Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[MarkT]

I suspect the vast majority share your view that it is nothing more than a ritual. Even those that think it is a necessity may not have any understanding. Indeed they are in danger of being cast out. But between you and me, let's make it something. OK?

 

[dadof10]

Right. Consulting the Magisterium and consulting official Catholic teaching are the same thing. Let me try one more time:

Then why are you asking me not to consult the magesterium?

I didn't. Maybe you could cut and paste the post where you think I did. After reviewing all my posts to you, this one comes the closest:

I'm not asking you to consult the Magisterium for "the truth", but to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Did you read the last half of that sentence? Let me try to rephrase the above quote (which I have done in a few previous posts).

Consult official Catholic teaching (the Magisterium) to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

 

[dadof10]

If you are going to disagree with Catholic doctrine, you should at least know what true Catholic doctrine is. Does this sound reasonable?

You had better tell that to all my catholic workmates as according to you they don't know what they are talking about. Obviously the church is not very good at teaching their devotees.

If your "Catholic workmates" are the ones telling you that Scripture "doesn't carry much weight" in the Church (which is what started this tangent), then they are not informing you properly as to what the Catholic Church teaches. You need to consult official Catholic teaching.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I don't even know your workmates or what they are telling you.

 

[dadof10]

Great. Another rant. If all doctine needs to be backed up by Scripture, then so does the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura, right? Chapter and verse, please.

I notice that you didn't produce any scripture to refute what I said. Probably why you played the man not the ball. The fact that you called the explanation of my position a "rant" indicates that you cannot mount a reasonable debate.

So the "explanation of your position" is to attack the priesthood? What does that have to do with why you should consult Catholic sources? This was obviously just a cheap-shot, because it was off topic.

You posted: If you want another example. priests are not a NT revelation. The priesthood of all believers is so you don't need a clergy class that dresses up like a woman and tells everyone what they can do.

You actually wanted me to take THIS as a serious "debate" topic? First of all this thread is about baptism, secondly I don't usually respond in a serious way to foolishness. BTW, I looked back on your last posts and don't find any Biblical quotes...HMMMMm

If you want to seriously discuss the topic of the priesthood, I would be happy to in the proper forum. Just let me know when and where.

 

[dadof10]

Very mature. I see you are putting all those degrees to good use. I'm sure your professors would be proud.

I was taught that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Once again you have not produced one scripture to counteract what I have said. My teenage debating team would leave you for dead.

Good to see you were taught something. Were you taught to answer direct questions? Here are the ones I asked that are still dangling out there:

"If you carry the "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" mentality to it's logical conclusion, you would wind up with no religion whatsoever. You certainly wouldn't be Christian. After all, Jesus was concieved out of wedlock, chose a tax collector as a disciple, hung around with prostitutes, spoke to Samaritians, one of His best friends was a prostitute herself, one of His chosen 12 stole from Him, betrayed Him then commited suicide. From a 1st century Jewish perspective, why would you follow such a Man? What He and His Apostles did "speaks louder" than what they say, right?"

"Tell me, what can the Church do to stop Mugabe from killing and torturing?

What are you trying to get at here? That there are sinners within the Catholic Church? Guilty. As is your Pastor and every person in the pews of your church and mine. Does your church teach that it's OK to sin? If not, is it "allowing it's members" to sin?"

"Do you attend church services anywhere? Do you think your pastor commits sin? If so, does that mean that your church condones sin?"

"If a person wants to find out what a church teaches, shouldn't that person consult the official documents of that church? Isn't that reasonable? "

"If you are going to disagree with Catholic doctrine, you should at least know what true Catholic doctrine is. Does this sound reasonable?"

"Great. Another rant. If all doctine needs to be backed up by Scripture, then so does the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura, right? Chapter and verse, please."

Maybe you were absent the day your "debate team" learned that you have to respond to direct questions. Can you give me their email address, maybe they'll answer at least some of these.

 

[Pogo]

Imagician –

Okay…let me back up and ease through your last couple of posts, offering responses as I go.

Though many would automatically assume that the apostles being commissioned to Baptize means that ALL must be Baptized, this is simply NOT what is offered in the commision. The commission was given TO the apostles. It was NOT a statement made TOWARDS those that would BE Baptized, but offered TO the apostles as a 'thing to do'.

