M
Mickey
Guest
Don’t fool yourself. It would be EXACTLY the same.
- Status
D
Dokimas
Guest
I know I often fool myself. Just can’t reconcil the understanding of some here that seems to represent the CC. What I’m referring to is the idea that baptism and salvation is linked completely and vital: savation needs baptism. If that was true, Paul didn’t place that type of importance (salvation by baptism). He didn’t even baptise many. He placed His emphasis on preaching the Gospel. And btw, if he saw baptism linked unseparately to the Gospel, one would think he’d be the one to baptize everyone he preached to.
T
Teneas
Guest
I see to much avoiding questions. Not saying that you are the only one, but avoiding questions shows lack of…something.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Ask anything of me you want and I’ll do the best I can to answer it or respond to it. I’ve made many responses; sometimes I kind of get tired of saying the same things over and over again. I’m not sure if that was the case for the post of mine you are sighting. Remind me and I’ll try to revisit it.
T
Teneas
Guest
Baptism necessary for salvation
~ 1 Peter 3:20-21
~ John 3:5 (also note verse 22)
Paul baptizing families and others:
Acts 16: 14-15, 33
Acts 19: 1-6
T
Teneas
Guest
Yeah, was just using yours as an example. It does get old saying it over and over again sometimes. Is why sometimes I just say what I think needs said, unless I get no answer, and move on. Wasn’t pointing my finger at just you however, and didn’t mean it to come across as such. If it did, I apologize.
D
Dokimas
Guest
No need to apologize, really. You did nothing wrong.
D
Dokimas
Guest
So what was Paul’s problem if baptism was so very important?
T
Teneas
Guest
Not sure I understand what you are asking me. What “problem” do you refer to exactly?
D
Dokimas
Guest
In Paul’s writings especially the one I posted earlier, Paul doesn’t make baptism a priority, he made it a point to say, in one city, he didn’t baptize but a few because preaching the Gospel was the important thing.
T
Teneas
Guest
Take into consideration how long it takes to convince anyone these days that baptism, or even Christianity is needed for salvation. Takes a very very long time, if ever, for someone to convert to Christ. Must have been much much harder back then. People don’t convert right away, so they must hear the gospel first. Perhaps in that city where he baptized only a few, the others were simply not ready? Just a thought, as I don’t know, but I have answered to the best of my ability. I just don’t think we can know all the answers unfortunately. The CC doesn’t claim to know it all, and thus us members surely know far less.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Was it harder? Back then there were many miracles done by the apostles including Paul. Not to mention that there were many eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus (at least or about 500 according to Paul).
T
Teneas
Guest
For one thing, a new form of religion that the so called “leader” Christ of course, was crucified for his teachings, would put a damper on how many would come rushing to believe I would think.
The Jewish faith also fought back against any resurrection you know. It was said that the apostles were lying, and had stolen his body.
That is just the Jews that Paul was trying to convert. Can you imagine how much convincing the gentiles must have taken?
Heck, even on these forums, where we are all Christian, we can’t have one thread without someone getting upset, or refusing to listen. I can’t imagine it was easier back then to convert a non believer.
I am in no way saying that Paul wasn’t a great man, as he was. I do believe he believed in baptism as necessary, or he wouldn’t have baptized. I just think, judging from the scriptures we have both read, that the gospel had to be brought to all, and only those that believed, were baptized.
Gospel first, baptism second. nods I can see Paul very much like that. Can’t baptize a non-believer.
I think Paul had his work cut out for him of course. The extent of baptisms and conversions he did was astounding.
D
Dokimas
Guest
For one thing, a new form of religion that the so called “leader” Christ of course, was crucified for his teachings, would put a damper on how many would come rushing to believe I would think. 3000 responded to Peter on pentacost.
The Jewish faith also fought back against any resurrection you know. It was said that the apostles were lying, and had stolen his body. Yep, I know. What about the miracles done by Peter, John and Paul - and maybe others?
That is just the Jews that Paul was trying to convert. Can you imagine how much convincing the gentiles must have taken?
Heck, even on these forums, where we are all Christian, we can’t have one thread without someone getting upset, or refusing to listen. I can’t imagine it was easier back then to convert a non believer. UPSET!! WHO ME??? DON’T ACCUSE ME OF SUCH THINGS!!!
I am in no way saying that Paul wasn’t a great man, as he was. I do believe he believed in baptism as necessary, or he wouldn’t have baptized. I just think, judging from the scriptures we have both read, that the gospel had to be brought to all, and only those that believed, were baptized. ** I believe in 'believer; baptism; that’s one reason I don’t see infant baptism in the Bible.**
Gospel first, baptism second. nods I can see Paul very much like that. Can’t baptize a non-believer.
I think Paul had his work cut out for him of course. The extent of baptisms and conversions he did was astounding. I’m pretty sure many came to Jesus throught the preaching and life of Paul.
T
Teneas
Guest
Oh, I agree with all the things you posted. My stance is just one that baptism is essential for salvation.
3,000 did convert at Pentecost, course, they saw the tongues of fire and speaking in tongues didn’t they? I am not saying that many didn’t convert, I am simply speculating as to why Paul would focus more upon the Gospel, than baptism. I don’t know the real answer, and I don’t think anyone does. Is good to talk about them of course.
Infant baptism is not named in the Bible, you are correct, though those verses I named a few posts ago, clearly show that “whole families” were baptized. Does that mean that every single family had no infants or children?
I haven’t seen it here, or didn’t read it when I read through, but I guess you don’t think baptism is essential for salvation? Or you do?
