Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[mutzrein]

Hi MEC - thanks for this thread. Just monitoring at the mo but some interesting points made.

Blessings

 

[nate]

man being a Christian would be a easy way of life if all you needed to do is get baptized thats easier then paying your way into heaven or out of hell in the middle ages. most of these deb ates have such simple answers we make things so complicated. what did Jesus say repent and be baptized there you have it will not being baptized keep you on the bad side of the pearly gates as scripture as shown I think not its a heart thing not a ritual thing but the ritual is very important so yes by all meens if you have the opportunity and you are a repentent Christian you should be more than happy but be exstatic about getting baptized. well there is my couples pennies on this

 

[Rick W]

I arranged for my baptism. Made the decision, touched base with the pastor, got the time/date settled etc. And I took certain clothes and a towel for the event.

I didn't arrange my salvation. Nor did I get a chance to select a certain set of clothes for the event. :wink:

 

[Imagican]

I arranged for my baptism. Made the decision, touched base with the pastor, got the time/date settled etc. And I took certain clothes and a towel for the event.

I didn't arrange my salvation. Nor did I get a chance to select a certain set of clothes for the event. :wink:

And THERE you have it. I think that both Mutz AND myself would 'understand' EXACTLY what you have stated here. Baptism IS a 'personal' decision whereas being 'born of The Spirit' is something BEYOND a 'personal decision'.

Is water Baptism IMPORTANT? I guess it CAN be to the INDIVIDUAL. But is 'water Baptism' ENOUGH for one to KNOW 'anything'?

When I was Baptized, it made practically NO difference in my life that I could discern, (other than for a 'few days'. But I have YET to FEEL I 'needed' to BE Baptized AGAIN. It took about 20 years between BEING Baptized in water to actually BE 'born again'.

And a 'little addition' to what has already been discussed here: I have witnessed MANY, including myself, that have been Baptized in water that 'others' would NEVER be able to recognize it in their, (and my), actions or behavior.

MEC

 

[Rick W]

Job 40:9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
Job 40:10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.
Job 40:11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.
Job 40:12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
Job 40:13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
Job 40:14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Christians always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12), and they have always interpreted that as WATER BAPTISM. Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . 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 [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that water baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Still, even though the necessity of water baptism is a normative, there are exceptions to water baptism. It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism. This applies to, say, the Good Thief on the cross. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church also states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

I suggest you read the first seven links on this page:
http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....If someone BELIEVES that it IS, then, by all means offer us some 'scriptural evidence' so we can discuss it....

It is what it is, no more, no less. The problem is that you make it less than what it is.

 

[Alabaster]

Still, even though the necessity of water baptism is a normative, there are exceptions to water baptism. It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism. This applies to, say, the Good Thief on the cross. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church also states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

So now there are many ways to be saved apart from faith in Christ alone?

Catechism says many things, but what does the written Word of God say? Not what the Catholic church says!

 

[Imagican]

....If someone BELIEVES that it IS, then, by all means offer us some 'scriptural evidence' so we can discuss it....

It is what it is, no more, no less. The problem is that you make it less than what it is.

CC,

'I' am unable to 'make it ANYTHING'. I am simply offering disucssion concerning the validity of what MANY seem to have been DUPED into 'believing'.

IS 'water Baptism' ENOUGH for one to truly FOLLOW Christ and receive eternal life? That is the question. And many have been led into a 'false sense of security' by this very principle of 'being Baptized IS enough'.

And I have found that there are many that have simply 'given in' to that which is EASIEST to 'believe'. This being that; "'I'm Baptized, Jesus Loves me, and that's ENOUGH."

Drew offered a statement earlier that has MORE significance than maybe even HE recognizes. Often times we struggle to understand and then 'something comes along' that SEEMS to offer an 'easier way out'. An understanding that takes NO 'guilt' or 'conviction' other than to BELIEVE it. I question whether there IS that 'easy way'. For EVERYTHING that we've been offered SAYS that it WILL BE a 'struggle'. That we battle EVERY DAY, EVERY moment with principalities and powers that are NOT of 'this physical plane' in which we live. And IF we are NOT battling, then that MUST mean that we have surrendered, or been DEFEATED.

