t have to be able to articulate it very well. But, what they need to do is not deny essential things about it.
So a person may never hear of such a thing as a “trinity” and be saved. But if you asked them, “The Jesus you are believing in, is he divine or is he just a man?” If they said he is not divine, then I think that is a major problem.
I don’t think a person has to even hear about the Holy Spirit to be saved. Is that radical? I don’t think so.
Now, if you get taught about the Holy Spirit and what he has done for you and then you say, “I don’t think it took the Holy Spirit to save me,” well, then I’m going to question your salvation. But goodness! I just spent five minutes unpacking the gospel and didn’t mention the Holy Spirit at all! And that isn’t because he is not essential. We would never believe without him. But knowing the details about how God caused you to believe is not essential. Yet, denying it once it has been made known to you-that would undermine essential things.
Copyright 2010 @ desiringgod.org.
Interesting perspective, but good! So now, if you live in sin, but continue to admit that you are a sinner, you would not lose your salvation, would you?
Nope – it’s not quite that easy. As I said to my mom the other day, “My wish to bear fruit is proof of my salvation – not a means to it.” Part of bearing fruit is turning away from sin.
Luk 3:9 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
If you continue to live in unrepentant sin it is proof that you do not truly know Jesus Christ – and therefore not saved. None of us can avoid sin completely but when we sin it distresses us and we feel a great need to turn away from it. We WANT to change. Our desire is to please God, not ourselves. Repentance is more than just saying sorry – you have to be deeply grieved by your sin and be willing to lay it down.
Gal 6:7-8 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. (8) For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
Good stuff, Paul’s statement, the core value, mandatory to move forward!
for your consideration, I humbly suggest this article:
The Logic Of The Plan Of Salvation
Tom Roberts
Ft Worth, Texas
How fortunate we are that our scientists do not approach medicine, research, physics, etc., with the utter abandon of reason that characterizes the study of religion. Surely a return to the Dark Ages would be imminent if scientists worked in their fields as do people with the word of God. How slowly, if ever, would electricity have been invented, men have walked on the moon or computers have been developed if the same principles of thought had been applied to these disciplines as are applied to the study of the Scriptures. Ever breathed there a scientists worthy of the name who randomly flipped through texts, putting his finger upon sentences at will, expecting this procedure to reveal some important truth? Do researchers make it a practice to ignore definitions and treat substances as it suits their whimsy? Do scientists bring a sense of predestination of their study, expecting that everything is beyond their ability to influence and that their efforts make no real difference? Do researchers just fling different substances together without thought of alignment, direction, compatibility, complementation or harmony? Do they just take a “blind leap” into situations without some basis or foundation upon which even their theories are built? Pseudo-scientists may be guilty of such behavior, but no one of training and reason would elect to follow such a course. Why, then, do so many religious people use this foolishness when entering into a study that is vastly superior to science, the salvation of their soul?
Salvation of man is the theme of the Bible. Whatever else a Bible reader receives in the way of moral training, social behavior or love of life, nothing is as important as the salvation of his soul. The Bible asserts that man is lost by man’s own choice, that God desire for man to be saved and has shed His grace to make salvation possible, that man can be saved, that the plan of salvation is understandable and that what God has revealed about the subject is logical, following discernible reason. We find in the Old Testament: “Come, let us reason together . . .” (Isa. 1:18). A companion passage in the New Testament implores: “. . . present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1). We should, therefore, approach the Bible with the mind, using it as we would in any logical process to discover what God has said about our salvation. With this approach, using our God-given reasoning ability, we are able to see a logical progression from sin to salvation, from guilt to remission. True, there are those who use the random method of Bible study, placing a finger here and there on separate pages, hoping for some Ouiji-board power to lead them to God. There are others who ignore Bible definitions and “pour their own theology” into words and phrases, making God speak in their own language. Or still others who are fatalistic in assuming that everything is already decided and that it really doesn’t make any difference since man has supposedly lost his free will and can only act as a robot in predetermined patterns set out before the world was formed. A large number ignore the established patterns of speech and language, joining words and phrases together that do not match or that contradict each other. Is it any wonder that the religious world is so divided or that there is no agreement on what a sinner must do to be saved?
It is to be hoped that we can contribute a little to a proper understanding of the plan of salvation. There is a certain logic to the subject: God has something in mind for us, has revealed what He wants us to do and the Bible is that record of His will. Let us attempt to work our way through the plan of salvation as it is revealed, looking at it in the manner in which God presented it. Is it reasonable to teach people to hear the gospel, believe it, repent of their sins, confess the name of Christ and be baptized for the remission of their sins? Is there a logic about this order, a reason why this order should be followed? Or is it just as reasonable to teach it in another order: baptism, faith, repentance and confession? or confession, faith, repentance and baptism? or repentance and faith without baptism and confession? Does it make any difference? Will just anything achieve the same results? “Come, let us reason together. . .” God wants us to be saved. What is His will?
