Baptism is NOT symbolic

[InquisitorKind]

Whoo Hoo. We have taken a baby step towards one another.

I feel the same way, and it is certainly a good feeling.

From your posts, you seem like a nice person. If I might ask, what are some things that you could share about your background and such?

~Matt

 

[LLC3GUYS]

Excuse me, but your reasoning here falls short because of the fact that Baptism was not given to us as yet, in fact, Christ doesn't institute it until after the resurrection. So the fact that he told the thief that "today you would be with me in Paradise" is not a very good example of someone receiving salvation without Baptism.

Gotta give you one thing, you're consistantly inconsistant. So, it wasn't given to us yet, hmmm? I thought john was already dead by Jesus's death, and.......I'm really tired of stating the obvious,........Where did everyone go when Jesus left "paradise"? Or, do you think their still there? If you do, the Bible says different.

 

[LLC3GUYS]

That's right. There is nothing strange about the idea that God establishes a system for our benefit and commands it...but in his wisdom may make an exception (Good Thief) that doesn't change anything for the rest of us. How illogical, it seems to me, to make one case override everything else we know to go by. This wasn't a teaching, a doctrine, that was compromised by Jesus. It was merely a response to one person about his destiny, and it came from God (Jesus) himself. Besides, we aren't absolutely certain what the word spoken to Dismas mean.

But yet, some say that no one should bother being baptised, either for the benefit some say it grants to us or the fulfillment of a divine command others say baptism is all about. Not for mankind in general, all because of one forecast to the Good Thief that is used to nullify all the rest of Scripture dealing with baptism.

If any one thing in the Bible pokes a hole in your theology, then it's your theology that's wrong. Trying to get around it by stating "special circumstances" (without Him saying so) is merely a ploy to shore-up your beliefs.

 

[Ave Maria]

To end this utter foolishment, at least to the open hearts. There is a thief, now in heaven, who only knew the water birth of his mother. No water baptism, none at all. He was hung on a cross, next to Jesus, whose words deny yours. Lastly, I gave you the avenue of searching on the internet for the titles, page #'s, cuniforms, heiroglyphics, parchments, or any other form you may desire. Do the work yourself, if you are really open to the proof and the truth. Let the foolish post their hearts out.

That's what baptism by desire is. If you truly have intentions of being baptized (which the thief definitely would have done had he not been dying right then) and then you suddenly die before you are baptized, you are saved by baptism of desire. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm a new Catholic and am not 100% sound when it comes to doctrine yet.

 

[geocajun]

This thread is being reopened for posting.
The Moderator team is watching this thread carefully folks, please be courteous when posting. Rule violations will earn you warnings.

geocajun
Moderator, General Theology

 

[LLC3GUYS]

That's what baptism by desire is. If you truly have intentions of being baptized (which the thief definitely would have done had he not been dying right then) and then you suddenly die before you are baptized, you are saved by baptism of desire. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm a new Catholic and am not 100% sound when it comes to doctrine yet.

Now, you're just making stuff up and giving names to it. "Baptism by desire" is not scriptural but a man-made concept. And, you, nor I, nor anyone knows what the thief would have done if not on the cross. The intentions of the heart are the sovereign realm of God alone.

 

[SumTinWong]

Now, you're just making stuff up and giving names to it. "Baptism by desire" is not scriptural but a man-made concept. And, you, nor I, nor anyone knows what the thief would have done if not on the cross. The intentions of the heart are the sovereign realm of God alone.

What part of this are you having trouble with?
"The Moderator team is watching this thread carefully folks, please be courteous when posting."

I don't are if you disagree with people but quit being a jerk about it...

 

[Albion]

What part of this are you having trouble with?
"The Moderator team is watching this thread carefully folks, please be courteous when posting."

I don't are if you disagree with people but quit being a jerk about it...

I haven't followed this that closely, but I didn't catch what was so wrong with LLC's comment. "Making this stuff up" doesn't seem so pungent. Where DOES "Baptism of Desire" come from if it is not from the Bible--which, apparently it is not? I suppose that it would have to be of human origin in that case.

 

[SPALATIN]

Gotta give you one thing, you're consistantly inconsistant. So, it wasn't given to us yet, hmmm? I thought john was already dead by Jesus's death, and.......I'm really tired of stating the obvious,........Where did everyone go when Jesus left "paradise"? Or, do you think their still there? If you do, the Bible says different.

