Baptism, non-essential!

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:coffeeread: Numbers.19: 20-21"Any unclean man who fails to have himself purified shall be cut off from the community, because he defiles the sanctuary of the Lord. As long as the lustral water has not been splashed over him, he remains unclean. This shall be a >[perpetual]< ordinance for you."
“Wash your heart from wickedness, O Jerusalem, that you may be saved.”

Ezek. 36: 24-27,“For I will take you from among the Gentiles, and will gather you together out of all the countries, and I will bring you into your own land. And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh. And I will put My Spirit in the midst of you, and I will cause you to walk in My Commandments, and to keep My judgments and to do them.”

Acts. 2: 38,“But Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’.”

Acts 2: 41 Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand."

DIDACHE CHAPTER 7:
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;
7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

The “Didache” is a genuine historical document which contains the teachings of the Apostles.
Peace, OneNow1
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Rob, first you need to know what baptism is…
**
the cleansing of that person’s sins **

Acts 22:16And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.”
Click to expand...
Thank you for your exposition on baptism as you see it. However, I would specifically like you to interpret why the Bible uses, “wash” in regard to sin in that particular verse in Acts. I’ve quoted the only relevant portion, and as you can see, you didn’t at all tell me why it should be taken symbolically in the sense you see it. You’ve just said that it should be. You start by asserting that baptism represents an inward reality (in a symbolic sense), and then you conclude, oddly enough, that it represents in a symbolic sense the cleansing of the person’s sins. This is not exegesis, and is not at all sufficient for dialogue
I think it is clear, from our dialogue, that the problem we have here is not one strictly of, “what does the biblical evidence support?” The real question is, what are the prior truths which myfavoritmartin holds which he finds incompatible with such an interpretation of scripture, and why. Because of the way myfavoritmartin interprets scripture, baptism in the sacramental Catholic sense is wrong, a priori. There is no need to appeal to evidence, because it is impossible that such a view could not contradict his interpretation.

Perhaps this is too far afield, but I think we need to examine the reason why he finds it hopelessly contradictory with the rest of scripture. It will be impossible to convince him that scripture says X, if he’s convinced X contradicts the rest of scripture. However, it’s much easier to convince someone scripture says, “X” if it would not seem to contradict it, but it is merely a question of, "how much or little evidence do we have for, “X?”

So I’d like to address this problem at the root, because it is clear that this is the essential level where we must address the issue. Please tell me-- two questions, 1. what do you think the Catholic view of baptism is, and 2. why is baptism in the Catholic view such a contradiction to scripture for you, myfavoritmartin.

Does anyone think I’m crazy, or am I right that this is where we need to focus our discussion if we want to make progress?

-Rob
 
myfavoritmartin said:
“I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” (1 Cor. 1:14-17).

If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn’t necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your conclusion. His reason is right there in the first sentence: he’s glad he didnt baptize **so that no one could say it was in his name because there is only one baptism and it is in the name of the F, S and HS. **Apparently some in the early community had been developing allegiance to the larger figures of the day - John, Paul, Peter, etc and Paul wants to be sure that everyone knows who all the glory belongs to: God.
 
James 2

14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,

16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

** 19 You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. **

20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that **faith without works is useless? **

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

**22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; **

23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.

**24You see that a man is justified by works and **not by faith alone. ****

25In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

**26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. **
**
Believing is not enough! Even the devil believes,does that mean he is saved?

We have to do something to show our faith!!! Being bathed,dipped,sprinkled or having the water poured on my head to show God “I Believe!!” The amount of water is not the point! It is what I am doing that matters.**

Where do you get your authority?

Is it from a book?

Is it the bible?

The Bible **comes from **the Church of Christ. The Catholic Church.

Do you believe the Bible created the Church?

That from the Bible we get all our teachings?

Is that what Jesus did?

**Matthew 16:18 **

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will write by book; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Is that what He said!!!

And in

**1 Timothy 3:15 **

15but in case I am delayed, I write **a bible **so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the book of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Is that how you read that??

