Baptism being necessary for salvation...

[Pard]

I'm more with Road on this one. I think the whole thing comes down to perspective.

We can all admit God is beyond the reach of time, yes? So for Him all things are happening at once. He sees the past and the present and the future at the same time. So why is it that He cannot know who makes it into Heaven? And if He does, that's something akin to predestination, isn't it, as God knows where we will end up. Our free will has led us to our end, be it salvation or damnation, and God simply reflects that upon us.

 

[francisdesales]

Good, I'm safe... And by RCC standards I'm double safe cause I got baptized twice! (Baby and adult)

We only look at one baptism as valid. The 'other' one is not considered a sacrament of Baptism by the Catholic Church. The Spirit of God gives birth to us from above - it is not dependent upon our "redoing the infant washing" again...

So, what if you were raised in one of this cults that twists scripture and doesn't allow their members to read the Word for their own purposes. (Say like that Westboro joint).

I hope you understand that I am not the official "scenario determiner"!!!

Based upon my OPINION, I would say, knowing nothing else about this person, that he/she is subject to "invincible ignorance" and may not be rejecting the condition of being baptised. But again, I don't make the rules, I follow them...

This really has nothing to do with baptisms, it's a question on your view, and will help me figure out my own. I'm inclined to say "OF course God will still welcome you, but the leader may get the boot"

That would seem to make the most sense. When the Church found heresy, she generally attached the strict punishment of excommunication to the leaders of the cult, say, Calvin... They should know better. The "rank and file" could be excused based upon ignorance of true teachings, merely being guilty of having "itchy ears"... But again, we must reserve that judgment to God, in the end.

Regards

 

[RoadDebris]

odd for a calvinist not to believe in limited free will.thats at first.

Man has a will, it's just not free. He always chooses the most appealing option, given the limited choices in front of him. I came to understand this when R.C. Sproul explained it with this illustration.

A man is trapped in a burning high-rise. When the flames reach his room and he begins to burn what does he do? He chooses jump through the window, falling to his death. Did he want to die by jumping out a window? No, but given the choice between fire and any other course of action he chose the most appealing option available: moving away from the fire to spare himself, even if only for a few seconds, the searing pain of being roasted alive.

So our choices are always limited (i.e. we can't choose to jump tall buildings in a single bound) and we always choose the option that is most appealing from the limited options we have. Additionally, because of the fall, the thing the natural (i.e. unsaved) man is inclined to is to glorify himself. What happens at salvation is that God changes our nature so that we are no longer tilted toward self-glorification but toward glorifying God. And that is why when Arminians ask, "If Calvin was right then why should we read the Bible or preach the word?" I answer, "Because we want to, by the grace of God."

 

[jasoncran]

Man has a will, it's just not free. He always chooses the most appealing option, given the limited choices in front of him. I came to understand this when R.C. Sproul explained it with this illustration.

A man is trapped in a burning high-rise. When the flames reach his room and he begins to burn what does he do? He chooses jump through the window, falling to his death. Did he want to die by jumping out a window? No, but given the choice between fire and any other course of action he chose the most appealing option available: moving away from the fire to spare himself, even if only for a few seconds, the searing pain of being roasted alive.

So our choices are always limited (i.e. we can't choose to jump tall buildings in a single bound) and we always choose the option that is most appealing from the limited options we have. Additionally, because of the fall, the thing the natural (i.e. unsaved) man is inclined to is to glorify himself. What happens at salvation is that God changes our nature so that we are no longer tilted toward self-glorification but toward glorifying God. And that is why when Arminians ask, "If Calvin was right then why should we read the Bible or preach the word?" I answer, "Because we want to, by the grace of God."

ok, i see that idea, and i was wondering if you respond to that that way.the problem i have with that is. laws dont limit our actions , its wrong to murder. but that doesnt stop me from killing you.it provide legal action to punish me,but i'm still able to do the act. does God hinder acts of sin on the earth?seldom does he.you missunderstand armenism .

besides if god allowed freewill as you say, what about those that come to christ and ultilametely walk away later? ie the doctrine of eternal security.

