Do you have to get baptized in water?

[PaladinValer]

Yes, you must be Baptized.

And unless its an immergency and water isn't available, it must be with H2O.

 

[ebia]

Technically, the thief on the cross died before Jesus.

How do you know? Wasn't Jesus' death unusually fast by the standards of Roman crucifixions?

He died before Jesus rose again.

That sounds likely.

 

[hannabl]

How do you know? Wasn't Jesus' death unusually fast by the standards of Roman crucifixions?.

True! I assumed...

That sounds likely.

And this is why the thief still died during the old covenant

 

[Uphill Battle]

How being dipped in water has anything to do with the salvation of a soul is beyond me. I do not discredit the importance of water baptism. If it was important to Jesus, it should be important to us! But it is NOT salvific (a term already used here... don't know if it's an actual word! )

The "Baptism of desire" doctrine is strange too... It seems much like an escape clause. Basically put, the church teaches that you must be baptized by water. deathbead conversions, however, fall under "baptism of desire" because they couldn't be baptized in time. it seems like convinient argument so they don't have to cast judgement on the status of peoples souls. If you believe one thing, believe it, without unsupported and/or statements.

 

[hannabl]

How being dipped in water has anything to do with the salvation of a soul is beyond me. I do not discredit the importance of water baptism. If it was important to Jesus, it should be important to us! But it is NOT salvific (a term already used here... don't know if it's an actual word! )

The "Baptism of desire" doctrine is strange too... It seems much like an escape clause. Basically put, the church teaches that you must be baptized by water. deathbead conversions, however, fall under "baptism of desire" because they couldn't be baptized in time. it seems like convinient argument so they don't have to cast judgement on the status of peoples souls. If you believe one thing, believe it, without unsupported and/or statements.

Why is it strange with Baptism of desire? It's not common, but still....
We should be baptised in water, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirot. this is the norm! But since when did God become legalistic?

If someone becomes a Christian, but somehow the knowledge about Baptism is not present, a deep desire to belong to Christ will suffice.

Just as the Baptism of Blood is valid.

There's a difference between sticking to an opinion (that water baptism is needed) and turning God into a legalistic farisée (e.g. there can be NO exceptions, whatsoever...)

/Hanna

 

[Uphill Battle]

Why is it strange with Baptism of desire? It's not common, but still....
We should be baptised in water, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirot. this is the norm! But since when did God become legalistic?

I agree. It's the norm, it's important. I never claimed that God IS legalistic, or even suggest it. I suggest the doctrine of you must be baptised in water to be saved doctorine is legalistic. (and then to add the Baptism of desire on the end as an escape clause to that legalism, is even more strange.)

If someone becomes a Christian, but somehow the knowledge about Baptism is not present, a deep desire to belong to Christ will suffice.

Then why, pray tell, does a deep desire to belong to Christ suffice in the first place?

Just as the Baptism of Blood is valid.

right....

There's a difference between sticking to an opinion (that water baptism is needed) and turning God into a legalistic farisée (e.g. there can be BO exceptions, whatsoever...)

/Hanna

hey, I'm not the one who claims that water baptism i neccessary for salvation. It's an RCC (and others, not them specifically) doctrine that it is a must. then, they turn around and give themselves an out, by stating that baptism of desire is enough. It's called having your cake and eating it too.

 

[hannabl]

I agree. It's the norm, it's important. I never claimed that God IS legalistic, or even suggest it. I suggest the doctrine of you must be baptised in water to be saved doctorine is legalistic. (and then to add the Baptism of desire on the end as an escape clause to that legalism, is even more strange.).

It is important, why do you think the Bible puts such emphasis on it?

Then why, pray tell, does a deep desire to belong to Christ suffice in the first place?

Because if you can't get baptised God won't turn you away simply because of that...

right.... hey, I'm not the one who claims that water baptism i neccessary for salvation. It's an RCC (and others, not them specifically) doctrine that it is a must. then, they turn around and give themselves an out, by stating that baptism of desire is enough. It's called having your cake and eating it too.

What the RCC say is:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

I don't get how you cookie-analogy fits in...

 

[Uphill Battle]

It is important, why do you think the Bible puts such emphasis on it?


Because if you can't get baptised God won't turn you away simply because of that...



What the RCC say is:

I don't get how you cookie-analogy fits in...

you mind telling me where I can look up his? you posted it from somewhere, it would be great to have an online resource for the catchetism.

 

[hannabl]

you mind telling me where I can look up his? you posted it from somewhere, it would be great to have an online resource for the catchetism.

This is a good link in english: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
The cathechism should also be available at a puclic library.

 

[Natman]

I don't get how you cookie-analogy fits in...

In the paragraphs you yourself provided, #1257 says "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation" while #1258 says "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ"

On the one hand they say that baprism is necessary for salvation and on the other, they say that it isn't, in certain situations.

As a Baptist, I beileve we should partake in believer's baptism, in obedience to our Lord and Savior. However, I also believe that it is not the act of baptism that is salvific. It is belief and trust in Jesus Christ to forgive our sins.

