I need explanations please about baptism

[panevino]

I am not giving up at all. I would never give up for my faith. Though, im doing something called, you are too stubborn. Because we show you proofs from the Bible and you deny and get some reason. Ex: Baptism of desire…

The Bible never EVER mentioned that he desired baptism. And he WAS saved. Discussion ends here about the thief. You want to accept it, do so, its my pleasure. You want to deny, do so, its your choice. But you will be just rejecting the truth.

okay.

its important you understand something about ‘baptism of desire’ while the title implies it, we are not necessarily saying we know that he ‘desired’ to be baptised, it is more that his faith and circumstances prevented any chance of a baptism in water… and that this is acceptable to catholics and protestants and most importantly jesus as being acceptable uner the circumstances to enter the kingdom. dont focus too much on the title, but focus more on what is being accepted by catholics in this case… it is actually in line with what you are arguing for… excpet catholics do not agree this is acceptable in a normal life where oppurtunity for water baptism exists…why - because jesus told the aposltes to ‘baptise’…

what about all the other things in my previous posts.

do you really feel you have to pray for us… do you realise we accept that we MUST have faith to be saved… and then ontop of this we also accept /obey jesus comand to apostles to be baptised…?

did you see my earlier post that the official teaching of the catholic church is that
“the fruits of the sacraments depend on the disposition of the recipient…” ie - no faith - no fruit

why would you want to deplete importance of the Requirement of jesus command to baptise? (Edit: this is not really what i meant to say — its comes across a bit confrontational — i know you dont want to deplete importance — but your argument, makes jesus command to baptise a superfluous formality that is not really required- doesn’t it? )

 

[cfrancis]

I am not giving up at all. I would never give up for my faith. Though, im doing something called, you are too stubborn. Because we show you proofs from the Bible and you deny and get some reason. Ex: Baptism of desire…

The Bible never EVER mentioned that he desired baptism. And he WAS saved. Discussion ends here about the thief. You want to accept it, do so, its my pleasure. You want to deny, do so, its your choice. But you will be just rejecting the truth.

Likewise, you are given Scripture after Scripture about the salvific efficacy of baptism, and you ignore them.

For instance, I posted:

THe only way Taz’s position stands is if we ignore all grammar rules. For Taz’s position to be correct, 1 Pt 3:21 must read, “baptism symbolizes that which now saves you…”

If I say to you, Taz, that the large yellow circle my child drew symbolizes the sun, you certainly aren’t going to believe and tell us that the sun symbolizes that drawn yellow circle.

Scripture plainly says, most certainly in 1 Pt 3:21, that Baptism now saves, especially when you add the preceding part from v20:

were brought safely through the water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Well, wouldn’t the thief have died before Jesus was resurrected and opened the gates to heaven? Wouldn’t the thief had first gone to join the other unbaptised “spirits in prison” until Jesus brought them the good news? Help me out with this…I may be way off.

He may not have died before Jesus died and may have gone to Purgatory.

 

[Murphs10]

He may not have died before Jesus died and may have gone to Purgatory.

Yeah, but surely he died before Jesus ascended into heaven, right? If so, wouldn’t he have gone where all others prior to the Ascension went? The gates of heaven wern’t open yet, correct? I guess what I am asking is if the thief would of simply have been no different than any other person in history who died before Christ’s Ascension that would of been deemed worthy of being saved from the “prison” by Jesus.

Edit: Sorry, I read your question wrong.

 

[Melchior_1]

You mean the Bible the Catholic Church gave you? You were given the appropriate Scripture verses as well as the what the Cuurch has said on this matter for the last 2,000 years. The idea that Baptism is not necessary is a fairly recent idea and is not ot supported by either scripture, tradition or the consistent teachings of the Magestrium.

I want to quote this again because it deserves merit. Also, I recall someone posted from the Didache. The Didache is one of the earliest manuscripts we have that was used by Catechists (those who teach the Catholic faith to newbies) back then. 70 AD that was written, which means the early Christian Church had believed those things for years prior. It also means it predates the Bible being put together as well.

