Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[Imagican]

You claim that the CC IS The Church founded by Christ and His apostles. I don't accept this teaching for a second. There were MANY different parts of the Body formed durring the same age and these STILL vary in dogma and doctrine.

We have the letters written by Paul and other apostles that POINTED out that the 'churches' had ALREADY begun to 'fall away' from MUCH of what had been offered DURRING their time. So, I am confused as to HOW you THINK that A particular organization is able to claim what 'doesn't exist'.

The Body ARE the 'believers'. You insist that it is the 'group that believes as YOU DO'. I simply state that ALL those that BELIEVE and FOLLOW Christ's commandments ARE The Body. Regardless of label or name, and EXPECIALLY regardless of 'denomination', ALL that KNOW Christ are ABLE to know His Father. And these that persevere ARE the Body of Christ.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.
.

Horse apples.

 

[francisdesales]

You claim that the CC IS The Church founded by Christ and His apostles. I don't accept this teaching for a second.

Then you clearly have little knowledge of history. Frankly, there is no other Church that can reasonably make the claim, so either we believe the Church and the Bible she vouches for, or Christianity is on shaky grounds. The Bible has Jesus promising to protect this Church that He established - and the Bible presumes He has the ability to do that. Thus, if the Church is to last for all time, it must have been in existence since Christ. What other historical organization can make that claim? It is rather simple and elementary.

There were MANY different parts of the Body formed durring the same age and these STILL vary in dogma and doctrine.

Where does the Bible speak of parts of the Body having different doctrines and dogmas? You are clearly desperate, because that concept is not found in Scriptures, OT or NT. There is only ONE authentic interpertation and set of teachings acceptable and part of being of the Body. Remember, God did not give man a Bible to peruse and figure it out for himself. God gave man a Church, a visible organization with the POWER TO BIND AND LOOSE, to TEACH the Word of God to the people. It is this saving Word that brings Christ into the hearts and minds of people.

We have the letters written by Paul and other apostles that POINTED out that the 'churches' had ALREADY begun to 'fall away' from MUCH of what had been offered DURRING their time. So, I am confused as to HOW you THINK that A particular organization is able to claim what 'doesn't exist'.

This "falling away" had nothing to do with orthodoxy, but orthopraxy. Read James, for example. What does James talk about in James 2? Is James making mention about some communities separating from the Body because of their disagreement in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, or is it about Christians who were not walking in faith? THAT is constantly resonating in Scriptures - the exhortation to persevere in their faith working in love, NOT about whether Jesus was God. Everyone of the Body shared that faith.

The Body ARE the 'believers'. You insist that it is the 'group that believes as YOU DO'. I simply state that ALL those that BELIEVE and FOLLOW Christ's commandments ARE The Body.

You mean only the commands you adhere to or choose to follow at the moment. Tell me, what, according to you, was the purpose of Christ giving power to men to bind and loosen over other Christians if one can pick and choose what to believe and follow and interpret how to follow God?

Regardless of label or name, and EXPECIALLY regardless of 'denomination', ALL that KNOW Christ are ABLE to know His Father. And these that persevere ARE the Body of Christ.

You have already shown your knowledge of Christ is lacking in your dissertations on the person of Christ - and thus, how are you able to know the Father? The Church teaches WHO Christ is, since they heard it from the Apostles. Indepedent interpretations are not how we come to know God. Your relativism notwithstanding, there is only one Truth. Truth is not subject to our opinions, but to His revelation.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

fran,

Oh how you 'try'...........

Where does the Bible speak of parts of the Body having different doctrines and dogmas? You are clearly desperate, because that concept is not found in Scriptures, OT or NT. There is only ONE authentic interpertation and set of teachings acceptable and part of being of the Body. Remember, God did not give man a Bible to peruse and figure it out for himself. God gave man a Church, a visible organization with the POWER TO BIND AND LOOSE, to TEACH the Word of God to the people. It is this saving Word that brings Christ into the hearts and minds of people.

