Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[Imagican]

The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation in John 3:5. How can that not be a command? Thats why the first Christians affirmed the necessity of baptism in the Nicene Creed in A.D. 381: "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

CC,

Have you ever stoped to THINK of the POSSIBILITY that the CC has ALSO taught that THEY have the MEANS to either GRANT or DENY Salvation to those that they either ADMIT or DENY acceptance INTO their 'group'? And in THIS respect, perhaps MUCH of what they introduced AS 'creed' or 'dogma' was designed to MAKE their followers DEPENDANT upon the CLERGY for their SALVATION. That PERHAPS the REASON that Baptism was offered into 'their LAWS' was to FORCE all under their control to BE dependant UPON THEM for their BAPTISM?

I am NOT going to offer that what I have stated IS FACT. But what I WOULD encourage others to DO is to 'discern' NOT ONLY what is offered in the TEACHING of ANY, but the PURPOSE of that teaching.

While I AM well aware that those that FOLLOW 'creeds' and 'dogma' and 'doctrine' MOSTLY BELIEVE that it is offered FOR THE BENEFIT of the FLOCK, I can ASSURE everyone here that there have been and ARE denominations that have offered 'doctrine' for OTHER REASONS than the benefit of the congregation.

All we NEED do is study the likes of FALSE prophets that have HAD followers to SEE that these 'created' their OWN doctrines to MANIPULATE their fold.

About the ONLY commands that I am aware that Christ offered can be summed up in THESE TWO: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor AS yourself. For, as stated AFTER, 'And ALL the law and ALL the prophets HANG on these TWO'.

While it would be quite EASY to assume that EVERY statement of Christ WAS a 'commandment', there can be little doubt as to there BEING things that He stated that WERE of MORE importance than others.

From the perspective that YOU have offered CC, IF one were UNABLE to HAVE a minister Baptise them in WATER, then they would be DOOMED without a CHANCE at Salvation. I don't BELIEVE that for a SECOND. IF there were a LAW offered TOMORROW by the governments of this world that BAPTISM was ILLEGAL and punishable by DEATH, I do NOT believe that we would BE expected BY God to SACRIFICE ourselves over such an act.

We are commanded to worship NO OTHER Gods than GOD Himself. We are commanded to BELIEVE that Christ IS the Son of God. But I have YET to see Baptism as COMMANDED in this manner. For even though there are statements concerning BEING Baptized, these SAME statements are offered WITHOUT the addition of Baptism as BEING a prerequisite PERIOD.

OVER AND OVER again the Word speaks of BELIEVING as being MORE important than BAPTISM. OVER and over the Word speaks of CHARITY or LOVE being paramont to ANY such ritual that you would offer as COMMANDMENT. That YOUR church has CHOSEN to SEE it this way and teach others the SAME does NOT, in my opinion' offer ANYTHING but opinion themselves.

So, once again, we find ourselves arguing the SAME point that you EARLIER indicated that you KNEW better than to argue. That your church DOESN'T teach that it IS mandatory to BE Baptized. Now you have 'swiched up' again for the sake of BELIEF over what is actually offered.

CC, in a PERFECT world, everything would BE perfect. We do NOT nor are we EXPECTED to live in a 'perfect world'. So, what YOUR teachers have taught you MUST BE DONE does NOT make it SO. For YOUR TEACHERS are NO MORE leaders than YOU or I. We are ALL followers. Some gifted with the ability to discern scripture, come with the gift of teaching, etc.............But ALL dependant upon a HIGHER source. All subject TO the Spirit IF they teach or discern in TRUTH. And WE, NO, NOT the LEADERS of churches, but WE, the people, the INDIVIDUALS are to DISCERN the truth IN Spirit. To compare scripture to scripture. To discern the spirit of that which is offered by others REGARDLESS of their WORLDLY positions.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation in John 3:5. How can that not be a command? Thats why the first Christians affirmed the necessity of baptism in the Nicene Creed in A.D. 381: "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