Take The First Step: Read The Bible
Where there is no seed, there can be no life. This is a fact of life in the vegetable, animal, human and spiritual worlds. Our Creator’s rule is that each produces after its own kind and that the life is in its seed (Gen. 1: 11,25). This is no less true in the spiritual world than in the animal world and if we would accept this truth, much progress would be made. Jesus taught that the seed of the kingdom “is the word of God” (Lk. 8:11). For there to be life in the spiritual world, there must be seed, the word of God, and where the word of God has not gone, there can be no spiritual life. But God has sent the message (Rom. 10: 15) and we are to receive it. It is by the learning process that we come to God. “He that hath heard and hath learned, cometh unto me” (Jn. 6:44, 45). “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the word of God” (Rom. 10: 17). Paul taught the Athenians that God was not far from each one of us and that He commands us (Acts 17:22-32). Since there can be no life without the seed and since the seed is the word of God, it is logical to begin with the proposition that the very first thing that is essential to salvation is a knowledge of what God commands (1 Pet. 1:22,23). This is not a random thought, a Ouiji board concoction, or a blind leap. This is a principle of truth upon which we may act because it is reasonable and understandable. Hearing God’s will is the first step in becoming His child, being born again.
Hearing Produces Faith
Where shall we go next? Confession? Baptism? Repentance? Is there any way that we can know or must we just plunge blindly along, hoping to stumble into the right way? No, my friend. The word of God points us in the way we ought to go. Faith is not a blind leap! Rather, it is the next logical step toward salvation, based upon the sure foundation of the word of the Lord. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, a light unto my pathway” (Psa. 119:105). After hearing the word of God, faith is the result. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10: 17). Here is a plain statement of Scripture, identifying the source of faith. Faith is not an arbitrary gift of God, given to one but withheld from another. Faith is not something better felt than told. Faith is not absorbed out of the air by osmosis. It is not some mysterious force that ebbs and flows with cosmic tentacles, touching this one and that one but missing others. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Isn’t this beautiful and logical, understandable and fair. Doesn’t it make sense? Where the seed goes, faith goes. That is why we hear the gospel called the “word of faith” (Rom. 10:8). That is why John asserted that “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:3 1). This is why Jesus commanded the apostles to carry the message to every creature. Every creature needs faith and it comes through hearing the gospel. This is God’s order for salvation and there can be no other.
Faith Leads To Repentance
Jesus stated that “except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3). But what is repentance and where does it fit into the scheme of things? How does one know that he ought to repent? Can anyone repent before he reads the Bible and has faith? Is there a perceivable logic to the place of repentance?
When Paul met the heathen philosophers in Athens, he declared the existence of God to them and, upon his foundation, commanded repentance (Acts 17:16-31). Note that he did not command repentance and then speak of God. Proper repentance is produced by the knowledge of God and, by contrast, our shortcomings regarding His will. Jesus said that Nineveh repented “at the preaching” of Jonah (Lk. 11:32). Proper preaching will produce “godly sorrow” (2 Cor. 7:10) and a sense of the “goodness of God” (Rom. 2:4), both of which enhance true repentance. Thus, it can be seen that repentance will follow a hearing of God’s word and faith. This is the logical, sensible order presented by the Scriptures.
The doctrine of “faith only” is neither logical nor scriptural. First of all, “faith only” denies the truth of the gospel (James 2:24). Secondly, it does not follow the logic of God’s plan of redemption. I have heard Baptist preachers state that Salvation comes at the instant one believes in Christ. When pressed about repentance and when it occurs, they are in a quandary. If they say that repentance comes after salvation (which occurs at the instant of faith), they would be teaching that one is saved without repentance. Quandary 1. But since they insist that salvation is by “faith alone,” faith cannot be accompanied by anything, even repentance. Quandary 2. When pressed, they will insist that repentance comes before faith. Quandary 3. Hebrews 11:6 asserts that “without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing unto God. . .” Any action, therefore, including repentance, that occurs before faith could not be well-pleasing to God. Additionally, we might ask, why would anyone repent in the first place if they didn’t believe in God at all? You see, there is a logic to the plan of salvation that must be followed. So far, we have seen that it is established by hearing the word of God, believing it and repenting of one’s sins.
Repentance Is Followed By Confession
Up to this point, all that has happened in the plan of redemption is inward, of the heart. Up to this point, a sinner could be reading his Bible and come to the point of repentance without expressing a word or sign. But the Lord has laid upon us the obligation of making an acknowledgment of our faith. There can be no secret disciples in heaven. There is no back door into the kingdom. Such an acknowledgment of faith in Christ Jesus is expressed by a public, oral confession of the name of Christ. (This should not be confused with a confession of sins). Jesus is Lord! We must be ready to die for that fact and there is no middle ground. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven” (Mt. 10:32,33). Paul taught that confession is “with the mouth” (Rom. 10:9-10). Since one would not confess before he had faith or before true repentance was present in his heart, there is no place for public confession until after one has repented. Faith changes the heart, repentance changes the life and confession changes the allegiance. Until the heart and life has been changed, no change of allegiance can or will be made. You see, there is a logic to the plan of salvation.