LLC,

The Baptism of John was not the same as the Baptism that Jesus instituted at the Great Commission. John said it himself that the baptism he did was for "repentence of sin" but that he (Christ) would baptize with the Holy Spirit. There is a big difference here. Christ gave his word to the thief and his word is GOLDen. He also gives his word through Baptism that we will be saved through this means of Grace.

 

[SPALATIN]

Not entirely true. The Confessions absolutley list 3, and make way for 7 and give the possibilty for more, by definition.



Im sorry SLS, our Confession states:


Article XIII. (VII): Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments.

4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament


In fact I encourage the reading of this article in its entirety and see that by definition, there are 7 sacraments, and possibly more--again by definition.


Q

Q,

I remember talking to filosofer about this same thing on TLLC and it was because there is no element involved that many Lutherans don't consider Absolution to be a full sacrament, though I would be one to say that the Word itself is an element in and of itself to consider it a sacrament.

I am not arguing that the confessions say what they say, but just putting out there that another Lutheran Pastor said what he said.

This is how filo described it on this thread. (please scroll down to the third message in the thread.)

 

[SumTinWong]

I haven't followed this that closely, but I didn't catch what was so wrong with LLC's comment. "Making this stuff up" doesn't seem so pungent. Where DOES "Baptism of Desire" come from if it is not from the Bible--which, apparently it is not? I suppose that it would have to be of human origin in that case.

So you thought it was "curteous" of LLC to post in that manner then? I am not arguing the point of believers baptism, didn't even bring it up, but was questioning the manner in which the poster posted his comments. Add to that "Let the foolish post their hearts out." and I found it offensive...

Cool?

 

[AVBunyan]

If you want to pick one confusing doctrine today it is water baptism and yet it should be one of the simplest of doctrines. And yet more time has been spend on this subject than there ever should have been (just look at all the posts!!!). There are 2 schools of thought:

1. It is essential to salvation – don't want to argue this – it is not…period! Seen all the verses, have had then quoted to me out of context for so long I just want to scream!
2. It is not essential to ones salvation but we are to do it because:

1. It is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection – sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase. You say, “It is an outward sign of an inward reality.” Really? Where did you get that? Chapter and verse? Sounds good but you can't make a doctrine out of a catchy phrase.
2. It is the first step of obedience - sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.
3. It proves or demonstrates one's salvation - sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.
4. Many saints in the Bible baptized so we should – sounds good but many saints did things in the Bible that we don't do anymore. We don't sacrifice lambs, we don't raise people from the dead, we don't take vows, we don't abstain from pork, etc. Yes, things change and I'm glad they do!!!
5. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded it in Matt. 28:19,20 – yes he did but also told you to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded and one of the things he commanded was to adhere to what the Pharisees taught and they taught the law - Matt. 23:3 – “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe.” They taught the law and I know you believe you are not to adhere to the Old Testament law (well some of you do). (Similar to “d.)

First summary – all that we have been taught and practice concerning baptism has been based upon tradition and making doctrines out of poor applications. Because of these errors we have people going to hell on Acts 2:38, etc. and others trying to obey the “first step of obedience” and if they don't they are made to fill like second class citizens by Baptist Churches.

What I am going to present I already know most of you will not believe for a couple of reasons:

1. 1. You want to insist on going to hell with your water baptism and nothing is going to change that!
2. 2. You just cannot give up your tradition that has been passed down for centuries. You have made a doctrine out of a tradition.

Now this is what I believe baptism was for in the Bible. I will only discuss the word baptism as it relates to water for just because you see the word baptize it doesn't mean it is associated with water all the time. Now the Church of Christ can't see that for all they see is water, water and more water every time the word shows up in any form. For example - look at I Cor. 10:2 and Col. 2:12 and try to find water baptism there.

The first time water baptism shows up is with John the Baptist. Now why did John baptize? Let's let him tell us.

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Look at “therefore” – why is the “therefore” there? The issue was manifesting Christ to Israel. Christ was being manifesting to Israel for the first time. John the Baptist said (paraphrasing), “Here is your Messiah! Do you believe this” Ok, then get baptized.“ Why get baptized? To show that you believe Christ was Israel's long awaited for Messiah. And along with that they were to show their repentance in regards to their rejection of God the Father in the Old Testament. Manifestation and repentance - It is that simple. And yet this simple doctrine meant for God's dealing with Israel has turned into a monster.

Do you know why they continued to baptize during Acts? Because the Jews rejected Christ in the gospels and were getting a second chance in Acts. The Gentiles were in on it because they were getting in on Israel's blessings at that time. Once Israel finally rejected the message in Acts 28 then there was no need to call everyone's attention to Jesus being the Messiah for that plan was done away with and Paul was called out by God to reveal the body of Christ.