CC,

Have you ever stoped to THINK of the POSSIBILITY that the CC has ALSO taught that THEY have the MEANS to either GRANT or DENY Salvation to those that they either ADMIT or DENY acceptance INTO their 'group'? And in THIS respect, perhaps MUCH of what they introduced AS 'creed' or 'dogma' was designed to MAKE their followers DEPENDANT upon the CLERGY for their SALVATION. That PERHAPS the REASON that Baptism was offered into 'their LAWS' was to FORCE all under their control to BE dependant UPON THEM for their BAPTISM....

Well, I disagree that the Church has EVER claimed the right to grant or deny salvation. However, it would seem Biblically supportable if She did. Consider this passage:

Matt 18: 15-18 - If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.


If the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ here gives the apostles authority to treat someone who doesnt hear them "as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (i.e. cast them out as unclean, which is what Jews did to pagans or a tax collectors), and if this decision "will be bound in heaven", then does not that sound like the authority you have described?

 

[Alabaster]

Folks,

It has come to my attention that my message may NOT be as clear as I would LIKE it to BE.

So, with this in mind let me offer a bit of clarity:

We HAVE been TOLD to BE Baptized. I BELIEVE in Baptism. I am NOT sure of ALL the EXACT implications of 'water Baptism', I do NOT believe that it is a 'thing' that is to BE ignored.

What I have TRIED to offer is that it could NOT BE a MANDATORY command in ALL instances. And it COULD well be abused in that it CAN be performed by or received by those that have NO TRUE BELIEF in Christ. While MANY would assume that NO ONE that waS NOT inspired to BE a follower of Christ WOULD have themselves Baptized, I can ASSURE you that there HAVE been and will BE those that have NO intentions of FOLLOWING Christ UPON being Baptized.

We EVEN have the words of the apostles that offer that there were FALSE prophets that had GONE OUT FROM THEM. understand these words 'gone out FROM among THEM'. This is a PRIME indication that for these words to BE USED, those in reference HAD BEEN Baptized but CHOSE to follow FALSE gods instead of the ONE True God. Thus PROVING that THEiR water Baptism was to NO avail except in it's ability to CONDEMN.

So, SHOULD we BE Baptized? YES!!! Does Baptism ALONE offer Salvation? NOT in MY understanding. CAN Baptism of water bring about Baptism of Spirit at the SAME INSTANT? Possibly. Won't argue for or against it other than OPINION. DOES Baptism 'cleanse one of their sins'? Perhaps. in ALL cases? My answer would be NO.

But that leads us BACK to the ORIGINAL question; IS 'water Baptism ENOUGH? Since the thread was started BY myself, I feel that it is my obligation to offer the EXTENT to which this question was offered: Is Water Baptism ENOUGH to SAVE an individual. PERHAPS, IF they were Baptized the MOMENT before their death, their HEART was right, MAYBE. But from what we have been offered in scriture and from my conviction through Spirit, NO, Baptism in water ALONE is NOT enough. For there is simply TOO much offered that would CONTRADICT this 'belief'.

We have a number of parables concerning the ISSUE. We have NUMEROUS scriture that SPEAK of MORE needed to BE 'saved'. We are NOT to be HEARERS only of the Word but DOERS. And IF one is Baptized with water and this is the ONLY thing that they have HEARD and FOLLOW, then OBVIOUSLY these would NOT be those considered DOERS other than in this ONE respect.

There ARE those that are Baptized in water that STILL are unable to come to the circumcision of their HEARTS needed in order to understand and OFFER Love. That is APPARENT in those that I'm sure we've ALL witnessed that DO NOT KNOW HOW to LOVE their neighbors. MY belief is that LOVE IS PARAMONT to a relationship with God through His Son. And without it, there IS NO GIFT OFFERED. For the Bible PLAINLY offers that those that HATE their neighbors have ONLY darkness in their hearts. And that these are NOT those that have been called or chosen.

