G
- Status
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
Now one more thing while we are on the subject of Jesus.
Luke 19 has an account of Jesus granting salvation to the tax-collector Zaccheus.
Now nowhere in this account does Jesus tell Zaccheus to get baptized, and after you get baptized I will grant salvation to you.
No, Jesus granted salvation to Zaccheus on the spot.
Now, I am sure that on down the line as a Christian Zaccheus got baptized.
And if you want to say that Jesus granted Zaccheus the baptism of desire because he knew that on-down-the-line he would get baptized, fine. Now I am not there yet, but at the mininum it is not something I seriously object to, and want to spend hours of bandwidth arguing over the internet about defending my “righteous” opinion.
My only problem is if you are saying that Jesus made a mistake and should have made sure that Zaccheus got baptized before He granted salvation to him.
From the sound of it with this “baptism is necessary for salvation” stuff, that is what you are saying. But maybe I misunderstand, remember I am NotTooSmart.
Luke 19 has an account of Jesus granting salvation to the tax-collector Zaccheus.
Now nowhere in this account does Jesus tell Zaccheus to get baptized, and after you get baptized I will grant salvation to you.
No, Jesus granted salvation to Zaccheus on the spot.
Now, I am sure that on down the line as a Christian Zaccheus got baptized.
And if you want to say that Jesus granted Zaccheus the baptism of desire because he knew that on-down-the-line he would get baptized, fine. Now I am not there yet, but at the mininum it is not something I seriously object to, and want to spend hours of bandwidth arguing over the internet about defending my “righteous” opinion.
My only problem is if you are saying that Jesus made a mistake and should have made sure that Zaccheus got baptized before He granted salvation to him.
From the sound of it with this “baptism is necessary for salvation” stuff, that is what you are saying. But maybe I misunderstand, remember I am NotTooSmart.
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
Fine.
I really should not spend any more bandwidth arguing against any interpretation of Scripture that I think is possible (or not impossible). That just seems counterproductive and…well…wrong.
I don’t think your interpretation on this topic is impossible (provided you have a Baptism of Desire properly understood).
Am I there yet?
No.
Have I eliminated your interpretation as a possibility in my thinking?
No again.
However, one thing that will not persuade me is endless arguing of the topic over the internet. Now arguing over the internet does frustrate me (particularly when I sense I am not being understood, which is why I do not like to do it), but it does not persuade me.
G
greggy53
Guest
We don’t mean to goad you. Look at this way: If Jesus wasn’t speaking about Baptism when he said “you must be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost”. What was he speaking about? He says two things are necessary water and the spirit…If not baptism then what ***two ***very important things was he talking about?
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
Is it ok to say I am not sure. I have read a number of alternatives, including baptism. None have been totally convincing.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I hope you dont think I was arguing with you about anything? I was just sharing my Catholic faith with you. If my faith convicts you or offends you, this is not my intention whatsoever. I never had a conversation speaking hypothetically become argumentative, or why else the hypothetical? Grant it one is not understood hypothetically, It is my hope that reason and understanding derive from the hypothetical. So as far as Baptism is a death and resurrection in Jesus Christ here are a few scriptures for you that state it plainly so as not to arrive at a misinterpretation;
Lets let scripture speak for itself;
Gal 3:25-27
But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian. For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
.
Titus 3:5
… not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth (baptism) and renewal by the holy Spirit.
1 Pet 3:20-21
God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured **baptism, which saves you now. **
Rom 6:3-4
**Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. **
Col 2:12
**You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. **
G
greggy53
Guest
Of Course it’s OK. The Bible can be complicated, and contradictory especially if you are going it alone.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I hope to simplify things a bit here by clarifying the different Christianese. I’ll make it short and crisp for clarity.
In a normal situation a person is saved (go to heaven), please note the definition of ‘saved’, he must die in a state of grace, i.e. without major sin. It can only be attained by Baptism, and after that any new sin committed must be repented of through the Sacrament of Confession.
In an abnormal situation, like the hypothetical you mentioned, a Baptism of Desire equals conventional Baptism.
If you come to faith (a Protestant Christianese
) in May and die before the appointed date of Baptism in November, in theory you already had the Baptism of Desire though it is not performed on you because you are not doing to die at any moment, if in between the dates mentioned you are in a state of grace, i.e no change of heart and do not commit major sin, you will be saved.One hurdled explained.
The Catholic Church agrees with you there.
This is explained as above.
So don’t worry, God does not make you wait six months to be saved but life is practical experience, the sequence of events is the reality. Catholic does not believe **Once Saved Always Saved **thus what’s important is what happen in the end – did you run the race until the finish or did you backslide?
Now you know – there is. We cannot put God in a box. He is above petty legalism.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The Catholics Church agrees with you there.
Baptism is one of that processes. Die to sin and alive to righteousness. What’s so difficult about undergoing Baptism if you want to embark into a new life in Christ? Baptism simply involves declaration of the Christian creed and renunciation of Satan. It is in confirmation of John 3:16 – believe in order that they may have eternal life.