Where do I begin? This does not compute on so many levels. Every endeavour of any kind, business, social, natural, spiritual, etc., grows by replicating itself.

Fast food stores, The Boy Scouts of America, seeds that grow into plants that drop seeds, etc., all grow by duplicating something that works.

Christian’s are commanded to follow/ imitate the pattern delivered unto us, would you not agree?

As I’ve already posted, Matthew 28:20 clearly tells who is to obey Matthew 28:19.

Also, in my view these two verses from Mark offer some clarity on this issue, as well as support for my view.

Mark 16:15-16 KJV
(15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I guess if you insist upon the importance of Baptism BEING crucial to Salvation, then it would be very EASY to read what you CHOOSE to believe INTO scripture. But what is offered NEVER states that one MUST be Baptized. Not ONCE that i can recall. There are statements that refer to Baptism, but not ONE that states that one MUST BE Baptized in water in order to be 'saved'. But, if you were to CHOOSE to read INTO what has been offered, then you could SURELY read the NECESSITY into scripture.

Once again, this passage from Mark is so relevant to this discussion...

Mark 16:16 KJV
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It's not me that's insisting, it's the scriptures!

Acts 2:38 CEV
(38) Peter said, "Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.

I am sorry, Imagician, but I’m just afraid not to believe these passages in a literal manner!

Over and over and over again the scenario of 'the man on the deserted island' has been used to PLAINLY show that there would certainly be instances where Baptism would be IMPOSSIBLE, (unless one is able to simply Baptize themselves), and that under these circumstances, Water Baptism would play NO PART whatsoever in the Salvation of an indivual.

As I view this scenario, God's has no obligation to save this man from his unique predicament. How many calls to repentance had such a man ignored over the course of his life, before he found himself on this island. That is the root cause of this man’s dire predicament. And, therefore, it is his problem to solve, and his consequences to suffer either way, solved or not.

What if you, being a non-baptized believer, were driving along a road this afternoon, when, for some reason, you had a change of heart, deciding that baptism is essential for salvation, called friends and family on your cell phone to meet you at a lake so that one of them could baptise you. But, while on your way to the lake, you were hit head-on by a reckless driver, and killed!

What is the difference, ultimately, between you, in such a situation, living in a city filled with churches and Christians, and a man alone on an island?

I would venture that more die in auto wrecks in one day, with the intent to obey the Gospel one day soon, than have ever died alone on an island!

Additionally, if God, in the first century, and after, let obedient Christians be fed to lions while they were still alive, for the entertainment and amusement of Pagans, I see no need to fret over a man stranded on a remote isle, properly baptized or not.

Do you TRULY believe that God is confined by Baptism? That He is UNABLE to reveal Himself to whom, how and WHEN He chooses? And that He is able to forgive with or without Baptism. That the sybolism of 'cleansing' through water is not NEAR as important as Baptism in the Spirit? Beware of what you offer to others in respect to what MUST be done or how important WORKS of this sort truly are. For how YOU judge such is HOW you will be judged. And that judgement will certainly be conformed to and around those that you TEACH as well.

I think that God is perfectly capable of doing anything that He desires. But, it seems to me that God has already expressed what His desires are. God is NOT a liar, and God is NOT the author of confusion!

He has already provided us with a road to follow, it is straight. And He has provide us with a gate to access the glory of heaven, it is narrow.

And, He has already told us that not many are going to find their way to it.

Also, I think that you are wise to caution me, and all, about what we offer to others. This is why I am so conservative in my interpretations of scripture.

In my view, if submersion in water is not essential for salvation, then surely it will not offend God. So…if ultimately, you are right, me and mine are still safe.

But, if you are wrong, then you and yours will have no time to correct things!

I have NOT offered that Baptism has no place in Christianity. Just that it is NOT what some would have others believe so far as importance. For God is able to conform the hearts of those that He chooses with or without it. And NO amount of water is able to cleanse those that refuse to be 'born again' in Spirit. Those that 'play the game' have little benefit from Baptism or ANY OTHER ritual. For it is NOT the outward ritual that pleases God so much as the inward change that becomes manifest when one IS truly 'born of The Spirit'.

If God were to offer salvation to some without baptism, while requiring it of others, wouldn’t that make Him a liar? But, since the scriptures tell us that God doesn’t lie, we know that this will never happen!

And, furthermore, if one’s heart is right, there will be no difficulties to overcome. If one’s heart is right, they will be obedient to God’s Word.

