Martin Luther on Christian Baptism: IT SAVES!!!!!!

[Adino]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

He that doesn't beleive is not going to be baptized so there is not reason to state, he that believes not and is baptized not shall be damned.

A ring is not necessary part of the wedding covenant, but baptism is essential to the new birth. It's pretty simple, you are not part of the covenant if you do not act out what is needed to be part of the covenant. You could be born into the nation of Israel but you where not a partaker in Abraham's covenant if you where not circumcised in the foreskin. The circumcision or token of the new covenant, is preform without hands in baptism.

Logic works if you think logically.

Apparently you missed the point, Bro.. Mark 16:16 is a compound conditional sentence and the second part of that compound, "and is baptized" does not necessitate its connection to "shall be saved." Just like my example "He that is married by a preacher and puts on a ring shall be wed" does not necessitate the putting on of the ring in order to be wed. The ring stands as a token of the union, not as a cause of that union. Baptism does the same, it stands as a testimonial of the union but does not effect the union in any way.

"The one who believes AND is baptized shall be saved." There is a very important principle with respect to compound conditional statements: "A compound protasis ("The one who believes AND is baptized") does not necessarily mean that both conditions have the same relation to the apodosis" ("shall be saved.") [from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Zondervan, 1996), p.684.]

"The order, pisteusas (the one who believes) before baptistheis (the one who is baptized), and perhaps also the absence of any me baptistheis (one who is NOT baptized) answering to apistesas (the one who does not believe), rule out a magical, mechanical conception of baptism." [C.E.B. Cranfield, The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966), p. 474.]

The secondary condition of being baptized simply cannot be automatically connected to "shall be saved" in Mark 16:16. It would be a mistake to do so.

Yes, it would be nice if logic ruled the day.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by CC1

Rather than poisoning the well wouldn't you have to say he is simply pointing out you have to synthasize Luther's entire body of work to understand his doctrine? You cannot take one isolated writing and try to make it stand by itself.

In other words you can take a section by iteself and perceive it to mean one thing when if it is taken in context of the person's entire presentation of beliefs means another.

Either you or somebody was going "yeah, see this is what Luthor said, the guy all you one steppers love" as if Luthor is the be all and end al lof one stepper doctrine.

Like all men he was imperfect. Just ask the Jews he railed against. I don't think anybody on here agrees with all of Luthors doctrine but elements of it were foundation of the reformation from which the modern fundamentalits / evangelical churches are born, including Pentecostals whether they want to admit it or not.

I am posting this after having read only the first few pages of this thread so no doubt this has probably already been addressed by minds sharper than my own.

Which is precisely why I posted other quotes of Luther which very plainly point out that he believed justification was by faith alone without baptism.

I said before:

Be sure to temper all this with Luther's other statements on baptism:

"Is it possible for an unbaptized person to be saved? It is only unbelief that condemns. Faith cannot exist in the heart of a person who despises and rejects Baptism against better knowledge. But those who believe the Gospel, yet die before they have opportunity to be baptized are not condemned."

[Luther’s Small Catechism, (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1986) p. 206] Scripture texts cited are Mark 16:16 and the Luke 23:39-43 where it says the thief on the cross was saved without Baptism.

Luther made his position on whether Baptism was essential to salvation very clear:

"Baptism is no more than an outward sign that the divine promise ought to admonish us. . . . If a man cannot have it or refuses it, he is not condemned, so long as he believes the Gospel. For where the Gospel is, there is Baptism and all else that a Christian man needs."

[Van A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms, (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1964) p. 38]

Then again...

"Who does not see that it proves nothing whatever against my teaching what Peter says: "Baptism doth also now save us"(I Peter 3:21)? For it does not follow that it is false that faith alone justifies! Baptism certainly does not justify without faith, but FAITH DOES JUSTIFY WITHOUT BAPTISM; therefore NO PART OF JUSTIFICATION MAY BE ASCRIBED TO BAPTISM. Otherwise, if Baptism in itself justified, we could not deny that Baptism without faith does justify. But since this is denied, justification is correctly left to faith alone."

(What Luther Says: An Anthology, compiled by Ewald M. Plass (Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, MO, 1959), Vol. II, entry 2213, p. 708.)

Luther taught that "Faith does justify without baptism; therefore no part of justification may be ascribed to baptism."

I agree with this statement.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

Which is precisely why I posted other quotes of Luther which very plainly point out that he believed justification was by faith alone without baptism.

