Refuting Matt Slick on Baptism Part I (1 of 2)

[horseman528]

Calvinism is not Christianity, its Calvinism. Jesus said in Mark 16:16, He that believes and is baptised shall be saved NOT He that believes and is not baptised shall be saved. I'll believe Jesus Christ over Matt Slick any day.

[CumSeNumesteMelodia]

"when paul talks about faith in this passage he is talking about baptism"(3:33-3:37). i think i will make a video myself and i will say "when paul talks about faith in this passage he is talking about cherry pie filling" .Nice try, though.

[torkelson100]

What did Jesus accomplish by His atoning sacrifice? The big question in theology is are the sins of the world forgiven? Jn 1:29, 2 Cor 5:19, Rm 4:25. If the forgiveness is not already there what is faith to believe? Does faith bring the forgiveness into existence like some kind of magical genie? On the contrary the forgiveness of sins is what brings faith into existence Rm 10:14-17. Faith is necessary or the forgiveness of sins is forfeited and we are left to pay for our own sins Heb 4:2.

[exdesertrat]

For the truth about baptism, search YouTube for "Searching for Truth - Baptism (part 1 of 5)"

[exdesertrat]

I seriously doubt if the Catholic video speaker has even been baptized. Most likely he had water poured (katacheō in the Greek) on him, or was sprinkled (rhantizō in Greek) with water, but New Testament water baptism is immersion (baptizō in Greek). Unless and until he has been immersed in water, he has not been baptized. Catholic's have twisted and perverted baptizō and tried to get away with sprinkling (rhantizō) or pouring (katacheō) instead of immersion (baptizō).

[HARLANGENEPARROTT]

Get the following:

1. The Oneness Of God by David Bernard.

2. The New Birth.

I tis easy to look at scriptures pro and con on this subject, but we must analyze not only all the scriptures, but pray and be honest enough with Jesus to allow THE SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST to guide us.

The Holy Ghost is The Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:19 (KJV)

19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

[Judgement220]

"If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed," (Canon 12, Council of Trent).

The catholic church says its a curse to believe that Faith in Jesus can save. Very interesting stuff. Catholics, according for your doctrine, your obedience saves you.

[Judgement220]

OneTrueChurch, I went to Ephesians 2:8-9; baptism wasn't mentioned at all according to your statement at 3:33. Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1, and baptism wasn't mention there either. It looks like you adding to scripture.

[PrinceSolomon82]

@OneTrueChurch have you watched all parts of 1-11 Church of Christ -VS- Christianity Debate on Baptism? if not please do as it'll make you and Matt slick think about your arguments.

[Naked4Jesus]

Great video and Matt Slick is an intolerable, arrogant, divisive, piffle-spewing wretch. Nevermind what he goes on about.

[kyleotto44]

Truth is not dependent upon what most of the early church fathers thought to be true, it is based upon the Bible, apart from tradition.

Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Baptism, just as OT circumcision, is a work.

[OneTrueChurch]

of course it is dependent on what the early church fathers taught, because scripture cannot have a different meaning then what was held to in the early church. If everyone before the 1500s believed in baptismal regeneration, then Calvin's denial of it was obviously a novelty. Besides you wouldn't even have a bible period if it weren't for the early church fathers and the Catholic Church

[GiftoAll]

This is the same thing Joseph Smith made up. Everyone needs to be baptized, even dead people.

Do you think that a holy infinite God would require another man to dunk or sprinkle you for salvation? WRONG! This is work and it usually precedes faith & the spirit. Now, I ask you, how can man save himself? He can't! Jesus said "It is impossible for man." I do not hate the Catholic church. I hate the Mormon church. As far as your ideas of children going to hell without baptism is wrong and evil.

[bandaidmafia]

Good video brother.

[blankateeblank]

i have never known a catholic church to baptize an adult ,only babies

[cunjoz]

there are many baptized adults..my neighbour was recenrly baptized...she is 47 years old or something...

[farsight001]

Then you haven't known many Catholics.

[WBWolves]

Adults are Baptized if they haven't been Baptized in a Protestant faith already. That may be the reason why you don't see many adults being baptized, most converts are formers Protestants and we hold that all Christian Baptism is valid.

[KnoxSUX]

We baptize adults in the event the person is a convert or just hasn't been baptized in their early lives.

