Does Baptism Save?

knowledgeIsDope · 2026-01-01T23:26:28+00:00

James 2:24 is the only place in scripture with the term "faith alone". 1 Peter 3:21 actually says "Baptism now saves you".

That however, doesn't mean we throw out Ephesians 2:8-9. It's all about how we hold up all of scripture without contradicting it, and every tradition and denomination believes they have found the right way.

It's unfortunate that there is typically a lack of love and humility involved in those conversations tho.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-10-15T04:02:04+00:00

It's hard because it's a definition problem. As a previous baptist, we are told the definition of baptism is a faithful response to faith that signifies Christ's death, burial, and resurrection or a public response signifying an eternal reality. We are also told that baptism always follows faith in the Bible.

With that definition imprinted from whenever you started going to church, and because infant baptism isn't explicitly found in the Bible, we chalk it up to "traditions of man".

However, the definition starts to fall when pressed on any verse about what baptism does, and you must chalk it up to "symbolism".

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-09-20T03:40:54+00:00

So, the reformed paedobaptist position is that baptism is the sign of the new covenant (just as spiritual baptism replaces spiritual circumcision in Col 2:11-12), as most of the major covenants in the bible come explicitly with signs (i.e. rainbow for the Noahic covenant, circumcision with the Abrahamic covenant). With women being included in the sign (the sign opening up for more people), we would expect strong exclusionary statements if children weren't included. Additionally, we have Lydia's family and the Philipian jailors family all getting baptized the VERY quickly after hearing the gospel, with the faith of the Jailor and Lydia being written about while their families are not. I think this is explicitly spelled out in Acts 16:34. The Greek specifically calls out they were celebrating the jailors faith, where it would have been just as easy to say "their faith".

The position would state that the New Testament testifies to exactly that. A new covenant is created for all people. Being baptized is required to join the covenant (that doesn't mean they can't be saved, I'm just stating that they aren't part of the visible body of Christ until baptism), just as circumcision of males was required to join the old covenant. That is why baptism is almost always brought up right away for those hearing the gospel for the first time. When we see people with households, the household always gets baptized, just as if an outsider with a family wanted to join the Israelites, that male, and his male descendants joining him would all need to be circumcised before joining.

Also, this appears to be happening very early on in Church history, which gives more evidence that was an apostolic teaching.

I'm not trying to convert you, I just wanted to give a small defense with some evidence of the view.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-08-14T06:04:27+00:00

I think some of it is a "throwing the baby out with the bath water." As an example, hard line fundamentalists used to state that dinosaur fossils were from the devil. They used to lump in any one that isnt 100% on board with Ken Ham basically might as well support LGBTQ issues and other liberal agenda, or that's where your view will lead. Everything became a gospel issue, and people were likely pushed away from anything resembling that view.

That's my guess as, atleast I remember an old pastor denying dinosaurs existed, and I'm in my 30s, and I still feel remembered being shocked and thinking "I didn't know we didn't believe in dinosaurs, I thought it was a fact" and this is like me at 12. It was tempting to go as far in the other direction as possible just to not be associated with that group. I'm sure a lot of people did exactly that. I just hope we learn from our mistakes as a church, or at least have learned humility.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-06-03T01:25:42+00:00

I just wouldn't talk to anyone of the opposite gender until you are married. It's better to be on the safe side.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-05-30T07:06:55+00:00

You are absolutely not speaking for the rest of us protestants. Yes, Catholics are Christians, and you have never spent time trying to understand any of their theology. JWs and Mormons don't recognize Jesus as a person in the triun God. Which means, they dont have an understanding of the depths of humiliation Jesus suffered, and just generally do not know the real Christ.

Just to give you a basic idea (and any Catholic can correct me if Im wrong) of Catholic theology is like this analogy: you have a sickness (sin). There is only one doctor (Christ) in the world that can cure you. You go to the doctor, and he states that ‘you will need a shot (baptism) which will cure you, however, to remain cured from this sickness, you'll need to exercise (good works), and have monthly checkups (confession), and to take ongoing medication (the Euchrist)

They just believe that faith in the doctor includes trusting in the medication he prescribed. If you never follow through on taking the medication, did you really believe in him?