Taz, I’d like to hear your reasoning on how exactly the early Christian Church survived and formulated doctrine before the Canon was ratified (ie; before the Bible). And I must ask, did the Apostles follow the Bible alone?

 

[TazDinGo]

okay.

its important you understand something about ‘baptism of desire’ while the title implies it, we are not necessarily saying we know that he ‘desired’ to be baptised, it is more that his faith and circumstances prevented any chance of a baptism in water… and that this is acceptable to catholics and protestants and most importantly jesus as being acceptable uner the circumstances to enter the kingdom. dont focus too much on the title, but focus more on what is being accepted by catholics in this case… it is actually in line with what you are arguing for… excpet catholics do not agree this is acceptable in a normal life where oppurtunity for water baptism exists…why - because jesus told the aposltes to ‘baptise’…

what about all the other things in my previous posts.

do you really feel you have to pray for us… do you realise we accept that we MUST have faith to be saved… and then ontop of this we also accept /obey jesus comand to apostles to be baptised…?

did you see my earlier post that the official teaching of the catholic church is that
“the fruits of the sacraments depend on the disposition of the recipient…” ie - no faith - no fruit

why would you want to deplete importance of the Requirement of jesus command to baptise? (Edit: this is not really what i meant to say — its comes across a bit confrontational — i know you dont want to deplete importance — but your argument, makes jesus command to baptise a superfluous formality that is not really required- doesn’t it? )

Yes, I will pray for you guys. And I feel its a need. I woudnt come and lie about it.

And still, you still go on with you baptism of desire, which NEVER existed in the Bible and that I will repeat for the 100x time.

Likewise, you are given Scripture after Scripture about the salvific efficacy of baptism, and you ignore them.

For instance, I posted:

Please try to understand that I answer many posts in one post, and I dont necessarily quote every single post.

I will not talk about the thief anymore. It is clear, and it’s how the Bible shows us. He asked for forgiveness, Jesus told him, you will join me in Paradise. And the verse ends HERE. Please, I am saying this VERY nicely, do not talk about this subject anymore, because it cannot be anymore clearer. If you still deny it, then I am sorry but you just don’t want to prove your self wrong. Like really, I don’t know why you reject the fact that Jesus died on the cross for you and me. Why would he add something on TOP to give us salvation … The ONLY thing he came to do on this earth is to die for us. Why did he not just say, ok go get baptized and like this I won’t die for you. He did not do that because he loved us. It’s clear.

Anything else to discuss ?

 

[Melchior_1]

Anything else to discuss ?

Yeah, your reasoning on how exactly the early Christian Church survived and formulated doctrine before the Canon was ratified and how people made do before the invention of the modern printing press.

 

[Murphs10]

Anything else to discuss ?

Just to clarify, you are saying that all you need to do is believe in Jesus to be saved?

 

[panevino]

Yes, I will pray for you guys. And I feel its a need. I woudnt come and lie about it.

but why, what is the reason you feel you need to pray for us - is it because
we say faithfull water baptism is necessary - are we dammned for this.

can you tell me why jesus bothered telling apostles to baptise?

And still, you still go on with you baptism of desire, which NEVER existed in the Bible and that I will repeat for the 100x time.

this doesn;t really achieve anything - why dont you comment on what i’ve said?

Please try to understand that I answer many posts in one post, and I dont necessarily quote every single post.

I will not talk about the thief anymore. It is clear, and it’s how the Bible shows us. He asked for forgiveness, Jesus told him, you will join me in Paradise. And the verse ends HERE. Please, I am saying this VERY nicely, do not talk about this subject anymore, because it cannot be anymore clearer. If you still deny it, then I am sorry but you just don’t want to prove your self wrong. Like really, I don’t know why you reject the fact that Jesus died on the cross for you and me.

why does submission to faithfull water baptism = rejection of the sacrifice jesus made?

