How to Get Baptized if You Don't Belong to a Church?

ViaCrucis said:

Magic? Of course not. The Sacraments aren't magic. But they are Means of Grace, and Scripture pretty explicitly attaches certain promises to them. In the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter speaks of Baptism as promising forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), in Romans ch. 6 St. Paul speaks of our Baptism as our having been crucified and buried with Christ, in Galatians 3:27 St. Paul says that whoever has been Baptized is clothed with Christ, and again says that we were buried with Christ in Baptism in Colossians 2:12; and if that weren't enough St. Peter in 1 Peter 3:21 says explicitly that "Baptism now saves you". So of course Baptism has a salvific dimension, because God works through Baptism to unite us to Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, to give us the Holy Spirit, convey to us the forgiveness of sins, and so on. In John 3:5 Jesus says that the new birth consists of being born "of water and the Spirit" and St. Paul in Titus 3:5 speaks of our having received the "washing of regeneration", in Ephesians 5:26 saying that Christ has cleansed us with "the washing of water with the word".

The only way to avoid dealing with the rather straight forward statements about Baptism is by radically redefining Baptism as something other than Baptism or playing loosey goosey with the Scriptures to twist and turn them over until they mean whatever we want them to mean. But from Scripture all the way to the present there has been a consistent Christian teaching about the meaning and significance of Baptism that is impossible to deny.



If you have evidence to back this statement up that would certainly be helpful.

But, of course, in the time of Christ that wasn't what baptism was for. In Judaism then, just as today, ritual washing was part of the religious practice, and in general it served the purpose of ritual purification. But one of the purposes of ritual washing (then, just as now) was as part of the process of conversion. A Gentile who desired to convert to Judaism not only needed to be circumcised (if they were male) but undergo a ritual washing (tevilah) in a ritual bath (mikveh). As such the mikveh served as a means of entry into God's household, going from Gentile outsider to Jewish insider.

John had a distinct and special prophetic ministry, one that involved calling the Jewish people to repentance, it was part of his prophetic role as the forerunner to the Messiah. And so he was calling people to repentance to prepare them for the Messiah's coming. Which is precisely why after Jesus "fulfills all righteousness" by Himself receiving a baptism from John (though He had no need of repentance) it brought conclusion to John's role, and so John would say "He must increase and I must decrease".

Christian Baptism comes out of that context: And thus Baptism is given as the means by which we enter into God's household of faith, the Church; and with it is attached certain promises. It is not some sort of ritual purification by which to cleanse the body of dirt, but a ἐπερώτημα (pledge, craving, desire, appeal, demand, inquiry) of a clean conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21). This Baptism is by the name and authority of Jesus who institutes it, in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so since by it we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death, buried with Him, and raised with Him to new life; and there is forgiveness of sin because what is given to us is nothing other than Christ's death and resurrection--He who died for our sins and by Whom all sin is indeed forgiven.

Not magic, but a Sacrament.



That's not what Paul said. Paul was fed up with the factions in the Corinthian church, as they were saying things like "I am of Paul" and "I am of Peter" and "I am of Apollos" and "I am of Christ". They were taking sides based on who baptized them, and so Paul is grateful that he didn't baptize very many in the Corinthian church because he found the whole dividing up into cliques was repugnant, saying "Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?". Paul wasn't interested in personally baptizing because of this very reason, so he says "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel". That's what Paul says. Not that the Corinthians were "too focused on baptism", because Paul does not just condemn those saying "I am of Paul" or "I am of Peter", but also "I am of Christ"--this cliquishness was repugnant. For they were baptized into Christ, for Christ was crucified for them, and therefore Christ is not divided, so the Apostle will say later: "What is Apollos, really? Or what is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, and each of us in the ministry the Lord gave us. I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused it to grow. So neither the one who plants counts for anything, nor the one who waters, but God who causes the growth."