The issue of showing Christ being the Messiah is a non issue today for we have advanced revelation on the matter due to the New Testament being finally written down – plus God is not dealing with Israel right now (I know, a broken record) – So………..baptism is a non issue today. There is only one baptism and that is the one baptism of Ephesians 4 and that has nothing to do with water!

Again, if you start with Paul you will get it – you can't start with John the Baptist and carry a practice meant for Israel all the way through the church age! You see how simple the scriptures are? You know, Christianity is full of a lot of “junk” today that has nothing to do with Bible Christianity. We are not Rome – we don't need all of those outward ceremonies.

Conclusion – If you want to baptize then fine – I don't panic over people making baptism a picture of salvation, etc. You make it essential to salvation and we will go to war over that. But to use it as a picture then I'm not going to make an issue out of it – that is between your church and God – I believe in local self-governing churches.

Wouldn't it be so much easier to stick with Ephesians 4? Look at what a stumbling block this doctrine has caused. Look at how much money has been spent on baptismal fountains!!! Could you imagine a Baptist church not being able to count their “baptisms” to be able to send them to the Sword of the Lord! Just kidding. I am a Baptist so I can pick on my own thank you.


God bless

 

[Albion]

Which of these do you want to stick with--

1. "You want to insist on going to hell with your water baptism and nothing is going to change that!, or

2. "Conclusion – If you want to baptize then fine "

??

 

[SPALATIN]

Baptism for you is a matter of obedience, but from what does that obedience come from? If someone wanted to give you a precious gift would you say "No, thank you." or would you be "WHAT is it you want to GIVE ME?" This is what Baptism is to us a gift of salvation in which God regenerates us or as you prefer makes us "Born Again". It is a means of Grace that God instituted in his Great Commission when he said "Go and make disciples of all nations, Baptizing them in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit"

I am not going to argue this point any further with you as you have your mind made up on the issue and therefore once someone has their mind made up it is pointless to argue the differences and come to a conclusion based on evidence. You said that you have seen the verses and they have not convinced you of what those on the orthodox side are saying. We on the Orthodox side of the fence will never agree with your version of Baptism plain and simple. We are wasting each other's time and are doing a disservice to those who come here looking for honest answers.

You tell us there are two schools of thought but to you only of them is correct and have dismissed the other side as being completely unscriptural. I think that is rather arrogant and conceited of you but hey we all have our crosses to bear right?

I just don't think it is right for all of us to carry on here about this subject as there will always be this disagreement between us and therefore we don't share doctrinal unity. This is why we have such deep divisions in the visible church today.

 

[Albion]

So you thought it was "curteous" of LLC to post in that manner then? I am not arguing the point of believers baptism, didn't even bring it up, but was questioning the manner in which the poster posted his comments. Add to that "Let the foolish post their hearts out." and I found it offensive...

Cool?

Honestly, it didn't seem like much to me. Not as posts around here go.

Now, you're just making stuff up and giving names to it.

That didn't strike me as much of an insult. Astounded is how I took his tone, not insulting. I certainly would not have called him a "jerk" in response, no.

Apparently you feel differently, and you are entitled, so that's that.

 

[SumTinWong]

nevermind...

 

[Qoheleth]

I remember talking to filosofer about this same thing on TLLC and it was because there is no element involved that many Lutherans don't consider Absolution to be a full sacrament, though I would be one to say that the Word itself is an element in and of itself to consider it a sacrament.

I am not arguing that the confessions say what they say, but just putting out there that another Lutheran Pastor said what he said.

This bolded statement is an example of Lutherans who deny their own faith as it has been handed down. The Confessions do not limit absolutely the means of which our Lord may choose to convey his grace. In fact the Confessions believe the Christian life to be sacramental in itself--communion with God

Q

 

[greeker57married]

Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Eph 2:9 not of works, that no man should glory.

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,

Eph 2:15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;

Eph 2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Eph 2:17 and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh:

Eph 2:18 for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father.

I see no mention of water baptism in these verses. Salvation is not based on a physical act of baptism, but on the blood of Christ

His shed blood appeased the wrath of God against our sin.

Rom 3:25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;

Rom 3:26 for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.

Rom 3:27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith.

Rom 3:28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

 

[LLC3GUYS]

Guys, guys, guys! Let's see if we can leave the "ripping" to opinions and leave each other's judgements of character to God. Views, fair game -- hearts, not.