Baptism Completes The Action
In the Great Commission, Jesus commanded faith and baptism (Mt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15,16) and predicated salvation upon these actions. We understand this more completely in the light of Ephesians 2:3,9, “saved by grace through faith.” Grace refers to God’s part in the salvation of the lost, faith refers to that which man does in response to grace. We realize, then, that whereas God has graciously given His son and made salvation possible, man must act in obedience to the terms of the gospel.
Baptism is unique in the plan of salvation in that it relates us to the death of Christ in a manner that nothing else does. Paul tells us that we are baptized “into the death” of Christ (Rom. 6:3,4). We are not baptized into the birth of Christ, nor the life of Christ but into His death. Why is this so important? Is it not because the blood of Christ was shed in His death and that we are saved by the blood of Christ? Further, while faith changes the heart, repentance changes the life and confession changes the allegiance, it is baptism that changes our relationship. We are baptized “into” Christ and “put on” Christ (Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26,27). By this new relationship, we are “born anew” (Rom. 6:4) or “begotten” (1 Pet. 1:22,23). The word of God tells us that it is at this point that we are saved, forgiven, have our sins washed away, added to the church and change our relationship (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Acts 2:47). Again, there is an inescapable logic and progression to this order.
No one would submit to baptism unless he had read of it in the word of God, had believed in Jesus, had repented of his sins, was willing to make a public confession of that faith and wanted to be forgiven of all past sins. Baptism before faith makes no sense at all. Baptism before repentance would be a farce. Baptism before one changes his allegiance would be hypocritical. But baptism as the final step in a process that begins with instruction from the word of the Lord and ends with a public declaration of the death of sin in your life and being added to the Lord’s body conforms to every principle of truth taught in the Bible.
Foolishness?
When Paul spoke of the gospel being “foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:18-31), he did not mean that there was nothing logical to the plan of redemption. According to human wisdom, the gospel is foolish because it presents a crucified Savior. But this should not be construed to mean that there is no spiritual logic in the Scriptures or that a discernible plan of salvation cannot be seen. “To them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). By presenting Jesus to the world, God chose that which the world counted as foolish, but God did not present Jesus foolishly or without proper logic or order. Sinners are not asked to abandon all reason or sense in accepting Christ. We do the gospel a disservice when we speak of faith as being a “blind leap” into eternity. Rather, faith can be demonstrated to be the acceptance of God’s plan of redemption. The words of Paul take on new meaning in this light when we read, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith unto faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1: 16,17).
Conclusion
If, as has been demonstrated, there is a plan of salvation, it should also be noted that to re-arrange the order or to remove any of the parts is to destroy the logic. Furthermore, if, as Paul asserts in Romans 1: 17, that the “righteousness of God” is revealed therein, it borders on blasphemy to tamper with God’s arrangement of the gospel. It is by the righteous arrangement of the gospel that God can both pardon sin and maintain His own righteousness (Rom. 3:24-26). Dare we ignore, change, delete, add to or re-arrange that which God has worked out through the centuries to His own glory and the salvation of the lost?
All that remains is for us to have the right kind of attitude in allowing God to work in our lives. We must hear the gospel, accept Christ as God’s son, repent of our sinful lives, be willing to confess Jesus as Lord and be buried with Him in baptism for the remission of our sins. It is in this manner that Jesus becomes to us the “wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption” of God (1 Cor. 1:30). It is in this manner that we can say, “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (v. 31).
Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 7, pp. 207, 210-211
April 5, 1984
@ Gene Jenkins
I quite enjoyed the piece – although I have to disagree on some points. In particular regarding water baptism being needed for remission of sins and salvation.
We find that on the cross the one criminal hanging next to Jesus asks Him to remember him when He is in Paradise.
Luk 23:40-43 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? (41) And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” (42) Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” (43) And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
We can see that there was repentance as he aware of his sinfulness and his deserving punishment – whereas Jesus was without fault. Jesus forgave him – and pronounced him saved. He was never baptized in water. But surely only by the Holy Spirit could he have been brought to repentance and salvation in the first place.
It is true that we are baptized into the body – but we are baptized into the body by the SPIRIT.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
Also we find with the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48) that the Holy Spirit fell on all the Gentiles BEFORE they were baptized in water. Surely no one would suggest that they were yet unsaved until they were baptized in water?
Thus we are taught that it is the by the Holy Spirit that we are sealed to God:
Eph 1:13-14 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, (14) who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
With this I am not detracting from the importance of water baptism – by this means we are baptized into the death of Jesus Christ so that we might put to death the deeds of the flesh. But putting water baptism as a condition for remission of sins and salvation is erroneous and not scriptural.
Please share your thought is you disagree!
Be blessed!