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
​

I know this is somewhat nit-picky, but please note that it does not say "but he who does not believe and/or was not baptised will be condemned." It also does not say "he who is baptized will be saved". It just says "he who does not believe will be condemned." One can easily logically deduce that it is the act of "belief", not baptism that is salvific.

 

[hannabl]

In the paragraphs you yourself provided, #1257 says "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation" while #1258 says "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ"

On the one hand they say that baprism is necessary for salvation and on the other, they say that it isn't, in certain situations.

Yes. But the cookie-analogy ususally refers to something dodgy, like someone trying to 'trick' the premises given (ah... I can't really explain this well but...)

I don't believe that the fact that the Church affirms that God is not bound by this sacrament, is the same thing as us trying to pull some stunt to gain as much cookie as we can. So to speak.

As a Baptist, I beileve we should partake in believer's baptism, in obedience to our Lord and Savior. However, I also believe that it is not the act of baptism that is salvific. It is belief and trust in Jesus Christ to forgive our sins.

Mark 16:16

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

​

I know this is somewhat nit-picky, but please note that it does not say "but he who does not believe and/or was not baptised will be condemned." It also does not say "he who is baptized will be saved". It just says "he who does not believe will be condemned." One can easily logically deduce that it is the act of "belief", not baptism that is salvific.

Baptism and confirmation is not the same thing.

This might be somewhat nit-picky but please note that the paragraphs I provided do not say that if you are not baptised you are condemned. Neither do they say that all who are baptised are saved; since you are saved by Grace. A person cannot say "Now, I'm saved, what I do with my life now doesn't matter, I'm still saved" A Christian can turn away from God.

/Hanna

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yes. But the cookie-analogy ususally refers to something dodgy, like someone trying to 'trick' the premises given (ah... I can't really explain this well but...)

I don't believe that the fact that the Church affirms that God is not bound by this sacrament, is the same thing as us trying to pull some stunt to gain as much cookie as we can. So to speak.

I wasn't implying trickery. If anything, I imply a bit of a wishy washy doctrine. the RCC states in their doctrinal beliefs that water baptism is neccessary for salvation, but on the other hand, make exceptions to that. (the "baptism of desire.") if they state as much, they never have to make a call in the matter. Why have the belief that baptism is neccessary for salvation in the first place, if there are "exceptions" that don't seem to be supported in anything outside of RCC catechism?

Baptism and confirmation is not the same thing.

Won't argue with you there. I have no opinion on confirmation.

This might be somewhat nit-picky but please note that the paragraphs I provided do not say that if you are not baptised you are condemned. Neither do they say that all who are baptised are saved; since you are saved by Grace. A person cannot say "Now, I'm saved, what I do with my life now doesn't matter, I'm still saved" A Christian can turn away from God.

/Hanna

#1257 says "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation, ergo, if you are not baptised, you are condemned. although I would agree that not all baptised are saved... you can playact through it if you wanted to badly enough.

BTW, as long as we are being nitpicky, it was cake, not cookies.

 

[hannabl]

I wasn't implying trickery. If anything, I imply a bit of a wishy washy doctrine. the RCC states in their doctrinal beliefs that water baptism is neccessary for salvation, but on the other hand, make exceptions to that. (the "baptism of desire.") if they state as much, they never have to make a call in the matter. Why have the belief that baptism is neccessary for salvation in the first place, if there are "exceptions" that don't seem to be supported in anything outside of RCC catechism?

Beacuse baptism is necessary
Can't come up with a good example, but perhaps... Someone is sick, penicilin is necessary for their getting better. If they don't get it, they die. So penicilin is necessary. But God is not bound by this, He can heal this person whenever he wants. Is it still wrong of the doctors to say that if you have this disease (can't come up with someone that is only cured by peniclin) getting the medicin is necessary?

Now that is not a perfect analogy, but still.

Won't argue with you there. I have no opinion on confirmation.

Okey.

#1257 says "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation, ergo, if you are not baptised, you are condemned. although I would agree that not all baptised are saved... you can playact through it if you wanted to badly enough.

Well, the exceptions provided in the paragraphs means that the lack of baptism does not automatically mean that you're condemned.

#BTW, as long as we are being nitpicky, it was cake, not cookies.

Oh... Right. My bad If it's cake we're talking about we'll have to do this debate all over again. (Remind me again, cake is the soft thing, cookies are hard and crispy?)

/Hanna

 

[PaladinValer]

Baptism of Desire isn't an escape. It only is in effect if the person truly wanted to be Baptized but circumstance prevented it. In other words, they were literally going to get Baptized; it was scheduled, etc, but they died before it happened.

If just any person who claims Christianity dies before getting Baptized, then Baptism by Desire doesn't "kick in." You either want to be Baptized or not. Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who claim Christianity who unfortunately are in deep trouble because they refuse to be Baptized. I can only hope and pray they do something about that and soon.

 

[Natman]

Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who claim Christianity who unfortunately are in deep trouble because they refuse to be Baptized. I can only hope and pray they do something about that and soon.

I agree with you if they "refuse" to get baptized. However, there are some people that accept Christ that may or may not be aware of His instruction to be baptized, and are killed before they either become aware or have the opportunity.

Some churches won't even consider baptizing someone until they are certain they understand what they are professing to believe in.