Matthew 16

19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

I don’t think Jesus was talking to you myfavoritmartin.

**1 Timothy 3:15 **

15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

**Matthew 16:18 **

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
 
I believe Baptism is non-essential. I’m taking a systematic approach to provide support for this belief. It will probably take several weeks to discuss in detail. For those interested . . . .

Part I explores the multiple meaning for the word ‘baptize’ (bapto and baptizo in the greek) and ‘in’ (eis, en, epi in the greek). The thread went on to explain how bapto and baptizo didn’t mean ‘to immerse’ to a jew or greek in the 1st century. I believe the words bapto and baptizo can best be described as the effect dye has on cloth when it is applied.

I have provided the link to that topic:

Baptism and its meaning

Part II explored the meaning of the water baptism that John performed. I believe John’s baptism can best be stated: “John’s water baptism, although having the characteristics of proselyte baptism, was something completely different. John’s water baptism had a specific purpose. Once that purpose was fulfilled, it was completed.”

I have provided the link to that topic:

What was the water baptism that John performed?

Currently, I am exploring the question . . . .

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire? (Part III)

With respects to what has been discussed in this thread, I have no comment until I work my way down the list – I’m only up to Matt 3:11.
 
RobNY said:
Thank you for your exposition on baptism as you see it. However, I would specifically like you to interpret why the Bible uses, “wash” in regard to sin in that particular verse in Acts. I’ve quoted the only relevant portion, and as you can see, you didn’t at all tell me why it should be taken symbolically in the sense you see it. You’ve just said that it should be. You start by asserting that baptism represents an inward reality (in a symbolic sense), and then you conclude, oddly enough, that it represents in a symbolic sense the cleansing of the person’s sins. This is not exegesis, and is not at all sufficient for dialogue
I think it is clear, from our dialogue, that the problem we have here is not one strictly of, “what does the biblical evidence support?” The real question is, what are the prior truths which myfavoritmartin holds which he finds incompatible with such an interpretation of scripture, and why. Because of the way myfavoritmartin interprets scripture, baptism in the sacramental Catholic sense is wrong, a priori. There is no need to appeal to evidence, because it is impossible that such a view could not contradict his interpretation.

Perhaps this is too far afield, but I think we need to examine the reason why he finds it hopelessly contradictory with the rest of scripture. It will be impossible to convince him that scripture says X, if he’s convinced X contradicts the rest of scripture. However, it’s much easier to convince someone scripture says, “X” if it would not seem to contradict it, but it is merely a question of, "how much or little evidence do we have for, “X?”

So I’d like to address this problem at the root, because it is clear that this is the essential level where we must address the issue. Please tell me-- two questions, 1. what do you think the Catholic view of baptism is, and 2. why is baptism in the Catholic view such a contradiction to scripture for you, myfavoritmartin.

Does anyone think I’m crazy, or am I right that this is where we need to focus our discussion if we want to make progress?

-Rob
Click to expand...
Rob-

You are not crazy, however you should not expect pure intellectual dialogue to result in the conversion of a heart to the truth. Such changes are God’s work through the Holy Spirit. The discussion is greatly beneficial to those who, without a visible defense of the Catholic faith, might be tempted to accept intellectual exercises over divine revelation.
That much being said, I find such back and forth dialogue where each side can step back and see their own arguments as correct to be the most condemning witness against Sola Scriptura.
I know this technically off topic, but it remains at the heart of all such dialogue: By what authority do you claim to know God’s Truth through interpretation of Sacred Scripture? If the answer is, “I dont claim any authority” - which is inherently required of the SS adherent- then why, exactly, do any of us need to be listening to SS adherents? We don’t, of course, listen in the fullest sense of the term, but we do dialogue so that the Truth may be recognized from merely sound intellectual speculations.
 
RobNY said:
But explain to me why it says, ‘wash’ in reference to forgiveness of sins, if baptism has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin?
Click to expand...
Acts 22:16, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”

**Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart **
Col. 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

which means you are already saved, or is it by the blood of Christ?

Heb. 9:14
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!

Rom. 5:9
Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.