[Bulldog76center]

dude i saw 54 adults get baptized in the last year

[orthodoxhope]

Glen gives good commentary and makes valid points. The gentleman that believes baptism is not necessary does not understand the historical teaching of the Church.

Railing for railing is also not of the Spirit of Christ or the Church. Make your points, pray that God will open our eyes to his truth and then that we will be faithful to what God has revealed to us.

Peace.

[TommyRyan49]

Good video. I almost died when he said Baptism wasn't necessary for salvation!

[TrainmasterCurt]

Baptism is neccesary for salvation, it is written in our Book of Common Prayer, it is being born-again, the so-called sinners prayer is just a conversion tool

[martalog121]

when was the thief on the cross baptized (Luke 23:43)?

[Prophettessa]

The thief on the cross is not an argument in favour of baptism not being required for salvation. A person who is in invincible ignorance can be saved, obviously without baptism.

This also reflects another difference between the members of the Body of Christ on earth - Catholics, and those whose faith was founded by decadent and evil men around the 15th Century. The latter believe they are part of an "elect" and all others are damned.

I don't know their god; their god seems evil to me.

[martalog121]

"The thief on the cross is not an argument in favour of baptism not being required for salvation."

why?because you've decided to dismiss it? nice try !

as for the "decadent and evil men around the 15th century" you have no idea about what you're saying...brainwashing tend to work that way!get busy and do some reading for yourself!

if you have been reading your Bible then you would not have any problems about the "elect"

[Prophettessa]

martalog121,

1. No, private interpretation is your thing. As is the tendency to pick and choose scriptural verses, and ignore others, thereby building your theology to suit your personal narrative.

2. non-Catholics and muslims have much in common - they revise, deny, and re-write history.

Unfortunately for both groups, they did not destroy it. Well, except for the muslims (partially) where they managed to stop all historical records coming out of the arabian area for 100-200 years.

[martalog121]

"2. non-Catholics and muslims have much in common"

monotheism,that's about it ! the Muslims worship a FALSE god and they have a FALSE prophet

[Prophettessa]

Thank you maralog for a fine example of point 1 in my comment, although it seems this tendency extends beyond theology.

[martalog121]

A

"in order to restrain petulant minds,the council further decrees,that in matters of faith and morals and whatever relates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine,no one,confiding in his own judgment,shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them,contrary to that which hath been held and still is held by holy mother church,whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Writ;or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers;EVEN THOUGH SUCH

[martalog121]

B

INTERPRETATION SHOULD NEVER BE PUBLISHED.If any disobey,let him be denounced by the ordinaries,and PUNISHED ACCORDING TO LAW"

any of you Catholics here agree with the above quotation ? as a Catholic ,you're bound by it ...welcome to the CULT !

[martalog121]

"1. No, private interpretation is your thing. As is the tendency to pick and choose scriptural verses, and ignore others"

time to let that GARBAGE about "private interpretation" go!

your (RCC's) so called "unity" is just a dream !

can you be specific about my "picking and choosing" and "my theology" ?

i've asked you a question about the thief on the cross...you've dismiss it ,without any proofs for your dismissal and you've moved to other topics ! think before you post !

[orthodoxhope]

Prophettessa. I agree with you on the thief matter but not with the spirit you are showing here. First Luther was not decadent and evil. He has some concerns about certain practices within his province. That is why he nailed the 95 issues on the door of the Withenburg (sp?) church. Even the church gave him an ear to hear his concerns. It is in this railing and attacking that hurts the church and the image of Christ. What did Jesus say about our enemies? Pray for them and ask God to bless them.

[martalog121]

Paul talks about "Baptism" in Eph. 2:8-9 ,when he said Faith?

how do you come up with this nonsense?

and, Faith is given by the church (RCC/Ortxodox) ?

you might want to crack open the Bible and let RCC's fables on the side for a while !

[OneTrueChurch]

if you paid attention, i actually proved this in my vid

[martalog121]

asserting something is not the same with proving that something...arguments are needed in order that your assertion to be true!

you've made a FALSE assertion (that in Eph. 2:8-9,Paul talks about baptism) and moved on to some tradition of RCC ,without giving the Bible verses where baptism is equated with faith

the word 'baptism' is NOT in Eph. 2:8-9 so you adding and equating baptism with faith is logical irrelevant

[Anon014]

"....is logical irrelevent."

