Close Topic Options

Baptism - Page 4

I am going to jump back into the fray here.

Jesus said:

I have spent a lot of time over the years listening to various religious radio programs, reading materials from all sorts of religions, and talking with people about religion. The most perplexing of all things to me is the insistence among many (most?) non-Catholic Christians that baptism is not essential. My opinion is that this comes from the natural desire to defend their religious beliefs, since they all reject a line of Priesthood authority. Catholics claim that authority, passing down from Peter to the various Popes throughout history. Latter-day Saints claim that authority through a different line. But most Protestant religions seem to believe that God-given Priesthood authority is not only not necessary, but not even a valid concern.

Now, without authority, it is true that baptism is just "dunking under the water." (IMnsHO) (In My not so Humble Opinion) After all, without authority to perform an ordinance, the ordinance is just a play act of some sort.

Catholics appear to believe that any Christian (except for Mormons) have the authority to baptize, since all of them descended from Catholicism, and embrace some of the basic principles of Catholicism. Of course, they accept full immersion, sprinkling, and other sorts of baptism.

Mormons, on the other hand, don't accept any others as having authority to perform the ordinances. We also reject many of the basic concepts that Catholics have brought down through the centuries, such as Original Sin and the various creeds.

Now looking at these facts (mixed in with some opinion), it is easy to understand why some people are very sensitive about the issues surrounding this ordinance. Many (most?) modern evangelical/fundamentalist/pentacostal/etc Christians reject ALL ordinances, since they believe that Faith, alone, saves.

However, looking at the scripture that LDS_Forever presented, along with the scripture from Matthew at the top of this post, I have to wonder how people can get around the very clear message that runs through the whole Bible, that ordinances are essential when dealing with God.

If the gate is strait, and the way is narrow, doesn't that imply that there is some kind of sorting process? That there are certain things that MUST be done to enter the gate and walk along the way?

Participating in an ordinance does NOT imply (again IMnsHO) that we WORK our way to salvation, or into Heaven. It does imply that being obedient to God is necessary in order for Him to give us the gift of salvation. He has certain requirements. Even Matthew 3:16 shows this, as I pointed out before. Yes, God gave His Son so that the whole world could be saved - IF they believe in Him. Those who DON'T believe in Him cannot receive the blessings. That very thing implies, as does Babyblues words, that one WORK is required to be saved.

In this example, you got down on your knees, and prayed, and asked Jesus to come into your heart, and turned your life over to Him. Is that not a WORK?

Another question asked:

This gets back into the discussion of ordinances, as well as the discussion on baptism. I am going to take this quote in little chunks and try to address them.

1. A person cannot enter Heaven if they are not baptized. That is what the New Testament teaches, very clearly in my opinion.

2. A person who accepts Chrsit can still go to Heaven if they are not baptized. If a person is doing all they can to do what God has commanded, and circumstances prevent them from completing their task, then God accepts their efforts. There is another part of this that I absolutely refuse to discuss here, and that is baptism for the dead as spoken of in 1 Cor. 15:29. If you want to discuss that, I will be happy to do so in the LDS board.

3. God setting conditions for entering Heaven concerning baptism. Absolutely! Starting back in Genesis, throughout the Old Testament and going into the New Testament, God set all sorts of conditions on all sorts of things, including ordinances and prayers. Consider why He accepted Abel's sacrifice, but rejected Cain's. The sacrifice was necessary, but so was the proper spiritual and mental attitude.

Now, to get to the meat of the issue.

I have shown a couple of scriptures that SAY that baptism is essential. LDS_Forever has given a scripture that SAYS that baptism is essential, and it comes from Jesus' own mouth.

I would like to see 3 scriptures (3 witnesses from scripture) that SAY that baptism is NOT needed. Then, as a bonus, I would like to see any 3 references from any of the early Church Fathers, even INDICATING that baptism wasn't considered absolutely essential in the early Christian Church (you know, under Peter, James, John, Paul, etc.) If THEY considered it essential, and the idea that baptism is not needed only came about in the last couple of hundred years, then I have to assume that this doctrine comes from the philosophies of men.

OH, and I am not interested in seeing verses of scripture, that only IMPLY, combined with a lot of discussion to explain why they do imply that baptism is not essential.

Baptism

LDS,
In my opinion you do not fully understand John 3:5-7

The water Jesus is referring to is amniotic fluid. To enter the kingdom you must have physical birth and spiritual birth. Jesus said

The first birth is of water or flesh, the second birth is of the Spirit. "Born of water" never refers to baptism in any other verse in the Bible. The word baptism or its variants are used 112 times. If Jesus meant baptism he would have said baptism.