Can water accomplish 'rebirth'? Not that I am aware of. Can it be an outward sign and an open commitment and witness to others? Certainly. But even these cannot be guaranteed simply by being Baptized in water. For I can assure everyone reading these words that there WILL be and HAVE been MANY MANY MANY that receive waterBaptism that will NOT be 'saved'. PROOF? Let us read on these words:

John 3:5 KJV
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If water plays no role in one’s rebirth, then please offer your interpretation of the passage above.

Imagician, let me pause here, and chop this post up into several pieces, hopefully, to make this post more readable.

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Pogo]

Imagician –

Part 2

You posted -

Matt 7:1:

20] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
[24] Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
[25] And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
[26] And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
[27] And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Now I ask: As IMPORTANT as the churches have MADE Baptism, is there any doubt that those mentioned above as being the 'many will say to me in that day' are ones that would 'consider themselves Christians'? That these mentioned would have INDEED BEEN Baptized? And if this is the case, then this is your PROOF as to 'just how important water Batptism IS'.

I know, I know; this guy doesn't BELIEVE what our churches have 'taught us'. You're RIGHT. For the scriptures do NOT bear out the teachings offered through the churches as concerns Baptism. Important? Can be. But exclusively? NO WAY. For we will be judged by what's in our hearts and NOT by what we have DONE; but WHY we DID IT. For it IS that which is in the 'heart' that manifests itself in our actions. So, playing the game can be 'very dangerous' indeed. For it is utter deception of one's neighbors and abhorant to God. For one CANNOT deceive Our Father.

I agree with SOME of the points that you have made above. In my view one is not a Christian until after rising up out of the baptismal waters. At this point one is a born again obedient Christian. If this person were to fall dead at this point, their soul would go to heaven. And, assuming that they don't fall dead at this point, such a one will remain an obedient Christian, until they commit a sin.

At this point, they will become a disobedient Christian. They will stay a disobedient Christian until they properly repent of their sin(s). Once they properly repent of their sin(s), they once again become an obedient Christian. However, should they die in the state of disobedience, while guilty of sin, then their sin(s) will be charged against them on Judgment Day.

I don’t see the scriptures as teaching ‘once saved, always saved’. The five steps to becoming a Christian, culminating with the fifth step, IMMERSION/SUBMERSION/BAPTISM makes one a Christian. From this point on, one will always be a Christian. But, nothing, not even baptism, can KEEP one an obedient Christian.

All of this being said, however, doesn't diminish the need, in my view, for each believer to be properly submerged/baptised in water.

As I interpret the scriptures, and I can supply BCV if requested, baptism by immersion is essential to being a Christian, and therefore, salvation. Nothing I've seen thus far, has proven anything differently!

So, therefore, indeed, many/most Christians, even properly baptised Christians, will still be found wanting on Judgment Day!

I do agree that, as far as I can tell, most churches are teaching heresy, in one form or another, all across the spectrum of everything that the scriptures offer.

So, I no longer rely on churches to provide me scriptural truth.

I rely on my own interpretations of the scriptures themselves!

Though we obviously don’t agree on exactly what baptism is, or when it occurs, I think that we both agree that the truth IS there in the scriptures for us to ferret out.

However, I have to disagree with your comment - â€Â…we will be judged by what's in our hearts and NOT by what we have DONE; but WHY we DID IT.â€Â

Your quote from Matthew 7:20 above directly conflicts with this understanding!

By their fruits we shall know them, to me means that it will be specifically BY what we have done, no matter why, that we WILL be judged.

And, your statement – “For it IS that which is in the 'heart' that manifests itself in our actions.†Is exactly right, but in a different way than I think that you mean.

If one’s heart is right, then one’s actions will be right! RIGHT!

Not – one’s sins will be excused if they thought what they were doing was good.

If our actions are flawed, then our heart was flawed also!

Paul even mentioned that he was GLAD that He had only Baptized a couple of specific people in one of his letters. The reason? Those that he spoke to were quibbling over WHO Baptized them as if some that Baptized were greater than others. Strife over something as rudimentary as Baptism and this was NOT pleasing to Paul or God. For it is NOT the 'dunking in water' that pleases our Father, it is the circumcision that we allow to take place in OUR HEARTS that is able to bring us TO Him. And anyone that doesn't understand this is simply attempting to follow the teachings of men instead of LISTENING to the Spirit that IS able to offer the truth that 'sets us free'.

