Baptists, Evangelicals and the Baptismal Sacrament

[4Squarebaby]

Ok let me put it this way…if a Pentecostal of the Oneness faith comes to your congregation and wants to join, does your pastor take their baptism as a “valid” baptism even though it is not in the Trinitarian forumla that is presented in Scripture?

It would not come up. Should he approach an elder about being baptized the church would do it. But that Muslim, Oneness, Methodist, Quaker or Salvationist who decides to join us will be allowed to join irrevalent of when and how or if he ever he went through a baptism ceremony

 

[aidanbradypop]

It would not come up. Should he approach an elder about being baptized the church would do it. But that Muslim, Oneness, Methodist, Quaker or Salvationist who decides to join us will be allowed to join irrevalent of when and how or if he ever he went through a baptism ceremony

hmmmmm:shrug:

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Not sure why you are “laughing out loud”?

Because I think you’re trying to score debate points by saying I’m tying myself in knots, rather than trying to understand what the other person’s position is. How do I come to that?..

In any event, you still haven’t explained why you are willing to believe the marriage ceremony confers God’s grace on two couples, but unwilling to believe baptism confers God’s grace on infants, for example.

…because you haven’t “heard” me. I’ve stated three times that marriage is not God’s grace doing anything. It’s a legal covenant.

Sounds like the unbaptized are considered “unsaved” in your church.

No…just unbaptized. To be members, they have to agree on doctrine. One of those doctrines is baptism. If they refuse baptism, they don’t agree.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am not the Baptist I am the Evangelic. We do say all one needs is faith and do not “need” immersion to prove it had occured… It however is nice for the rest of the community

4Squarebaby,

Salvation by faith alone is contradicted in Holy Scripture. How do you justify “all one needs is faith”?

Anna

 

[SteveVH]

I’ve stated three times that marriage is not God’s grace doing anything. It’s a legal covenant.

And you would be dead wrong. God is present and active in every sacrament, including the sacrament of Matrimony. It is sad that some are so far removed from the Apostolic faith that they do not even recognize sacraments, much less understand them.

No…just unbaptized. To be members, they have to agree on doctrine. One of those doctrines is baptism. If they refuse baptism, they don’t agree.

And so baptism to you is nothing more than a profession of faith. Not that professing our faith is unimportant, just trying to understand your perspective. Again, you have no understanding of the nature of a sacrament and the true effect it has on one’s soul.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

And you would be dead wrong. God is present and active in every sacrament, including the sacrament of Matrimony. It is sad that some are so far removed from the Apostolic faith that they do not even recognize sacraments, much less understand them.

I understand perfectly well the Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage as a sacrament. That doesn’t mean I agree with or believe in it. Since the apostolic faith is that Christ was crucified for our sins, raised on the third day for our justification, and ascended to the right hand of the Father from where he will come again to judge the world, I don’t see any removal from it. Nor do I feel the need to be schooled on it on an internet posting board. The condescension is unnecessary, Steve.

And so baptism to you is nothing more than a profession of faith. Not that professing our faith is unimportant, just trying to understand your perspective. Again, you have no understanding of the nature of a sacrament and the true effect it has on one’s soul.

Again, I understand perfectly well what the Catholic belief on baptism is. The OP is asking for the Baptist perspective, which is not going to coincide with yours. That should go without saying. Disagreement does not entail not understanding the Catholic view.

I said nothing about baptism being a profession of faith. I am talking about the requirements for church membership, one of which is that the person be baptized.

 

[stewstew03]

Because I think you’re trying to score debate points by saying I’m tying myself in knots, rather than trying to understand what the other person’s position is. How do I come to that?..

Hi Gaelic,

Not trying to score any “points.” (What would I win?) I am truly trying to understand how God’s grace is not part of the marriage covenant. Sometimes tone is not well-conveyed on these boards, so if I came across as not appreciating your (name removed by moderator)ut, I apologize.

By the way, under Mosaic law, nearly all perversions of the marriage (e.g., adultery, fornication) required the death penalty. Are you saying we must adhere to the Mosaic law?

What’s more, Jesus compares his relationship with the Church to that of a husband to his wife. What are the implications of this “Gods-grace-is-not-found-in-marriage” theology to this relationship between Jesus and his Bride?

…because you haven’t “heard” me. I’ve stated three times that marriage is not God’s grace doing anything. It’s a legal covenant.