Finally the bible has plenty of occurences when Jesus heals people and sends them on there way, if baptism were so important don't you think Jesus would have baptized at least one person?

Baptism Revealed Bible The

If your logic holds true, then if He meant amniotic fluid or birth water He "would have said so."

If it isn't essential to be baptised, why was John the baptist sent to pave the way before Jesus? Why was Jesus himself baptised, if not to show us by His own example what we are required to do?

Page 4 Baptism

Where in the Bible says so? As Farseer pointed out, if you believe Jesus should have chosen the word "Baptism" instead of "being born of water" then I would love to read a scripture that states that what he meant was "amniotic fluid".

But I am glad you responded because I am trying hard to understand some Christian denominations who do not believe in Baptism as necessary for remission of sins and the that they believe that baptism is "an outward sign of an inward grace." and nothing else. Since this is not taught as such in the Bible, I am very curious about this.

The fact that himself having no need to be baptised, did it as an example for all of us to show, it is a more than enough prove that baptism is "important". I do not think he just wanted to do it because he saw John there baptising or because he wanted to show an "inward" change.

Some scriptures and the importance of Baptism for salvation and remission of sins:

Just reading the baptism of Jesus Christ is a great thing to me me, the Son of the Father, the Messiah, the Savior of the world was baptised! What more proof is necessary that baptism is not just a "nice" thing to do?

Edited: LDS_forever on 6th Apr, 2006 - 12:59pm

Baptism

This is a very interesting question. I have had a lot of Christians tell me this. However, I have yet to have a single person justify this attitude with scripture. It appears to me to be the philosophy of men, mixed with scripture.

You said that there is no evidence of Jesus Christ ever having baptized someone. I don't know of any either. But God (who I assume you to believe is Jesus Christ also) commanded John to baptize in water. Why would He command a man from the Priestly lineage to baptize, if it wasn't important, even vital?

Wasn't it Peter who talked to a eunuch on the road, and convinced him of the truth of Jesus Christ? (sorry, but I don't have time to search through an online Bible right now) Didn't the Peter then immediately take the man into the water and baptize him? Apparently Peter thought it was important, even vital.

There is nowhere in the Bible that there is any indication that baptism is optional. There are many, many times where baptism is commanded.

Finally, where, in the Bible, does "born of water" ever equate, unambiguously, to birth?

Message Edited! someone pointed out to me that it was Philip, in Acts 8 who was with the eunuch. See update.

Update: Acts 8 is definitely worth reviewing. After Philip taught the man the Gospel, and the man affirmed that he did indeed believe in Jesus Christ, Philip did NOT tell him that he was saved. He immediately took the man into the river and baptized him. It wasn't optional. It was essential.

Edited: Nighthawk on 6th Apr, 2006 - 9:39pm

Baptism

I found a verse that may or may not help, 1 Peter 3:20-21 "Which sometimewere disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

1 Peter was written somewhere in the neighborhood of about 62-64 BCE, that was at least a good 30 yrs after Christ. If Peter is saying that Baptism is important then, why should it not be important.

If Jesus Christ had need to be baptised, then why not you? Christ was perfect had never commited a sin or transgression in his life. Yet, we who are imperfect and sin daily don't have to be baptised. What's wrong with this picture?

Baptism - Page 4

So I want be misunderstood I'm not saying baptism is not important. I'm saying it is not necessary to be saved.

If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ?

You can be saved by faith alone. One should be mindful of the scriptures to lead a proper life, including baptism. I believe a more important lesson than baptism is to "Love your enemy".

One more point: the scriptures we are all quoting were written in Greek and direct translation into English is done with difficulty (note various versions of the Bible). When I or others try to examine specific scriptures out of context errors can occur. We should all focus on the meaning of the Gospels and not parse words to prove our religions point of view.

God bless you all, pockettape.

Edited: pockettape on 7th Apr, 2006 - 4:23am

Baptism The Bible Revealed - Page 4

It is very interesting to me to see how so many modern Christians are so scared of the thought that God might require us to do some things to qualify for some of the blessings. For us to maintain that baptism is required, does NOT mean that we are "adding our work to the finished work of Christ."

As I pointed out before, even those who claim that nothing we can do affects our salvation, still admit that we are required to do ONE work. That is, make a decision. That decision, or acceptance of Jesus Christ, is what, under that philosophy, qualifies the person to receive the salvation that these people talk about. I am just saying that that decision or belief is only the FIRST step in qualification, and that God has decreed a few more things, including Baptism.