 

[RoadDebris]

ok, i see that idea, and i was wondering if you respond to that that way.the problem i have with that is. laws dont limit our actions , its wrong to murder. but that doesnt stop me from killing you.it provide legal action to punish me,but i'm still able to do the act. does God hinder acts of sin on the earth?seldom does he.you missunderstand armenism .

besides if god allowed freewill as you say, what about those that come to christ and ultilametely walk away later? ie the doctrine of eternal security.

You're right, laws don't change our basic will and don't necessarily control our actions.

Does God ever hinder sin? Sure. There are biblical examples of this (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah).

As to understanding Arminianism, I'm no theologian but I think I understand the basics.

 

[jasoncran]

You're right, laws don't change our basic will and don't necessarily control our actions.

Does God ever hinder sin? Sure. There are biblical examples of this (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah).

As to understanding Arminianism, I'm no theologian but I think I understand the basics.

i said its rare.compared to even the examples of know interventions

ie sodom and gommorah
balaam the son peor
and to a degree the throwing these men shadrach,meshach, abenigo in the furnace.
but more often then not he lets men do evil.

 

[RoadDebris]

i said its rare.compared to even the examples of know interventions

ie sodom and gommorah
balaam the son peor
and to a degree the throwing these men shadrach,meshach, abenigo in the furnace.
but more often then not he lets men do evil.

Yes miracles appear to be rare, except for the miracle of spiritual rebirth.

 

[jasoncran]

Yes miracles appear to be rare, except for the miracle of spiritual rebirth.

amen. lol you assume that i hate the military. get to know a soldier and ask them why they are lifer(me)or not and then you will see why i say what i say at times.
i dont regret my service at all, just stating what the military is and why i dont want big govt.the army has much to do with that.

 

[hisbeloved]

It means if a person believes in Christ he will have eternal life, just like the text says.

If taken in isolation, it could possibly mean (like Protestants want it to mean) that all one has to do is "accept Jesus" and you'll go directly to Heaven upon death, however, that's not all the Bible has to say about the subject of salvation.

I have never understood how, within Protestantism, the word "believe" came to mean "ONLY accept Jesus" . It wasn't that way at the beginning of the movement. Taking into consideration ALL Scripture has to say on the subject, Jesus must mean that baptism, keeping the commandments (Mt. 19:17), sacrifice (1 Tm. 2:15), etc. are incorporated WITHIN belief, and are necessary. We can't just pick out the verses that reinforce our tradition, we must look at ALL Scripture says on the subject and go from there.

OK. your turn. How do you interpret 1 Pt. 3:21? Waiting with baited breath for your reply.

This is true, to believe means more that just believing that Jesus existed, the meaning in the original greek meant to rely on, trusts in ,and adhere to, which means, do what he has commanded, (be baptized for the remission of sins) is this a suggestion? so the scriptures that refer to believing, incompass the scriptures that refer to baptism. praise the lord btw;)

 

[RoadDebris]

For the record, it's irrational to be contradictory. RCC doctrine claims the sacraments are necessary for salvation and then turns right around and gives exceptions to the rule. Something can't be necessary and not necessary at the same time in the same sense. That's a violation of the Law of Contradiction. Ideologies which do this prove themselves to be false.

 

[RoadDebris]

amen. lol you assume that i hate the military. get to know a soldier and ask them why they are lifer(me)or not and then you will see why i say what i say at times.
i dont regret my service at all, just stating what the military is and why i dont want big govt.the army has much to do with that.

I don't think that, but I'm not sure what your view of the military has to do with this conversation.

 

[francisdesales]

For the record, it's irrational to be contradictory. RCC doctrine claims the sacraments are necessary for salvation and then turns right around and gives exceptions to the rule. Something can't be necessary and not necessary at the same time in the same sense. That's a violation of the Law of Contradiction. Ideologies which do this prove themselves to be false.