On the first Pentecost after the resurrection when over three thousand were added to the church, do you think that it was just the 12 apostles that only did the baptizing?

I hardly think that Paul is, here, minimizing the role baptism plays in one’s salvation. Obviously, he is just upset that some are more concerned with who they where baptized by, than the fact that they were baptized!

I have pretty much offered what is able to be offered in this thread. Once again, it is apparent that many would choose to follow men rather than God through Christ and His apostles. And for this reason, many would refute WHATEVER is offered concerning Baptism for the sake of what they have CHOSEN to believe.

Water Baptism, is it ENOUGH? No WAY, my friends. And the REASON that I opened this thread was to dispell any 'false beliefs' that many may have concerning what the churches TEACH. And ONE of the biggest PARTS of the reasoning behind their 'teachings' is an attempt at Baptizing in THEIR NAME. For each have their own specific rituals concerning the act itself. JUST like what concerned Paul in his writtings concerning Baptism, so too are there the same strifes TODAY concerning it.

I agree! If one was baptised in the name of a denomination, their baptism is a product of idolatry, and likewise, so is any worshipping that follows.

Until one is baptised SOLELY in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all worship is in vain!

So, drag it around and around and you'll STILL end up right back where we started from. And the answer is as obvious as can be. And even those that RECOGNIZE the answer would STILL insist upon arguing against what they ALREADY know in their hearts.

Blessings,

MEC

Part 3 to follow later!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[marksman]

I didn't. Maybe you could cut and paste the post where you think I did. After reviewing all my posts to you, this one comes the closest:

I'm not asking you to consult the Magisterium for "the truth", but to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

As Shakespeare said "methinks you doth protest too much" Don't consult the magisterium. The magisterium is the catholic church. Find out what the catholic church teaches. About as illogical as you can get.

 

[marksman]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I don't even know your workmates or what they are telling you.

Then, pray tell me how do you know what their source is and who is teaching them if at all?

 

[marksman]

You actually wanted me to take THIS as a serious "debate" topic? First of all this thread is about baptism, secondly I don't usually respond in a serious way to foolishness. BTW, I looked back on your last posts and don't find any Biblical quotes...HMMMMm

Is that the best you can do?

 

[marksman]

Maybe you were absent the day your "debate team" learned that you have to respond to direct questions. Can you give me their email address, maybe they'll answer at least some of these.

They only get invovled in debates, not rants.

 

[marksman]

Dear Pgo,
You have written some excellent material on this subject. Many thanks! THis quote needs to be challenged however

Until one is baptised SOLELY in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all worship is in vain!

Can you quote any scripture in the New Testament where those who were baptised were baptised in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit and where it is linked to ones ability to worship which in the original language means to "lay prostrate on the floor".

To date I have not found any but you may have some insights that I have missed.

I do acknowledge Matt 28:19 but as I read it the fact that everyone was baptised in the name of Jesus/Jesus Christ suggest that the church saw that as the name of the father, son and holy spirit. At the same time the NT reveals that they did everything else in the name of Jesus, not the trinitarian titles i.e. healing, casting out demons, preaching and the pharisees were scared of the name of Jesus, not the trinitarian titles.

 

[Pogo]

marksman -

I am very grateful for your kind words. I just wish that I was deserving of them.

As I'm looking at your post, I see that you are exactly right!

I found Matthew 28:19 to be the most thorough as far as spelling out the details involved in executing the rite of baptism, which is why I always refer to it when the subject comes up.

Scripturally, as Acts 2:38 teaches, baptising in the name of Jesus is just as correct, as you point out.

When I said SOLELY, I meant in lieu of using the names of denominations or congregations.

Such as saying, "I now baptise you in the name of the Harmony Road Connunity Church, etc."

I have no training in the Hebrew or Greek, so, no, my thought's are usually not deep, but very superficial, I regret to say.

Your comments on my use of the word "worship," the trinitarian titles, etc., seem valid to me, but I wasn't thinking of their significance as I posted.

i come to forums such as this hoping to learn, and i usually do.

Thanks again for your help!

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[dadof10]

You actually wanted me to take THIS as a serious "debate" topic? First of all this thread is about baptism, secondly I don't usually respond in a serious way to foolishness. BTW, I looked back on your last posts and don't find any Biblical quotes...HMMMMm

Is that the best you can do?