Thanks, Sarelpetrus! I have read your comment and have heard that scenario in reference to the thief on the cross’ salvation, before. It goes something like this: So, “What about the thief on the cross? He was not baptized; yet the Lord saved him. Since this is true, then people today can be saved without being baptized.” The thief on the cross would never have gotten so much attention if there were not so many people who would like to avoid being baptized.
When one attempts to use the thief on the cross as a lone exception to gospel obedience, he thereby admits that in the New Testament cases of conversion, those who were converted were baptized. In order to verify that baptism was a part of conversion in the New Testament, read the accounts of the conversion of the Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2:38), the Samaritans (Acts 8:12, 13), Saul of Tarsus (Acts 22:16), Cornelius (Acts 10:47, 48), Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33), and of those converted in Corinth (Acts 18:8). and Ephesus (Acts 19:3-5).
There were those in the days of John the Baptist who sought to avoid baptism, Of these the Bible says, “But the Pharisees and the Lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him” (Lk. 7:30). There are many today who reject the counsel of God against themselves by refusing to be baptized. Those who reject baptism as a condition of salvation think they can be saved like the thief was saved, and their chief argument is that the thief was not baptized.
But was the thief baptized? If the thief is the one exception to the gospel plan of salvation, and if one is going to try to be saved without baptism because the thief was saved without baptism, he ought at least to be able to prove that the thief was saved without baptism. We know that every convert about whose conversion we can read in the book of Acts was baptized. And the thief may have been baptized.
John the Baptist had baptized many in the area of Jerusalem. “Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan; they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mt. 3:5, 6). Mark adds, “John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And there went out unto him ALL the country of Judea, and ALL they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mk. 1: 4, 5). Was the thief among those baptized by John? If one is going to use the thief as his only authority to prove that one can be saved without baptism, he must be able to prove that the thief was not baptized by John the Baptist. But this no man can prove! Furthermore, Jesus nearly had completed his ministry on earth when he told the thief, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Included in Jesus’ preaching was the commandment to be baptized. “When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples), he left Judea, and departed again unto Galilee” (John 4: 1-3). Jesus made and baptized many disciples. The Bible says that he “was making AND BAPTIZING MORE DISCIPLES THAN JOHN.” Can those who think the thief was unbaptized prove that he was not among these?
Before people stake their salvation without baptism on the thief on the cross, they had better be able to prove the thief was unbaptized. That the thief was unbaptized is merely an unfounded assumption on their part. They assume that his salvation constitutes an exception to the gospel plan of salvation. Furthermore, they assume that they can be saved like they assume the thief on the cross was saved.
In any consideration of the thief, one must keep in mind that the thief lived under the Old Testament. The writer of the book of Hebrews argues that a change of law was made. “For the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12). Hebrews 9:16, 17 tell us when this change of law was effected. “For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth.” Paul, in Rom. 7:4, said: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ.” Prior to the death of Christ, the Old Testament was in force. After his death, the New Testament became effective.
It is obvious, therefore, that we live in the New Testament era. It is equally obvious that when Jesus said “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise” the thief was yet under the Old Testament, since this remark was made prior to the death of Christ. Whatever might be shown to be true concerning the salvation of the thief is of no relevance to our salvation, since he lived under a different law from that under which people today live.
One might as well argue that if Abraham ‘ Moses and David were saved without baptism, then one today can likewise be saved without baptism. But baptism is made a condition of salvation under the New Testament. It was not a condition of salvation under the Old Testament, the law under which Abraham, Moses, David and the thief lived. The Old Testament did not command baptism, but the New Testament does. Hope this helps and encourages further study, Sarelpetrus.
Dear Gene,
So imagine you have this soldier in the Vietnam war – he’s whole company had been killed and he is wandering around lost in the forest. He’s thinking about his life and everything he’s done wrong. During the night he has a vivid dream that he should give his life to Jesus and be saved (happens to a lot of Muslims). When he wakes the next morning he is cut to the heart – and gives his life to Jesus. But before he makes it out of the forest, he is killed.
Is he saved?
Sarel
Note: I never once said people shouldn’t be baptized. I merely pointed out that in my opinion – I might be wrong – if you were sealed by the Holy Spirit, you are saved whether or not you were baptized in water or not. There are endless scenarios where it might happen that someone gave their life to Jesus but were never baptized. Are you telling me all these people were lost? Spirit or letter?
your point is well taken, sarel, God can do whatever He chooses to do in what ever particular circumstance arises, however, for me, I choose to follow the set in writing path that He has prescribed (as a physician would do) and rely upon that for my own personal salvation. IF there are exceptions to those rules, then that’s God’s prerogative to decide but for me to base my own salvation upon those exceptions is very uncertain, at best. Thanks for the discussion!
@ Serelpetrus,
Originally I was not going to touch this post with a ten foot pole. Posts such at this one generally produced heated debates that usually accomplishes very little. Obviously, this was probably not Matt’s intentions but only a statement of belief.
But I have a couple of questions? Have you never heard of ‘baptism of desire’? Nor the ‘Baptism of Tears’? also known as ‘Baptism of Martyrdom? What about ‘Baptism of Blood of Christ’?