'Fear and trembling', folks. That's what we are told would BE OUR STATE if we KNOW God and His Son. This FALSE sense of 'pseudo peace' that many have lapsed into is NONE OTHER than the ability to LIVE FOR THIS WORLD and IT offering that which is able to appease the FLESH. For those that TRULY strive to LIVE FOR GOD, then there is NO false peace. For that which we STRIVE to achieve in perfection is NOT ABLE to BE complete. And the MOMENT that we STOP striving, we 'fall back' into that 'old man', the flesh, that is UTTERLY LOST. Those that TRULY LOVE God and His Son are continually striving to BE what we are MEANT to BE. And since so long as we ARE in the 'flesh', it is a NEVER ENDING 'trek' so long as we ARE IN THE FLESH. For the FLESH is UNABLE to BE 'perfect'. It is a CONTINUOUS process of cleansing that we MUST participate in. A continous effort to OVERCOME that which IS able to DESTROY.

We are told to put on the WHOLE armor of God. And there is NO indication that this can be done ONCE and we are protected. It indicates that we MUST wear it EVERY MOMENT of EVERY DAY. Otherwise we become vulnerable to the wiles of the devil., who is CONSTANTLY SEEKING to devour us. And you can BELIEVE that his efforts are given MOST STRONGLY against those that PROFESS to BE 'Christians'. For those that LIVE IN AND FOR THIS WORLD are ALREADY HIS.

Now, IF 'water Baptism' WERE 'enough', then we would NOT be 'warned' to RUN THE RACE LIKE WE MEAN TO WIN IT. We would simply be ABLE to be 'cleansed' through the 'water' and that would be IT.

So, is 'water Baptism ENOUGH', or is there MORE to 'following Christ' than a 'simple act of submission'?

And it really has no affect on truth WHAT 'a church' teaches. For MANY have 'gone astray' and MANY that have done so CAME OUT FROM AMONG the VERY 'Church' formed By Christ and His Apostles. This also we have been warned of; that even at the TIME of the apostles, the 'falling away' had ALREADY begun.

So, 'churchology' is CERTAINLY NOT a 'place' to PUT one's FAITH. For THE CHURCH is the BODY of Christ; those that live FOR and BY the Word of God given through His Son, Jesus Christ. So, beware of ANY that would teach you that 'all you have to do is........'. There IS more to it than that. And ANY 'true child' understands that to PLEASE their parent, they MUST be able to FIRST KNOW what it IS that the Parent desires.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....So now there are many ways to be saved apart from faith in Christ alone?Catechism says many things, but what does the written Word of God say? Not what the Catholic church says....

Nobody said that. And remember, the Word LIVES. The "Word" is not a dead page in a dusty book, the Word is a person, JESUS. He lives through His Body, the Church. His Church is the means of His Salvation. You cannot rip the Bible from the bosom of Holy Mother Church then turn it against Her. That is a fools' errand.

 

[mutzrein]

....So now there are many ways to be saved apart from faith in Christ alone?Catechism says many things, but what does the written Word of God say? Not what the Catholic church says....

Nobody said that. And remember, the Word LIVES. The "Word" is not a dead page in a dusty book, the Word is a person, JESUS. He lives through His Body, the Church. His Church is the means of His Salvation. You cannot rip the Bible from the bosom of Holy Mother Church then turn it against Her. That is a fools' errand.

Since when was the Church, the means of Christ's salvation? You might believe it is, but that is different to it being a fact.

 

[Imagican]

....So now there are many ways to be saved apart from faith in Christ alone?Catechism says many things, but what does the written Word of God say? Not what the Catholic church says....

Nobody said that. And remember, the Word LIVES. The "Word" is not a dead page in a dusty book, the Word is a person, JESUS. He lives through His Body, the Church. His Church is the means of His Salvation. You cannot rip the Bible from the bosom of Holy Mother Church then turn it against Her. That is a fools' errand.

Your statement above would equate to saying, "You can't rip the constitution of America from the bosom of the American People and then turn it against them". This is 'simply a statement' with no merit.

The 'errand' of the translation and interpretation are TWO separate acts. It was OBVIOUSLY God's WILL for the Bible to BE translated. But the interpretation of what has been interpreted can ONLY be 'stated' to BE 'what it is'. And that is 'someone', (whether inspired or NOT), deciding upon themselves WHAT the words actually MEAN.

One is MOST CERTAINLY able to 'turn away' from the TRUTH of ANYTHING. We can see plainly in the story of Adam and Eve that; even though they were given instruction in truth, they chose to follow 'something different'.

