Do you haft to be baptized?

[Webb]

Francis, the phrase I did not understand was on post 217: "---baptism by blood and desire---".

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, the phrase I did not understand was on post 217: "---baptism by blood and desire---".

Oh, sorry I didn't explain that at all...

Baptism by blood comes from the Roman persecution time frame, when Europe was not Catholic to a large degree. The idea is that a catechumen (one who was interested in the faith and was beginning to learn more about Christianity, but was not baptized yet {people were not baptized upon a whim}) who gave their life for Christ - a martyr - were powerful witnesses to the work of the Spirit of God. Thus, the Church stated that such an act of love must be a "baptism" - redemption of sins and made into the image of Christ.

Baptism by desire is a logical assumption based upon the Church's idea of Who God is. God certainly would not condemn billions to eternal hell because they were unlucky enough to have been born in the Western Hemisphere before the Spaniards came, for example...

If a person moved by God's Spirit to love - but did not have access to the sacrament - could be said to have been baptized by desire. They WOULD HAVE been baptized if it was available to them. They were unaware of this sacrament, but God's Spirit powerfully moved them to be a witness of God where the sacrament was not available. Say, Mexico in 500 AD. Those who love are born of God.

It is a teaching of the Church that God is not bound by the sacraments. We believe that God can and does act to reach out to men and women who He has chosen and foreseen their response. Such are saved by Jesus Christ's High Priest "prayer" to the Father, even if that person was unaware of Jesus of Nazareth. Those who love are born of God.

I think Romans 2 gives a good example of how the non-Jew could be moved by the Spirit of God (and hadn't heard of the teachings of Christ) and were still saved based upon their response to the Spirit of God "writing a Law on their hearts".

I hope that helps. Please note, neither of the above gives an "out" for the stubborn who refuse to be baptized. They who reject the Apostles' teachings reject Christ, no matter what their bosom tells them...

Regards

 

[Webb]

Thanks for the explanation. If I had my thinking cap on I should have guessed. Again, thanks.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...you think that I believe that one MUST be baptized... WHEN have I said that? I have told you I don't, nor does the Church teach it. ... Did I not say "ordinarily"?

Then why are you arguing with my position that the Spirit and water are not inextricably connected? Sometimes God gives the Spirit apart from water baptism. What exactly is it that you do not agree with me in that statement?

1. Ordinarily, it is required to be baptized in water in the name of the Trinity. Didn't Jesus command this? Apparently, that means very little to you.

Let's measure that accusation against my post you dishonestly misquoted before:

Jethro Bodine: "And that is where the argument gets misrepresented IMO. Even if you do receive the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism, that does not now relieve you of the command to be water baptized. It simply means you did not receive the Spirit at your water baptism. Some (very few in my experience) do receive the Spirit at water baptism, some do not. I just happen to be one that did not. But that certainly didn't mean I could skip my water baptism. It does have value in cementing one's decision, or pledge, to follow Christ in the obediences of faith."

It's impossible, even dishonest to get that water baptism means very little to me out of what I said above.

If we are aware of it and are able to do so, we are to be baptized. But God is not bound by the sacraments. People in Peru in 1200 AD COULD be saved, if it was God's will, without the sacrament! Who is condemning billions to eternal damnation because they never heard of Christianity? Not me.

So you agree that you have to know why someone is not getting baptized to know if they are condemned for not obeying the command to get baptized.

2. Emotions do not prove
Emotions of joy are not always linked to God's Spirit. Is that not clear enough???

When is it going to be clear to you that I did not say joy is 'always' linked to God's Spirit? Huh? When? I asked you to show me where I said this, but you produce nothing. What you owe me is the Christian courtesy of showing me where I said joy is always from the Spirit. Or, right the wrong you have committed against me here and acknowledge that I did not say that. You owe it to me.

For number 2, you just merely repeat it without any objective or Scriptural evidence. In the face of OTHER verses that tell how we CAN know God's presence - by obedience (which you consider secondary by your posts)

Actually, I don't consider obedience second. I think I even said that. But I refuse to dismiss that we can also know the presence of God through the testimony of the Spirit himself to our hearts. It looks like you did not know the Bible tells us that. I showed you the scriptures. So, what else can be said? Then to compound your error you erroneously confuse that testimony spoken about in the Bible with physical manifestations and launched into a tirade about how meaningless and useless those are.

You dismiss water baptism, as "so few actually receive the Spirit through it", and obedience, quite frankly, is secondary to you - you continue to insist on feelings...

Show me where I did this, okay? But I think you know I did not say that. As a Christian you owe it to me to take the time to admit and correct how you have wronged me here.