Again no answers, no substance, just foolishness. Here are the questions again in case you want to engage in meaningful debate. If not, I'm done. I don't have time for this.

"If you carry the "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" mentality to it's logical conclusion, you would wind up with no religion whatsoever. You certainly wouldn't be Christian. After all, Jesus was concieved out of wedlock, chose a tax collector as a disciple, hung around with prostitutes, spoke to Samaritians, one of His best friends was a prostitute herself, one of His chosen 12 stole from Him, betrayed Him then commited suicide. From a 1st century Jewish perspective, why would you follow such a Man? What He and His Apostles did "speaks louder" than what they say, right?"

"Tell me, what can the Church do to stop Mugabe from killing and torturing?

What are you trying to get at here? That there are sinners within the Catholic Church? Guilty. As is your Pastor and every person in the pews of your church and mine. Does your church teach that it's OK to sin? If not, is it "allowing it's members" to sin?"

"Do you attend church services anywhere? Do you think your pastor commits sin? If so, does that mean that your church condones sin?"

"If a person wants to find out what a church teaches, shouldn't that person consult the official documents of that church? Isn't that reasonable? "

"If you are going to disagree with Catholic doctrine, you should at least know what true Catholic doctrine is. Does this sound reasonable?"

"Great. Another rant. If all doctine needs to be backed up by Scripture, then so does the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura, right? Chapter and verse, please."

 

[turnorburn]

Say what's all this talk about fools and foolishness. :smt014

 

[marksman]

Again no answers, no substance, just foolishness. Here are the questions again in case you want to engage in meaningful debate. If not, I'm done. I don't have time for this.

On your way out, you might like to consider the following facts;

The percentage of Catholics saying their religion is very important did not differ from the national average, while 79% of Evangelicals and 85% of those belonging to historically African-American churches said their religion was very important. Only 19% of Catholics asserted that there is only one way to interpret the teachings of their faith, compared to 41% of Evangelical Christians.

Among Catholics, just 16% said they thought their religion was “the one, true faith leading to eternal life,†while 79% said “many religions can lead to eternal life.†Of Evangelicals, 36% affirmed the necessity of their religion for salvation, while 57% took the more unrestricted view.

Leon J. Podles, a former federal investigator, senior editor of Touchstone magazine, and a former Catholic seminarian, has written a new book titled Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (2008, Crossland Press, PO Box 26290, Baltimore MD 21210, http://www.Cross¬landFoundation.org). He tells the now-familiar story of how the U.S. bishops stonewalled, threatened, and ignored the victims of clerical sexual abuse and their families, while protecting predatory priests with impunity. But he tells the story in graphic detail. "Bishops," he writes, "knew about the abuse and sometimes took part in it…. Most bishops were not interested in protecting children." Podles quotes Frank Keating, one-time head of the U.S. bishops' National Review Board (fired by the bishops), as saying that the bishops "cared more for the…reputation of the Church than for the ravaged and frightened souls of children." This is the mentality on display in Donohue's press release. "Meanwhile," writes Podles, "the children were left with their secrets, without help, in the darkness of their souls."

Bishop Loverde was not amused when, starting in 1999, Father Haley began supplying him with names of adulterous priests, homosexual clergy and priests with a predilection for child porn.
Instead of immediately removing these clergymen, the bishop on Oct. 23, 2001, gave Father Haley four hours to move out of his rectory and suspended him from all priestly functions.

Given the background of the Catholic Church, Father Bob said he had reservations the calendar was heading in the wrong direction. "I am not particularly enamoured with the sexualisation of the clergy, that is one of our lower natures that we can do without," he said.

What was that you said "one bad apple". Seems to me the barrel is full of them.

 

[MarkT]

I understand the frustration. What does the spiritual have to do with the physical? What do these rituals have to do with the Spirit of God? If God is in us, then how are we still talking about being saved by rituals? John said, 'He must increase, but I must decrease.' John 3:30

So we see as Christ increases and we increase in Christ, the rituals diminish to the point where we don't see them any more. They decrease in our eyes. So we think they aren't important, until we remember that we were once children ourselves. Then we see that the rituals are for the children. We don't stay children. We are not children in our thinking. But on the other hand, we don't turn the children away by taking away the rituals: the physical structures and supports of the church. The children need rituals, and we provide the rituals.