There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the nuances that are necessary because of the Scriptures and Tradition of experience. The sacrament is ORDINARILY necessary for salvation, and this is defined. People who have the sacrament available to them must be baptized to be saved. Thus, in that sense, it is necessary.

However, as Augustine details vs the Donatists, God is not BOUND by the sacraments. The Spirit of God blows where HE wills, not where the Church says. And with the discovery of the New World (Western Hemisphere), it became obvious that God's plan of salvation was NOT bound by the sacrament and that, as even Paul wrote, some pagans obey the Law written in their hearts and receive eternal life.

So in an ABSOLUTE sense, no, baptism is not "absolutely necessary", otherwise, the Church would be condemning millions who never had a chance to be baptized. But there is something called "baptism by desire", in which the Church states that if someone had known about baptism, that they would have followed through with it. Only God can know who these would be. There is also "baptism by blood", in where a martyr unbaptized but dies for the sake of Christ is also considered baptized 'through blood shed'.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

For the record, it's irrational to be contradictory. RCC doctrine claims the sacraments are necessary for salvation and then turns right around and gives exceptions to the rule. Something can't be necessary and not necessary at the same time in the same sense. That's a violation of the Law of Contradiction. Ideologies which do this prove themselves to be false.

Contradictory...You mean like all doctrine must be contained within the pages of Scripture, except the doctrine of sola-scriptura? You mean like people who can hold the doctrine of sola-fide yet ignore the plain words of Scripture that say the exact opposite? You mean like Calvinists who hold that the saved man cannot lose his salvation, but the Church that Christ founded and SENT HIS HOLY SPIRIT TO GUIDE can and did apostasize? If you want to discuss the latter example, go to the thread I posted to you a couple of days ago and defend your view on sovereignty. Talk about contradictory...

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

It seems to me that one's view on baptism is a direct reflection of one's view on the church. For those who believe that the Anointed One's Church is an institution that is currently existing in this world, then I find it difficult to ignore the necessity of baptism in order to be a part of that institution.

In scripture it seems fairly clear that baptism was the point where an individual was added to Jesus' called out community. And what baptism was was likened to OT circumcision which was a sign of the covenant. At baptism, individuals entered into a willfull covenant agreement with Jesus where they pledged their very lives in order to have a place in Jesus' Kingdom. Without baptism individuals would not lose the opportunity to be saved from the wages of sin, but they would forfeit any hope of a position at the Lord's Table in the kingdom.

What most Bible readers do not realize is that there is a difference in being saved (being gifted with age lasting life) and from being given an inheritance in Jesus' Kingdom. Baptism was a kingdom requirement whereas the requirement for age lasting life was not inclusive of a need for baptism and the committment to possible martyrdom. Salvation requires belief in the Lord Jesus and a love for God and mankind whereas kingdom inheritance required a much deeper committment.

Saved Scriptures:
Acts 16:30
Then he brought them outside and asked, ‘Lords; What must I do to get saved?’ 31 And they replied: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you and your household will be saved.’
Luke 10:25-37
A man who knew the Law very well stood up, and to test [Jesus], he asked, ‘Teacher, what must I do to inherit life in the age?’ And [Jesus] replied, ‘What is written in the Law… what have you read?’ So he answered, ‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart, life, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.’ And [Jesus] replied, ‘That’s the right answer. Keep on doing that and you’ll live.’

Kingdom Scriptures:
John 3:5-7
And Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth; Unless someone is born from water and [God’s] Breath, he can’t enter the Kingdom of God. 6 Because, things that have been born from flesh are fleshly, and things that have been born from the Breath (Spirit) are spiritual. 7 However, don’t be surprised because I told you that people have to be born again
Romans 5:17-6:5
Matt. 20:17-23
17 Then, starting on the road to JeruSalem, Jesus took the twelve disciples off privately and explained this to them: 18 ‘Look, we’re going up to JeruSalem where the Son of Man will be betrayed to the Chief Priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death. 19 Then they will hand him over to the ethnics, who will make fun of him, whip him, and impale him. But on the third day, he will be raised!’
20 Well, afterward, the mother of the sons of ZebediOu came to him with her sons, and she bowed low as if to request something. 21 So he asked her, ‘What do you want?’
And she said, ‘Give the word that my two sons will sit, one at your right hand and one on your left, in your Kingdom.’
22 But Jesus replied: ‘You don’t know what you’re asking… can you drink from the cup that I’m about to drink?’And they answered: ‘We can.’
23 So he said to them: ‘You will indeed drink my cup! But, sitting at my right hand and left hand isn’t mine to give… it belongs to those for whom my Father has prepared it.’