The Church since the beginning (Pentecost) has always taught Water Baptism may be replaced by Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and of Tears in extraordinary circumstances.
Quite impossible for a man hanging on a cross on the verge of death could be baptized by water. We can reasonably assume without any reservations if this man was not hanging on that cross he would have had the desire to be baptized and lived as a Christian . However he received a singular and a extraordinary grace from his Loving Savior.
I don’t think it’s important that you and I get into a debate if Baptism is a Christian sacrament or a symbolic thing of no supernatural grace.
However, I do think it’s important for us to remember no Christian theologian nor early Church father ever denied Baptism was a Christian sacrament and NECESSARY for the remission of sins until the ‘Protestant Reformation’ 1,500 years after Pentecost and among these “reformers” ONLY Calvin, the Anabaptist and Zwingly denied Baptism was a sacrament-hence denied it was necessary for salvation.
Regrettably, today this is still held true my a minute minority of Christians namely those of Calvinist influence and ironically and paradoxical some Baptist Christian denominations.
Okay that’s all thanks
Dear Davide,
I was in no way saying people shouldn’t get baptized – I was merely questioning whether it was a prerequisite for salvation. For instance: I was only baptized about 3 months after I was called. (Was waiting for the right time and place as I wasn’t saved in church or belonged to one.) If I had died before, would I have been saved? I think so. Of course, I was baptized as an infant – does that count? Is sprinkling sufficient or is immersion required? I can completely understand why you have no desire to get bogged down on the issue of water baptism – neither do I. When you’re saved – get baptized. Why? Jesus said so.
I would be interested to know where you stand on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and tongue speaking Catholics if you don’t mind? (Since you mention Pentecost.) I’ve studied this on and off – and each time I eventually throw my hands in the air and give up. (Tongue speaking in general that is, not pertaining only to Catholics.) But it keeps coming back to haunt me – it’s most vexing. Just curious – not expecting a dissertation.
Be blessed!
Sarel
PS: Interesting story attached to the issue of infant vs adult baptism. My dad related this to me when I told him that I wished to be baptized. (When I was called I just naturally felt the need to be baptized.) Like me he also underwent infant baptism. My dad takes his faith very seriously and many years into his walk with Jesus Christ he got into a discussion with a young man regarding the issue of baptism. My dad was wholly opposed to adult immersion as the church which he belonged to (and had for his whole life) was infant sprinkling orientated. So he decided to make a thorough study of the subject in order to set this young man straight – but with unexpected results. He became convinced that adult immersion was what the Bible really taught. But my mom was dead set against it and forbade him to do it. So my dad didn’t go through with getting baptized even though his conscience kept at him to get baptized.
So some months later he develops this fungal infection in his thigh. Huge red splotch, itches like crazy. He goes through treatment after treatment – nothing helps. Eventually they send a sample away to have it tested and what do they find? The fungus is resistant to ALL fungicides. My dad was devastated – naturally. So he prayed and prayed, asking God why he had been thus afflicted. Imagine his surprise when God told him, “You are more obedient to your wife than to me.” Anyway – that did it. My dad went ahead and got baptized. The next day the fungal infection was gone. Completely disappeared overnight. As I said, interesting story, make of it what you will.
@Sarel,
Ciao,
I can say with 100% certainty Catholics, Orthodox, and the majority of Protestants would view your bambino baptism as valid and your second baptism as redundant and unnecessary. No such thing as a re-baptism.
Certainly there are those Protestants who would not agree.
However, in the Middle Ages the Waldenses and Catharists, rejected infant baptism. Then, the Anabaptists AKA “rebapizers” also rejected infant baptism. But where are these groups now?
In regards to “sprinkling” I have no clue what you are talking about. I have never witnessed this.
As far as I am aware baptism happens by infusion (pouring) or immersion (dunking). But I suppose it could happen by sprinkling.
I don’t think the New Testament contains explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water baptism…ya I am certain it does not.
Of course it is true that the Greek word baptizo often means “immersion”. But this is not the only meaning for the word baptizo. Sometimes it means to “get clean” or to “wash up”.
In Luke 11:38, when our Lord ate at the house of the Pharisee they were astonished to see that He did not wash [baptizo] first. Certainly our Lord did not practice immersion before he ate-that would make Him a weirdo.
Some Catholic rites (22 in all) baptize using immersion and some use infusion even within the Roman rite there are these differences.
In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church immersion is the ‘norm’ while in the Western rites infusion is the ‘norm’. No one mode has exclusive validity over the other.
In Acts 2:41 blessed Saint Peter first sermon there were three thousand baptisms give or take. It is proven by scientific studies of archaeologists there was no sufficient water supply in Jerusalem to immerse so many people. Devil’s advocate: Even if there was I find it hard to believe the people of Jerusalem or the Roman occupiers would allow the city’s water supply to be polluted by 3,000 (stinky, unwashed bodies, crusty butts, and the women with their monthly visitor) unwelcomed Christians. Besides its tee-TOTALLY gross when you think about it. So I can say for almost 100% certainty most of those baptism had to be by infusion (pouring). Better yet maybe a 1st century lawn sprinkler was provided. Who knows…
What of those persons who can not be immersed?