Perhaps you can point me to an article… or verse that conveys this meaning (i.e., that God’s grace has nothing to do with marriage). It was my understanding that we could do nothing under the law to have a relationship with Christ (see, e.g., Romans 2:28-29, Hebrews 7:11-12, Colossians 2:11-12). It seems you’ve created a loophole. A monogamous and committed Christian couple engaging in sexual relations can perform at least one work under the law (marriage ceremony) to remove the sin of fornication.

No…just unbaptized. To be members, they have to agree on doctrine. One of those doctrines is baptism. If they refuse baptism, they don’t agree.

Does your church consider unbaptized individuals to be Christians?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m starting to feel like the “invisible Anglican” (a title borrowed from my friend Sean.) Is there anyone, who denies the Sacramental Graces of Baptism, willing to engage in a discussion about the Scriptures I posted? So far, they have been ignored.

Holy Scripture does not say Baptism is a Church ordinance, or only a profession of faith and act of obedience—or a picture or a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Scripture says we are buried with Christ by Baptism unto death and raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.

Romans 6:
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

---

Holy Scripture does not say that you must be “saved” before you are Baptized.

If you read all the events that took place in the second chapter of Acts, the coming of the Holy Spirit and Peter’s address to the crowd; you will find that those who would become part of 3,000 converts, who received the message, asked this question: “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter did not say, “Be saved and then be Baptized.” Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.**"
**
Acts 2:
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” ** 40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
**
In order to claim that sins are not forgiven through Baptism; one must deny that the sins of 3,000 people were forgiven in Baptism. If that is the case, Peter was a liar.

Baptism is the “Circumcision made without hands.” Baptism brings us into the New Covenant through Christ, just as circumcision brought Israel into the Old Covenant. Through Baptism, we become the offspring of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3 (ESV):
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.**

**Ephesians 2:
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility

Colossians states very clearly the circumcision without hands is the “putting off of the body of the flesh,” by “circumcision of Christ”----being “buried with Him in Baptism,” and “raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.”

Colossians 2:
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

11** In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.**

Wouldn’t this revelation of Baptism as a circumcision made without hands be the perfect place to say infants are excluded from the New Covenant, if that were the case? Yet, there is no such statement.

Keep in mind Scripture tells us the uncircumcised and the unclean shall enter Jerusalem no more.

Isaiah 52 **
52 Awake, awake,
put on your strength, O Zion!
Put on your beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for the uncircumcised and the unclean
shall enter you no more.**
2 Shake yourself from the dust, rise up,
O captive Jerusalem;
loose the bonds from your neck,
O captive daughter Zion!
3**For thus says the Lord: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. **

Anna

 

[cuddlz24]

Lol, this is a hard format to post on because I can’t see everyone else’s posts to respond. is there a chat format in here anywhere? Thanks!
Anna, yes absolutely. I just answered someone that said that baptists only do it as a public profession. I just clarified with some verses that no, we hold to other biblical reasons for baptism as well. Romans 6:3-4 is the most thorough explanation of the scriptural meaning…physical and spiritual of baptism. When I say that the water baptism that a saved individual partakes of is a picture or symbolic of Christ’s physical burial…that is all I am referring to. When I was baptized, I was not physically placed in the dirt (or put in a tomb would be more appropriate I guess), left for a time and then raised up out of it.

As far as one who asked if I was ok with symbolic cannibalism… whatever Christ teaches, that is what I do. Again, since he was physically present with the disciples when he asked them to partake of the bread and cup, they could not have been physically eating his flesh and feeding on his blood.
Again I ask, when you partake of communion at your church, does whatever is in your cup, taste like blood? Does your unleavened bread taste like human flesh? (Maybe it does? I don’t know. It doesn’t at our church.)

I think that someone also asked about those being saved then getting baptized…Acts 2:41 - Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 8:35-39 - Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Also Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

As much as I would like to save my child, I can’t. Each one of us is responsible for our own salvation. My children at some point need to come to their own beliefs about God and his salvation. My responsibility is Deuteronomy 6:3-7 and hopefully and prayerfully my children will also choose to accept the salvation that God has provided for them as well. My children cannot be born into MY religion, or MY faith, or MY personal salvation. Does that make sense? Hopefully I am explaining my self clearly

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Hi Gaelic,

Not trying to score any “points.” (What would I win?) I am truly trying to understand how God’s grace is not part of the marriage covenant. Sometimes tone is not well-conveyed on these boards, so if I came across as not appreciating your (name removed by moderator)ut, I apologize.