Ephesians. 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
** Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus’ name.**
 
** It is clearly the gospel that saves us.** But what exactly is the gospel? That too is revealed to us in the Bible.

1 Cor. 15:1-4: “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”
**The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. Baptism is not mentioned here. **
 
The Catholic Church has implicitly recognized that water baptism is not absolutely necessary by recognizing the baptism of desire. If someone dies desiring baptism they are treated as if they had been baptized. Why else are they treated this way except because they have faith? If they are treated as baptized when they die, what happens if they actually receive water baptism? Is baptism of desire some type of conditional baptism that ends with water baptism?

By the way, everyone who believes should desire baptism if for no other reason than Jesus said to baptize.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
They can be! as baptism has no bearing on salvation.
Click to expand...
1 Pet. 3:21 : Baptism now saves you.

Interesting.

Scripture says baptism saves you, and your tradition says it does not.

I think I’ll listen to scripture, instead of your man-made tradition.

The devil hopes people do not get baptized.
 
Philthy said:
I disagree with your conclusion. His reason is right there in the first sentence: he’s glad he didnt baptize so that no one could say it was in his name because there is only one baptism and it is in the name of the F, S and HS.

You are dangerously adding words to the written word of God.
But I digress lest we get derailed.
Click to expand...
 
myfavoritmartin said:
** It is clearly the gospel that saves us.** But what exactly is the gospel? That too is revealed to us in the Bible.

1 Cor. 15:1-4: “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”
**The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. Baptism is not mentioned here. **
Click to expand...
“Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more kindness and forgiveness? Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? **Or have you forgotten that when we became Christians and were baptized to become one with Christ Jesus, we died with him? For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.” **(Romans 6:1-4, NLT)

Yup. Keep defending that man-made tradition. I’ll just defend scripture.
 
BobCatholic said:
1 Pet. 3:21 : Baptism now saves you.

Interesting.

Scripture says baptism saves you, and your tradition says it does not.

I think I’ll listen to scripture, instead of your man-made tradition.

The devil hopes people do not get baptized.
Click to expand...
The devil hopes people rely on their own works, ie baptism for salvation, he knows that Christ’s blood is the “Gospel”…

You’ll take scripture over tradition? hmmm your the Catholic here not me!!

I’ve gone over this 1 peter deal a couple times but I’ll do it once more just for you…

1 Pet. 3:21, “and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Code: 
  This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. But, the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you."
The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means “copy,” “type,” corresponding to," “a thing resembling another,” “its counterpart,” etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?", or “Baptism corresponds to what?”. The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 20:** “who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you” (NASB). **
What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family? Was it the water or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Peter, when referring to the flood waters, refers to them as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6). It was the Ark that saved. Noah entered the ark by faith. Baptism here, in my opinion, refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God” which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
You’ll take scripture over tradition? hmmm your the Catholic here not me!!
Click to expand...
And that’s why I accept scripture over your man-made tradition 🙂
The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means “copy,” “type,” corresponding to," “a thing resembling another,” “its counterpart,” etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?", or “Baptism corresponds to what?”. The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 20:** “who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you” (NASB). **
What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family? Was it the water or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Peter, when referring to the flood waters, refers to them as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6). It was the Ark that saved. Noah entered the ark by faith. Baptism here, in my opinion, refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God” which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart.
Click to expand...
So did the Twelve Apostles interpret it the same way? If not, why should we accept your interpretation?

I’d rather take Apostolic interpretation of scripture instead of man-made ones 🙂
 
BobCatholic said:
And that’s why I accept scripture over your man-made tradition 🙂

So did the Twelve Apostles interpret it the same way? If not, why should we accept your interpretation?

I’d rather take Apostolic interpretation of scripture instead of man-made ones 🙂
Click to expand...
Show me the apostolic interpretation of this in scripture.
 
I. One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins

977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."519 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."520

978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them… Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "521

979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. the Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."522

980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church:

Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers “a laborious kind of baptism.” This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.523

16 He who believes and ]is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16: 16

and= both

Peace, OneNow1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top