So, I BELIEVE in Baptism. But ONLY so far as the UNDERSTANDING has been offered. NO MORE, NO LESS. But I do NOT believe that ALL that ARE saved MUST BE Baptized in WATER. For there WILL be many that are UNABLE to receive water Baptism LIKE everyone else. And for these God WILL NOT deny His love. Christ's sacrifice was NOT dependant upon 'water Baptism' The Bible STATES as much. For there are MANY times the statement made that 'those that BELIEVE' without the mention of Baptism. And water is MORE sybolic than PHYSICAL other than 'getting wet'.

With these words I HOPE that my stance on this issue is MORE clear.

Blessings,

MEC

Exactly! Well expressed!

 

[Imagican]

CC,

While you may indeed 'doubt' it, the truth is that the POPE is considdered to be empowered, even NOW, to 'cast out' those that are deemed UNWORTHY. And by your own admittance concerning The CC BEING the ONLY true Church, IF the Pope has the MEANS to EXCOMMUNICATE it's members, that would leave NO OTHER conclusion than that HE is able to either GRANT or DENY Salvation. PERIOD. For pertaining to YOUR belief system, those that ARE excommunicated are NO LONGER a 'part of the Body', or ONE TRUE CHURCH.

Now, if I am mistaken so far as my claim then I stand corrected. But IF what I offer IS correct, then my previous statement stands as offered.

However, even though the CC teaches such doctrines, I do NOT accept them as truth. I am NOT here to argue such doctrine and ONLY used the reference in relation to the discussion at hand. It is irrelevant to me WHAT another believes other than in my desire to see all understand and follow in 'truth'.

But here we see the DIFFERNCES in understanding DUE to denominational teaching. One church offers ONE THING, and another, something DIFFERENT. Yet I BELIEVE that there IS ONE universal truth pertaining to matters such as the one we discuss here. Regardless of what MEN have attempted to ALTER in their creation of 'doctrines' or 'philosophies' concerning TRUTH, if it does NOT conform to scripture, then it can ONLY be a 'semblance' of the truth at BEST, and COULD be outright deception at its WORSE.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...While you may indeed 'doubt' it, the truth is that the POPE is considdered to be empowered, even NOW, to 'cast out' those that are deemed UNWORTHY....

Excommunicate from the Church? Yes, and that is Biblical. But thats not what you were talking about. You were talking about denying people their salvation, and no pope can do that. You are hopscotching from subject to subject on me.

...And by your own admittance concerning The CC BEING the ONLY true Church...

MEC, MEC, I never said that, and the Catechism does not say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. While I may think that protestantism teaches some heresy, the Catechism SPECIFICALLY says that all who enjoy the name "Christian" are considered to be brothers and sisters of the children of the Catholic Church.

IF the Pope has the MEANS to EXCOMMUNICATE it's members, that would leave NO OTHER conclusion than that HE is able to either GRANT or DENY Salvation. PERIOD....

I don't agree, unless you think that is what this scripture means:

Matt 18: 15-18 - If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

...But here we see the DIFFERNCES in understanding DUE to denominational teaching. One church offers ONE THING, and another, something DIFFERENT....

Christ established a Church. MEN established denominations:

 

[Rick W]

OK.
MEC, you had your say and I must admit CC has displayed a much improved restraint.
I'll allow CC's last post but I really wish debate of the Catholic Church or the Pope can be gotten away from in this thread.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

OK.
MEC, you had your say and I must admit CC has displayed a much improved restraint.
I'll allow CC's last post but I really wish debate of the Catholic Church or the Pope can be gotten away from in this thread.

You're right. (I knew that was coming.)

 

[turnorburn]

Deleted post

 

[Imagican]

Me too.

Potluck,

Once again we find ourselves in disagreement that stems from a 'difference' in 'church doctrine'.