3,000 did convert at Pentecost, course, they saw the tongues of fire and speaking in tongues didn’t they? I am not saying that many didn’t convert, I am simply speculating as to why Paul would focus more upon the Gospel, than baptism. I don’t know the real answer, and I don’t think anyone does. Is good to talk about them of course.
Infant baptism is not named in the Bible, you are correct, though those verses I named a few posts ago, clearly show that “whole families” were baptized. Does that mean that every single family had no infants or children?
I haven’t seen it here, or didn’t read it when I read through, but I guess you don’t think baptism is essential for salvation? Or you do?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
That is very new interpretation of Paul; Being that Paul a Pharisee Jew, persecuted the body of Jesus Christ his Church, Evangelizes the new creation, new birth in baptism which replaces circumcision in the New Covenant theologies of all the epistles, and you take his comment from vs. 17 out of its context, to mean he doesn’t obey Jesus command to baptize all nations?
Let me remind you that Paul is speaking to the Corinthian (already baptised) members (Church), (body of Jesus Christ). These baptised Corinthians are trying to raise Paul to a superapostle, which he humbly denies. Paul is correcting any false assumptions of his ministry.
Maybe you missed the same scripture where **Paul speaks that he has baptised **]“Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas” from the same scripture you misinterpret.
Please read St.Pauls descriptive teaching of baptism from Romans below; And don’t think Paul never baptised, for he obeyed the Commandment from Jesus (Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19
**Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, **20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
Romans 6: 1 What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! 2 How can we who died to sin yet live in it? 3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 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. 5 **For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin. 7 For a dead person has been absolved from sin. 8 If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. **
9 We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him. 10 As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God. 11 **Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore, sin must not reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires. 13 And do not present the parts of your bodies to sin as weapons for wickedness, but present yourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and the parts of your bodies to God as weapons for righteousness. 14 For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace. **
Pauls baptismal teaching and understanding is the same as your Catholic brothers unchanged 2000 years. It is your misunderstanding of baptism that conflicts with scripture and Apostolic teaching.
D
Dokimas
Guest
That is very new interpretation of Paul; Being that Paul a Pharisee Jew, persecuted the body of Jesus Christ his Church, Evangelizes the new creation, new birth in baptism which replaces circumcision in the New Covenant theologies of all the epistles, and you take his comment from vs. 17 out of its context, to mean he doesn’t obey Jesus command to baptize all nations?
Let me remind you that Paul is speaking to the Corinthian (already baptised) members (Church), (body of Jesus Christ). These baptised Corinthians are trying to raise Paul to a superapostle, which he humbly denies. Paul is correcting any false assumptions of his ministry.
Maybe you missed the same scripture where **Paul speaks that he has baptised **]“Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas” from the same scripture you misinterpret.
Please read St.Pauls descriptive teaching of baptism from Romans below; And don’t think Paul never baptised, for he obeyed the Commandment from Jesus (Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19
**Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, **20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
Romans 6: 1 What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! 2 How can we who died to sin yet live in it? 3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 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. 5 **For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin. 7 For a dead person has been absolved from sin. 8 If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. **
9 We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him. 10 As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God. 11 **Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore, sin must not reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires. 13 And do not present the parts of your bodies to sin as weapons for wickedness, but present yourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and the parts of your bodies to God as weapons for righteousness. 14 For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace. **
Pauls baptismal teaching and understanding is the same as your Catholic brothers unchanged 2000 years. It is your misunderstanding of baptism that conflicts with scripture and Apostolic teaching.
Thanks. I’ll work on my understanding of baptism.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I have had the discussion about infant baptism with other catholics on this board. One person said there are mention of 5 households getting baptised in the NT. Of all those baptized, only 5 households were mentioned. What makes us think that 5 out of hundreds had young children? There are households that, when the Gospel was received, they did not have young children. IMO, this ‘argument’ for infant baptism is not enough to make a doctrine out of it.
T
Teneas
Guest
I would in turn ask: What makes you think those households did not have children/infants?
Can you also please state what you believe is acceptable interpretation of the scriptures? Is it individual or beyond that? What I mean is, since you have quoted a few others saying that they misinterpret certain scriptures, how is it that they are doing so? Do you have the correct interpretation? Is everyone allowed to interpret scripture? If so, how do they know it is correct.
I never tell another they are misinterpreting scripture, at least not to my knowledge. I am fully aware of Sola Scriptura among our non-Catholic Christians, and I tread lightly. But…nothing holds water when you say that one person’s interpretation is not correct, if you are basing it solely upon your own interpretation. It is impossible to make any valid points if that is the case.
Also, if you like, answer my first questions first.
Do you believe baptism is essential for salvation?
D
Dokimas
Guest
If you examine the verses about baptism and see how many speak of believing then baptism, I don’t think I’d be consistant to interpret those households any other way. I believe the Bible teaches believer baptism.
According to Peter in one of his letters, interpretation is for the Holy Spirit and Him alone. I have often said I may very well be surprised when I get to Heaven (if God permits) when I find out which of my beliefs are incorrect. What I try to do is read and hope to listen to the still small voice of the Holy Spirit. Of course, I’ve heard many sermons over the yrs. I’ve looked up topics in commentaries and theology books. The bottom line, I’m responseble for me.
I’m sure I have lots to understand about baptism. I find it a difficult doctrine. I don’t think baptism is part of salvation; I believe it is a desision after salvation. However, God’s grace covers those who have not been baptized but have trusted the Broken Body and Shed Blood of Jesus.- Status