Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
i was just pointing out that this is not a Protestant vs. Catholic thing, there are lots of Protestants who also baptise babies, i am not trying to derail the thread or anything, just pointing out that it is not a clear cut issueThanks??? now I know there are four more religions that needlessly baptize babies.
i was just pointing out that this is not a Protestant vs. Catholic thing, there are lots of Protestants who also baptise babies, i am not trying to derail the thread or anything, just pointing out that it is not a clear cut issue
I ment no offinse, I am in the habit of refering to all Christians as Protestants who are not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.ok,
Why would you bring that up??? I'm not Protestant either, as if it mattered, look who they birthed from, and thats all I need to know.
Why do you guys baptize babies anyway???
(1Co 12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
I ment no offinse, I am in the habit of refering to all Christians as Protestants who are not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
I am not sure if i can teach about the Catholic faith in this subforum, if you want i could make a thread in OBOB about why Catholics baptise babies? or you could make the thread if you wish
I'm in the thinking that everytime we confess our sins to the Lord Christ and ask for forgiveness we are baptised, not all refresment is liquid.
in the Bible it talks about entire households being baptized, it would be silly to think that there were no childrenI shoulnd't have to go to OBOB to have a believer show me scripture concerning infant baptism should I??? There is no scripture, it is a man made concept like purgatory.
Rhamiel have a blessed day.
in the Bible it talks about entire households being baptized, it would be silly to think that there were no children
Baptism in water for a believer. Notice that person is a...believer.
Not essential for salvation. A good act though. A testimony before believers, of where you stand. I have been baptized in water...it was a glorious occasion. Did it save me? No. I was saved before I even went into the tank. It is a baptism of repentance that shows your sincerity. The baptism... the more legalistic really need to pay attention to...is the baptism of the Spirit. There's no use going into the water, if the Spirit of Christ hasn't set up His Home in your temple. (the body).
Baptism in water is not something to have qualms about. Just do it as a testimony of sincere faith.
This is clearly on of the most debatable things in Christianity and unfortunately it could mean dire consequences to some. People often use the thief on the cross as an example however this man passed before Jesus died so it certainly could be said that up until Christ died that it was not a requirement for one to be baptized to get to Paradise. T
Unsure who is "adding" what w/r to baptism. I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of why/how baptism is a work (and therefore to be ignored, delayed, or done at one's own leisure or not).The baptism is one unto repentance. The message of the kingdom is repent and believe. Nothing more needs to be added.
"And Jesus came and said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Mt 28:18ff
I don't know how anyone's theology can change or spin what Jesus said - but I know many that have."16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mk 16:16
Again, theologies aside, it's hard to refute these very clear words - though I realize many still doNow when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brothers, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls." Acts 2
Paul clearly states the purpose of baptism being where we are identified with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection - where Christ died, so did we [in baptism]; where Christ was buried, so were we [in baptism]; and where Christ was resurrected from the dead, SO WERE WE [in baptism] - for the purpose of BEING UNITED WITH HIM."Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We 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.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his." Romans 6:3ff
Many, including some who've commented here already, confuse the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" with the baptism Jesus, Paul, and Peter speak of - that occurred exactly TWICE in the bible - Acts 1 with Jews and Acts 10 with Gentiles and served an entirely different purpose than the baptism being discussed here.I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Was the thief saved? I believe he was - as does everyone else here. But how was/is the thief different from us? Very simple - he was ACTUALLY CRUCIFIED - physically crucified with Christ - not something we can do today - we can of course share in it by submitting to being baptized - which is why we do it and proclaim it.
especially as it pertains to what the BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS on the topic - versus how others might have interpreted it for us.
Your reasoning is totally wrong. In order to be baptised one must first believe. Belief precedes Baptism. If a person has not believed it is not possible for them to be baptised. The third statement is not required. Baptism is the answer of a good conscience (1 Peter 3:21), not the removal of filth from the flesh (ie not a bath or Jewish washing). Baptism is therefore defined as something which requires a right mind/heart (conscience) before God. One cannot have this without faith. Therefore it is impossible to be baptised, as the Bible defines baptism, without faith preceding it. It is therefore unnecessary to add He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned since if this person has no faith he or she is condemned already.He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16). If we look at this verse closely, we see that it is composed of two basic statements. 1He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2He who does not believe will be condemned.