You need to learn grammar....it's LOGICALLY IRRELEVENT.....

Secondly, your trying to school OTC on Christian Theology ? You have a hateful and obnoxious streak running through you.

You need to repent and build a relationship with Christ. You have a bad attitude clown !....As St. Paul says "If I have not Charity I have NOTHING."

You have NOTHING. Your an "empty shell."

[Prophettessa]

Anon014, you have given us a wonderful display of pure hypocrisy. Try practising what you are attempting to preach.

In effect, you have proclaimed to all of us reading these comments that YOU have NOTHING.

[PaulsGoodFight]

You should stay out of theological discussions....you have no clue what your talking about.

Stick to baking cakes in the kitchen.

[martalog121]

do you have anything to say about the comments i made about OTC's video?

stop posting ! when it comes to the Bible ,you (as most of the Catholics) have nothing but the same mantra : "hateful bigotry" , for anyone challenging RCC unbiblical teachings

... and some other stuff ("baking" in your case) that has nothing to do with the subject at hand...

[Prophettessa]

Of course, hypocrisy has no religious boundaries, as you are so kindly displaying for us.

[martalog121]

"You need to learn grammar....it's LOGICALLY IRRELEVENT"

you're confusing spelling with grammar !

"your trying to school OTC on Christian Theology? "

yes and you should too...

as for the rest of your comment...ad-homines,most of you( Catholics) are very good at making them

[PaulsGoodFight]

Does your Pastor approve of your hateful bigotry?

[OneTrueChurch]

i did gove bible verses. watch it again.

[martalog121]

the law... then faith ..then baptism (in context)

3 diff. "things" each with its own definition !

[TradtionalCatholic]

John 3:5 proves baptism

[CASSMAN777]

John 3:5 has nothing to do w/baptism. It doesnt even mention baptism in the context.

[orthodoxhope]

You are right when saying that John 3:5 doesn't say "baptism" but it is inferred. What is very important to understand when interpreting the text is to look at how the early church understood John 3:5. The unanimous teaching of John 3:5 in the early church was that this text was speaking of baptism. Now the question would be, were all the early church writers wrong, or do those who don't see baptism in this text need to rethink this further?

[orthodoxhope]

The other issue when one tries to say that John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism then I would suggest this. Jesus is talking to a very educated man who was a Pharisee and did not need to be educated by Jesus on being born of woman in order to go to Heaven. If Jesus is talking about natural birth then the rest of the text is not only redundant but would make not sense whatsoever.

[orthodoxhope]

The biggest issue I would have with Mr. Slick is that he does not allow for dialog. Now this could be that he has been attacked personally and in many different disrespectful ways (hence my video response) and that would be understandable, but if he does not allow comments other than video responses I would then be forced to believe that he is not open for challenge on his misinterpretation of Sacred Scripture. I would encourage we pray for him certainly and seek God on this matter and his soul.

[AbdielAbiram]

yeah your back

[DerektheDuctTape]

Salvation is a requirement for Baptism, and not other way around. Look at Acts 8:37, Philip told the Eunuch he needed to believe first, and then be baptized.

[TheEcumenator]

good thing to know that you are able to make videos. how did you work it out?

[randy109]

Good video. Scripture (and Jesus Himself) makes clear the necessity of Baptism. All fundamentalist doctrines uses the many chapter/verse defenses of the necessity of Baptism. That said, Scripture clearly would allow someone to be saved without being Baptised if Baptism would not be possible before death, or if person intended to be Baptised and died before being able to actually be Baptised.

-continued-

[randy109]

-continued- For instance, you're a new believer and are going to be Baptised next Sunday but you are killed in an accident. Do you really think God would say "Sorry Charlie!" That would be extremely legalistic and ridiculous. Another example would be the 'Thief on the Cross'. Did Jesus say "too bad you can't get off your Cross and get Baptised. If you could I'd see you in Paradise later..." Again, ridiculous Legalism regarding Baptism.

Legalism aside; YES you 'should' be Baptised...

[KabaneTheChristian]

Matt Slick is foolish and knows very little. Good work.