Such as a dude who just had open-heart surgery, or a woman who has negative pressure ventilators on her lungs-you’re a doctor I don’t need to tell you what that would do. So we tell them they have to wait till they feel better? What if they never get better?
What about Christian Eskimos or Christian desert nomads? Good luck telling them they have to be immersed.
What of those in prison?
What of those with no limbs?
What of those living in Islamic countries? Trekking down to a river to get baptized by immersion the Christian might find his head hacked off his shoulders and kicked around like a football..is this not so?
Some Islamic countries do not allow churches so a baptismal pool would be impossible. Many of these countries the Christian church is underground and absolutely none of them have a baptismal pool in their living room nor under the bushes in the back yard..never mind it’s with the chained barking dog.
Naw friend, to me, that just doesn’t make much sense, not buying it.
Ironically, those Protestant Christians who do not view Baptism as a holy sacrament instituted by Christ, but a ordinance, are the ones who demand baptism must be immersion, (and almost always are the ones who reject baptizing babies) hung up about the logistics of baptism and treasure meagerly of the profit. I believe this to be consequence not of sacred Scripture strictures, but of the antecedent reason of such Christians notions of salvation.
Obviously the Church has always understood baptism and salvation differently. We Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants believe salvation comes through an infusion of grace which begins at our baptisms. This is why we baptize babies.
In regards to “speaking in tongues”. I have been to Catholic parishes in eighteen different countries, four or five to a Orthodox parish in Greece and Serbia, twice to a Protestant congregation in America and I have never witnessed anyone speaking in tongues. Not one time.
Think we both can agree speaking in a unknown foreign language of the speaker is a lessor gift of the Holy Spirit; not jumping up and down like an idiot and saying nonsensical gibberish.
There is debate if this gift still exists. Blessed Saint Paul tells us in sacred Scripture this gift would cease-see 1 Cor. 13:8. Saint Augustine and confirmed by Saint Thomas Aquinas this gift no longer exist-matter of opinion.
However before these two holy dudes were born; in the Corinthian church (Paul speaks of this in Corinthians) we can see that tongues of foreign languages was spoken, but we ain’t sure what languages. We also see it in Acts. He also said some of these tongues basically were mysteries and unintelligible. This might be the divine language of the angels…but I really don’t have a freakin’ clue.
I can reasonably assume and this is of my [personal] opinion there is no reason for the gift of Tongues to continue since the Catholic Church has spoken the language of nations for 200 centuries. It is clear to me the gift of tongues was given to the Church for evangelization purposes.
The fact that gift of tongues is not even recorded in later books of the NT may suggest it had already cease by then.
But if this gift does still exist I think we can both agree it would be a rare gift..something I am not going to lose a minute of sleep over.
Sarel, I have no problems with you sharing your Christian faith/creed with me if fact I think it’s cool and I thank you.
All the same, I see us debating these issues as unhealthy and unproductive. I can assume you do not accept infant baptism and obviously this is your creed and I can respect that [fully]. I do think discussing these matters can be important but arguments rarely settle anything.
In regards to your father’s illness I have no opinion other than to say I am happy he is feeling much better.
Thanks
Dear Francesco,
Thanks for the very lengthy response! I honestly do not mean to steal your time – and I do value your inputs.
Regarding the infant baptism vs adult baptism – I can’t really say I’m decided either way to be perfectly honest. But I spent 20 years of my life not believing God existed and dabbled in practically every sin known to man at some point during that time. I was busy. So when I finally had an encounter with Jesus and repented it flowed naturally for me to get baptised. I did not really concern myself with whether it was necessary or not – I felt a need. Nobody told me to and I didn’t ask – I just wanted to. And I believe I was prompted to by the Spirit – but that is my personal opinion.
The story about my dad was merely an interesting aside. (Reason why I said to make of it what you will.) The issue at stake here was not necessarily baptism but obedience – the latter probably being more likely, but that’s also only my opinion. The facts are that my dad became convinced that it was necessary for him to be baptized as an adult (a conscious decision being involved here as opposed to what happens with infants) – but didn’t because my mom forbade it. Therefore it became an issue of conscience and obedience.
Regarding the issue of glossolalia – I was referring to how it is practised these days by mostly Pentecostal and Charismatic groups. That is – very, very rarely is the language spoken recognised. Modern tongue speaking started in the early 1900s and by the second half of the century had spread to the Roman Catholic church. I can assure you – the Popes were aware of this and approved. And as far as I know they haven’t changed their stance on modern tongue speaking in the RC church. Just look into the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. I have studied this subject in some depth so permit me to suggest that the issue is not as cut and dried as you say. I wish it was – then I could lay it to rest. I was merely after your feelings more than your knowledge on the subject – for unless you have spent a very great many hours studying this and read countless books on it I doubt you’ll be able to add to what I know – although I might be pleasantly wrong.