It's no different with ANY humans that so choose to follow 'their OWN truth'.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Since when was the Church, the means of Christ's salvation? You might believe it is, but that is different to it being a fact.

The Church preaches the Gospel, does it not? For what purpose does God choose to spread His Word via a Church, when He could just "infuse" the knowledge into our heads? For whatever reason, God reveals Himself THROUGH this Church. Since salvation is by the Word, the Church is the visible instrument of salvation through which God works to save men.

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Nobody said that. And remember, the Word LIVES. The "Word" is not a dead page in a dusty book, the Word is a person, JESUS. He lives through His Body, the Church. His Church is the means of His Salvation. You cannot rip the Bible from the bosom of Holy Mother Church then turn it against Her. That is a fools' errand.

Your statement above would equate to saying, "You can't rip the constitution of America from the bosom of the American People and then turn it against them". This is 'simply a statement' with no merit.

Thats wrong for two reasons:

1) America and its Constitution are man-made inventions, and they are therefore flawed, and not endowed with Divine Protection as Christ's Church is.

2) In a Demnocracy, power flows from the bottom up. The leaders are answerable to the people. The Kingdom of God is just the opposite: Power flows from the top down. The Father sends the Son, the Son sends the twelve, the twelve send their successors. You do NOT tell the pope and the bishops that their teaching is wrong - THEY tell YOU what teachings are wrong or right.

Your comparison is totally wrong and inept.

 

[Imagican]

Since when was the Church, the means of Christ's salvation? You might believe it is, but that is different to it being a fact.

The Church preaches the Gospel, does it not? For what purpose does God choose to spread His Word via a Church, when He could just "infuse" the knowledge into our heads? For whatever reason, God reveals Himself THROUGH this Church. Since salvation is by the Word, the Church is the visible instrument of salvation through which God works to save men.

Regards

That is what the CHURCHES teach. But THE Church of Christ is the Body of BELIEVERS, not the instrument by WHICH one BECOMES a 'believer'. That is churchology that teaches such. It was offered that AFTER one is 'saved' do they THEN BECOME members OF The Body.

And HERE is where we differ MOST fran, for YOUR 'church' teaches that YOUR Salvation is DEPENDANT upon 'your church'. MY understanding is that I am NOT EVEN A PART of The Church until AFTER I have 'come to grace'.

'The Church is there for support of EACH OTHER and NOT the 'other way around'. For there would BE NO CHURCH without The Body. Your 'church' seems to teach that each member is nothing more than a 'part of the HEAD'. Yet I KNOW there is NEED of fingers, toes, arms, legs, a PERFECTLY joined together Spiritual Body.

And PLEASE note, I am offering MY understanding. I am NOT speaking for ANY other than myself. What the denominations TEACH is NOT necessary for MY understanding to be fulfilled.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....THE Church of Christ is the Body of BELIEVERS, not the instrument by WHICH one BECOMES a 'believer'....

Wrong again:

Romans 10:17
"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."

Jesus chose men to preach, and those men are who we "hear". Notice: It does not say "reading", it says "hearing".

 

[francisdesales]

But THE Church of Christ is the Body of BELIEVERS, not the instrument by WHICH one BECOMES a 'believer'.

What must one believe to become a "believer"? Can one pick and choose what to believe about God and Christ and STILL be called a "believer", or does the New Testament limit the term to ONLY those in COMMUNION with one another, having the same faith and sharing the same loaf? Unfortunately for new-fangled evangelical Protestantism, the "body of believers" is Scripturally refering to a particular VISIBLE community, not some vague self-proclaming status where one picks and chooses WHAT to believe. Orthodoxy was a great concern to the writers of Scriptures. Ask yourself why Paul was so strongly condemning Judaizers, fellow "believers" by your vague definition...

If Orthodoxy, correct belief, was inconsequential, as Evangelicalism likes to claim, then Paul wasted a lot of ink complaining about Gnostics and Judaizers... What would Paul say to the likes of you who does not even view Jesus in the same manner as the rest of the community? Further evidence of this exists today when we poll Evangelicals and ask them if Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are believers... "No", the Evangelicals say.

We agree. But why? Orthodoxy is the issue, but Evangelicals will draw their line, not the Scriptures...

And HERE is where we differ MOST fran, for YOUR 'church' teaches that YOUR Salvation is DEPENDANT upon 'your church'. MY understanding is that I am NOT EVEN A PART of The Church until AFTER I have 'come to grace'.