I don't understand why this is so difficult--the Scripture isn't exactly vague here. The text says what it says rather plainly. Why make something up instead of just looking at what the text says? Scripture isn't always plain, sometimes it is vague, sometimes it is very hard to understand--but sometimes it's pretty straightforward. The text says what it means and means what it says.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Also as I see that you are a person who greatly reverences Mother Mary I have to ask why then do you not obey her one and only recorded command in the Bible? It is found in John 2:5 in case you were wondering.

Though she was telling the servants at the wedding feast to follow Jesus’ instructions, her words are still just as relevant today. “WHATEVER JESUS TELLS YOU, DO IT !”

I believe the Roman Catholic system today is like an enormous passenger train which is coming to a ravine where the bridge is out and the brakes are failing... when it comes to doing whatever Jesus says that is.

Up until the year 312 AD, the Romans were trying to wipe out the new Christian sects. Tossing Christians to the lions, burning them alive, boiling them in oil, and any other diabolical idea the devil could invent to try and shake believers from their faith. But for every one Christian, who was martyred, ten new believers would arise. The devil decided if you can’t beat them join them. He’d try and derail their faith from within.

In the year 312 AD a pagan Roman Emperor, named Constintine, had a vision of a cross and saw the words, “under this sign conquer.” He went out to do battle and won a great victory that day. In honor of that victory he declared Christianity to be the new national religion. He then marched his entire armies into rivers to perform massive baptisms. A decree went forth. All were ordered to accept Christianity or die and the Roman Catholic system was born. However, getting baptized, without having a regenerated heart does nothing but turn a dry sinner into a wet one. Many new heresies began to be introduced into the church and over time changed the very truth that Jesus died for into a lie. Today we have this massive machine called Catholicism speeding down the tracks and out of control. Here are some of the most troublesome problems, with the Catholic church, which will ultimately bring her unwary passengers to a fiery demise at the bottom of that ravine.

Error- Church tradition is equal to the scripture of God. Any good Catholic priest will tell you that the Bible com- mands us to keep the traditions of the church.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 1 Cor 11:2-3 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 2 Thess 3:6 ...withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Truth- Notice that the traditions the apostle Paul says we are to keep are clearly the traditions set forth by himself and the other first apostles. If a new church traditions is introduced, that is in direct opposition of already well established doctrines, should we just blindlyfollow them without any question? I say not! Paul said, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8-9. Traditions were not even declared to be equal to scripture until 1545 AD at the Council of Trent.

Error- The title of POPE was passed on from the apostle Peter. The Infallibility of the Pope in matters or faith. The tradition of Confessing sins to a priest

Truth- The title of the Pope was not established until 607 AD. The Infallibility of the Pope was not established until 1870 AD. Confessing sins to a priest was not established until 1215 AD. The practice of making a parishioner have to go through a priest or a Pope makes Catholicism become cultic in nature. In other words, "You have to go through us to get to God." Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6. Paul said, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus," 1 Tim 2:5. The Catholic church claims that Peter was the head of the New Testament church, or the first Pope, yet the book of Acts makes it clear that James was the head. In Matthew chapter 16:18, Jesus is just saying that the foundation of the church will be built upon Peters statement, not upon Peter, as the Catholic church claims. Jesus said, "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to becalled by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ." Matt 23:6-10 It is obvious that Jesus did not want us setting up any one on earth to be our spiritual Fathers. Jesus said in verse five that these "Fathers" love to dress differently and do outward works to be seen of men.

Error- Purgatory is a place were loved ones go to be sanctified. People on earth can effect their loved ones eternal destiny by doing prayers and penance's on their behalf.

Truth- The doctrine of Purgatory was not established until 593 AD by Gregory the I, and was not proclaimed as dogma until 1439 AD. The Bible says, "It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment," Heb 9:27. The clear teaching is we are judged immediately after we die. The Bible does not teach the purgatory doctrine. In 1 Cor. 15:29 Paul is addressing the fact that some were denying the resurrection but were getting baptized for ones who had died. He was not condoning being baptized for a dead person. He's just asking the question, "why do it, if they do not rise again?"

