Baptism, non-essential!

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
myfavoritmartin said:
So it is NOT necessary???
Click to expand...
No, it is the Church’s way of saying, “We don’t know in the case of an infant”. We know that God is a merciful and a loving God.

But in the case of an adult, who has learned the Gospel and rejected it (by not seeking Bapstism), under ordinary means, that person is probably not going to heaven.
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
I think Adam and Eve would beg to differ.

John,
OC/NC
 
myfavoritmartin said:
So it is NOT necessary???
Click to expand...
Just for emphasis, I’ll repeat:

Besides, comments like these can easily be turned on their heads-- are all who are too young to believe damned? But isn’t faith necessary like you keep saying? Isn’t it? Wait, are you saying that without faith in Christ people can be saved?

This type of question is just as problematic for your theology as it supposedly is for ours. Baptism is the normative means.

-Rob
 
myfavoritmartin said:
It is the result of salvation!
Click to expand...
My goodness. Obedience automatically follows from salvation. Good works automatically follow from salvation.

So why do Christ and the Apostles spend so much time warning people to do what will automatically follow from salvation?

It’s as if the entire New Testament was filled with passages warning that birds must fly and fish must swim.
 
RobNY said:
Probably ‘old covenant’/‘new covenant.’

Unfortunately, it’s needless to say that Adam and Eve were not under the law.

-Rob
Click to expand...
Simon, is this correct? If so, I don’t think it answers the question.

They were created in a Sanctified State. At our utmost purity, we can only be equal to them in Grace, or am I wrong?

There was no need for a Redeemer if Adam hadn’t sinned, so we can’t say that we can be more graced than they, am I right?
 
believers said:
The RCC just change their tune when it comes to the unbaptized babies. They used to go to limbo but the Pope just rejected limbo this year.
Click to expand...
Limbo, has never been a dogma, now has it? The Church has always claimed that it just doesn’t know what happens to unborn babies.
 
storm807 said:
What is the end results? We all get back to heaven and find out that God does not condemn his creations but only loves and cherishes us all?
Click to expand...
Many will say to HIm “Lord, Lord” but not do what He says. Jesus commanded baptism. If we deny Him before men, He will deny us before the Father, saying “I never knew you, depart from me”.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
This is the only verse that says “baptism now saves you.” But, is it teaching that we must be baptized in water to be saved? No. But, but to rightly understand it, we need to look at its context.

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 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. **21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, **22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him,” (1 Pet. 3:18-22, NASB).
The above translation in verse 21 from the NASB is a good translation: “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. It is what the NIV translates as “symbolizes,” the NASB as “corresponding to that,” and the KJV as “like figure.” Baptism, then, is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is “Of what is it a type?”, or “baptism corresponds to what?”.
If we look at the context, an interesting possibility arises. What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family, the flood or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and he was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Also, Peter consistently refers to the flood waters as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6), not the salvation of Noah and his family. Rather, it was the Ark that saved, the ark that Noah entered by faith. It may very well be that baptism refers to the Ark, not the waters which may be 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. Peter clarifies that it isn’t the water baptism that saves, but the appeal to the heart.
Click to expand...
No, myfavoritemartin, obviously it is what the passage says it is:
they were saved when they were brought safely through the water. In baptism, we die with Jesus, joining with Him in his cross, and when we come out of the water, we are raised unto a new life.

Or, why do you think that Peter commanded that the house of Cornelius be given water baptism?
myfavoritmartin said:
God is love not anger…
Scripture is clear that if you are born of the spirit you’ll not be forsaken.
Click to expand...
Once a person is born of the Spirit,such a one will be obedient to the commandments of God. Jesus commanded water baptism.
myfavoritmartin said:
Possibility?
titus 3:5he** saved **us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
These two events being inseparably joined, and God regenerating the soul at the time of water Baptism through the Power of His Spirit.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
You quoted
John 3:5, "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.’"
Some say that water here means baptism. But that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn’t yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism isn’t necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced.
Click to expand...
Jesus took the Baptism of Repentance given by John, and infused it with the HS. Or, what type of baptism do you think Jesus was doing prior to the release of the HS?