Is the Church the Body of Christ or not? Why do you keep trying to separate the Head from the Body? You are merely making a false dichotomy by pitting Christ against HIS Church, the one HE created... Is the builder not able to protect His creation?

Did not Jesus make statements about a Kingdom separated as such cannot stand? But you would have Christ create a visible Church, led by visible men, now in battle with Christ?

Oh, I forgot, you don't think Christ is God. Well, at least your view is more consistent, albeit still incorrect.

'The Church is there for support of EACH OTHER and NOT the 'other way around'. For there would BE NO CHURCH without The Body. Your 'church' seems to teach that each member is nothing more than a 'part of the HEAD'. Yet I KNOW there is NEED of fingers, toes, arms, legs, a PERFECTLY joined together Spiritual Body.

Now you are just making no sense. The Church doesn't teach we are all part of the head, I have no clue where you are getting this from. I submit my beliefs to the Church's teachings - and that makes me "part of the Head"...? NOWHERE does the Church deny the need for "fingers and toes"... There are many vocations in the Church, both lay and ecclesiastical, just as their are many gifts of the Spirit given for the sake of the CHURCH! (not for the recipient...)

And PLEASE note, I am offering MY understanding. I am NOT speaking for ANY other than myself. What the denominations TEACH is NOT necessary for MY understanding to be fulfilled.

I am fully aware that you speak for yourself... Every Protestant does so.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

You refer to those that continued to hold to the traditions and laws of the Jews as if THEY were ANY different than the CC's dogma and doctrine. That is ironic indeed.

For the CC has taught a whole slew of it's OWN tradtion and laws that one MUST abide by in order to be considered a 'part of the CC'.

Amusing how YOU see it differently.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

You refer to those that continued to hold to the traditions and laws of the Jews as if THEY were ANY different than the CC's dogma and doctrine. That is ironic indeed.

For the CC has taught a whole slew of it's OWN tradtion and laws that one MUST abide by in order to be considered a 'part of the CC'.

Amusing how YOU see it differently.

MEC

Jesus did not condemn all the laws and traditions of the Jews, rather He condemned only the on's that went against the Word of God.

Catholic Tradition (and here we differentiate between Capitol-T Tradition and small "t" traditions or customs) has its origins from the apostles and ultimately from Christ. These are the Traditions Paul tells us to hold fast to.

 

[francisdesales]

You refer to those that continued to hold to the traditions and laws of the Jews as if THEY were ANY different than the CC's dogma and doctrine. That is ironic indeed.

For the CC has taught a whole slew of it's OWN tradtion and laws that one MUST abide by in order to be considered a 'part of the CC'.

Amusing how YOU see it differently.

MEC

MEC,

Perhaps a bit of reading of early Christianity may help you realize that there were "alternative" beliefs of Christianity, even in the first century.

The Ebionites, whom Paul calls "Judaizers", had their own Scriptures and beliefs on who Jesus was and their view on maintaining Jewish particulars. They did not believe that the Mosaic Law was done away with and that dietary and cleanliness rituals must be maintained. It appears that you believe that these were ALSO "believers", part of the Body, part of the Church - if we equate what you say of the CURRENT Church and whom it consists of and extend it back 2000 years. A reading of Scripture does not allow Judaizers to be called "believers" in the sense that they were part of the Church. They weren't.

Yet, that is what you claim for yourself today. Orthodoxy to you is inconsequential - except as determined by the individual to THINK He is still part of the Body. We don't find any such concept in Scriptures. Either one was part of the community of believers, a visible group of people following visible and duly appointed leaders, or they were considered Judaizers or Gnostics, false teachers who NOWHERE are given the rank of "believer" or called part of the Body, the Church.

The vague and invisible Church you describe is found only in the imaginations of Protestants who REJECT Christ's VISIBLE Church, the Catholic Church. There is absolutely no precedent for those OUTSIDE of this visible community to be considered part of the Body except by their own ignorance. Willfully refusing to join the Church is akin to rejecting the apostles - which is a rejection of Christ. We just do not find individuals invisibly attached to the Body without considering orthodoxy. Faulty orthodoxy is a sign that one is NOT part of the Body.

Thus, your idea of a "believer" falls woefully short of reality as told to us by Scriptures. By your writing, it appears you think Judaizers were believers. I do not find that has any relationship to your "irony" that you propose.

Regards