Error- Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. The idea is that in order for Jesus to be born sinless, that Mary had to be born sinless.

Truth- The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary doctrine was not established until 1854 AD. Mary was not proclaimed, Mother of the Church until 1965 AD. The Bible says there are none righteous, no not one! Romans 3:10. The whole purpose for Jesus dying on the cross was because the sinful needed someone sinless to die on our behalf. He was the only spotless lamb of God. The Catholic church try's to use Mary's statement in Luke 1:47, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior," to mean that God saved her apart from Jesus' death on the cross. But look at it in context. Mary is rejoicing over the news that God has chosen her to bring the Messiah or Savior into the world. You can't build a whole new plan of salvation for Mary, that defies the very gospel of Christ, out of Mary's statement. She is just rejoicing that the long awaited Messiah has come. Her redeemer and Savior. If anything, her statement shows that she was not sinless and needed a Savior.

Some Catholics deny that the church worships Mary but official church doctrine still in practice today is that there is no salvation apart from Mary. A certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" Luke 11:27-28

Error- The Mass is obligatory for salvation. The adoration of the wafer or (Host), because it literally becomes Jesus flesh. The Catholic church will use the passage of John 6:51-56 to say that Jesus makes it clear that we have to literally eat His body and drink His blood to be saved. This is the biggest blasphemy of all!

Truth- The Mass was not made obligatory for salvation until the 11th century. Adoration of the wafer was not established until 1220 AD. Jesus said in verse 63, of John 6, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." He makes it certain that He was affirming a spiritual concept. So long as we continue to exercise faith in His one sacrifice we will have eternal life. Nowhere did the early apostles teach that we have to take part in communion continuously in order to be saved. The Catholic church says that the wafer literally becomes the physical re-sacrifice of Christ's broken body. The bread, after being blessed, literally is the flesh of Christ. This spits in the face of our Savior when he said on the cross, "It is finished," and calls Him a liar. Heb 10:10-12 says, "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." And says, "every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." Jesus does not need to be re-sacrificed over and over. This passage is clear, He did it once, for all! Jesus said, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." Luke 22:19.

He made the communion the way in which we look back and remember His broken body and shed blood. To make it a work that we perform for salvation contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9 where Paul said, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

BradB said:

First, at least 60 times the New Testament speaks of salvation by faith alone without mentioning baptism. If baptism is in fact necessary for salvation, why is there this emphasis on faith for salvation but not on baptism in Scripture?

Click to expand...

Would you therefore also argue that where Scripture mentions Baptism without mentioning faith, that faith is not necessary for salvation? Of course not. But more importantly:

1) Baptism is not in addition to faith. Salvation is not "faith plus Baptism" or "X plus Y" of any sort. Salvation is God's work alone, by His grace, accomplished completely and perfectly in Christ's all-sufficient work, His perfect life, His death on the cross, and His glorious resurrection.

2) Faith is not something we do in order to earn salvation, faith is not a human work or a human effort; faith is a gift that comes from outside of ourselves and apart from ourselves (Ephesians 2:8) which God Himself creates in us and gives us through the word (Romans 10:17). Which is why the Gospel is the power of God to save all who believe (Romans 1:16), and it is on this account that the justice of God is revealed in the Gospel, the justice by which God freely justifies us by His grace, through faith (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:24, Romans 5:1-2); this Christ has done objectively for the whole world (Romans 5:19). But that this does not remain hidden, God has caused His word to go forth, that by the preaching of the Gospel God would affect faith in us, again Romans 10:17. So that wherever the Word is, God works to create faith, and reconcile sinners, by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