No worries.

By the way, under Mosaic law, nearly all perversions of the marriage (e.g., adultery, fornication) required the death penalty. Are you saying we must adhere to the Mosaic law?

No. But marriage is not a function of the Mosaic Law. It is something built into creation.

What’s more, Jesus compares his relationship with the Church to that of a husband to his wife. What are the implications of this “Gods-grace-is-not-found-in-marriage” theology to this relationship between Jesus and his Bride?

That’s true. He compares the relationship because of the one-flesh union between the Church and Christ being comparable to the one-flesh union between husband and wife in the vocation of marriage, as well as mutual sacrifice and service. This does not entail a sacramental grace to the vocation anymore than does Jesus’ comparison between a shepherd and his sheep entail a sacramental grace to the vocation of a shepherd.

Perhaps you can point me to an article… or verse that conveys this meaning (i.e., that God’s grace has nothing to do with marriage). It was my understanding that we could do nothing under the law to have a relationship with Christ (see, e.g., Romans 2:28-29, Hebrews 7:11-12, Colossians 2:11-12). It seems you’ve created a loophole. A monogamous and committed Christian couple engaging in sexual relations can perform at least one work under the law (marriage ceremony) to remove the sin of fornication.

Because the vocation of marriage is never described in the Old or New Testaments as being one of supernatural grace. I can’t otherwise disprove a negative. We cannot do anything under the law to have a relationship with Christ and there is nothing inherent to marriage that gives us a relationship to Christ, either for Christians or non-Christians. It is primarily a relationship with another human being that God blesses and makes fruitful, as he does many other vocations, both singleness and labor. God’s grace is seen in mercy and forgiveness towards those who do not nor can merit it, not in covenants between human beings. This is not to say that Christians are not empowered by the Spirit to live godly marriages, but this is a function of their new creation in regeneration, not something inherent in the marriage ceremony. It does not remove the sin of fornication. God’s law says unless you marry, you are in sin. Getting married prevents the sin, but it does not forgive it. The only thing that forgives it is the forgiveness of sins found only in God’s grace of regeneration, justification, etc. in Christ.

Does your church consider unbaptized individuals to be Christians?

Case by case basis. There would be a difference between someone who refuses baptism, and, say, someone who was baptized as an infant. We would consider the latter to be unbaptized, but only because they believe they are baptized. It would be disobedient and we would call them to be baptized. Someone who says, “I don’t need to be baptized, it’s unnecessary…etc,” , however, we would regard them as non-Christians because they are refusing a command of Christ.

 

[brentAL]

I am a Southern Baptist. I have a lot of respect for the Catholic faith. As I continue to research it I see so much we have in common (although there are differences obviously) and also I love the tradition of the Catholic Church.

On baptism I would respectfully say as follows: there is a difference between water baptism and baptism with the Holy Spirit. John baptized with water, but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. There in is the difference. St. John (Luke 3:16), Jesus (Acts 1:5) and St. Peter (Acts 11:16) drew this distinction. The water baptism conducted in church is symbolic of the saving baptism of the Holy Spirit. As Christians we are immersed in the Holy Spirit (or baptized). So yes, baptism is required for salvation-- baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Having said that, any person who truly professes Christ will want to have a water baptism as a testimony that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit. If not, one would question whether he really is a Christian. So, while Catholics say the water baptism is required and if someone does not have water baptism they are not a true Christian, I would agree that if they refuse water baptism it is likely they are not a Christian (but for a the different reason that they were not baptized in the Holy Spirit).

Likewise, as I understand in the Catholic doctrine if someone wanted to be baptized in water but it was not afforded to them, they would still be saved anyway (i.e. a dying declaration for Christ or the thief on the Christ). This too would be consistent with the belief that Jesus’ baptism is baptism of the Holy Spirit, as compared to John’s being water baptism.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I am a Southern Baptist. I have a lot of respect for the Catholic faith. As I continue to research it I see so much we have in common (although there are differences obviously) and also I love the tradition of the Catholic Church.