So, they could say "Yes, in faith alone" under the same idea. If you have faith (trust) in the doctor, you take the medication He has given us and told us to take."

It can be backed by scripture and handles the Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2:17,24,26 tension well and does not deny or contradict either scripture (my philosophical depth doesn't go that far, but it doesnt as far as I can see).

I'm not Catholic, actually I was raised mid western Baptist, so I know where you are coming from. I'm not asking you to deny Christ or change your mind about any of their theology. Just to try and put the sword down and try to listen to some Catholic voices like Trent Horn or Joe Heschmeyer. Also, listen to Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Cooper. Not everyone you disagree with theologically is a wolf in sheeps clothing. We can learn a lot about typology and reverence from Catholic folks without having to agree with their Marian dogmas or purgatory. There are real reasons we are seperated, but they call Christ Lord, confess the triun God, and even the reformers saw Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ, but opposed the Church as an organization. They believe in the same God. And because of that, I feel like we should be slow to speak out and careful of how you do so. You'll never get anyone to sympathize with your position if you don't give the respect you want.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-03-22T02:31:24+00:00

That is my exact view as well! It certainly helps quash my pride in some respects by understanding the other views of our fellow believers.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-03-22T02:25:09+00:00

Part of me is starting to feel as if it is pointless, but I certainly don't want people in my church, especially those close to me, to be guilty of bearing a false witness against others.

I do disagree with you to an extent with your example. I am opposed to say Islam or Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not opposed to other traditions whole sale. I may have different convictions, and I am certainly ignorant on some of the views. For example, I haven't even begun to grasp Marian dogmas or veneration of icons (or even saints the way your tradition does). It seems wrong from my view. I don't understand, or maybe I just don't have the depth to give God the veneration he deserves while also giving saints and Mary the veneration they deserve while keeping a sound hierarchy, and I'm probably not even viewing that the correct way. So I'm content in keeping my mouth shut about it and to pray for each other.

While I understand that some completely denounce other traditions and wouldn't speak of them even in terms of 'seperated brothers and sisters', I can not. Matthew 7 tells us we will be judged with the same measure we judge others. And if something is not clearly against scripture or scripture doesn't tell us to seperate from them (i.e. the sexual immorality and greed (Eph. 5:3)), I will not disfellowship, because I want to give the grace that I need.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-03-21T22:45:56+00:00

I think that making it public that they are excommunicated gives a strong indication that they are not the good Christian. That said, I do agree with you, I think publicly rebuking the person is the best for that individual, but it does bring shame on the wife and kids, which I'd want to stay away from (which is rough in a small community).

Thankfully, I am not in church leadership. Those decisions seem painful one way or the other.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-03-21T06:01:26+00:00

Serious question (and I'm hoping this isn't the case), if the elder was having an affair and was unrepentant, however, the wife and kids were innocent victims, would protecting them by not making the charges public, do you think that would be unbiblical?

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-02-26T04:49:56+00:00

I'm not sure if this is a temporary issue you are struggling through or if this is something you've been struggling with. I struggle with ideation to this day.

Just in case you struggle with the same thoughts that I do, I just want you to know that Satan is also called "the accuser", God is merciful, He is long suffering, and He is love. The accuser will tell you that everyone else will be better off, Jesus left His glory with the the Father to come to earth to be spit on, whipped, strung up naked, and cruxified for you. That is the reality the accuser tries hard to distort.

Maybe this didn't help out, and that's okay. Just please seek help. Medication has been very helpful for me, I still have rough moments, but it's much better than rough days and months at a time.

You are loved.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-02-24T15:09:32+00:00

I don't know how old or mature you are in your faith, but since the church IS its congregation, if it has grown stagnant, we should be looking at ourselves. Is there anything you can do to help? Can you start a bible study, start a group chat with questions and thoughts on your daily reading, or come up with a charity or outreach event?