3) So that we can know, therefore, that God has given Means by which He works in His grace toward us, so that wherever God has attached His Word and promises we can be confident in God's grace and mercy which is ours in Christ, by God's promise. Therefore we can have confidence that by the preaching of the Gospel there is faith and salvation, and that here in the water of Baptism there is faith and salvation, as St. Paul says that Christ cleansed us by the washing of water by the word (Ephesians 5:26). So there is here, in Baptism, not mere water, but water connected to and with God's word, the word by which there is faith. So that whoever is baptized can have confidence, not in himself, not in mere water, not in any word of man--but in the word of God: That Christ is his Savior, who gave Himself freely, and that by the kindness of God, apart from ourselves, we belong to God, are children of God, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus. Our sins are forgiven, and we have eternal life.

Second, the phrase "for the remission of sins," used by Peter in Acts 2:38, is also used to describe John the Baptist's baptism (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4), but no one supposes that his baptism literally washed away people's sins (why would they need to later be rebaptized? Acts 19:1-6). The word "for" in the Greek (eis) need only mean "with a view toward," for we know that the Jews baptized people "for" such things as "freedom," "God's justice," etc.

Click to expand...

1) Repentance is still the key word here for John's baptism, a baptism of "repentance for the forgiveness of sins". John's baptism was a baptism of repentance.

2) Sounds a bit like a creative use of the word eis; "toward" is one of the meanings, but it is a positional word, not "with a view toward", but yes "toward" or "for" or "into"; with the sense of entrance into. Baptism brings us into forgiveness. Not because Baptism is magic, but because Baptism contains God's promise, which unites and connects us to Jesus Christ and what He has done. The forgiveness here is not some forgiveness apart from Christ's work, it is the forgiveness of Christ's work. What was accomplished objectively for all is given to us as individuals here. Because here is where God's grace meets matter, and thus faith is given, justification is received; not by our work, not by our effort, but by God's own work to accomplish this by His grace and His grace alone.

In 1st Corinthians 1:11-13 Paul even gives us evidence that the early church themselves we're baptizing in the names of various leaders.

Click to expand...

Paul does not even come close to saying that or giving evidence for that. There is nothing here that says anyone was being baptized in the name of Paul, Peter, Apollos, or any other apostle or church leader. It says this:

"I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)

Paul's question of "Were you baptized in the name of Paul" is rhetorical--of course they weren't, nobody was, and that's the point. Nobody was baptized in Paul's name, or Peter's name, or Apollos' name.

Starting with verse 14 Paul shows us just how important he thinks baptism really is. He says "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;" In verse 17 he says "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." A very interesting thing for Paul to say if baptism is essential to our Salvation.

Click to expand...

But you are ignoring why Paul is saying this. He isn't saying this because he thinks baptism isn't important; he's saying that he's thankful he didn't personally baptize more than a handful of people at Corinth, because the Corinthians in their forming factions and cliques around the apostles is a problem--Paul is thankful that he only baptized a few, so there aren't more claiming him as their faction. As though that by Paul baptizing them they were baptized into Paul--because they weren't.

-CryptoLutheran

BradB said:

Also as I see that you are a person who greatly reverences Mother Mary

Click to expand...

Either you think I'm a huge Beatles fan, or you seem to have gotten it in your head that I'm Roman Catholic. And while I do like some Beatles songs, I'm definitely not Roman Catholic.

That said, having skimmed your post here it's clear to me that you should spend more time reading the history of the Christian Church.

Let's consider the big issue I came across:

In the year 312 AD a pagan Roman Emperor, named Constintine, had a vision of a cross and saw the words, “under this sign conquer.” He went out to do battle and won a great victory that day. In honor of that victory he declared Christianity to be the new national religion. He then marched his entire armies into rivers to perform massive baptisms. A decree went forth. All were ordered to accept Christianity or die and the Roman Catholic system was born.

Click to expand...

