# Salvation apart from Baptism



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 7, 2011)

I just spent the last four days in a fantastic class on the theology of the reformation. One of the things that stuck out to me is that Luther and others felt that baptism was a part of the salvific process. That in a normative sense, a person was not saved apart from baptism. Baptism imputed and infused grace and faith in the elect.

I have not finished reading up on Calvin's view on baptism, but am curious if you would agree that baptism is a normal process of salvation (normal in the sense that I am allowing for theological anomaly)?


----------



## JML (Jan 7, 2011)

Was the thief on the cross baptized?


----------



## Herald (Jan 7, 2011)

Baptism is not part of the _ordo salutis_. However, baptism is an involuntary command to be obeyed. If a person refuses to be baptized it could be evidence of a still unregenerate heart. Of course, that all depends on whether they have been instructed on the need to be baptized. This is the same for other duties of the Christian faith. If a professed believer refuses to attend worship or refuses to tithe/give (on the basis that they are able to do so), these refusals certainly do not display a regenerate heart. But these things, including baptism, do not regenerate the soul.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 7, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> Was the thief on the cross baptized?


 
He was also before Christian baptism was instituted.


----------



## Grimmson (Jan 7, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > Was the thief on the cross baptized?
> ...


 
That depends if one considers the baptism of John as Christian baptism. I know John Calvin did.


----------



## JML (Jan 7, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> He was also before Christian baptism was instituted.



I think you just helped my cause here. So salvation changed after the institution of Christian baptism? Those in the Old Covenant who were not baptized were lost?


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 7, 2011)

One of the important differences in Lutheran and Reformed soteriology is that Lutherans ascribe a faith "creating" role to baptism, which the Reformed attribute to the ministry of preaching the Word. The sacraments "seal and strengthen" preexistent faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 7, 2011)

Kind of broad to refer to Luther's views as "Reformed" on this topic. The Reformed view is that the graces signified in baptism are sovereignly conferred by the Holy Spirit at His appointed time. The act itself does not save simply because of the administration of the Sacrament but the sign should not be divorced from the graces signified as if the sign of baptism is some sort of bare act that bears no relation to God's action. God is pleased to condescend to man in his creatureliness and give us visible sacraments to assure us.

Here's a helpful interaction in the Geneva catechism from Calvin (M is the Master, S is the Student who answers):


> M. How many are the sacraments of the Christian Church?
> 
> S. There are only two, whose use is common among all believers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 7, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Kind of broad to refer to Luther's views as "Reformed" on this topic.



I'm not sure if you're referring to my post - although it looks like I've been the only one here to use those two terms together. Anyway, just to reiterate - I was highlighting a DIFFERENCE between Lutheran and Reformed thinking on this matter.


----------



## Grillsy (Jan 7, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > He was also before Christian baptism was instituted.
> ...


 
They were not baptized...but circumcision was in place as the sign and seal of the Covenant.


----------



## MW (Jan 7, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I have not finished reading up on Calvin's view on baptism, but am curious if you would agree that baptism is a normal process of salvation (normal in the sense that I am allowing for theological anomaly)?


 
From a Reformed perspective, distinct from the Lutheran view, baptism must be considered a part of the normal process of salvation "before the church." Without extraordinary revelation we have no way of discerning who are believers. Baptism sacramentally identifies the members of the visible church. The statement, "before the church," is distinct from "before God," who searches the hearts and tries the reins, and knows them that are His.


----------



## cih1355 (Jan 7, 2011)

Phil D. said:


> One of the important differences in Lutheran and Reformed soteriology is that Lutherans ascribe a faith "creating" role to baptism, which the Reformed attribute to the ministry of preaching the Word. The sacraments "seal and strengthen" preexistent faith.


 
I would like to add that Lutherans believe that the word of God is combined with water to form baptism. They believe that the water is a vehicle for the word of God and that when the word of God comes to a person through the water, the word of God regenerates the person. They dont' believe that the water itself is some kind of magic potion that regenerates the soul.


