A hypothetical in regards to salvation

[greggy53]

Actually I said I don’t believe in baptism as essential to bridge the initial gap between without Christ and with Christ. I say that because I understand that with Catholicism the word “salvation” has a present and future sense to it and I don’t want to get hung up with different definitions of the same word. In other words I don’t want both of our dialects of Christianese to get in the way of me understanding this…

If you do not believe that baptism is essential to “bridging the gap” Then you don’t believe baptism is essential for Salvation.
To many Protestants it (salvation) is a one time event. The moment when you first believe in Christ and express that belief then you become “saved”. You are then “saved” for the rest of your life and thereafter no matter what. Baptism, after the fact becomes an outward symbol of that inward change which has already taken place and therefore baptism of desire becomes unnecessary for salvation

If your denomination said that baptism was absolutely essential to bridge this initial gap, then there would be no Baptism of Desire…

Why Not? Baptism of Desire is baptism in every sense of the word…To the Catholic Church, and to God. The Church and Christ are one.

Let us take experience out of the equation, that is way too subjective. And while we are at it, let’s use for now a different word than “salvation” since I think our traditions use it in a different sense and I don’t want to get bogged down with different dialects of “Christianese”…What I am saying is all that is necessary to bridge the initial gap from a human soul being separate from Christ and destined to hell to a human soul destined for eternal life with Christ (this is what we call salvation…you might call something else and use the word salvation in a different sense) is genuine, living, faith in the person of Jesus Christ.
.

You can’t take the subjectivity of being “born again”, and “bridging the gap” out of the equation if it is how one gets saved. why would you not want to use the word Salvation? We both understand what it is. Being redeemed by God, and spending eternity in his presence. How we get there, now there’s the rub. If genuine, living faith in Jesus is all that is required (like you say above) then why did Jesus tel Nicodemus :

John 3 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Notice water is a requirement here…please comment on why this is, or is not relevant?

If baptism was required as part of the equation to bridge this initial separation from God, then there would be no hope for the poor fellow in my hypothetical. He would find himself in hell. But that is not what Catholicism teaches. Or at least it is not what I have read. But at this point who knows. You guys are making this very confusing for me (remember I am NotTooSmart)…

Well, if the quote from St John above is to be taken at face value then baptism with water is vital. If then baptism is required, and we know that it is because Jesus specifically, and emphatically says it is then the Church reconciles the poor fellow in your hypothetical with the hope of baptism of desire. How can that be without water?..All things are possible with God. And I don’t believe for one moment that you 'are not too smart" You are asking good questions, and that is alway a sign of intelligence.

 

[NotTooSmart]

If you do not believe that baptism is essential to “bridging the gap” Then you don’t believe baptism is essential for Salvation.

OK. Then yes I do not believe baptism is essential for Salvation. I received the gift of eternal life in November. I was baptized the following May. If I were to believe that baptism is essential for salvation, then I must therefore deny that I received the gift of eternal life in November. That I just refuse to do.

But see my last paragraph. I think I might have an explanation reading this a little more.

To many Protestants it (salvation) is a one time event. The moment when you first believe in Christ and express that belief then you become “saved”. You are then “saved” for the rest of your life and thereafter no matter what.

Well now you are touching on the great Calvinism debates. Remember that I am not a Calvinist.

Baptism, after the fact becomes an outward symbol of that inward change which has already taken place and therefore baptism of desire becomes unnecessary for salvation

Well I don’t think I recall the apostles teaching that it is an “outward symbol” either. So why should I go there.

Why Not? Baptism of Desire is baptism in every sense of the word…To the Catholic Church, and to God. The Church and Christ are one.

Might I point out except that you are not baptized in “Baptism of Desire”. This is where you begin to not make sense.

You can’t take the subjectivity of being “born again”, and “bridging the gap” out of the equation if it is how one gets saved.