It is true that early legends, and embellished reports from Eusebius say that Constantine beheld a sign just prior to his battle against Maxentius on the Milvian Bridge, it's not clear what this sign was. Some versions say it was a cross, others that it was the Chi-Rho Christogram. At any rate, Constantine won the battle and succeeded in becoming the emperor of the Western half of the Roman Empire, and he does seem to have attributed this victory to the God of the Christians. As a result Constantine pushed for official toleration, and so Constantine convinced his co-emperor in the East, Licinius, to join him in issuing the Edict of Toleration in 313. This edict did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and it did not decree that everyone was to accept Christianity or die. The edict decreed that Christians were no longer to be put to death, have their houses of worship destroyed, their books confiscated and burned, or imprisoned for their faith. It made Christianity legal to practice. This edict came at the end of an incredibly brutal and horrific campaign of persecution against Christians that began under the emperors Diocletian and Galerius; the Diocletian Persecution is regarded as the worst, the most brutal period of persecution against Christians in antiquity. Unlike previous persecutions, such as those under Decius, in which Christians were often not the chief target, the Diocletian Persecution specifically and explicitly targeted Christians.

Constantine's politics ended the persecutions in the Roman Empire, and in the following years Constantine became a major patron of Christianity, sponsoring building projects to erect Christian churches. After defeating Licinius Constantine became the sole emperor of the Roman Empire, and to help secure his power he moved the capital from Rome to Byzantium, renamed Constantinople. This also included perhaps the largest and most ambitious project of church building in Constantine's career, as fifty churches were erected in Constantinople, and Constantine ordered fifty copies of Scripture be produced for those churches.

It is not altogether clear to what end Constantine was himself a Christian. He was responsible for requesting the bishops to gather at the city of Nicea to discuss the Arian controversy, and while he felt the decision at Nicea--at first at least--should have settled the matter, some of those closest to Constantine were Arians and influenced Constantine to depose Athanasius from his diocese in Alexandria and instate Arius. At the end of Constantine's life he finally requested to be baptized as a Christian on his death bed, and this was done by his close friend Eusebius of Nicomedia (not Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote the Church History and Life of Constantine), himself one of the Arian influences on Constantine.

With Constantine's death his sons inherited the reins of power, and while one of the sons was a supporter of Nicea, it was Constantinius, a devout Arian, who gained the power and influence. The Constantinan dynasty would continue to largely support the Arian cause for most of the 4th century. Until Julian, while Julian had been raised Arian, he rejected Christianity completely as an adult and sought to revive Paganism. Julian's efforts ultimately didn't go anywhere, however, because he died of sudden natural causes. With Julian's death the line of Constantine died, and then Jovian, a Roman military leader and a devout Christian was chosen to become the new emperor. But it wasn't until Theodosius became emperor that he would put forward the Edict of Thessalonika, and it was this edict which declared that Nicene Christianity would be the official religion of the Roman Empire. By this time, however, Christians were already the majority of the populace, Paganism had already been dwindling for decades.

And, no, neither Constantine nor Theodosius gave rise to "the Roman Catholic system" as you call it. Christianity before Constantine and Christianity after Theodosius doesn't look different. Nothing new was introduced to Christian teaching or practice in the 4th century. What did happen was that Christians gained political power, and--if you ask me--that was a bad thing. But that is itself a wholly separate conversation.

As far as "Roman Catholicism" as a distinct ecclesiastical entity--that question is both controversial and complicated. Controversial because Catholics and non-Catholics obviously have very different views, and complicated because more than a thousand years of history is always going to be incredibly complicated. But to extremely oversimplify things, there was no "Roman Catholic Church" until the Great Schism in 1054 AD. Prior to this the Eastern and Western Churches were united. And I say united, but that is ignoring the Assyrian Church which has not been in communion with the rest of Christianity since the Council of Ephesus (more-or-less), and the non-Chalcedonian Churches (the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Syriac Churches) who have not been in communion since the Council of Chalcedon (more-or-less). However, excluding the Assyrian and non-Chalcedonian Churches, East and West were united and in communion until 1054 AD. And so there was no independent "Roman" Church until then, as such there's simply no way for "Roman Catholicism" as its own independent entity, to exist prior this time.