I said before:

Be sure to temper all this with Luther's other statements on baptism:

"Is it possible for an unbaptized person to be saved? It is only unbelief that condemns. Faith cannot exist in the heart of a person who despises and rejects Baptism against better knowledge. But those who believe the Gospel, yet die before they have opportunity to be baptized are not condemned."

[Luther’s Small Catechism, (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1986) p. 206] Scripture texts cited are Mark 16:16 and the Luke 23:39-43 where it says the thief on the cross was saved without Baptism.

Luther made his position on whether Baptism was essential to salvation very clear:

"Baptism is no more than an outward sign that the divine promise ought to admonish us. . . . If a man cannot have it or refuses it, he is not condemned, so long as he believes the Gospel. For where the Gospel is, there is Baptism and all else that a Christian man needs."

[Van A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms, (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1964) p. 38]

Then again...

"Who does not see that it proves nothing whatever against my teaching what Peter says: "Baptism doth also now save us"(I Peter 3:21)? For it does not follow that it is false that faith alone justifies! Baptism certainly does not justify without faith, but FAITH DOES JUSTIFY WITHOUT BAPTISM; therefore NO PART OF JUSTIFICATION MAY BE ASCRIBED TO BAPTISM. Otherwise, if Baptism in itself justified, we could not deny that Baptism without faith does justify. But since this is denied, justification is correctly left to faith alone."

(What Luther Says: An Anthology, compiled by Ewald M. Plass (Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, MO, 1959), Vol. II, entry 2213, p. 708.)

Luther taught that "Faith does justify without baptism; therefore no part of justification may be ascribed to baptism."

I agree with this statement.

Then YOU and Mr.Luther are both wrong.

Remission of sins and justification are tied to the Name Luke 24:47 & 1Cor. 6:11!
That Name is invoked upon us at baptism Acts 22:16, James 2:7, Acts 15:17!

Only In that Name are sins remitted thus justified at water baptism in His name. Acts 2:38

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Faith is a means to an end. We are saved BY faith not AT faith. Everything we do is BY faith even receiving the Holy Spirit. Tongues is a sign that a believer has initially been filled with the Spirit of God. Tongues doesn't save us.

Is obeying the commands of Christ a "performance mindset"? Is seeking a relationship with Christ a performance on our part? When we pray, fast, study the Bible are we performing or are we seeking to draw close to God and to know Him better? Do we witness to the lost because we are looking for notches in our crown or because we care for their souls?

I can give you three examples of believers in the Bible who received the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues and a few other supporting verses. Does every conversion in the book of Acts have to include "and they spoke in other tongues" for us to accept that tongues is the evidence that a believer has received the Holy Spirit? Have you searched out EVERY conversion in the book of Acts and noted what happened in each event?

Does Luke specifically write that Lydia or the jailer and his family were filled with the Holy Spirit? No.

Is the Spirit indwelling the believer necessary for salvation? Yes. So were Lydia and the jailer not saved because the Bible doesn't tell us that they received the Spirit? NO.

We believe that there is one gospel and that the disciples taught the same thing everywhere they went. Just because it is not written that those two instances of conversion involved an outpouring of the Spirit of God does not mean they were not filled with the Spirit. And in like manner just because every conversion in the book of Acts doesn't include speaking in tongues does not mean it did not happen the same way it did to the disciples in Acts 2..........we all receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Excellent!

The proper response to God (faith) is the vehicle by which we are saved. Grace allowed the provision. What is that provision. Respond to God (faith) by Repenting(turning) and being baptized..... AND you shall receive the gift of the HS! Repentace in the act of turning to provision of Christ in baptism and uniting with his death/blood/ sacrifice. We then are need to receive the HS! Must be born of water AND Spirit!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Then YOU and Mr.Luther are both wrong.

Remission of sins and justification are tied to the Name Luke 24:47 & 1Cor. 6:11!
That Name is invoked upon us at baptism Acts 22:16, James 2:7, Acts 15:17!

Only In that Name are sins remitted thus justified at water baptism in His name. Acts 2:38

correct.... BY WHAT authority do you respond or have faith! JESUS!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Adino

Apparently you missed the point, Bro.. Mark 16:16 is a compound conditional sentence and the second part of that compound, "and is baptized" does not necessitate its connection to "shall be saved." Just like my example "He that is married by a preacher and puts on a ring shall be wed" does not necessitate the putting on of the ring in order to be wed. The ring stands as a token of the union, not as a cause of that union. Baptism does the same, it stands as a testimonial of the union but does not effect the union in any way.