Because you are taking faith and making it an experience. An experience is subjective. It is possible to have this grand and glorious experience and not be saved. It is possible to be saved and not have a grand and glorious experience.

why would you not want to use the word Salvation?

Actually I was trying to accommodate you since your Christianese is different. If we are both using the word in the same sense, then I will use it also.

We both understand what it is. Being redeemed by God, and spending eternity in his presence. How we get there, now there’s the rub. If genuine, living faith in Jesus is all that is required (like you say above) then why did Jesus tel Nicodemus :

John 3 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Notice water is a requirement here…please comment on why this is, or is not relevant?

Groundrule time. I don’t debate Scripture. I just don’t use God’s word for that purpose.

But just one comment. If this is an ironclad rule, then why did Jesus give the thief on the cross eternal life? You will say because he had baptism of desire. Fine. Problem is that Jesus did not say one word about baptism on the cross to this thief. And obviously he was not baptized.

So obviously the thief on the cross was born again of water and the Holy Ghost because he did enter the kingdom of God. And obviously he was not baptized.

And I am quite certain there are other places in the gospels where Jesus pronounced salvation to an individual without that individual being baptized (Nicodemus I believe). I would have to look them up though. But the thief on the cross is the one that sticks out.

So either (1) Jesus was very confused or (2) there is another explanation besides it is absolutely necessary that a person be actually baptized to receive eternal life. I’ll go with (2) thank you.

Now the explanation that your church has for this conundrum is “Baptism of Desire”. There are alternative explanations around. But the net result in **all **of these explanations is that that there are folks in heaven who have not been baptized, and therefore baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Well, if the quote from St John above is to be taken at face value then baptism with water is vital.

One comment. Jesus does not explicitely mention baptism in this passage. So you are making a leap here. A reasonable leap, perhaps. But a leap nontheless.

If then baptism is required, and we know that it is because Jesus specifically, and emphatically says it is

Again, Jesus only uses the phrase “of water”. He does not specifically refer to “baptism”. So again you are making a leap. Now I am not saying your leap here is incorrect, because I for one at least understand it, I am just pointing out you are making one.

then the Church reconciles the poor fellow in your hypothetical with the hope of baptism of desire. How can that be without water?..All things are possible with God.

So basically if I understand this, in the case where faith precedes baptism, like
(1) the thief on the cross,
(2) my hypothetical,
(3) my personal experience where I got baptized 6 months after the fact,
(4) most other cases that I know of because almost everybody has scheduling issues and only does baptisms a few times a year,

You are before God like you have already been baptized. Because God sees either (a) you are going to get Baptized sometime down the road or (b) Baptism is not possible for your specific case.

Well I could ask a silly question about certain Christian groups (like Friends I believe) that just do not baptize. Now I believe they are wrong in this position, but they are out there.

But anyway, if that is your explanation I would have to give it some thought. I am not sure I buy into it myself, but on the other hand it doesn’t seem at first thought to be terribly objectionable.

And I don’t believe for one moment that you 'are not too smart" You are asking good questions, and that is alway a sign of intelligence.

I was deliberate in that choice of name though. I had my reasons.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Several things I just have to add my two cents about in this thread.

(As proven by the dictionary, “hypothetical” can be validly used as a noun.)

Anyway, I just wanted to address your original scenario, NotTooSmart. I know the conversation has moved past it a little bit, but I just wanted to say that baptism of desire is, as far as I know, authoritative Catholic teaching. Thus I most definitely agree with those who assert that we can have moral certainty that the man in your scenario goes to heaven when he dies. He clearly had baptism of desire.

There are those who like the more weaselly answer, “Well, we can’t know for sure,” but that escape hatch is only available when looking at real people and situations. With a fictional, hypothetical scenario, we can simply provide all the details that are needed to come to a definitive conclusion, since we made up the situation in the first place.

So yes, that man will go to heaven.