-CryptoLutheran

ArmenianJohn said:

Is it possible to become legitimately baptized without having to jump through hoops and/or join a Church?

The Biblical account of baptism seems simple to me - you ask to be baptized and a Christian baptizes you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. That's it. "Here is water, why can't I be baptized?"

It seems you have to jump through some kinds of hoops to be baptized today. Either you must join the church which is baptizing you or you at least must be interviewed and vetted or perhaps go through a period of probation of some sort. I don't see anything in the Bible about vetting and probation and Church membership.

So, why can't someone just become baptized without the extra added stuff?

Click to expand...

It's impossible to please him without faith.
1St. Corinth chapter 15 verses 1-4 is the
Gospel of salvation, those whom trust
In the finished work of Jesus Christ are sealed with holy spirit of promise.
Faith without works is how we are
Saved.

ViaCrucis said:

Would you therefore also argue that where Scripture mentions Baptism without mentioning faith, that faith is not necessary for salvation? Of course not.

Click to expand...

Look friend, last thing I want this thing to turn into is a debate where you postulate a position against me and I you and we just keep batting the ball back and forth. I love you with the love of Christ and I want God's best for you. I also want this to be a situation were two minds are reasoning the scriptures together and we both walk away blessed by it. Your correct, of course I wouldn't, but mainly because I am not aware of any scriptures that allude to salvation through baptism having happened where faith was not mentioned. Are you? But besides that, even if there were, scriptures still must harmonize with each other. Meaning whenever we find two texts that seem to say opposite things we must look deeply into the context of each. We can tell what the author meant on the subject by looking at other statements made by that same author. For example you mentioned faith is a "gift that comes from outside of ourselves." And then you quoted my favorite passage Romans 10:17 where faith comes by hearing the word of God. Obviously the word of God does not come from us...it comes from God...so in that sense yes you are 100% correct. But I don't think Paul expected us just to grab that one verse and make it a proof text that every attribute of faith is completely and utterly out of human control and totally given by God at His own providence. In context if we back up to verse 9 Paul said that if you will profess Jesus as Lord of your life and believe the message of His resurrection you shall be saved. It is much more than just hearing the audible sound of the gospel being verbalized and then God picking and choosing who He will give faith to. Let's be clear here, we are not talking about works. It sounds like we both agree that our works play no part in our salvation. However suppose someone hands me a present on my birthday I obviously did not have to work for the gift, or pay them back or give them anything in return. But it is just naturally assumed and expected that I will send brain impulse signals to my hand that will cause it to stretch out and open up so they can give me the gift. We can't be so narrow minded that we become ridiculous. I don't have to earn God's salvation but He does expect me to physically take it. Romans 10:8 also says that salvation is so close it is right on the tip of our tongues. All you have to do is profess the Lordship of Christ and believe the message of the resurrection. Then on down starting with verse 14 Paul is making the argument to Christians that how are they ever going to make that profession if they never get the opportunity to hear the message and how will they have that opportunity unless someone is sent to preach it to them. That's why I hate the way modern methods of reaching the lost has turned into just having big church revivals or worse social clubs where they try and entice the sinners in to hear the message. But we the congregation are supposed to be carrying this message out into our cities and towns, not praying for sinners to go to church. Anyhow Paul caps his comments with verse 17 "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." He is not saying faith is supernaturally imparted into a select few of God's choosing who hear the word of God.