I have pretty much offered as much as I can on this topic anyway. I apologize for the direction that it has turned and I agree Potluck, CC has shown restraint that IS commendable.

I stand by my previous statements concerning the topic. I hope that this discussion has been able to offer a 'clearer' understanding of Baptism one way or the other.

I started this thread as an 'off-shoot' of 'True Christian'. I THOUGHT that if we could determine the significance of Baptism that THAT thread could be further enhanced. It doesn't look as though the 'mission was accomplished'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Rick W]

Well, it's rare to see a thread started and the intent of the original poster still followed a page or two later. People don't think the same anyway so things have a way of going off on their own. Just one of those things with forums. :wink:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...I started this thread as an 'off-shoot' of 'True Christian'. I THOUGHT that if we could determine the significance of Baptism that THAT thread could be further enhanced....

One problem, I think, is that baptism is more than just one thing.
This link,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm
will give you the richness which I believe makes up the many aspects of baptism.

 

[Imagican]

CC,

the picture is for you, (avatar). Couldn't figure out how to post it on the 'mug' thread that you sent awhile back.

Regardless of 'what' Baptism signifies, the question posted to begin with should be able to be answered. Is 'water Baptism' ENOUGH? Plain and simple? If I 'dunked' someones head in the water and chanted some words, would that be ENOUGH for that person to BE SAVED?

If the answer is 'yes', then I would disagree. If you say 'no' then we agree. Otherwise we have pretty much been through just about every angle that can be created on this topic.

What I attempted to do to start with was determine that 'water' is NOT enough. That there IS more to being a Christian and being 'born again' than simply being Baptized in water. For if there have been false prophets involved with churches, then these certainly couldn't righteously Baptize others. If that's the case then ANYONE can Baptize ANYONE and the results would be the 'same'.

Could a 'Satan worshiper' righteously Baptise in the name of Christ and have that Baptism have the SAME effect as that offered through The Church?

Answer this question and you have come to the SAME conclusion that I have concerning 'water Baptism' being 'enough'.

Blessings,

MEC

Oh, I'll give everyone a chance to giggle at my pic before I remove it............He he he!

 

[Catholic Crusader]

CC,

the picture is for you, (avatar). Couldn't figure out how to post it on the 'mug' thread that you sent awhile back.

Regardless of 'what' Baptism signifies, the question posted to begin with should be able to be answered. Is 'water Baptism' ENOUGH?....

And I'm quite sure I answered this. The answer is NO. There would only be one exception: If a person were baptised, and then by some wild twist of fate they were immediately killed, then they - still being in a state of grace - would go to heaven. But that is obviously a fluke. So the simple answer is NO.

I have been merely trying to say that baptism is MORE then just "symbolic". Did you read the link? (Its quite verbose, which is why I though you may enjoy it. )
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

 

[Imagican]

CC,

I did not read the link, but I will agree also that 'water Baptism' CAN be more than a 'symbolic gesture'.

The reason that this thread was begun was that there seemed to be a 'group' that believed that ALL it took to be 'saved' and receive 'eternal life' was to BE Baptized. I thought it prudent for the sake of the 'Can a 'true' Christian lose their Salvation' and the 'what is the sign of the 'true Christian' threads that we come to some kind of understanding concerning Baptism. For many seemed to believe that 'water Baptism' was an END to the 'means'.

And now we find that there is MORE agreement than disagreement in the 'nature' of 'water Baptism'. That no matter 'how important' it may or may not be, it is not a 'cover all' means to an end. That there is more to BEING a Christian than simply being sprinkled or dunked in 'water'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

CC,

I did not read the link, but I will agree also that 'water Baptism' CAN be more than a 'symbolic gesture'.