Elsewhere, you asked how a Catholic would answer the question, “What must I do to be saved?” I will assume that you’re referring not to the complete salvation process (because that requires perseverance; we must continually “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” as St. Paul tells us) but rather to the initial entering of what Catholics call the “state of grace.”

With that in mind, the answer is, quite simply, “repent, believe, and be baptized.”

 

[NotTooSmart]

Several things I just have to add my two cents about in this thread.

(As proven by the dictionary, “hypothetical” can be validly used as a noun.)

Anyway, I just wanted to address your original scenario, NotTooSmart. I know the conversation has moved past it a little bit, but I just wanted to say that baptism of desire is, as far as I know, authoritative Catholic teaching. Thus I most definitely agree with those who assert that we can have moral certainty that the man in your scenario goes to heaven when he dies. He clearly had baptism of desire.

There are those who like the more weaselly answer, “Well, we can’t know for sure,” but that escape hatch is only available when looking at real people and situations. With a fictional, hypothetical scenario, we can simply provide all the details that are needed to come to a definitive conclusion, since we made up the situation in the first place.

So yes, that man will go to heaven.

Thank you for being clear and straight-foreward. Yes with a hypothetical I can fill in the details that are needed to come to a definite conclusion.

Elsewhere, you asked how a Catholic would answer the question, “What must I do to be saved?” I will assume that you’re referring not to the complete salvation process (because that requires perseverance; we must continually “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” as St. Paul tells us) but rather to the initial entering of what Catholics call the “state of grace.”

With that in mind, the answer is, quite simply, “repent, believe, and be baptized.”

Yes it was the initial entering of “state of grace” if that is your terminology.

I am not sure about “be baptized”. But it does have apostolic precedent (although not consistently…sometimes they said be baptized and sometimes not). So who am I to say the apostles were wrong. But anyway, your “Baptism of Desire” sort of makes this something that I don’t think is that much of a biggie (at least in my silly mind).

 

[greggy53]

OK. Then yes I do not believe baptism is essential for Salvation. I received the gift of eternal life in November. I was baptized the following May. If I were to believe that baptism is essential for salvation, then I must therefore deny that I received the gift of eternal life in November. That I just refuse to do.Well I don’t think I recall the apostles teaching that it is an “outward symbol” either. So why should I go there.
.

Why then were you baptized?

Well now you are touching on the great Calvinism debates. Remember that I am not a Calvinist…

I didn’t say you were.

Might I point out except that you are not baptized in “Baptism of Desire”. This is where you begin to not make sense.
Because you are taking faith and making it an experience. An experience is subjective. It is possible to have this grand and glorious experience and not be saved. It is possible to be saved and not have a grand and glorious experience…

Now who is not making sense here…True faith is an experience, grand or otherwise. People express that experience of in many ways…Some become ministers, some give alms, some preach on the street corners, some join forums. Without that expression there can be no real faith.
1 Corinthians 13 2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Groundrule time. I don’t debate Scripture. I just don’t use God’s word for that purpose…

Sorry I can’t go along with you on this one. Sounds like a cop-out to me.

But just one comment. If this is an ironclad rule, then why did Jesus give the thief on the cross eternal life? You will say because he had baptism of desire. Fine. Problem is that Jesus did not say one word about baptism on the cross to this thief. And obviously he was not baptized…So obviously the thief on the cross was born again of water and the Holy Ghost because he did enter the kingdom of God. And obviously he was not baptized.
.

Question: do you think that if the thief on the cross had the time would he have gotten baptized?

Aboslutely he would have. You do not recognize baptism of desire because you do not recogize baptism as being necessary…Again why then were you baptized…why bother?

One comment. Jesus does not explicitely mention baptism in this passage. So you are making a leap here. A reasonable leap, perhaps. But a leap nontheless. Again, Jesus only uses the phrase “of water”. He does not specifically refer to “baptism”. So again you are making a leap. Now I am not saying your leap here is incorrect, because I for one at least understand it, I am just pointing out you are making one…

Who is making the leap here? You are saying that while he isn’t specifically speaking of baptism, but he probably is?