----------



## TimV (Jan 7, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> From a Reformed perspective, distinct from the Lutheran view, baptism must be considered a part of the normal process of salvation "before the church." Without extraordinary revelation we have no way of discerning who are believers. Baptism sacramentally identifies the members of the visible church. The statement, "before the church," is distinct from "before God," who searches the hearts and tries the reins, and knows them that are His



That's a keeper.


----------



## JML (Jan 7, 2011)

Grillsy said:


> They were not baptized...but circumcision was in place as the sign and seal of the Covenant.



1. I am a Baptist. 
2. Even if this is the case. Salvation itself has not changed. It is by the grace of God no matter what covenant. If baptism is ESSENTIAL for salvation then men would have been baptized in the Old Covenant. A sign and seal is just that, a sign and seal.

I agree with Pastor Brown above. Baptism is not essential but it is a command of God just as circumcision was in the Old Testament. If one refuses to be baptized, it is a good indication of their true spiritual state. Is Baptism essential to salvation? It can't be because then we have divorced salvation from the grace of God alone. However, I can't see a true Christian refusing baptism if circumstances allow for it (immersion).


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 7, 2011)

Thanks to everyone for all the replies.


----------



## Grimmson (Jan 8, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> If baptism is ESSENTIAL for salvation then men would have been baptized in the Old Covenant .... However, I can't see a true Christian refusing baptism if circumstances allow for it (immersion).


 
There were baptisms, at least in a form of a corresponding type or shadows (examples) that occurred prior to the Old covenant as one could argue as part of the covenant of grace. The first one that comes to mind is the baptism of Noah and his entire family (prior to the command of Abraham to circumcise himself and his entire household), see 1 Peter 3:20-21:


> (1Pe 3:20 ESV) - because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
> (1Pe 3:21 ESV) - Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.



The second that comes to mind is in relation to the entire nation of Israel ( after circumcision was given) prior to the given of the Law at Sinai, see 1Corithians 10:1-6: 



> (1Cr 10:1 ESV) - For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
> (1Cr 10:2 ESV) - and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
> (1Cr 10:3 ESV) - and all ate the same spiritual food,
> (1Cr 10:4 ESV) - and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
> ...


It maybe granted that this baptism, in which the nation passed through the water (being all around them as they entered in and then out of the sea as a type of immersion, even though they didn’t get wet), was into Moses. However they were saved physical as a nation from the armies of Egypt ( as we are saved from our sin) and all partook of Christ spiritually, as we do today and thus showing a level of covenantal continuity with baptism in the background. Now the “all” in verses 1-4 is referring to the nation of Israel sharing in Christ and is set up as a warning for us because we also share in spiritually partaking of Christ together as the church. I just wanted to point out this continuity, along with 1 Peter.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 8, 2011)

Phil D. said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of broad to refer to Luther's views as "Reformed" on this topic.
> ...


 
Phil,

I was responding to the initial post that mentioned the Reformation and Luther in one breath and I was trying to note the distinctions in the Reformed view.


----------



## JML (Jan 8, 2011)

Maybe I am misunderstanding here. Please correct me if I am. Are we having an discussion on whether a person can be saved without being baptized? I hope that is not what the question is about. Sure baptism is an act of obedience that a saved person would seek to do. But I hope this is not about baptismal regeneration.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 8, 2011)

My question was not along the lines of myself believing in baptismal regeneration. It was a historical question. I understand Luther's view of baptism and salvation and am attempting to see if Calvin's view was similar.


----------



## TimV (Jan 8, 2011)

John, nobody here has advocated that. Read Pastor Winzer's post again. I keep being reminded how important membership in a evangelical church, i.e. "under discipline" is. And this subject is part of it.


----------



## JML (Jan 8, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> My question was not along the lines of myself believing in baptismal regeneration. It was a historical question. I understand Luther's view of baptism and salvation and am attempting to see if Calvin's view was similar.



OK. Thanks for the clarification.


----------

