Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[turnorburn]

Come over here I have something to share with you, add this up you may need a calculator.
take the number of people confessing Christ as they were tied to the stake or sawn asunder
as Isaiah was, drawn and quartered by four horses put on a gridiron not the one at your
football games next add that to the number of victims in the Holocaust, just everyday people
that accepted Christ at the last moment, next after you've added it up post your total, then we'll compare notes :

Thanks,
turnorburn

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Come over here I have something to share with you, add this up you may need a calculator.
take the number of people confessing Christ as they were tied to the stake or sawn asunder
as Isaiah was, drawn and quartered by four horses put on a gridiron not the one at your
football games next add that to the number of victims in the Holocaust, just everyday people
that accepted Christ at the last moment, next after you've added it up post your total, then we'll compare notes :

Thanks,
turnorburn

Well, we have this teaching as well:

CCC 1258: The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI

 

[Imagican]

Pogo, my brother, we have communicated so well up to now. Please read into what I am offering and realize that I am NOT discounting water Baptism for what it's worth. i am simply trying to place it in it's proper perspective as concerns the topic.

Now, let me ask these questions and perhaps THEN you will see what it is that I have been attempting to offer:

Are there 'false Christis'? Can one BE Baptized INTO a 'false Christ'? Now, which would be more dangerous; NOT being Baptized at all, or being Baptized into a 'false Christ'?

And, if you can see what I have offered here, at that point you will begin to understand my stance on 'water Baptism'. Too many variables for it to be what the churches teach it is. A good thing? Perhaps in the proper setting with the proper purpose. But even then, you have pointiently pointed out that it is BELIEF that saves or destroys NOT Baptism in water. For we live under a covenant of GRACE and NO amount of word wrangling is able to alter this in the least except in the hearts of those that have NOT come to an understanding of WHAT grace IS.

Works WILL follow faith. But it IS the faith that brings one TO a 'closer walk and understanding'.

Will reciting the Lords prayer bring Salvation to ANY that do so? Will asking God to reveal Himself work for EVERYONE? In the SAME respect, I offer that 'water Baptism' is NOT enough to bring about eternal life. it is NOTHING but a commitment that may or MAY NOT be sincere. It is AN ACT. And an act is nothing short of 'works'. No different than taking the bread and wine. BUT, we can CERTAINLY find ourselves held accontable for making such commitments and NOT living up to them. For we have been told that many have 'eaten' to their OWN destruction. Do you 'believe' that it is any different with 'water Baptism'? That we could make such a commitment and then NOT live up to it without suffering punishment for such deception of God or His Son? I wonder?

The world is lost and a LARGE part of the world HAS BEEN BAPTIZED. Do you believe that Satan is unable to convince the weak to be Baptized in the name of a 'false Christ'? Just a question. I ask for I sometimes think that the majority of those that follow churches truly believe that there is but ONE Christ. Totally oblivious to the FACT that Satan Himself IS able to disguise himself as the Son himself. WHY do you believe that the churches teach that Jesus IS God? So that when he appears in the flesh as the 'SAVIOR of the world', he will be worshiped AS God Himself. Now, if Satan is able to perform such a spectacular feat as this, how much easier would it be for him to convince men to be Baptized into a 'false Christ'?

I am NOT saying that everyone that has been Baptized in water has been duped by Satan. What I AM saying is that MANY that have been Baptized in water have done so through deception. For when Paul speaks of 'those that have gone out from among us' do you NOT believe that THESE had been Baptized in water?

With time and an open heart comes understanding to those that are 'able' to bear it. But with such understanding comes a loss of innocence. i hessitate to speak of some things for the sake of those that may well be too weak to 'handle it'. For I am NOT able to judge the hearts of others and am therefore unable to judge what they are able to bear. But suffice is to say that there is MUCH more truth to be understood than that which is continually being perpetuated by the churches. And WHO ELSE will be those that will point out all the 'wonderous things that they have DONE in the name of Christ'? Who else besides the churches? So, I would warn others to 'beware of WHERE they place their faith'. False Christ's abound and we were TOLD that there would come a time when other would offer, 'Christ is HERE, Christ is THERE', but the faithful were warned NOT to listen to those offering false faith in false Christs'. For MANY will come and have that will speak swelling words that appeal to itching ears. Words that are ONLY able to destory those that follow through ignorance OTHERS instead of their TRUE master.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[marksman]

As I interpret the scriptures, we are still bound by law, just not the OT law. The pattern we have of Christ's examples and commands (commands are laws, are they not?) that are found in the NT still serve as our laws, do they not?