Well I could ask a silly question about certain Christian groups (like Friends I believe) that just do not baptize. Now I believe they are wrong in this position, but they are out there…

Why are they wrong?..if what you say is true then why indeed?

I was deliberate in that choice of name though. I had my reasons.

Yes when people are intentionally obtuse they usually have a motive.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Thank you for being clear and straight-foreward. Yes with a hypothetical I can fill in the details that are needed to come to a definite conclusion.

Yes it was the initial entering of “state of grace” if that is your terminology.

I am not sure about “be baptized”. But it does have apostolic precedent (although not consistently…sometimes they said be baptized and sometimes not). So who am I to say the apostles were wrong. But anyway, your “Baptism of Desire” sort of makes this something that I don’t think is that much of a biggie (at least in my silly mind).

I’m glad that you see that regenerative baptism does have apostolic precedent, and I encourage you to do even more research in that regard. I think you’ll find that the doctrine also fits far better with Scripture than with more modern interpretations which place a purely symbolic meaning on baptism. After all, Jesus did say that one must be “born again of water and the Spirit” in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, and the New Testament (sorry, I forget the exact verse) says that “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (emphasis mine). And that’s just the surface.

I read somewhere that John Calvin was literally the first Christian in history to reject the concept of baptismal regeneration. While I do not know for certain that that is true, I do know that all traditional, orthodox Christianity certainly and unanimously accepted baptismal regeneration for three-fourths of its history.

Secondly, in light of the words of our Lord (John 3:5), I wouldn’t say that the requirement for baptism is “not a biggie.”. Remember that with a real person, as opposed to your hypothetical, the “I don’t know if they’re saved” statement is probably unavoidable.

And uncertainty about the state of someone’s soul should inspire greater fervency in evangelization, not less. If you don’t know for sure that someone is going to fall into a pit of lava, that’s a reason to shout, “Hey! Watch out for the lava!” not a reason to think, “Oh, well, he might not fall in, so I don’t have to shout out a warning.”

 

[NotTooSmart]

Why then were you baptized?

Because Jesus said to do it.

Question: do you think that if the thief on the cross had the time would he have gotten baptized?

Sure

Aboslutely he would have. You do not recognize baptism of desire because you do not recogize baptism as being necessary…Again why then were you baptized…why bother?

Because Jesus said so.

Who is making the leap here? You are saying that while he isn’t specifically speaking of baptism, but he probably is?

He could be. I can’t read His mind. But then again maybe not.

Why are they wrong?..if what you say is true then why indeed?

(Friends and groups that don’t baptize).

Because Jesus said so. They aren’t doing what Jesus said they should be doing. They really should.

Yes when people are intentionally obtuse they usually have a motive.

Actually name chosen because I am not a theological type and tend to get lost in theological arguments. That is when I tend to ask stupid questions.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I’m glad that you see that regenerative baptism does have apostolic precedent, and I encourage you to do even more research in that regard. I think you’ll find that the doctrine also fits far better with Scripture than with more modern interpretations which place a purely symbolic meaning on baptism. After all, Jesus did say that one must be “born again of water and the Spirit” in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, and the New Testament (sorry, I forget the exact verse) says that “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (emphasis mine). And that’s just the surface.

Well I have have my questions on both sides of the issue here and a few thoughts of my own.

A part of the problem (as I see it) is that everybody does baptisms only a few times a year because of scheduling, weather, or other assorted issues. But if we really want to strictly follow the precedence of the apostles, we would all be baptizing at the point of belief.

If you read the book of Acts closely, whenever baptism is mentioned it is always at or very close to the point of belief.

Just an observation I made once.

 

[greggy53]

Because Jesus said to do it.

Because Jesus said so.

He could be. I can’t read His mind. But then again maybe not.

(Friends and groups that don’t baptize).

Because Jesus said so. They aren’t doing what Jesus said they should be doing. They really should.