Clearly, the determining factor regarding whether one is saved or condemned is whether or not he believes. In interpreting this passage correctly, it is important to realize that while it tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they are saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, a third statement would have had to be included, that statement being: He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned or He who is not baptized will be condemned. But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.
Oh, so now there's a new condition. We can believe (and I personally believe Jesus still personally forgives us) and be saved if we're baptized unless Jesus personally forgives us.The Thief on the cross is not an argument for baptism being non-essential. Jesus personally forgave the man. He did this before the new covenant came into effect (ie before Jesus' death).
Oh, so now there's a new condition. We can believe (and I personally believe Jesus still personally forgives us) and be saved if we're baptized unless Jesus personally forgives us.
Not at all, it is reasoning from the scriptures.This is taking a verse and making it fit a doctrine.
There is no additional condition to Mark. But let me say I agree with this. If Jesus personally forgives you, then you don't need to be baptized.
Again, thank God that Jesus does personally forgive each and every person who repents and believes. That is the message of the kingdom, that is the message Jesus preached, and that is the only one that makes it so you don't have to do exegesis gymnastics to prove a simple Biblical story.
There is no indication that Jesus' personal forgiveness on earth is better than His personal forgiveness in heaven, that to be punished next to Christ is the same as being crucified with Christ, but things like this have to be added to fit a doctrine.
Salvation has always been by faith, through grace, and God's way has never changed on this.
I'm missing the logic here - what the verse *says* - is "he who believes and who is baptized will be saved." That is what the verse *says*. Is belief required? ABSOLUTELY! That's what the verse says. Is baptism required? APPARENTLY NOT because that "goes beyond what the verse says".does it teach that baptism is required for salvation? The simple answer is: No, it does not. In fact, when one carefully examines this verse, it becomes clear that in order to make this it teach that baptism is required for salvation, one must go beyond what the verse actually says. What this verse does teach is that belief is necessary for salvation, which is consistent with all other verses in the Bible that deal with salvation, especially the countless verses where only belief or faith is mentioned (e.g. John 3:18; John 5:24; John 12:44; John 20:31; 1 John 5:13).
OMITTED here is that portion of the verse that does not suit the argument because is is part of the first part of Jesus' statement. The "SUM of Thy word that is truth" (Psalms 119:160), not that portion only that suits our argument/belief.“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). If we look at this verse closely, we see that it is composed of two basic statements. 1—He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2—He who does not believe will be condemned.
Neither of those statements are found in the verse for the simple reason that the Lord didn't say them - they are part of the contrived argument against baptism. The appeal to the [false] argument that someone who reads "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" needs to ADD to the verse the necessity for baptism is the unfortunate teaching here and entirely without warrant, logically or scripturally - particularly when the teaching SUBTRACTS from the verse the very statement those teachers claim is being added. If arguments FOR baptism frustrate, certainly these against it frustrate as well.Clearly, the determining factor regarding whether one is saved or condemned is whether or not he believes. In interpreting this passage correctly, it is important to realize that while it tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they are saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, a third statement would have had to be included, that statement being: “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.
Svt, That was not my point and I think you know it.So we can be saved through faith by grace, or we can be saved by being literally crucified with Christ. But that would mean that both of the thieves would have been saved. Oh, but the verse should say if you believe and are baptized and/or are crucified with Christ, you will be saved. That is in fact adding something to the Bible that is in fact not there, nor is it ever implied.
I appreciate that and I understand - and for what it's worth, I also agree that it's not up to either of us to judge another's salvation based on their understanding of God's Word - however they got to it. Many have walked with the Lord without a perfect understanding of either what He said or what He meant by what He said - including myself (which I'm sure I still do and until heaven always will). Amen to His grace, His mercy, His patience, and His kindness.For me, my identity in Christ and 'with' Christ is actually only about Christ. I'll preach the cross, if someone thinks Paul missed it by not preaching the cross and baptism, that's ok with me I don't think anyone will lose their salvation over it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?