On baptism I would respectfully say as follows: there is a difference between water baptism and baptism with the Holy Spirit. John baptized with water, but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. There in is the difference. St. John (Luke 3:16), Jesus (Acts 1:5) and St. Peter (Acts 11:16) drew this distinction. The water baptism conducted in church is symbolic of the saving baptism of the Holy Spirit. As Christians we are immersed in the Holy Spirit (or baptized). So yes, baptism is required for salvation-- baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Having said that, any person who truly professes Christ will want to have a water baptism as a testimony that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit. If not, one would question whether he really is a Christian. So, while Catholics say the water baptism is required and if someone does not have water baptism they are not a true Christian, I would agree that if they refuse water baptism it is likely they are not a Christian (but for a the different reason that they were not baptized in the Holy Spirit).

Likewise, as I understand in the Catholic doctrine if someone wanted to be baptized in water but it was not afforded to them, they would still be saved anyway (i.e. a dying declaration for Christ or the thief on the Christ). This too would be consistent with the belief that Jesus’ baptism is baptism of the Holy Spirit, as compared to John’s being water baptism.

Amen.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .the Bible states that baptism is to be done in public…so in that regard it is a public profession of faith. But we also believe it is what God tells us it is… a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. So saying that it is nothing but a public profession of faith, would not be an accurate biblical description of baptism. Second, as in the Bible, it is the first step of obedience after salvation.

I think that someone also asked about those being saved then getting baptized…Acts 2:41 - Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
. . .

Still, you are ignoring Acts 2:1-40, in which Peter instructed the 3,000 to repent and be Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that their sins would be forgiven. The 3,000 received the message, repented, and were Baptized for the forgiveness of sins. How is this “Baptism after salvation”?

Acts 2:
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 **For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” ** 40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

As much as I would like to save my child, I can’t. Each one of us is responsible for our own salvation. My children at some point need to come to their own beliefs about God and his salvation. My responsibility is Deuteronomy 6:3-7 and hopefully and prayerfully my children will also choose to accept the salvation that God has provided for them as well. My children cannot be born into MY religion, or MY faith, or MY personal salvation. Does that make sense? Hopefully I am explaining my self clearly

Indeed, Deuteronomy gives a beautiful instruction for parents. However, quoting Deuteronomy does not address the Scriptures I posted.

Baptism is the “Circumcision made without hands.” Baptism brings us into the New Covenant through Christ, just as circumcision brought Israel into the Old Covenant. Through Baptism, we become the offspring of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3 (ESV):
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.**

**Ephesians 2:
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility

Colossians states very clearly the circumcision without hands is the “putting off of the body of the flesh,” by “circumcision of Christ”----being “buried with Him in Baptism,” and “raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.”

Colossians 2:
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

11** In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.**

You did not address the issue: Wouldn’t this revelation of Baptism as a circumcision made without hands be the perfect place to say infants are excluded from the New Covenant, if that were the case? Yet, there is no such statement.

Belief and faith are part of salvation; but that is not all the New Testament tells us about salvation. We must accept Biblical teaching as a whole.

Anna

 

[cuddlz24]

BrentAL,

Just trying to clarify one point you made in case I misunderstood, because everything you posted was scripturally sound.

When you said that “baptism is required for salvation - baptism of the Holy Spirit”, it is my understanding that you mean that salvation does not/cannot happen without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is what happens the moment one is saved. Is that what you are saying, or am I putting words in your “mouth”?
Using your example of the thief on the cross, Jesus said that he would see him in paradise that day (Luke 23:43). So the thief was saved, was therefore subsequently baptized or indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but obviously unable to be baptized with water…Jesus still said that he would join him that very day, meaning that baptism by water is not a work we need to perform to be saved. It is something we do because we ARE saved, not something we do to GET saved.

Thanks!

 

[PRmerger]

As far as one who asked if I was ok with symbolic cannibalism… whatever Christ teaches, that is what I do.

EXACTLY! :extrahappy:

So if Christ teaches ritualistic cannibalism, then you would do it, right? That’s the Catholic view.

So it’s not actually the fact that it’s “cannibalism” to which you object–because you entertain the fact that a symbolic cannibalism is just fine, since Jesus commanded it in your estimation.

Again, since he was physically present with the disciples when he asked them to partake of the bread and cup, they could not have been physically eating his flesh and feeding on his blood.

If you can believe that Jesus walked on water, multiplied loaves and fish, and rose from the dead, I don’t think it’s too great a leap to believe that Christ could be physically present in the bread and wine, while also being physically present in human form.