.

When did Jesus say to get baptized?

 

[NotTooSmart]

When did Jesus say to get baptized?

Matthew 28:18-20.

 

[greggy53]

Matthew 28:18-20.

Yes, and why would he want them to baptize if a profession of faith was all that was needed for salvation?

 

[NotTooSmart]

Yes, and why would he want them to baptize if a profession of faith was all that was needed for salvation?

Ask Him. I am not the one that gave the commandment. I am just following directions.

 

[greggy53]

Ask Him. I am not the one that gave the commandment. I am just following directions.

Ok, but you might want to consider what directions you are following and why.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Ok, but you might want to consider what directions you are following and why.

Oh that’s easy.

His directions that He gave in Scripture and “because He said so.”

 

[greggy53]

Oh that’s easy.

His directions that He gave in Scripture and “because He said so.”

I suppose it is easy if you allow for yourself the option to pick and choose which directions of his you want to follow, and which ones you choose to ignore.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Now we can have a separate discussion on whether God designed baptism to be an event later and separate from belief or an event to be simultaneous to belief. That would be interesting in itself.

But irregardless (I know that is not a word), in real life belief does occur before baptism. It happens in your church (probably) and it happens in mine. I know that because that is the way it was in my life.

Well according to scripture God made baptism the only way (entrance) into His Kingdom (John 3:5). I dont find belief “only” an entrance into the Kingdom of God, for one Satan himself believes in God, yet he is damned for eternity. One has to die the death first in order to be saved through the baptismal waters and raised in Jesus Christ. That is why baptism of desire, or blood can save a person, yet according to the Mercy and Grace of God through Jesus.

Interesting concept you have, I recall the disciples of John the baptist, who have never heard of a baptism of the Holy spirit from the book of Acts. I hate to complicate this hypothetical equation from events from scripture which include a baptism and the sacrament of Confirmation.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I suppose it is easy if you allow for yourself the option to pick and choose which directions of his you want to follow, and which ones you choose to ignore.

Who says I do…and…

Who are you to say that is what I do

 

[greggy53]

Who says I do…and…

Who are you to say that is what I do

Well, you go ahead and get baptized because you believe Jesus in one part of the scriptures, but choose to deny another scripture where Jesus tells you it is necessary for salvation. Doesn’t that seem odd to you?

 

[NotTooSmart]

Well according to scripture God made baptism the only way (entrance) into His Kingdom (John 3:5).

No the Scripture says you must be born of Spirit and water to see the kingdom of God. The Scripture does not use the word Baptism.

You are making a leap that the water must be Baptism when the Scripture does not say so.

Are you wrong? Not necessarily. We all make leaps of one sort or another with Scripture. But you are making a leap.

I dont find belief “only” an entrance into the Kingdom of God, for one Satan himself believes in God, yet he is damned for eternity.

Yup Satan believes in a sense. Satan is not saved by grace through faith and that not of himself however.

One has to die the death first in order to be saved through the baptismal waters and raised in Jesus Christ. That is why baptism of desire, or blood can save a person, yet according to the Mercy and Grace of God through Jesus.

You know, we are doing a whole lot of arguing on this thread, while at the same time your belief is not something that I seriously object to and have a cow about.

For the record, I do not believe either that baptism is “symbolic only”. Why? Because nowhere do I read in Scripture that it is “symbolic only”, and there is nowhere that I read that is what the apostles taught. Therefore I have to make that leap (there is that word again) to arrive at that conclusion. I don’t see why this is a leap I have to make.

As you can see, I am somewhat risk averse and don’t like making leaps in Scripture that I do not think are necessary.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Well, you go ahead and get baptized because you believe Jesus in one part of the scriptures, but choose to deny another scripture where Jesus tells you it is necessary for salvation. Doesn’t that seem odd to you?

I guess that is because I have not read the verse where Jesus says that “Baptism is necessary for salvation”.