What else is “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” if it is not a repentance? No, the criteria for baptism in the NT was repentance, and reception of the HS. We can see this at the preaching of Peter in Acts. “Be baptized, all of you”…
myfavoritmartin said:
Quote the balance of the verse, so as to not confuse…

arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, **calling on the name of the Lord. **
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Christian Church has always and ONLY baptised those who repent, recieve Jesus as Lord and Savior, calling upon His name. There is no other way that a conscience can be cleansed.
myfavoritmartin said:
If you so choose to believe the CC interpretation of the water gospel, what do you do with the many many many verses I’ve showed that speak not of water but faith.
Click to expand...
That’s silly Dean. There is no such thing as a “water gospel”. You made that up! What Catholics do with the “many many verses” is look at them all together as a whole, instead of taking them one at a time, piecemeal. We understand the WHOLE message, rather than just parts. We understand that salvation does not happen without faith. We understand that there are other necessary parts to salvation, as well as baptism, and we don’t exclude any of the other verses in favor of one.
bilop said:
I never said water Baptism was sufficient for salvation, I said it was necessary (barring extreme circumstances). We clearly need faith, it is also indispensible.

God Bless
Click to expand...
A baptism without faith is not considered valid.
 
believers said:
The RCC just change their tune when it comes to the unbaptized babies. They used to go to limbo but the Pope just rejected limbo this year.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Limbo was always a theological hypothesis, not doctrine or dogma. It is still perfectly fine for a Catholic to believe in Limbo (I do) or not.

God Bless
 
myfavoritmartin said:
You are dangerously adding words to the written word of God.
But I digress lest we get derailed.
Click to expand...
I find this almost amusing - if not an outright dodge. To recap: You introduced 1Cor 1:14and then “dangerously (added) to the written word of God” by claiming that those words implied that baptism was non-essential for salvation - when there is absolutely nothing said or implied with respect to the necessity of baptism as it relates to salvation. I took the very same verse you offered and discussed it in the fuller context that Paul offered it - that some were claiming allegiance to those other than Christ. And you criticize my comments as “dangerously adding to the word of God”??! :rolleyes: Sorry, but I’m not letting you off the hook. Let’s see exactly what the verses preceding add to the intent of Pauls comments, shall we?
1 Cor 1:10-15
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you,…be united…For it has been reported to me that **there are rivalries among you. **I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or… “Apollos” or…“Kephas” or “Christ”. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I give thanks that I baptized none of you…so that no one can say you were baptized in my name."

Now I ask you in good faith, What do you see there martin? A discussion regarding unity in Christ rather than allegiance to any other (my point) or a statement indicating the “non-essential” nature of baptsim (your point)? :ehh:

Do you continue to claim that I am “dangerously adding to the Word of God” by suggesting Pauls comments were an attempt to unify those believers who fragmented into allegiance to church leaders rather than allegiance to unity in Christ’s name, then I see only 2 possibilities:
  1. You are grossly ignorant of some very basic Scripture regarding baptism and such ignorance renders you incompetent to pretend to lead others to Truth in this regard.
  2. You are intentionally, perhaps malitiously, ignoring comments which solidly refute your claims regardless of what the actual Truth may be. This also renders you unfit to lead others to Truth.
Please tell us which option best represents you. If you were simply ignorant and perhaps a little hasty in your response but now understand the original comments - given their full context - an apology would be gladly accepted. Silence would imply that you fall into category 2 and I will simply pray for you.
 
Philthy said:
Unfortunately it is not logic or rebuke which moves the hearts of men - that is the job of the holy Spirit. We can only hope that the seeds which you plant will be fruitful in the lives of others.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Having found the OP to be of rebellious and recalcitrant heart, I write for the benefit of the lurkers, who generally outnumber the posters 4:1.
 
NotWorthy said:
Limbo, has never been a dogma, now has it? The Church has always claimed that it just doesn’t know what happens to unborn babies.
Click to expand...
If baptism is necessary for salvation then unbaptized babies go to hell otherwise baptism is not necessary. IT IS that simple.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
If baptism is necessary for salvation then unbaptized babies go to hell otherwise baptism is not necessary. IT IS that simple.
Click to expand...
Baptism by water is not the only form of baptism.

BTW, what happens to babies who die in your theology?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top