Yes, I have no problem with that idea. The difference is that one is the law of the spirit of life and one is the law of sin and death Rom 8: 1& 2.

How are they different? The law of sin and death is not able to save us. If it was Jesus need not have come to earth and die for us. Prior to the cross, we had to keep the law in its entirety to be acceptable to God.

After the cross the law was fulfilled in the death of Christ so we are no longer FORCED to keep the law because we are accepted in Christ. It is not us that God sees, it is his son Jesus as we lose ourselves in him i.e. our old man dies and we are given a new nature, the Christ one.

To explain it in the natural, my son does not have to be obedient all the time to be accepted as my son. Whether he is good or bad, I love him and accept him. Whatever he has or has not done, when I see him, I put my arms around him and hug him. As a result he knows that he is loved.

When you are in a love relationship as we are with God, you don't strive to be obedient. It is a response to the outworking of that relationship so love, not the law is the motivating factor and as we know, love does not condemn. The law does. This fact means that obeying Jesus is not burdensome. Fulfilling the OT law is.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

As I interpret the scriptures, we are still bound by law, just not the OT law. The pattern we have of Christ's examples and commands (commands are laws, are they not?) that are found in the NT still serve as our laws, do they not?

Correct!! Well said.

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and do a little research into the gospel of Mark. MOST experts agree that the last eight verses of Mark were NOT even written by the same person that wrote the REST of this gospel. That it was either never finished or lost and 'someone' filled in the missing piece. Now WHO do you 'think' would have done such a 'thing' and WHY?

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Oh, and do a little research into the gospel of Mark. MOST experts agree that the last eight verses of Mark were NOT even written by the same person that wrote the REST of this gospel. That it was either never finished or lost and 'someone' filled in the missing piece. Now WHO do you 'think' would have done such a 'thing' and WHY?

MEC

Are you saying the scriptures are incorrect? Sounds like a case of "Luther-idas" :D

 

[marksman]

And, ALL of them show Luke 22:19 concluding WITH, “…this do in remembrance of me.â€Â

The key here is "do any other scriptures support this ONE?" It is dangerous to base any belief on ONE verse of scripture as I find that when this happens, tradition takes over from truth.

Lets analyse what was said if it was in the original. The word 'do' means execute or accomplish a single act. In other words, once only, not every week.

Being a sect of the Jewish faith, the context would have been the passover meal which was once a year. There is no indication that they understood it as a weekly event.

Nowhere in the NT is it recorded that they had 'communion' as we know it. They did meet regularly for meals and again in the Corinthian church Paul was teaching them the correct conduct at the meal because he said that it was the Lord's Supper when they shared their food and not eat without regard to those who were unable to contribute.

The Corinthian church being gentile, was not required to keep the Jewish law so the annual passover meal would not have been observed.

The 'matzos' or unleavened bread was only used at the annual passover meal. All other meals would have used the standard loaf which was broken (not cut like we do) and distributed to the guests by the host as a sign that the meal was to begin.

If we insist that we replicate what happened in scripture, we have to have an annual passover meal with matzos bread. If we follow tradition and have weekly communion, we are required to have a loaf broken and passed around to guests.

If we follow the teachings of scripture, as gentiles we are not required to observe the passover meal. All that leaves us is the 'agape' communal meal. There is no injunction that it was optional.

In addition, church history shows that the church did not introduce the 'eucahrist' or 'mass' until the third century.

Therefore, all this evidence cannot be ignored in preference to one short statement in the scriptures. To allow this would mean that we can take any verse or statement out of context and make it mean whatever we want it to. Many protestant churches do this and usually that is where tradition which replaces scripture comes from.

 

[marksman]

Paidion, I think you have a very good understanding of baptism and explained it very well. I would add from my reading of religious history that baptism was significant not only for christianity but other religions as well as it indicated that you agreed with the teachings of the founder of your religion and were prepared to follow them. Until you were baptised, you were not considered a devotee of the religion.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...tradition takes over from truth. ...

The implication here is that "tradition" is not true. That is incorrect.

...In addition, church history shows that the church did not introduce the 'eucahrist' or 'mass' until the third century.....