 

[Pogo]

Imagician –

Part 3

1 Corinthians 1:

[11] For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
[12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
[15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
[17] 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.
[18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
[19] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
[20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
[21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
[22] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
[23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
[24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Unless I’m missing something here, an earlier response applies here as well.

Pogo, my brother,

A few questions and then perhaps you will have a 'better' understanding of what i have attempted to offer.

Did David Koresh Baptize in the name of Christ? How about Jim Jones? And were these that were Baptized by the likes of these receive ANYTHING of significance in their Baptism? Think about this carefully and perhaps you will SEE that the 'water' most likely had LITTLE effect on those that were following 'false prophets'. If anything, these were most likely CONDEMNED through their Baptism.

Imagician –

It seems that you have hung a bulls-eye on baptism as the culprit for all of the division found in the church. And, I don’t think that you are totally off base here! Because, indeed, I see most churches are practicing the rite of baptism in a corrupt manner.

But, I think that the problem extends much further than this.

I have not studied any of the details of Jonestown or Waco to know exactly how far off base they were, or in what specific areas the errors lay.

They may very well have executed the rite of baptism in a perfectly proper manner.

Because, as I view things, even perfectly proper, and obedient Christians can stray.

Now, how about one that comes to God 'on their own'? Through acceptance of the Holy Spirit into their hearts WITHOUT being Baptized into ANY particular denomination. Are these any less loved by God than those that have been Baptized into 'false religions'? Now, another question: Which denomination IS THE denomination in which one is to BE Baptized INTO?

Now, with these things in mind, how important IS Baptism? Would it be 'better' to serve in an unrighteous religion and be Baptized, or to serve RIGHTEOUSLY and NOT be Baptized? We are talking 'water' here.

WOW…Do you realize how many difficult, complicated questions you have pressed into those two short paragraphs above?

First off, as I believe I may have already expressed earlier in this thread, I think that baptism, PROPER baptism, is the one single MOST important step that one can take in becoming a Christian.

Most here, even you, will disagree, but in my view, unless one, of the age of accountability, has been submerged in water, they are not a true Christian, and are at risk of suffering the second death.

Mark 16:16 KJV
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

No one should ever be baptised into a denomination! Any denomination!!

All denominations, by definition, are of men!

Christ only founded one church! Where ever two or three assemble in Christ’s name, He will be present with them!

If you haven't already, scour your area's churches seeking for others who share your views. Don't even consider large churches, if there is any obedient congregation around it will small, and probably in an out of the way place, maybe even in someone's home.

If this fails, start inviting everyone you meet to a Bible study of your own on any week night other than Wed., and then start an obedient congregation of Christ's one true church right where you are.

In the mean time, on Sunday's watch the most obedient tel-evangelist available, and take the Lord's Supper with your family, or even alone if you are single!

If I were not already baptised, I would prefer to be baptised by a stranger/sinner off of the street, as any preacher/sinner of any church!

I reconsidered the validity of my own baptism as I came to reject the teaching of my last church that I attended. I realised that I had been baptised by a preacher who, in effect was, and had been, practicing idolatry, as I saw it, and still see it, for years.

Thankfully, the lesson in Acts, where Paul publicly rebuked Peter, who was teaching error, for binding circumcision on the Gentile converts, made me realise that my baptism was as valid as those baptised by Peter himself, and that if I intended to wait until I found a sinless person/Christian to re-baptism me, I would end up never being re-baptised anyway!!!

If we just make sure that the baptiser’s words are clear that we are being baptised into CHRIST, not some church…Baptist, Methodist, Catholic…or congregation, Main Street Chapel, Harmony Community Church…yadda yadda yadda…then our conversion is secure, regardless of the status of the person acting as the baptiser!

Regarding coming to Christ alone, much as a person stranded on a deserted island would be, I would consider auto-baptism, but only until I could find someone also seeking the truth, who could baptise me to the satisfaction of my understanding of the scriptures.

More later!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[marksman]

First off, as I believe I may have already expressed earlier in this thread, I think that baptism, PROPER baptism, is the one single MOST important step that one can take in becoming a Christian.

I agree and we ignore it to our detriment.

I have not studied any of the details of Jonestown or Waco to know exactly how far off base they were, or in what specific areas the errors lay.