I myself do not speak in tongues but I know many people who do – which is why the issue keeps presenting itself to me; especially as to it’s relation to Baptism with the Holy Spirit. But thanks for sharing your views – I do enjoy your feisty repartee. Maybe it will be fruitful for you to speak to some Catholics who do speak in tongues?
Hope you have a good day,
Sarel
PS: by ‘sprinkling’ I meant ‘infusion’. I was directly translation from Afrikaans where we speak of ‘besprinkeling’ instead of ‘infusion’. Sorry for confusion.
For those who may deny the necessity of baptism, it should be observed what baptism does. It washes away sin (Acts 22:16). It is a part of becoming a citizen of the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5). It is the place where God cuts away our sin in a spiritual operation (Col. 2:12). It puts us into Christ (Gal. 3:27). It should be remembered that all spiritual blessings, including salvation, are found in Christ (Eph. 1:3). Since baptism puts one into Christ, one should readily see its importance.
Let’s look at the words “into” and “unto” for just a moment. The prefix un means “not.” For example, we talk of those who are unskilled, undressed, unashamed, etc. The suffix to in the word “unto” describes movement towards something. For example, I might say, “I drove my car to the bank.” “Unto,” then, means moving towards something, but not there yet.
The prefix in indicates entry and reveals location or position. For example, “I was in the bank.” The suffix to in the word “into” describes contact. I might say, “Put your pedal to the metal.” Therefore, “into” means entering in and contacting something.
Now let’s see the application of this. Faith brings us unto righteousness (Rom. 10:10). Repentance brings one unto life (Acts 11:18). Confession is made unto salvation (Rom. 10:10). All of these things (faith, repentance, and confession) are necessary, but they only send us in the right direction. They help one move towards Christ, but they do not put one in Christ. Baptism, being the final step in obeying the gospel, is the thing that puts one into Christ (Gal. 3:27). Don’t just walk up to the door of Christianity, step inside by being buried in the waters of baptism (Rom. 6:3-4). Face the fact! Without being baptized, you are still outside of Christ, not a member of his church, and therefore still living in sin.
Bible facts are important. They don’t change because of the opinion of man. They do not change with time. The facts that we just looked at are as true today as they were when they were written.
Dear Gene,
Please compare:
Gal 3:27-28 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
What are your thoughts? Not trying to pick a fight. Just never saw the similarity of these two statements before – quite interesting.
I would highly recommend that anyone discussing water baptism do a word study on in the word and its context using a Hebrew/Greek study Bible. There are many instances throughout the New Testament where baptism isn’t speaking of water baptism at all. It’s very interesting!
Excellent suggestion, Brad! In its most basic and fundamental sense, the act of baptism “consists of the processes of immersion, submersion, and emergence” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Volume I, p. 96). Standard lexicons (Greek dictionaries), such as Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, define “baptism” in this way: “dip, immerse,” and point out that in “non-Christian literature” it means to “plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm, etc.” (p. 131). Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines the Greek verb for “baptism” as “immersion, submersion” (p. 94); while Liddell and Scott, in their Greek-English Lexicon, define the word to mean “dip repeatedly, dip under” (p. 126). Alan Richardson’s Theological Wordbook of the Bible defines the word in this manner: “dip, plunge under water, sink or swamp” (p. 27).
Thus the English word “baptize” does not adequately translate the idea of the action contained in the original Greek word (baptizo); in fact (as we can see by comparing the Greek word and the English word), it is not a translation at all, but rather a transliteration. It merely transposes Greek letters (transliterates) into English letters, instead of selecting any of a number of English words (such as dip, plunge, immerse, submerge, overwhelm, etc.) which would correctly convey (translate) the idea of the Greek, baptizo. (It is also interesting to notice that a separate Greek word –rantizo–meaning “to sprinkle” could and would have been used if that were the action being contemplated.)
But one does not necessarily need a knowledge of Greek or access to a Greek lexicon to learn what the Bible means by “baptism.” Perhaps the best way to establish that the word itself indicates its own meaning is to examine passages of scripture in which the word is used. One of the best descriptive passages with regard to “baptism” is found in Acts 8, the record of the conversion of the Ethiopian treasurer. From the account beginning in verse 35 and continuing through verse 39, we learn that the act of baptism involves a coming unto water (v. 36), a going down into the water (v. 38), and a coming up out of water (v. 39).
Other passages are likewise revealing in helping us to understand the nature of the action of baptism. In Rom. 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12, baptism is called a “burial,” which involves again the ideas of a submersion, or an overwhelming. Perhaps we can understand from passages such as these why it was necessary that John the baptizer baptized where there was “much water” (John 3:23). Also, the concept of innundation and a complete overwhelming with water is implied by Peter’s use of the flood in Noah’s day, and his declaration that a “like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21).