Not true. Here is the Mass, in Acts 2:42
"They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."
That is a Mass. Go to one some time. We hear scripture readings, we pray, and we receive the "bread of life", as has been done from the beginning.
And the word "Mass"? That is simply from the last words of a Mass in Latin, "missa est", which means to go forth: We are to go forth and spread the good news after Mass.

Consider this witness of St. Justin Martyr from 155 AD, for the basic lines of the order of the Mass. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161):

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

source:
St. Justin, Apol. 1, 65-67

 

[turnorburn]

Misfit summed it up here 390 posts ago:[Water Baptism is an outward show of ones faith, it has nothing to do with salvation. EG the thief on the cross was never baptized, but was in paradise with Jesus simply for believing who he was.]

Your

turnorburn

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Misfit summed it up here 390 posts ago:[Water Baptism is an outward show of ones faith, it has nothing to do with salvation. EG the thief on the cross was never baptized, but was in paradise with Jesus simply for believing who he was.]

turnorburn

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Christians do not believe that, and that view was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity

 

[turnorburn]

Then everything got confusing and we all know who the master of confusion is,
Jesus said we are to become as little children, you see that way we can enjoy our
heavenly Father not argue with him. :-D

 

[Pogo]

Imagician –

Thanks for your last post!

This clears some things up for me.

We do agree that much error is being taught in the churches of this world. As I’ve already posted, I have yet to find ANY mainstream church teaching the truth on every subject found in the scriptures.

And, as you have pointed out, you are not against baptism by water ‘per se’. But, it is only after many pages of posts that this becomes clear. And, even then, it seems to me that you don’t see it as essential to one’s salvation.

As I’ve been following this thread, your over-riding tone, has been, and still is, that baptism by water is unnecessary, which in my view, contradicts scripture.

Granted, those who are baptized into a church following and teaching error, are bound for hell! But, to me, that doesn’t mean that baptism, immersion by water, isn’t essential to one’s salvation.

It is here, that the differences of our two legalisms collide!

Love, as you point out, is the answer, but as I interpret the scriptures, it is not love RATHER than obedience, it is love BY obedience!

For me, the key to solving this predicament is to see that everyone is baptized into an obedient congregation of our Lord’s church!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...those who are baptized into a church following and teaching error, are bound for hell....

Only God knows what is in the hearts of men. I tell you, you will see Muslim and Buddhist lttle boys and girls in heaven who followed the dictates their heart by whatever light God gave them, and you will see many Bible thumpers in hell for their judgmentalism as they sought to remove the spec from their brothers eyes but ignored the planks in their own.

 

[Pogo]

Catholic Crusader -

AMEN!!!

Right back at ya!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Catholic Crusader -

AMEN!!!

Right back at ya!

In Christ,

Pogo

I don't know why you are Amen-ing me. I was in strong disagreement with everything you said. To point a finger at an entire group of people in a church you disagree with and say they are all bound for hell is taking God's judgment into your own hands. No man can say such things. Remember: The measure by which you judge people is the measure by which you shall be judged.

 

[Pogo]

turnorburn -

Misfit summed it up here 390 posts ago:[Water Baptism is an outward show of ones faith, it has nothing to do with salvation. EG the thief on the cross was never baptized, but was in paradise with Jesus simply for believing who he was.]

I personally don’t see Jesus' words (Jesus’ words ARE law, are they not?) to the thief on the cross as being applicable to anyone but that one thief...not even the other thief, on the other cross... much less anyone else.

I see it that Jesus extended mercy to only one that day, and only THAT one, with the law which He bound that day!

Also, the Great Commission, which reaffirmed the requirement of baptism as taught throughout His ministry here on this earth, was instituted AFTER Jesus’ death and resurrection, is still the rule of law that applies to us today.

Additionally, if you don't mind, I would be highly interested to know your views on the role that water played in the healing of the leper(s) who were commanded to wash in the River Jordan?

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[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]

Not true. Here is the Mass, in Acts 2:42 "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." That is a Mass. Go to one some time. We hear scripture readings, we pray, and we receive the "bread of life", as has been done from the beginning.

Where does it say that this is the mass? The word is unknown in the new testament. I have been to several when I worked in the catholic education system. They were all ritualistic routines performed over by a man dressed up as a woman who bowed before an altar and intoned some magical words that he alone is spiritual enough to do, none of which you will find in the new testament because there was no such things as a priest in the new testament church. The government of the church was in the hands of apostles initially and then it was handed over to elders who were unpaid local men who had proved their worth in society and the church.