Why would he add something on TOP to give us salvation … The ONLY thing he came to do on this earth is to die for us. Why did he not just say, ok go get baptized and like this I won’t die for you. He did not do that because he loved us. It’s clear.

something that is on TOP is that we need to believe.

what does the word “believe” mean to you? is there anyhting required of us? is the word alive or only a thought in our head?

why does jesus command apostles to baptise? is this something we are called to do when we believe?

is it reasonable to believe that baptism it is not really necesary?

do you feel the same way about the lords supper? (and i’m talking about the baptist version not the catholic version) do we never really never have to participate in it?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes, I will pray for you guys. And I feel its a need. I woudnt come and lie about it.

And still, you still go on with you baptism of desire, which NEVER existed in the Bible and that I will repeat for the 100x time.

Please try to understand that I answer many posts in one post, and I dont necessarily quote every single post.

I will not talk about the thief anymore. It is clear, and it’s how the Bible shows us. He asked for forgiveness, Jesus told him, you will join me in Paradise. And the verse ends HERE. Please, I am saying this VERY nicely, do not talk about this subject anymore, because it cannot be anymore clearer. If you still deny it, then I am sorry but you just don’t want to prove your self wrong. Like really, I don’t know why you reject the fact that Jesus died on the cross for you and me. Why would he add something on TOP to give us salvation … The ONLY thing he came to do on this earth is to die for us. Why did he not just say, ok go get baptized and like this I won’t die for you. He did not do that because he loved us. It’s clear.

Anything else to discuss ?

Catholics accept the fact that God is able to supply the Grace of any Sacrament outside of the formal action of the Sacrament when someone dies in circumstances where they are unable to receive a Sacrament.

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes, I will pray for you guys. And I feel its a need. I woudnt come and lie about it.And still, you still go on with you baptism of desire, which NEVER existed in the Bible and that I will repeat for the 100x time.
Please try to understand that I answer many posts in one post, and I dont necessarily quote every single post.
I will not talk about the thief anymore. It is clear, and it’s how the Bible shows us. He asked for forgiveness, Jesus told him, you will join me in Paradise. And the verse ends HERE. Please, I am saying this VERY nicely, do not talk about this subject anymore, because it cannot be anymore clearer. If you still deny it, then I am sorry but you just don’t want to prove your self wrong. Like really, I don’t know why you reject the fact that Jesus died on the cross for you and me. Why would he add something on TOP to give us salvation … The ONLY thing he came to do on this earth is to die for us. Why did he not just say, ok go get baptized and like this I won’t die for you. He did not do that because he loved us. It’s clear.Anything else to discuss ?

To think that all the work of The Christ on earth was merely to die on the cross is missing a lot of what the Incarnation was all about. While the Paschal Mystery is of primary importance for our salvation the teaching and example that He set for us on how to live our lives are invaluable. This along with sending His Spirit out into the world and the commission to His followers to baptize all nations in the name of the Trinitarian God to propagate His teachings is one of the high points of salvation history. Let us not imbue human limitations on the work of God.

 

[paul_c]

TazDinGo:
I have had many discussions with Baptists on these pages and it never ceases to amaze me how ironic it is that BAPTISTs don’t believe in the efficacy of Baptism.

Perhaps this is because Baptists are worried about sin. Afterall, in your sotierology, sin doesn’t matter, does it. All you have to do is have faith in Jesus and he will save you, right?

This view, while comforting to the sinner, is inconsistent with the Christian message, where love is central, not faith. If fact, this is all over scripture. When the rich man asked Jesus what he needed to gain eternal life, he was told to follow the commandments and then to follow Jesus. In 1Corinthians 13, St Paul clearly says that if you had faith enough ot move mountains, but did not have love, you are nothing and that of the theological virtues of Faith Hope and Love, the greatest of these is love.