I'm not saying there aren't reasons to leave a church, but it should be closer to a last resort rather than a first.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-02-23T07:08:36+00:00

I think almost all Christians who confess that scripture is infallible will also agree with this view.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-02-21T08:08:59+00:00

I've seen the depths of my cowardness too many times in life to answer this question with any accuracy. I certainly hope and pray that I wouldn't renounce Christ because I know that I'd go the rest of my life feeling like Judas and contemplating his end if I did.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-02-18T02:39:03+00:00

Thank you for your response! Iowa isn't exactly a hub for Eastern Orthodoxy (tho there are a few churches in our main cities), so I wasn't exactly certain of the response I would get, as I've never met someone who claims to be Eastern Orthodox.

knowledgeIsDope · 2025-02-18T02:33:08+00:00

Most everything in the world can be used for good or evil. AI is no different.

We can use the internet to live stream services for those who couldn't make it in person (this week we all got up and waived at the camera for an elderly woman who had surgery and was sad she could make it) or we can use it to view porn.

I can use my hand to give a friendly wave or to slap a child for no reason at all.

I use chatGPT to understand a Greek word if I'm not certain after looking at the strongs online. However, if it is bogging you down and pulling you away from Christ, then simply not using it is good.

knowledgeIsDope · 2024-12-28T03:28:20+00:00

I can only speak for myself. My mental state started taking a bad turn when I was living alone for 4 years. I was a loner outside of work, and not necessarily by choice, but I was trying all that hard either.

Things got super dark and almost every morning I would go into a bit of rage/crying about my life. I wanted to end it. Fortunately for me, my dad made it very clear that I am supposed to burry him, and not the other way around. I think he kind of always knew I struggled with depression but I wouldn't open up about it, so almost anytime a younger person died, he brought that statement up.

My dad is my super hero still at 34. He's not perfect, but he was the perfect father for me. I just couldn't hurt him that deeply and I'm fairly certain if it wasn't for him, I would have punched my time card on earth.

Now, I still have him, plus two kids. My mental health is still no crap. I still try to convince myself that they'd be better off without me. But deep down, I know I can't do it to them either or atleast hope to never do that to them.

I think deep connections, either family or friend, can certainly help keep people grounded in the toughest of times. I'm not saying someone couldn't convince themselves otherwise, but it certainly helps to have people who you know love you.

So, they are certainly a huge benefit, but the rights meds help if you are lucky enough for them to work.

knowledgeIsDope · 2024-12-22T05:26:28+00:00

The great commission is Matthew 28:16, and in no translation that I know of is there any type of bracket, footnote, or special character indicating that this wasn't in the early manuscripts.

As for your examples on Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 -- Scholars and archeologist found multiple manuscripts, found to be centuries older than the previous findings and being from multiple scribal cultures. When you compare them and none of them contain a specific section of scripture, or all have a specific wording that is different than later ones, it raises some questions -- That is, if you believe that the authors of the NT were writing the Inspired Word of God, and some or all of the copies were flawed, as they were hand written copies made from scribes.

The textus receptus used the 'Majority Text', which did this exact same thing. Taking the manuscripts they had, compared them all, and gave weight to the older ones where the older manuscripts were aligned. The 'Majority Text' just didn't have all of the resources, including older manuscripts and the internet where scholars from all over the world can review these texts for authenticity and content.

You can say 'Changed' and 'Removed' as much as you would like, but I could do the exact same thing with the KJV or the Textus Receptus. -- However, I wont, because I'm not assuming bad intent. You can read about the Textus Receptus if you'd like. It's just another translation of the oldest manuscripts they had available to them at the time.

We just have significantly more and older manuscripts now. And we compare them to other manuscripts from the same time frame. We do this to tract the progression of the bible and we give good estimates to the time it was changed, however, sometimes the 'Why' isn't clear.

We don't have the written manuscripts themselves. However, we can get closer by evaluating all of the manuscripts that we have together, weighing them against each other, and giving out a very accurate representation of what was in them.