The reason that this thread was begun was that there seemed to be a 'group' that believed that ALL it took to be 'saved' and receive 'eternal life' was to BE Baptized. I thought it prudent for the sake of the 'Can a 'true' Christian lose their Salvation' and the 'what is the sign of the 'true Christian' threads that we come to some kind of understanding concerning Baptism. For many seemed to believe that 'water Baptism' was an END to the 'means'.

And now we find that there is MORE agreement than disagreement in the 'nature' of 'water Baptism'. That no matter 'how important' it may or may not be, it is not a 'cover all' means to an end. That there is more to BEING a Christian than simply being sprinkled or dunked in 'water'.

Blessings,

MEC

You know whats funny: What about the group the says that all you have to do is "accept Jesus as your personal Lord and savior" and you are saved, and it can't be undone? Now THAT is WHACKY

 

[turnorburn]

Is water baptism enough? well if you believe that your risking your eternal future and will most assuredly end up here

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Is water baptism enough? well if you believe that your risking your eternal future and will most assuredly end up here

May I refer you to this previous post:
viewtopic.php?p=385240#p385240

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I read an interesting article in the March issue of "This Rock" magazine. Check it out:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0803fea2.asp

 

[marksman]

Hi everyone. Confessions first and that is I have to admit that I haven't read all 20 pages. Some comments stood out such as baptism not being necessary. Some of you may have already addressed this issue, but just in case work this out.

Notwithstanding the thief on the cross, on the day of Pentecost Peter said in response to the question "brothers, what shall we do" he said "REPENT and be BAPTISED (fully immersed) every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ SO THAT your sins may be forgiven".

The founding of the church predicated on a message that required repentance AND baptism to have your sins forgiven. If it is not necessary why was it preached?

In Acts 8 the Ethiopean Eunuch asked "here is water, why shouldn't I be baptised." Why ask if it is not necessary?

Bringing the gospel to the Gentiles was marked by the baptism of the Holy Spirit and baptism in water (Acts 10). "Then Peter said, "can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water?...So he ordered that they be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. If it was not necessary, why did Paul insist on it happening?

In Acts 19, some believers at Ephasus had been baptised with John's baptism. Paul corrected them and baptised them in the name of Jesus. If it was not necessary, why did Paul correct them and baptise them in the name of Jesus.

In Galations 3:27 it says that "ALL of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ." The word ALL here means everyone not everyone who was baptised suggesting some weren't. If it was not necessary why were all the believers in Galatia baptised?

Two things. It was fairly evident that all the major advances of the gospel were accompanied by baptism and that the NT church did not baptise in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. On each occasion they were baptised in the name of Jesus which would not be suprising as it was his name that Satan feared; all power was invested in the name of Jesus and the religious Jews tried to stop them preaching in that name.

To baptise in three titles would not have made sense as they preached Jesus and healed in the power of his name. To then baptise in three titles would have been illogical.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....the NT church did not baptise in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. On each occasion they were baptised in the name of Jesus which would not be suprising as it was his name that Satan feared.....

Allow me to print en exerpt from "Trinitarian Baptism":

For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an even larger group, the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals, baptize "in the name of Jesus." As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid; thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian.

Both groups also reject the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is not God, a heresy known as Arianism (after its fourth-century founder), and the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals claim that there is only a single person, Jesus, in the Godhead, a heresy known as Sabellianism (after its inventor in the third century; see the Catholic Answers tract, God in Three Persons).

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals note that Jesus told the apostles to baptize in "the name" (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but they make the mistake of assuming that name is Jesus. There may not be a single name that Jesus has in mind at all, just as when we say, “Stop! In the name of the law,†we do not have a personal name in mind. If he did have such a name in mind, it may have been something such as God or Yahweh or Lord.

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals also argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," other say "Jesus Christ"), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Rather, the phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" is simply Luke’s way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John’s baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults (such as Mithraism). It also indicates the person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3).

The early Church Fathers, of course, agreed. As the following quotes illustrate, Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

To read the early fathers in the rest of the tract, here is the source:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinitarian_Baptism.asp