Jesus called on the Church to baptize all the nation for the forgiveness of sins and entrance into eternal life. Why should we do anything different, even if he did make exceptions? And really, if the exception is that you have to ask Jesus to go to heaven while nailed to a cross, wouldn’t it be so much easier just to be baptized?

 

[Pax]

Taz in Christ,

You need to take more time to think about this subject. You say that baptism of desire in not in the bible. Please be advised that “the Trinity” is not in the bible either. Both, however, are logically deduced from scripture.

Please note that baptism is a covenant oath mentioned in scripture and that you have been shown many times the places in scripture where baptism is clearly and directly connected to the word saved.

Baptism is, therefore, the norm for Christians and we must follow what Jesus established. That does not mean that God is limited to how he might save a person that cannot get baptized. The good thief on the cross is the classic example of someone that could not be baptized but certainly would have wanted to had his conversion been under different circumstances. The good thief is the example of baptism of desire.

You have attempted to use the exception in scripture of the good thief to establish the rule. Everyone knows that you do not establish, explain or articulate the rule by finding and using the exception. Using your logic we would mess up Christian teaching and truth big time, and we would eliminate such truths as the Trinity.

You need to be more open and you need to prayerfully and humbly think about all that we have given you.

God bless.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

You are apparently not reading the scriptures you yourself posted - “baptism now saves you” also, “baptism is the new circumcision”.

Also, you are also under a false impression, you seem to think that the folks here are unaware of Protestant teaching. Adcording to a resent poll, the majority of folks here are formerly from Protestant/Baptist/Evangelical/Nondenom denominations. Some were even Pastors of sizable Baptist congregations before discovering the Truth of The Catholic Church.

BTW, the purpose of this forum is to illuminate the Catholic Faith for those sincerely seeking to learn more about it. This does not seem to be your purpose, is it?

If you would like to learn more about the teachings of Jesus Christ, please contact the folks at chnetwork.org/

. I promise, if you unite yourself to Jesus Christ through His Church, you will experience the great gift the He has promised to those who follow Him. As Jesus said, “He who eats My body and drinks My blood lives in Me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.” And He is faithful and sure to keep His promises. Repent, turn to the Gospel and be saved and you will have everlasting life.

Grace and peace be with you.

Your servant in Christ.

Well, always the sad part, I ask questions and you can NEVER EVER answer them with logical and CONCRETE answers.

I gave you to Scripture citations! Here’s what I posted
You are apparently not reading the scriptures you yourself posted - "baptism now saves you" also:

.

So The Bible is not concreate enough?

If you would like to learn more about the teachings of Jesus Christ, please contact the folks at chnetwork.org/. I promise, if you unite yourself to Jesus Christ through His Church, you will experience the great gift the He has promised to those who follow Him. As Jesus said, “He who eats My body and drinks My blood lives in Me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.” And He is faithful and sure to keep His promises. Repent, turn to the Gospel and be saved and you will have everlasting life.

Your Servant in Christ.

 

[mdifrancesco]

Immersion can be referred to by the word baptizo but the word baptizo is much broader in its meanings than just immersion. That baptizo equals immersion is intellectually and biblically indefensible and it has been for a long time, and it continues to be no matter how many times people repeat the mistake.

If you want to read the treatment of the word baptizo I would refer you to the four volumes of James W. Dale, they all have baptizo in the title and are available online if you hunt long enough or at reasonable prices as books.

He spent 20 years studying every single occurance of the word “baptizo” in the mid 1800’s. His work destroys the idea that baptism equals immersion.

In any case you can turn to the bible and see that as well.

As for sprinkling, that would be a good form of baptism just as we can see the term used in the Septuagint, but the Catholics don’t sprinkle. That’s use in a derogatory way by ignorant people who don’t know and probably don’t care about what they are taking about. Cathlics generally use affusion, pouring.