Could I suggest that neither these are relevant to the topic. The majority of cults began right observing the essentials of the faith and doing the things that most of them do. The problem begins when the leader starts to savour the power of leadership, takes on authority he doesn't have and starts to control those under him. He moves from control to absolute control to messiah status. At that stage, nothing can happen unless he says so and everything he says is divinely inspired and is to be obeyed.

At creation, God gave man control over everything, except each other. That still stands. Even God won't violate a person's free will. He might make things a bit uncomfortable for them to get their attention but he will never "make" you do anything.

The issues then becomes not how do they baptise, have communion or meals, meet on Saturday or Sunday. The issue becomes does the leader usurp Jesus as head of the church and as chief shepherd.

For what it is worth, anyone who calls themself "senior pastor" is usurping Jesus position of chief shepherd. You will note that no one in the NT was addressed as "senior pastor" or even "pastor". The leadership of the local congregation quite rightly was the province of a plurality of elders, which were the senior men of the congregation who had proved themselves in daily life (25 different verses). I have a feeling that God in his wisdom did this to prevent more Jonestown's and Wacos as there is safety in numbers so the bible tells us.

If you want to see an example of a leadership that is 'powerless' look no further than the Open Brethren. They have a plurality of elders so no one rules the roost and in my experience, although they are men of proven character, they are the most humble and self effacing men you could wish to meet.

My 12 year involvement in the Brethren movement in the UK was one where I felt very, very secure and safe, notwithstanding a couple of doctrinal errors.

 

[Pogo]

Imagician –

Part 4

Pogo, I am well aware of what the churches teach. But there is much more to the truth than what is often offered by the churches. For we can plainly see through their 'short comings' that they most certainly DON'T have it 'all figured out'.

I totally agree!

But, they don’t want to hear the truth! And, they will not tolerate one resisting their doctrine very long.

And once again, I notice that you didn't reply to my offering concerning the words of Christ offered to those that claim to have done 'many things in His name. The ones that He tells to 'go away from Him for He doesn't even know them'. Who are these? Were they Baptized in His name?

I did respond to this earlier!

Which is MORE important: Faith or works? And I would ask this: which is more important, being Baptized or LEARNING to 'love our God and our neighbors'?

I guess that I’m not the best person to answer these questions.

I’m just an average Joe, living on Any Street, USA, that’s just trying to make a little sense out of that dusty Bible on the coffee table over there.

As I have already posted somewhere, I see FAITH as being a combination of both belief and obedience.

So technically, since one has to believe something, before they can obey it, I’m going to say that belief is the most important.

And, since baptism is essential to one’s becoming a Christian, and only Christians will be going to heaven, I’m going to say that baptism is most important.

Imagician, my brother, I realize that my answers above, as well as my responses through out this thread, are not what you have wanted to hear.

This is, however, what the scriptures are saying to me!

And Pogo, what about the man that is stranded on the deserted island? Without Baptism, is it IMPOSSIBLE for him to BE SAVED? And which is 'better': to be Baptized into 'false beliefs' or to follow in righteousness WITHOUT Baptism being involved? Once again we speak of 'water'.

Having offered my response earlier on this, I can only add that a proper baptism doesn’t baptise one into false beliefs.

I know people like to speak in absolutes. But absolutes are oftentimes able to ONLY limit us in our understanding. For once we 'create' an absolute, then at that point we have cut ourselves off from any other understanding.

This is probably true for most, but I have found that my absolutes have turned out to be pretty flexible for me.

Because, so far, when my absolutes have rubbed up against the truth, the truth has prevailed every time.

And Pogo, the most important thing is that 'without charity' NOTHING so far as ritual means ANYTHING of significance. For obedience for the 'sake' of obedience has NO ability to teach understanding. That is what has caused the 'stumbling block in Christ' for the Jews. They have yet to learn what the example taught. instead they simply learned to be 'followers' of law instead of understanding the PURPOSE of the law. It is no different with those that today seek to obtain the gift offered through 'ritual' instead of understanding WHAT the ritual signifies. For it IS our hearts through which we will be judged.

All of this is, indeed, true!

But, also would you not say that LOVE and CHARITY are to be applied within the LAW?

Do the first two automatically exclude the third?

I think not!

Because I see LOVE and CHARITY as LAWS themselves!!!

MEC, hopefully, in the next world, we will be able to share a couble of glasses of wine together!

May God bless us all,

Pogo

BTW -

Dear marksman,

AMEN!!!