What is the point in continuing?

Show me you don't just know about the scriptures, but more importantly, that you live them. All you need to continue with for me here is to apologize and admit that you have falsely represented my argument in this thread...particularly how you blatantly misquoted post 140 (flat out lied actually). Do what really counts here and correct the wrong you have committed against me. I think that's fair. It's the right thing to do.

 

[LightningStrikeSurvivor]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

I know the Bible says Jesus was baptized, but are Christians required to be? I know a lot of Christians believe you don't have (sic) to, and some believe you must be baptized.

Do you have to be baptised for what? To be a christian? To go to heaven? To avoid hell (there's a difference).

What if a person is a christian but has never heard of baptism, would he still go to hell for not having been baptised?

 

[WEDBLOPLS]

nah man you don't gotta be baptized

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

Do you have to be baptised for what?

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Mk 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

What if a person is a christian but has never heard of baptism, would he still go to hell for not having been baptised?

You can't be a christian without being baptised. Why? Because you haven't PUT ON Christ:

Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

If you haven't been baptized, you haven't put on Christ, and are therefore not a Christian.

 

[kjb1769]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

You can't be a christian without being baptised. Why? Because you haven't PUT ON Christ:

Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

If you haven't been baptized, you haven't put on Christ, and are therefore not a Christian.

Are you saying into water=into Christ?

If so then your saying Christ+water=salvation?

 

[LightningStrikeSurvivor]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

You can't be a christian without being baptised. Why? Because you haven't PUT ON Christ:

Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

If you haven't been baptized, you haven't put on Christ, and are therefore not a Christian.

Maybe you're taking this too literally. How is it written in other versions of the bible? Meanwhile, here are some definitions of "christian" for you:

- A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
- One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
- Someone who has decided to entrust his or her life to Jesus Christ.

Mk 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." But it does NOT say, "He that is baptisedeth not shall be damned."

I know plenty of christians who say they were never baptised.

 

[stovebolts]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

Maybe you're taking this too literally. How is it written in other versions of the bible? Meanwhile, here are some definitions of "christian" for you:

- A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
- One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
- Someone who has decided to entrust his or her life to Jesus Christ.



It says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." But it does NOT say, "He that is baptisedeth not shall be damned."

I know plenty of christians who say they were never baptised.

Let's look at this... "- One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. "

Matthew 28: 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Jesus taught his disciples to baptize... How can one be a follower of Christ if they won't obey this simple instruction?

And by the way...

It says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." But it does NOT say, "He that is baptisedeth not shall be damned."

A non believer can't be baptized. They may get dunked, but they didn't receive the baptism Jesus spoke of.

1 peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I know plenty of christians who say they were never baptised.

I wouldn't call them Christians... There are a lot of people who believe in Jesus, yet don't believe in his ideas. To be a follower of Jesus, you must embrace his ideas as well. If they were Christians, they would embrace even the simpleist of commands, and that includes baptism. The ministry of Jesus started at his Baptism.... so why wouldn't ours, especially when Jesus told us to baptize, and then teach.

 

[stovebolts]

nah man you don't gotta be baptized

Your right. You don't gotta do nothing. Nobody does. It's called free will. You don't have to pay your bills either, and you don't have to go to work, and you don't have to take care of your responsibilities. Live, love and be merry.... right?

 

[Stormcrow]

I wouldn't call them Christians... There are a lot of people who believe in Jesus, yet don't believe in his ideas. To be a follower of Jesus, you must embrace his ideas as well. If they were Christians, they would embrace even the simpleist of commands, and that includes baptism. The ministry of Jesus started at his Baptism.... so why wouldn't ours, especially when Jesus told us to baptize, and then teach.

How much water does it take to wash away one's sins?

How many of Jesus' sins were forgiven when He was baptized?

Why do people insist on making water baptism a requirement for salvation when clearly it is not?

 

[stovebolts]

Stormcrow,

We can ask questions till we are blue in the face. But I think it's more important to be a follower of Jesus. As such, Jesus told us to baptize others and then teach them. So the question I have for you is this. Why would you question the direction that Jesus clearly spoke? Do you think your way is better than the way Jesus taught?

 

[LightningStrikeSurvivor]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

A non believer can't be baptized. They may get dunked, but they didn't receive the baptism Jesus spoke of.

So? Read again, more closely: It says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth, not, shall be damned."

But it does NOT say, "He that is baptisedeth, not, shall be damned."

Translation:
He who doesn't believe is damned (rather than be shown and saved, he is simply damned and thrown away - that makes sense!).
But where does it say, "He who isn't baptised will be damned!!" ?