That the meaning of baptism includes pouring is very clear from Luke 11:38 where the Pharisee is amazed because Jesus did not undergo baptism when he came from the market. That is Jeus did not wash. Now we know exactly how it was to be done. Muslims and Jews do it to this day Just as it is recorded. They pour water over their hands and down their arms and knuckle the hands together. Exactly how it was done and how much water had to be used was prescribed in the Jewish oral history.

As for why infants? Do you withhold taking your infants to church until after they proclaim faith? Why not? Can they understand? Do you see any cases in the Bible of infants being taken to church?

There actually is infant baptism in the Bible. The very first recorded baptism included infants, the baptism unto Moses. It included the infants that their parents thought would perish in the wilderness. Interestingly the water was poured upon them in the form of rain by God as is recorded in the Psalms.

You also have the fact that infants are in need of God, and they are included in the Great Commission. They were also a part of the lesser old covenant, and are certainly included in the superior new convenant. In addition scripture links the practice of circumcision done on the 8th day with baptism.

And please don’t argue that infants cannot believe since Jesus himself says they can and includes them in his kingdom. Unless you want to include unbelievers in the kingdom and teach multiple paths to salvation, you really cannot argue infants cannot have faith.

Supporting the Bible is the fact that infant baptism has been the practice since the earliest recorded days of the church.

So the question is, why don’t you baptise infants? Why don’t you study the scripture and understand that baptism does not equal immersion?

Babies (not young children) are incapable of understanding until they reach their age of accountability. If they die, they go to Heaven. Period.

And Baptism was a COMMAND of Jesus - not a requirement for salvation. If it was, then explain how the thief on the cross got Baptised - it didn’t happen, yet Jesus said “today you will be with Me in Paradise”.

 

[cfrancis]

Babies (not young children) are incapable of understanding until they reach their age of accountability. If they die, they go to Heaven. Period.

And Baptism was a COMMAND of Jesus - not a requirement for salvation. If it was, then explain how the thief on the cross got Baptised - it didn’t happen, yet Jesus said “today you will be with Me in Paradise”.

Please provide chapter and verse in SCripture where it says that infants "If they die, they go to Heaven. Period."

Christ did say baptism was salvific:
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of (A)water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[Ignatius]

If it was, then explain how the thief on the cross got Baptised.

First, where does the bible say that Dismas wasn’t baptized?

 

[bpbasilphx]

\ Originally Posted by TazDinGo View Post
Baptism is a work. And the Lord clearly told us that we are NOT saved by works.\

**If we baptized ourselves, baptism would be a work.

But do we baptize ourselves? Or do we RECEIVE baptism at the hands of another?

God said we ARE justified by works, too!

James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James 2:25
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

Or are these verses not in your Bible?**

 

[mdifrancesco]

Please provide chapter and verse in SCripture where it says that infants "If they die, they go to Heaven. Period."

Christ did say baptism was salvific:
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of (A)water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Interesting that you attacked my statement on babies, however chose to ignore my second statement… How did the thief get into heaven without being baptised?
And more interesting is that he got in by invitation of Jesus Himself. Is God breaking His own rules because both the God and the man we incapable at that moment to follow the requirement for baptism, or is in fact God proving that there is nothing other than faith in Christ’s redemptive blood to get him in to heaven?
And PLEASE don’t use the “baptism of desire” defense. That just reinforces my point of “doctrines of men”. Whenever men cannot explain something taught by God in His Word, they add their own interpretation to it.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The thief on the cross beside our Lord Jesus died BEFORE Christ gave the command to be baptized. That command (not a request or something optional, but a command to be obeyed) was given before Jesus ascended into Heaven, some 43 days after his conversation with the guy being crucified with Him. He wasn’t “breaking His own rules” because He had yet to give that particular command.

Being God Incarnate, Jesus is able to save whoever He wants to. Obviously, someone who is currently at death’s door, secured by nails at his hands and feet, is unable to be baptized. Being in a position where you are unable to be baptized is a very different matter than outright refusing to do so. Knowing that Jesus commanded baptism and knowing that Scripture teaches that baptism washes away our sins, why would you not be baptized?