If we had no part in the exercising of faith then why throughout the gospels did Jesus commend people with great faith and rebuke people with little faith? That would be pretty mean spirited if our faith was all a gift of God. The truth agrees with Paul's comments. We build faith within ourselves by hearing, meditating on, and digesting God's word into our spirits. Why can some people have faith to be healed of God and others don't seem to? Partly because they have "little faith." Hebrews 11:6 tells us it is impossible to please God apart from faith. So again, if it is purely a gift given by God that we have no part in, then that is an awful thing for God to say. That would be like me yelling at my son for going outside without shoes on but I am the only place where he can go to get shoes. However if I have provided shoes for him and know they are in his bedroom closet, then I would be justified for saying I am displeased by him not wearing them. The rest of that verse says that whoever comes to God must first believe He exists and then believe that He will reward anyone who diligently seeks Him. Again we must digest the message in our spirit and believe it (move our hand out to receive the gift) in order to have saving faith.

To avoid feeling like a debate I will just say go back and re-read 1Cor. 1 again in context please. My apologies about the mistaking your being Roman Catholic. Please forgive me.

Unless there is an emergency, it's not normative and it's irregular to be baptized outside of a Christian community. The Reformed churches definitely won't do this, and Lutherans now days are reluctant to do so as well.

Hank77 said:

Here is an early history of pioneer Christians in Iowa. Note that they often wouldn't see a pastor or get together for a month or more and that was only if they traveled many miles to the meeting. I read that and pictured what it was like for pioneers to more distant and difficult places to reach such as the Rocky Mountains.
I suspect that there were Christians baptizing each other and their children. They were very likely also officiating marriages between their children and their neighbor's children.
GOING TO CHURCH WITH THE PIONEERS

I have no reason to believe that God didn't accept these baptisms or marriages.

Click to expand...

Laypeople can administer baptisms in extraordinary circumstances, and marriage in a church is not actually required in Protestant theology for the marriage to be valid. But that's far different from intentionally cutting oneself off from a Christian community, or rejecting that community altogether.

FireDragon76 said:

Laypeople can administer baptisms in extraordinary circumstances, and marriage in a church is not actually required in Protestant theology for the marriage to be valid. But that's far different from intentionally cutting oneself off from a Christian community, or rejecting that community altogether.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that a baptism by a lay person is valid in some cases but not in others?

Hank77 said:

Are you saying that a baptism by a lay person is valid in some cases but not in others?

Click to expand...

No, it's valid, but irregular. If the baptism cannot be documented (usually by registering it at a local church), it may not be accepted as valid and might require a conditional baptism or chrismation later if there is doubt to its validity.

It's always better to document a baptism, than to leave it undocumented.

ArmenianJohn said:

Is it possible to become legitimately baptized without having to jump through hoops and/or join a Church?

Click to expand...

I did, but I got lucky. Actually God set it up. I was born again but that happened outside of a church environment. I was a student and working as a gas station clerk and knew a pastor who was a regular who used to fill up the church van. I just asked him point blank to baptize me since I was about to move away. He asked about 3 qualifying questions and agreed. He was a baptist and had his sons witness the baptism. The friend who preached to me was also present. Very private, no videotaped and published testimony or anything like you see at some churches. He did give me a certificate, if that matters.

TuxAme said:

Christianity isn't a solo operation- you don't get baptized and go out on your own. Christianity is about community, and you are mandated to commune with other believers on the Lord's day. If a church doesn't desire to baptize someone who has no intentions of joining their community or joining in any congregation, it's probably for your own good. They know what baptism is, and when someone asks to be baptized but isn't willing to do everything that baptism requires of them, they would feel obligated to withhold it.

Click to expand...

John the baptist was well known for living on his own in the wilderness.

drjean said:

I'm still mulling over the word "magic". Jesus was baptized.

I can't count the number of times I have been baptized.
Spent 26 years in active ministries.
Each church I ended up at had to baptize me again to prove to the congregation I was a believer.

Click to expand...

Isnt it one faith and one Lord?

I read the first post on this thread and I wondered how long it would take for someone to regurgitate the same old Catholic lies out of the anti Catholic playbook. 2 pages!!

Phoebe Ann said:

I was baptized after leaving Mormonism without joining a church. I lived in another state.

Click to expand...

Have you since joined a Church? I ask for a serious reason.