I wouldn't call them Christians... There are a lot of people who believe in Jesus, yet don't believe in his ideas. To be a follower of Jesus, you must embrace etc, etc.......

Well they call themselves Christians. Maybe JC will be the one to decide if they are or are not Christians.

Applying something (such as baptism) which was done on the day 2000 years ago as a ceremony is superfluous today when someone gets down and begs for forgiveness and guidance and acceptance or hands his life over.

What if someone is out of reach of the baptist when he decides to repent?

Are you saying everyone who died before the advent of baptism went to hell?

 

[Stormcrow]

Stormcrow,

We can ask questions till we are blue in the face. But I think it's more important to be a follower of Jesus. As such, Jesus told us to baptize others and then teach them. So the question I have for you is this. Why would you question the direction that Jesus clearly spoke? Do you think your way is better than the way Jesus taught?

Jesus told those He was addressing directly: His disciples. And they did as He commanded. Baptism has it's roots deep in the Old Testament purification laws. Jesus and His disciples were still all under the Law of Moses. Gentiles were not and have never been.

To suggest that baptism can add one bit to the work Christ did on the cross is anathema to the gospel.

{8} For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; {9} not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (NASB)

If dunking in water cleanses one from sin, there was no reason for Christ to die!

 

[francisdesales]

Then why are you arguing with my position that the Spirit and water are not inextricably connected? Sometimes God gives the Spirit apart from water baptism. What exactly is it that you do not agree with me in that statement?

Because you said that you have spiritual xray vision and have determined that many have NOT received the Holy Spirit through Christian water baptism. You talk a mighty game, but you DO NOT believe that water and the Spirit are inextricably linked. Every time one is baptized in the name of the Trinity and water, they have received the Holy Spirit. You don't believe that. Post 140 tells us so. I have reposted it and you have reposted it, and I am a liar?? :o

Now, if you can follow a bit of logic - you can see that just because I hold to the inextricable link between water and the Spirit, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO RECEIVE THE SPIRIT OF GOD!!!

And that is where you got lost... I never made that comment, and even explicitly denied it on a number of occasions.

Let's measure that accusation against my post you dishonestly misquoted before:

Jethro Bodine: "And that is where the argument gets misrepresented IMO. Even if you do receive the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism, that does not now relieve you of the command to be water baptized. It simply means you did not receive the Spirit at your water baptism. Some (very few in my experience) do receive the Spirit at water baptism, some do not. I just happen to be one that did not. But that certainly didn't mean I could skip my water baptism. It does have value in cementing one's decision, or pledge, to follow Christ in the obediences of faith."

2 2 2

What is the matter with you? I wasn't making the argument that YOU claimed one could skip water baptism. I AM STATING THAT THE WATER BAPTISM ALWAYS BRINGS THE SPIRIT OF GOD... IN THE ABOVE POST, you said it has practically no effect. Only a limited (by your own Xray vision) have actually seen any effect. Versus what the Bible states, in where everyone who was baptized received the Spirit...

Like I said, you got me in a box of assumptions and presumptions and haven't even bothered to read what I wrote. You still are clueless with what I am arguing, aren't you.

Well, the rest, including calling me a liar, it goes without saying that it is based upon your inability to follow my posts (or that you don't want to...) I posted what you wrote. You calling me a liar based upon what YOU WROTE is interesting. I suppose the burning in the bosom isn't working too well for you now.

If you want to continue, get off your high horse and read my arguments.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Jesus told those He was addressing directly: His disciples. And they did as He ommanded. Baptism has it's roots deep in the Old Testament purification laws. Jesus and His disciples were still all under the Law of Moses. Gentiles were not and have never been.

First of all, Jesus commanded His Apostles to baptize AFTER His resurrection -after the Temple curtain was torn in two. Jesus was giving a new Law to the Apostles - one they understood as such, because they baptized Gentiles in every case they found them.

Secondly, there is no Mosaic Law that one had to be baptized. Jesus, on the other hand, says one must be baptized. It is through baptism that men are united to the redemptive act of the death and resurrection of Christ - see Romans 6. Peter writes about how this "flood" saves us.

To suggest that baptism can add one bit to the work Christ did on the cross is anathema to the gospel.

Baptism is not adding anything. It is mystically uniting us to that work of Christ. There is no other way the Bible tells us that this happens. That is why the Bible tells us that Baptism saves. Not because of the water, but because it unites us to Christ's death and resurrection - as if WE died and WE rose.

If dunking in water cleanses one from sin, there was no reason for Christ to die!