I would not expect Jesus to make a sermon while dying on the cross but what he did and said during his ministry was explicit. He himself was baptized (by John) himself and he commanded Baptism Matt 28. Therefore if the thief is to be saved the criteria that he had laid surely applied without it being said on the cross. My goodness, the Lord was dying then … .
Like I said, 1 – 3 are abnormal situations.
4 – is due to practicality. You have to consider the period of instruction if required, and the availability of Church calendar.
Fone Bone 2001:
This is a good post. It should have settled the OP questions.
God bless you.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
NotTooSmart, if the explanation is helpful, now you can move into the next phase of your question.
Why Baptism, Sacraments rather, and the Church is necessary in a life of a Christian?
God bless you.
Why Baptism, Sacraments rather, and the Church is necessary in a life of a Christian?
God bless you.
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
To summarize
There were basically three classifications of answers in this thread.
Four of you seemed to be saying without qualifications that the man in my hypothetical would be in heaven (although one of these four I gave the benefit of the doubt because he seemed to want to keep sliding the discussion to baptism).
Two of you thought it likely that this man would be in heaven but seemed to express some reservations on the matter.
Finally two of you didn;t know.
The good news is that none of you said the man would not be in heaven, that he had to do this thing or the other thing.
If would have been better in my mind had it been a unaminous 8-0. To me both the teaching of Scripture and the teaching of your church are clear on this matter.
But perhaps some of you did not get that in a hypothetical (as one poster said) you can fill in the missing information that in real life you don’t know.
I feared this topic would get veered to the issue of baptismal regeneration and unfortunately it did. In my mind this side track sort of obfuscated the issue at hand.
Anyway, my motive for asking the question was as follows
The only case that I can think of where I could be justified in viewing Catholicism as a nonChristian religion would be based on Galatians 1;6, if it can be proved that Catholicism preaches a different gospel than the gospel of Christ.
What I wanted to do with this hypothetical was to separate different understandings on how the gospel works (with my automobile analogy how a car works) and different understandings on what the gospel actually is (how you get in the car). My impressions were that our differences were more like different understandings on how the car works, but I wanted to make sure.
I liked what one poster said about repent, believe, and be baptized. Although some may take umbrage on the be baptized stuff, it is my belief that the issue of baptismal regeneration is how the car words, not how you get in the car. Anyway, Peter commanded his audience to get baptized during his first sermon. And anyway, I view baptismal regeneration as a perfectly legitimate Christian belief supported if not proved by Scripture.
For a number of reasons, I am not there yet. First and foremost is squaring the doctrine against my experience. Second is a personal thing of mine. I would rather say on any given point of contention within Christianity that “I just don’t know” instead of making leaps in Scripture that I am not confident can be made.,.That is just me, I tend to be slow and obtuse on certain things.
So I might take a break for a few days on discussing stuff over the internet. It does get tiring, and I like to clear my mind.
There were basically three classifications of answers in this thread.
Four of you seemed to be saying without qualifications that the man in my hypothetical would be in heaven (although one of these four I gave the benefit of the doubt because he seemed to want to keep sliding the discussion to baptism).
Two of you thought it likely that this man would be in heaven but seemed to express some reservations on the matter.
Finally two of you didn;t know.
The good news is that none of you said the man would not be in heaven, that he had to do this thing or the other thing.
If would have been better in my mind had it been a unaminous 8-0. To me both the teaching of Scripture and the teaching of your church are clear on this matter.
But perhaps some of you did not get that in a hypothetical (as one poster said) you can fill in the missing information that in real life you don’t know.
I feared this topic would get veered to the issue of baptismal regeneration and unfortunately it did. In my mind this side track sort of obfuscated the issue at hand.
Anyway, my motive for asking the question was as follows
The only case that I can think of where I could be justified in viewing Catholicism as a nonChristian religion would be based on Galatians 1;6, if it can be proved that Catholicism preaches a different gospel than the gospel of Christ.
What I wanted to do with this hypothetical was to separate different understandings on how the gospel works (with my automobile analogy how a car works) and different understandings on what the gospel actually is (how you get in the car). My impressions were that our differences were more like different understandings on how the car works, but I wanted to make sure.
I liked what one poster said about repent, believe, and be baptized. Although some may take umbrage on the be baptized stuff, it is my belief that the issue of baptismal regeneration is how the car words, not how you get in the car. Anyway, Peter commanded his audience to get baptized during his first sermon. And anyway, I view baptismal regeneration as a perfectly legitimate Christian belief supported if not proved by Scripture.
For a number of reasons, I am not there yet. First and foremost is squaring the doctrine against my experience. Second is a personal thing of mine. I would rather say on any given point of contention within Christianity that “I just don’t know” instead of making leaps in Scripture that I am not confident can be made.,.That is just me, I tend to be slow and obtuse on certain things.
So I might take a break for a few days on discussing stuff over the internet. It does get tiring, and I like to clear my mind.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Thank you! God bless you, too.
Agreed.
I’m glad that helped.
I’m glad that you came to that conclusion. I have dialogued with Protestants who insist that we Catholics do teach “another gospel,” and it is very frustrating.
I’m glad that you realize that that is certainly not the case, and that I was able to help with my responses. God bless you, NotTooSmart!
- Status