 

[RoadDebris]

There is no contradiction. You just don't understand the nuances that are necessary because of the Scriptures and Tradition of experience.

I understand what the word necessary means, as do all reasonably informed people. But for those who've been hoodwinked by Catholicism, here's the definition:

nec·es·sar·y - 1. Absolutely essential. See Synonyms at indispensable.

And here's the RCC Catechism claiming the sacraments are necessary for salvation:

Catholic Catechism, par. 1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.

But then the Catechism turns right around and contradicts itself by saying the sacraments are not necessary, that they can be dispensed with, and further, that faith in Christ as the son of God is not even a requisite for salvation:

Catholic Catechism, par. 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'

So in spite of Francis' claim, there is no lack of understanding, except on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic hierarchy doesn't understand that the Law of Contradiction is inviolable or that it proves itself to be apostate with it's absurd doctrine.

The sacrament is ORDINARILY necessary for salvation, and this is defined.

"Ordinarily necessary" is an oxymoron. If something is not absolutely essential it is not necessary by definition. That Catholics are forced to argue for absurdity in defence of their religion says it all.

So in an ABSOLUTE sense, no, baptism is not "absolutely necessary"...

Orthodox (small o) Christians already know that, not because the self-defeating doctrine of Roman Catholicism says so, but because the Bible says so.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." - Eph. 2:8-9

 

[RoadDebris]

At dadof10, the proper name of the fallacy escapes me at the moment, but there are few arguments that are more lame than saying, "Your view is also irrational so that proves mine is valid."

It's also a straw man, since I'm not defending Calvinism or any "ism" in the first place. I'm defending orthodox (small o) Christianity.

 

[francisdesales]

I understand what the word necessary means, as do all reasonably informed people. But for those who've been hoodwinked by Catholicism, here's the definition:

nec·es·sar·y - 1. Absolutely essential. See Synonyms at indispensable.

Anyone familiar with the English language knows that there are more than one definition, one nuance of "necessary". It certainly doesn't mean "absolutely essential" and that's it...

If my wife says "It is necessary that I get some hair dye, who in their right mind would insinuate that "it is necessary that I breath air" as meaning the same thing?

So before you start trying to accuse people of 'lying', perhaps you should start with your own exaggerations. You know well that there are other meanings of the word. Furthermore, myself and Dad have conditioned "necessary" and defined the difference between "ordinarily" and "absolutely". The adjective clearly gives a different overall sense of the word "necessary".

The issue here is whether someone is REJECTING baptism. If available and they don't receive it, they reject Christ. If unaware, how can it be "absolutely necessary"? Is that your idea of a "just God"???

Regards

 

[RoadDebris]

Anyone familiar with the English language knows that there are more than one definition, one nuance of "necessary". It certainly doesn't mean "absolutely essential" and that's it...

And that's just the kind of delusional absurdity one must take for granted to buy into the doctrinal validity of of Catholicism. In Catholicism, necessary doesn't mean indispensable, it's actual definition notwithstanding.

If my wife says "It is necessary that I get some hair dye, who in their right mind would insinuate that "it is necessary that I breath air" as meaning the same thing?

First of all, don't drag your wife into it. C'mon.

That you can't discern the difference between hyperbole and an absolute statement says a lot about the religious views you hold (IMO).

So before you start trying to accuse people of 'lying', perhaps you should start with your own exaggerations.