Seeing then that baptism is declared to be an essential requirement for a person’s salvation, we need to be very certain that we understand what baptism is-that by definition and by its own usage it is immersion, and all of the sophisticated and complex discussion about “modes” will not make it otherwise; nor will it make sprinkling and pouring something which they are not-Biblical baptism.
There are many things that baptism will not do. It doesn’t change one’s heart, remove temptation, guarantee a sinless life or guarantee eternal life. And yet at the same time there are some things which baptism will do. Modern denominationalism has been almost entirely negative in its treatment of baptism to the point that to most people it is nothing more than an “outward sign of an inward grace,” which really means nothing at all. Regardless of such thinking, the New Testament makes some very positive statements relative to the design and effects of scriptural baptism. It teaches that baptism will do the following.
First, baptism will remit one’s sins. Men usually deny this but God’s word emphatically affirms it. In Acts 2:38 the apostle Peter told inquiring believers to “repent and be baptized — for the remission of sins.” Language could be no clearer! Penitent believers are to be baptized in order that they may obtain remission or forgiveness of sins. This fact explains the words of Ananias as he told Saul of Tarsus to “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins–.” (Acts. 22: 16.) Some seek to evade the obvious conclusion of Peter’s statement in Acts 2:38 by interpreting the word “for” to mean “because of.” This, however, cannot be since relxntance and baptism have the identical design as per this passage, i. e., the “remission of sins.” No one contends that remission precedes repentance and therefore one cannot consistently contend that remission precedes baptism. So baptism does remit one’s sins.
Second, baptism will put one into Christ. In Galatians 3:27 we read: “For as many of you as have been baptized into (Christ have put on (Christ.” We are informed of this same fact in Romans 6:3. Nothing else is said to put us into (Christ. The word “into” is, defined as “from being outside of, as in place, state, forte, etc., to within.” In other words the term “into” describes the process of entering. Before one is put into Christ he is outside of Him and thus without Christ. Paul describes those who are “without Christ” as “having no hope, and without God in the world. ” (Eph. 2: 12.) In contradiction to this we are told that “in Christ” the following things reside: (1) all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3); (2) redemption or the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1: 7); (3) salvation (2 Tim. 2:10); (4) consolation for the dead (Rev. 14:13); (5) a new creation of life (2 Cor. 5: 17). Other blessings in Christ could be mentioned, but these should suffice to cause us to be grateful that baptism does put one into Christ.
Third, baptism will put one into the death of Christ. Paul declares this in Romans 6:3, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Again we have the word “into,” and it means the same in this passage as it does in Galatians 3:27. So until one is baptized he is out of or without the death of Christ. This means that such a person is in the spiritual condition that obtained before Christ died on the cross and which would have continued to obtain had he not died. This is so because there has been no personal application of the death or shedding of the Savior’s blood to the soul and correspondingly no derivation of the benefits accruing therefrom. The benefits of his death are expressed in such terms as redemption, forgiveness, remission, etc. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1: 14; Matt. 26:28; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19.) A realization that baptism does put us into His death should assuredly increase our respect and appreciation for this ordinance.
Finally, Baptism will save us. This of course has been the gist of all the observations made thus far concerning what baptism will do. Whether we mention that baptism puts one into Christ, or remits ones sins, or puts one into the death of Christ, all of these points can be equated or summed up in this last one, i. e., that baptism saves us. However, Peter makes this precise statement in 1 Peter 3:21 when he says, “The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us–.” This settles the matter once and for all. Any doctrine on baptism, which robs it of this accomplishment, is a false one.
@Sarel,
Thank you for your comment. Honestly I know very little about the Charsmatic movement in the Church. I know blessed Pope John Paul 2 and Pope Paul VI have spoken on it and Vatican 2. But I don’t know if they spoke specifically on tongues or generally of charismatic gifts. I believe the Church is very careful regarding this prolly taking a middle road approach. But honestly I have no clue. Never gave it a second thought. Honestly I hold not much interest in it. Obviously these “gifts” can not replace the means of grace in the life of the Christian, such as the sacraments. But the Church cannot condemn charisms, since they are part of the patrimony of our apostolic faith. I can only assume great care is taken regarding this movement. If tongues are still spoken in the Church so be it, but like I said I have never witnessed this myself.
Thank you
Hey Sarel, Do you live in SA? I have a couple of buddies who live there.
Hey Francesco, (please say if you prefer Davide, I really don’t know)
Nope, I live in Namibia which is right next door. But I studied in South Africa and lived there for quite a number of years. It’s getting a bit crazy over there so I’m quite happy sticking to Namibia which is my country of birth.
I probably also wouldn’t have given the tongue speaking much attention either if I wasn’t confronted by it on a weekly basis. I have always been more fruit orientated than gift orientated myself – only one lasts eternally and the other the Holy Spirit will provide as it pleases Him.
Hope you have a joyful day,
Sarel
@sarel, hi.Either name is fine. You have a nice day also. Peace
Great article!! So many say they “believe” and it’s so important to ask what exactly they believe! Thanks for posting.