"The one who believes AND is baptized shall be saved." There is a very important principle with respect to compound conditional statements: "A compound protasis ("The one who believes AND is baptized") does not necessarily mean that both conditions have the same relation to the apodosis" ("shall be saved.") [from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Zondervan, 1996), p.684.]

"The order, pisteusas (the one who believes) before baptistheis (the one who is baptized), and perhaps also the absence of any me baptistheis (one who is NOT baptized) answering to apistesas (the one who does not believe), rule out a magical, mechanical conception of baptism." [C.E.B. Cranfield, The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966), p. 474.]

The secondary condition of being baptized simply cannot be automatically connected to "shall be saved" in Mark 16:16. It would be a mistake to do so.

Yes, it would be nice if logic ruled the day.

The problem is your argument doesn't work. You place extra condition in the text. "by a preacher"

He that "writes a covenant" (believeth) and "signs"(baptized) is in "contract"(saved)!

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Then YOU and Mr.Luther are both wrong.

Remission of sins and justification are tied to the Name Luke 24:47 & 1Cor. 6:11!
That Name is invoked upon us at baptism Acts 22:16, James 2:7, Acts 15:17!

Only In that Name are sins remitted thus justified at water baptism in His name. Acts 2:38

Yes, through Christ is preached forgiveness. All who believe are justified of all things. Acts 13:38-39

Are you saying sin remission can't take place until Christ's name is vocalized? What kind of ancient mysticism are you promoting here, Bro.?

Remission comes not because of an invocation, it comes because the heart of man has called on Christ as his Savior. The heart of man trusts in Christ's work of salvation, it does not trust in the preacher's ability to invoke Christ's name. That would be heretical mysticism.

Then again, Catholicism is full of that sort of thing

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Adino

Apparently you missed the point, Bro.. Mark 16:16 is a compound conditional sentence and the second part of that compound, "and is baptized" does not necessitate its connection to "shall be saved." Just like my example "He that is married by a preacher and puts on a ring shall be wed" does not necessitate the putting on of the ring in order to be wed. The ring stands as a token of the union, not as a cause of that union. Baptism does the same, it stands as a testimonial of the union but does not effect the union in any way.

"The one who believes AND is baptized shall be saved." There is a very important principle with respect to compound conditional statements: "A compound protasis ("The one who believes AND is baptized") does not necessarily mean that both conditions have the same relation to the apodosis" ("shall be saved.") [from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Zondervan, 1996), p.684.]

"The order, pisteusas (the one who believes) before baptistheis (the one who is baptized), and perhaps also the absence of any me baptistheis (one who is NOT baptized) answering to apistesas (the one who does not believe), rule out a magical, mechanical conception of baptism." [C.E.B. Cranfield, The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966), p. 474.]

The secondary condition of being baptized simply cannot be automatically connected to "shall be saved" in Mark 16:16. It would be a mistake to do so.

Yes, it would be nice if logic ruled the day.

Again logic on your part clearly fails as it "does not necessarily" they did not say it didn't. They know better. Also the basic point is because the text does not say he that believeth not and is batptized not shall be damned. Makes not difference. The point is for example!

He that believeth and repents shall be saved.

He that believeth not shall be damned.

does that negate repentance? No! it just give precedence to repentance! One cannot repent unless one believes. Same thing!

Without the source faith/ belief(positive response) how can one be baptized and be saved? You can't! Same with repentance! How can you not turn from the flesh and be baptized? You can't because turning from one(flesh) is to turn to Christ(baptism) You can't seek the flesh and seek Christ! One cannot have two masters!

[Adino]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

The problem is your argument doesn't work. You place extra condition in the text. "by a preacher"

He that "writes a covenant" (believeth) and "signs"(baptized) is in "contract"(saved)!

So you admit that baptism is only a "signature." It stands only in "signification" of something far greater.

Agreed?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Adino

Yes, through Christ is preached forgiveness. All who believe are justified of all things. Acts 13:38-39

Are you saying sin remission can't take place until Christ's name is vocalized? What kind of ancient mysticism are you promoting here, Bro.?

Remission comes not because of an invocation, it comes because the heart of man has called on Christ as his Savior. The heart of man trusts in Christ's work of salvation, it does not trust in the preacher's ability to invoke Christ's name. That would be heretical mysticism.

Then again, Catholicism is full of that sort of thing

Again you fail to realize the simple. It is FAITH in the authority of the one who you are said to come into agreement with! It is about oral confession/agreement of contract that which proceeds from the heart! When you are baptized in his name you are in agreement with the one who authority you are placed! Baptism is confession of that authority! If you ASK anything in my name (legal order) I will do it! To call upon his name is to make legal order or precedence!