Sorry, stew, to de-rail this thread for just a moment. I am wont to do this…it’s just so much fun to indulge in different tributaries of conversation.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am a Southern Baptist. I have a lot of respect for the Catholic faith. As I continue to research it I see so much we have in common (although there are differences obviously) and also I love the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Former Southern Baptist here. It is good to research the beliefs and traditions of other Christians. I also respect the Catholic faith.

On baptism I would respectfully say as follows: there is a difference between water baptism and baptism with the Holy Spirit. John baptized with water, but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. There in is the difference. St. John (Luke 3:16), Jesus (Acts 1:5) and St. Peter (Acts 11:16) drew this distinction. The water baptism conducted in church is symbolic of the saving baptism of the Holy Spirit. As Christians we are immersed in the Holy Spirit (or baptized). So yes, baptism is required for salvation-- baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Isn’t there a difference between John’s “water” Baptism and the “water” Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Jesus said we must be born of water and spirit: **John3: **5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

When Peter instructed the 3,000 to repent and be Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; wasn’t he talking about water Baptism, in which their sins would be forgiven and they would receive the Holy Spirit?

Acts 2: (the passage that everyone keeps ignoring)
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 **For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” ** 40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Having said that, any person who truly professes Christ will want to have a water baptism as a testimony that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit. If not, one would question whether he really is a Christian. So, while Catholics say the water baptism is required and if someone does not have water baptism they are not a true Christian, I would agree that if they refuse water baptism it is likely they are not a Christian (but for a the different reason that they were not baptized in the Holy Spirit).

I agree that if we are able, we must do what were are called to do. God chooses the way in which He imparts Grace–through the Sacraments or through other means as was the case for the thief on the Cross.

Likewise, as I understand in the Catholic doctrine if someone wanted to be baptized in water but it was not afforded to them, they would still be saved anyway (i.e. a dying declaration for Christ or the thief on the Christ). This too would be consistent with the belief that Jesus’ baptism is baptism of the Holy Spirit, as compared to John’s being water baptism.

I would agree that in such a case, salvation would not be denied. Though, only God judges the soul.

Glad you joined the discussion.

Anna

 

[PRmerger]

I know of no community which does not place a requirement upon its people. It may or may not have been formally passed by a legislature and signed by an executive. The marriage requirement may just be moving in together and living as husband and wife . And if you announced that in church of that community I am sure the congregation would consider you as married just as their parent community does. The “ceremony” becomes moving in together and proclaiming that you are husband and wife

Interesting.

So you would be okay with your daughter moving in with her boyfriend and proclaiming that she is now married to him?

 

[PRmerger]

Using your example of the thief on the cross, Jesus said that he would see him in paradise that day (Luke 23:43). So the thief was saved, was therefore subsequently baptized or indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but obviously unable to be baptized with water…

Just to clarify: you are not certain that the Good Thief wasn’t baptized, correct?

Or, to put it without the double negatives: how do you know the Good 'Thief wasn’t bapitzed?

.Jesus still said that he would join him that very day, meaning that baptism by water is not a work we need to perform to be saved. It is something we do because we ARE saved, not something we do to GET saved.

Thanks!

Also, to clarify: did Jesus go to heaven “that very day”? Or did he go to heaven when he ascended 50 days after rising from the dead?

 

[4Squarebaby]

Interesting.

So you would be okay with your daughter moving in with her boyfriend and proclaiming that she is now married to him?

If I was Hmong villager, then yes because that is how we marry. Here in Los Angeles we go to Norwalk to the county clerk and register with the state or run off to Las Vegas. I would want her to do that if she did not have a church she wanted to go to for the church elder to officiate as a state deputy. But it would be best for her community if it was a public church service, assuming this hypothetical daugh[SIGN][/SIGN]ter still attended church.

There are differences between prefer and accept[SIGN][/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

If I was Hmong villager, then yes because that is how we marry.

As a Christian Hmong, you would accept your daughter moving in with her boyfriend?

Here in Los Angeles we go to Norwalk to the county clerk and register with the state or run off to Las Vegas. I would want her to do that if she did not have a church she wanted to go to for the church elder to officiate as a state deputy. But it would be best for her community if it was a public church service, assuming this hypothetical daugh[SIGN][/SIGN]ter still attended church.

I don’t understand. Why would you want her to do this?