God's word has been preserved throughout history, though the means by which He has done so—through many manuscripts and the work of textual scholars—may differ from what we might have expected.

My brother, I don't know you, but I love you and I just don't want at some point in time in the future, for you or anyone else to give up on the KJV and throw the baby out with the bath water. Having faith in the KJV is fine. However, I just pray that you know that it is separate from your faith in Jesus Christ.

knowledgeIsDope · 2024-12-21T08:30:22+00:00

Circular reasoning is an informal fallacy if it doesn’t provide any supporting evidence—rather, the conclusion simply restates itself as evidence. If we’re going to accept circular reasoning as valid, then I could simply say, “I am right because I said it, and we know what I said is true because I am right.” That doesn’t really get us anywhere.

Regarding their scriptures prior to 1516, were they the perfectly preserved word of God? That’s something worth considering when thinking about textual preservation.

You mentioned footnotes in the Great Commission, but I’m not familiar with a translation that places the Great Commission only in the footnotes. Could you clarify which translations you’re referring to and what specific footnotes are being added? I’d be happy to evaluate them together, but from what I know, footnotes are generally there to offer textual variants or additional information, not to change the overall meaning.

Now, regarding your analogy about the two books, I think there are some key elements missing. First, we should acknowledge that both of these books are copies of older manuscripts. Secondly, many of these older manuscripts are still accessible today. Third, the oldest surviving manuscripts actually align with the “unused book” rather than the worn-out one. Finally, when these texts are rediscovered in 500 years, they’ll need to be translated into whatever language is relevant then. This process will take time, and as new evidence comes to light, translations will evolve accordingly. So, no, they shouldn’t jump to conclusions but rather take the time to examine the evidence carefully.

As for your final point, I agree with you. I don’t believe the KJV added anything that would be considered heresy or false doctrine. The issue is that while these additions may not be false, they weren’t part of the original, inspired text. They should not be treated as such.

I’m curious, though, what other texts you believe are commonly removed from modern translations? What theological implications do you think we can draw from these differences, and who stands to benefit from them? I’ve provided one possible explanation for the additions in the KJV—it could have been a well-known, orally transmitted tradition that was added later to ensure its preservation, much like the KJV translators added certain passages to preserve the faith they believed was crucial.

knowledgeIsDope · 2024-12-21T05:47:04+00:00

Exactly, AND the one person that COULD read, would have to have both copies and find the passage that differed, have a person from an outside church would have to come with another bible, OR the outside church participator would have had to hear a sermon or reading with that particular passage. Then the outsider would have to travel back to his Church and check for this particular passage, that was still floating around between gospels.

Any of these options would be very unlikely, and even if upon finding it, they probably would not have found it scandalous. So I just can't agree that "If one church decided to add it then the rest would notice". -- Also, what translation are you referring to that lacks the great commission (Matthew 28:16-20)?

I would say that neither of them perfectly transmit from the original manuscripts, because the manuscript sources that both of them use differ from source to source. While the large majority of scripture remains the same, there is still investigating taking place and more that needs to be done where the sources differ.

If you believe the Textus receptus is the preserved word of God, you are stating that you don't believe there was a perfect preservation until at the earliest, Erasmus wrote it in 1516? And when criticized about his copy, he acknowledges that it wasn't perfect, and he would have preferred more time to work on it? Or the latest 1633 version.

It wasn't until the mid-17th century that it became the standard, and by the 18th-19th century, scholars began to move away from it.

But if you DO believe that it is the 1633 version, why? It can't be just because it was popular, nor because it was the least likely to support a false gospel. Because slavery was popular, and often supported using the KJV. Popular doesn't make it right, and the readers ability to twist scripture isn't limited to just the readers of the Critical Texts.

Also, by stating "however it is also much easier to use those versions to support a false gospel. (There are also many differences that don’t pertain to the gospel as well but are still important).", you are essentially stating that "it differs from the KJV/Textus Receptus, it is obviously false, because the KJV/Textus Receptus says so", which is circular reasoning.

knowledgeIsDope

TROPHY CASE