In your world it may be an exaggeration to consider the word necessary to mean absolutely essential, but here on Planet Reality that's what it actually means.

You know well that there are other meanings of the word.

You know well that when you went to find a definition that fits your argument you couldn't find one. Here's the whole list:
necessary - definition of necessary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Notice how's there's no definition that says "sometimes needed?"

Furthermore, myself and Dad have conditioned "necessary" and defined the difference between "ordinarily" and "absolutely". The adjective clearly gives a different overall sense of the word "necessary".

When you "condition" the word you make it self-defeating, like a triangle that's defined as having only two sides.

The issue here is whether someone is REJECTING baptism. If available and they don't receive it, they reject Christ. If unaware, how can it be "absolutely necessary"? Is that your idea of a "just God"???

Hey, don't try to drag me into your irrational theology. I don't want God to be just. Whenever he's just he sends people to hell, since that is where we all deserve to be. I pray he's merciful, granting grace to those who don't merit it.

Again, whenever something is claimed to be necessary there is no exception, by definition. Simple logic.

 

[francisdesales]

And that's just the kind of delusional absurdity one must take for granted to buy into the doctrinal validity of of Catholicism. In Catholicism, necessary doesn't mean indispensable, it's actual definition notwithstanding.

So says you, who knows little about Catholicism...

Two things...

The Dictionary defines "necessary" in more than one way. If you have a problem with that, and my example was too difficult to understand, then there is nothing more to say. Others can judge your obstinance.

Second, the Catechism ITSELF makes it perfectly clear by conditioning "necessity" - and it certainly does not mean "absolute". I will copy the pertinent text of the Catechism, highlighting what has already been said, and hopefully, you'll get it. The concepts have already been discussed here...


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.


It is "necessary" for those who are aware of the Gospel. Thus, this rules out "absolute necessity" right away, since not everyone is/was aware of the Gospel during the time of their lives...



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.


The reader will note, Baptism BY WATER is not the only means of receiving the fruits of the Sacrament. The thread was about water baptism, but the Church understands that God is not bound by administering His Spirit only through water. Romans 2 notes this, for example.


1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
This Baptism by desire also covers those who would have received the sacrament if they had known of it. Only God can judge the hearts of people who were never subject to the formal teachings of the Gospel - and yet, displayed love in their actions - could be considered baptized by desire. Notice, the Church again recognizes that some are ignorant of the sacrament, but that certainly does prevent God from acting in some other manner to show forth the fruits of Baptism.

I thank you for the opportunity to explain the truths of the Catholic faith further. Although all of this has already been said before, the more we discuss it, the more people understand it.

Regards

 

[RoadDebris]

I thank you for the opportunity to explain the truths of the Catholic faith further. Although all of this has already been said before, the more we discuss it, the more people understand it.

The more your wilfully irrational theology is exposed the more opportunity people have to see it for what it is.

So says you, who knows little about Catholicism...

I'm no theologian, but I know an absurd argument when I hear it.

The Dictionary defines "necessary" in more than one way. If you have a problem with that, and my example was too difficult to understand, then there is nothing more to say. Others can judge your obstinance.

Yes you keep saying that, but you've yet to provide an objective definition for necessary that defines it as meaning "sometimes essential." The RCC definition is self-defeating, like a square defined as being round. And you're right, I'm obstinately opposed to illogical ideas and counterfeit religions.

Second, the Catechism ITSELF makes it perfectly clear by conditioning "necessity" - and it certainly does not mean "absolute". I will copy the pertinent text of the Catechism, highlighting what has already been said, and hopefully, you'll get it. The concepts have already been discussed here...

Yes, the Catechism makes a self-defeating argument, proving itself to be irrational and invalid.

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

False. Any requirement that is necessary is absolutely essential, by definition. The thief on the cross was not baptised. The assertion of the Catechism is proven to be antithetical to scripture.

This Baptism by desire also covers those who would have received the sacrament if they had known of it.

Actually, God, through Paul, tells us our desire is not the cause of our salvation:

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. Rom. 9:16