[CASSMAN777]

Glenn please tell me how jam 2:24 teaches we are justified before God by faith + works, when it is in the same context as jam 2:18 where it is clear that it is talking about SHOWING your good works, not using your good works to get into heaven, "SHOW men your faith without works, and I will SHOW you my faith BY my works." You never answer this question.

[OneTrueChurch]

i made a whole video dedicated to the many wasy that protestants butcher james 2:24

[PaulsGoodFight]

Glenn, just ban Cssman777 already.

This video is about Baptism not James2:24. Cassman777 is obviously mentally compromised. You showed hi m numerous times his error and just keeps talking.

Block him.

[CASSMAN777]

PaulsGoodFight, you missed th point. The reason why I started talking about jam 2:24 is because he perverted that verse (as usual) to teach that works are required to be declared righteous before God.

[OneTrueChurch]

Phineas was decalred rightous based on works in Psalm 106

[CASSMAN777]

psalm 160:30 means that his faith was demonstrated by good works, same way how Abraham's good works demonstrated his faith. Thats the reason why James mentions that Abraham was justified by works when he almost sacrificed his son (Jame 2:21). This shows that Abraham trusted God becuase his obedience beared testimony to his trust in God.

[OneTrueChurch]

it says that Phineas' work was credited to him as righteousness just as passages like Genesis 15:6 talk about Abraham's faith being credited to him as righteousness therefore both faith and works justify. The point is that Psalm 106 and Genesis 22/James 2:21 prove that works justify and that we are not justified by faith only.

[CASSMAN777]

Glenn, we've been through this many times. The bible does teach faith alone in Rom 3:28 becasue faith-works of the law= faith alone. Yes, every work originates from the law. james 2:24 is talking about being justified in the eyes of men. Its is talking about SHOWING your fruits of your salvation, which is works (Mat 7:16). "Show me your faith without works, and I will SHOW you my faith BY MY WORKS" James 2:18. Please stop preaching you heresy, and repent before you go to hell.

[OneTrueChurch]

he says that showing your faith is necessary. Anyoen with even a shread of intellectual honesty knows that james 2 contradicts sola fide.

[CASSMAN777]

"he says that showing your faith is necessary."

Thank you, you finally admit that james 2 is about SHOWING your faith, not being declared righteous in the eyes of God. This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you. In jam 2:19 James distinguishes between true saving faith, and the faith of the demons. Faith of the demons is simply just the factual knowledge that Christ exits, not true trust in him. Good works SHOW you that you have true trust in him and not just factual knowledge.

[OneTrueChurch]

except the text doesnt say this. this is just you presupposing sola fide and then applying it to the text. By showing ones faith though works/obedience/charity ect. they increase in justification just liek abraham who was justified by works before God. Read Genesis 22 this is so clear. Cass, you are obviously brainwashed by protestant heretics so you can't see the truth. sola fide is stupid and heretical

[CASSMAN777]

Glenn, not everyone believed in baptismal regeneration before the reformation. The Waldenses, Albigenses, Lollards, Hussites, ect, never believed in baptismal regeneration. They all held to the orthodox teaching salvation by Grace thru Faith alone in Christ.

[OneTrueChurch]

The Waldenses beleived in baptismal regeneration, so did the hussites and the lollards, the aldigenses werre gnostic heretics that beleived in 2 gods so i doubt that you want to appeal to them

[CASSMAN777]

Actually the Albigenses weren't gnostic. Thats what the papacy came up with after they killed them all in the 13th century. Yes, I know many protesestants believe that they were gnostic also, like Matt Slick.

No, none of them believed water baptism. They did believe in regeneration, which is the spirit baptism, not the water baptism.

[OneTrueChurch]

they had their own rites becasue they were gnostics. I know that you like to white wash history in order to justify your man made religion but sorry its not gonna work here.

[CASSMAN777]

Actually they were just like how calvinists were right now. In fact the Cathars were the gnostics in the middle ages.

[OneTrueChurch]

the Cathars and the Albigenses are the same thing

[CASSMAN777]

OK perhaps I was mistaking then.

[martalog121]

did think this one through, did you?

[CASSMAN777]

John 3:5 has nothing to do w/baptism, he doesn't even mention baptism in the whole context. What Christ is talking about is necessesity of being a new creature, because the bible says anyone who is in Christ Jesus is a new creature (2 Cor 5:17).

[emirguy]

verry well explained!