Read Romans 6:1-6 again...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

So? Read again, more closely: It says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth, not, shall be damned."

But it does NOT say, "He that is baptisedeth, not, shall be damned."

Translation:
He who doesn't believe is damned (rather than be shown and saved, he is simply damned and thrown away - that makes sense!).
But where does it say, "He who isn't baptised will be damned!!" ?

The grammar does not require us to rule out the second clause when speaking of damning. It is fairly common to associate the same relationship in the first section continues into the second section, unless SPECIFICALLY ruled out.

For example, if is was said, "He that believes not shall be damned, BUT he that is not baptised shall not be damned".

Since the association is made between the belief and the baptism, one PRESUMES it continues into the second clause in the same sentence. It isn't necessary to continue making the same association yet again, although technically, we see there is a reason for that - since God is NOT BOUND by the sacraments executed by His human ministers, who could not possibly baptize everyone that God desired to enter the Kingdom...

I do agree that if one is not baptized due to ignorance, or had died before the intent was completed, then one does not necessarily face damnation. Are we to say that everyone in the Western Hemisphere prior to the 16th century is in hell? Or people who had never heard of Christianity are bound for hell because of that ignorance beyond their ability to know?

But for those who are aware and reject baptism, they place their souls in jeopardy - one wonders WHY they would disobey the command of Christ and not be baptized, IF they supposedly have the Spirit of Christ in them? There is indeed a difference between rejection and ignorance, and one is deluded to think they have God's Spirit of Humility and Obedience in them - but reject the command to become baptized.

Any action that commands one to be humble and obedient is certain to be from God, not the father of lies. The father of lies will tell us "you don't need to do that". Consider very carefully the origin of our idea of whether we should be baptized or not. From which human virtue does it stem from?

Jesus didn't need to be baptized in the Jordan, but did. Can we not follow the example of our Humble Savior? With the correct attitude leading us, we will.

Well they call themselves Christians. Maybe JC will be the one to decide if they are or are not Christians.

A Christian follows Christ. Many will say "Lord, Lord" and Jesus will respond, "I never knew you"... One must obey God's will, and He wills that we become baptized into the death and resurrection of the Lord. Rejection of that is a follower of Christ???

Applying something (such as baptism) which was done on the day 2000 years ago as a ceremony is superfluous today when someone gets down and begs for forgiveness and guidance and acceptance or hands his life over.

Where does Scriptures state that Baptism or any such ritual is "superfluous"? This sounds like modern rationalism to me. Just because "I don't get it, don't understand it, I think we should dispose of it." That is typical utilitarianism... Jesus ended up doing NUMEROUS things that you would call "superfluous", like be baptized in the Jordan...

Isn't having the faith of a child necessary to enter the Kingdom? We are not asked to sift out what we need from God, but to humbly obey His Will, no matter what it is, no matter if we understand it or not.

What if someone is out of reach of the baptist when he decides to repent?

Are you saying everyone who died before the advent of baptism went to hell?

Here is where I and the Church agree with you. This we call "baptism by desire". That is God Who judges this case, not the individual. If baptism is available, the Christian initiate WILL become baptized, declaring His faith during the ritual, as in Romans 10.

Regards

 

[Stormcrow]

{14} "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; {15} so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. {16} "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:14-16 (NASB)

{36} He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36 (KJV)

{24} "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24 (NASB)

{47} "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. {48} "I am the bread of life. John 6:47-48 (NASB)

Please highlight the words "he who has water baptism has eternal life" in the verses cited above.

Was Cornelius saved before or after being baptized? Did Cornelius receive the Holy Spirit before or after being baptized?

The answer to both is "before." Baptism didn't save Cornelius and his household: he was saved before Peter ordered them to be dunked. So then, is baptism required for salvation???

No. To assert otherwise is and remains anathema to the gospel of Christ and His shed blood on the cross which alone is sufficient to save.

 

[Webb]

LIGHTINGSTRIKESURVIVOR wrote about Mark 16:16: "But it does NOT say 'He that is BAPTISEDETH, NOT, shall be damned."

Jesus didn't have to say "but he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned." Go back and look at Mark 16:15,16 again. The 1st half of verse 16 tells what to do to be saved: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". The last half of that verse tell us what to do to be lost: "he that believeth not shall be damned." Jesus nails it down in John 3:18: "he that believeth not is condemned already". Disbelief is all it requires to be damned.

I shall at this time offer myself to a discussion of this matter on the one-on-one forum with anyone. I prefer that forum only because this or any other subject can be discussed honorably, respectfullly and rigoreously without interuption of thoughts between the two discussing.