I didn't offer ANYTHING concerning The Word in my statement. What I offered is HISTORICAL FACT. The Church that YOU state IS The Church has been through schism after schism over alternate doctrine and dogma. One Pope believes one thing and another something different. The evidence is CLEAR that it has taken two thousand years for the CC to reach the point that they have. And this has been two thousand years of 'evolution'. For the CC has changed OVER AND OVER durring this time frame.

Funny, but the Bible DOES state that IT is HOW we are to discern TRUTH from LIES. The Bible TELLS us that IT is our 'food' to be used to GROW in Christ. Yet YOU would offer that IT is NOT ENOUGH, but Baptism in YOUR organization IS.

Can't you see how you have come to worship an institution MORE than 'anything else'?

The Spiritual 'Church' WILL prevail. There will ALWAYS be at LEAST a 'few' that follow in TRUTH and ARE a 'part of the Body'.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...Can't you see how you have come to worship an institution MORE than 'anything else'...

Nope. The Church is the Body of Christ. I worship Christ. I recognize the Church for what it is. It is a visible organization. Like us, it is made of Body and Spirit. You only see the Spirit, but reject the visible aspect. In so doing, you reject Christ's authentic teachers and stumble into false doctrines.

 

[Alabaster]

Can't you see how you have come to worship an institution MORE than 'anything else'?

 

[francisdesales]

fran,

Oh how you 'try'...........

Thanks, Mike...

I didn't offer ANYTHING concerning The Word in my statement. What I offered is HISTORICAL FACT. The Church that YOU state IS The Church has been through schism after schism over alternate doctrine and dogma. One Pope believes one thing and another something different.

That is categorically untrue. The Church has been through schism, even in Scriptures, but not over dogma. At the time of disagreement, they are yet theological opinions. The Popes do not disagree with past Popes over dogma, defined doctrine held for ALL Christians to believe. Discussion over theology is part of the development of doctrine. It is how we "ponder" over God's Word.

The evidence is CLEAR that it has taken two thousand years for the CC to reach the point that they have. And this has been two thousand years of 'evolution'. For the CC has changed OVER AND OVER durring this time frame.

Evolving is not changing into SOMETHING ELSE. An acorn changes into an oak tree, not a frog. The "mustard seed" planted by Christ is the same bush where the birds of the air come to rest...

Funny, but the Bible DOES state that IT is HOW we are to discern TRUTH from LIES.

We use the Bible to discern truth from lies. But IT doesn't discern for us...

The Bible TELLS us that IT is our 'food' to be used to GROW in Christ. Yet YOU would offer that IT is NOT ENOUGH, but Baptism in YOUR organization IS.

We must first be born of the Spirit to be spiritually fed by Christ.

Can't you see how you have come to worship an institution MORE than 'anything else'?

AH, now THAT is certainly possible, I will not deny. But properly understood, the Church is an INSTRUMENT towards salvation. Not the ends, but a means.

The Spiritual 'Church' WILL prevail. There will ALWAYS be at LEAST a 'few' that follow in TRUTH and ARE a 'part of the Body'.

The Spiritual Church are of necessity ALSO part of the Visible Church.

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

You're a valiant warrior francis, but your wisdom is lost on those who live by one-liners and rudimentary understandings of the Word of God.

 

[francisdesales]

You're a valiant warrior francis, but your wisdom is lost on those who live by one-liners and rudimentary understandings of the Word of God.

Thanks, but my experience has shown that even when I speak to a person such as you mention above, there is often times a "lurker" who greatly appreciates or can use what I provide. It is my hope that someone else may use this to their benefit, "building up the Body of Christ, the Church".

Otherwise, I would have given up on this long ago, my brother...

Joe

 

[Imagican]

You're a valiant warrior francis, but your wisdom is lost on those who live by one-liners and rudimentary understandings of the Word of God.

Oh contrare, my dear CC. I have YET to deny the 'wisdom of fran'. I just don't agree with a lot of it. MUCH I do. I have offered on numerous occasion that those that are of the membership of the CC would be amazed at how MUCH we share in common. What I do NOT agree upon is the 'faith in a 'man-made' church. And what I have continually done is point out that this is EXACTLY what the CC is.

I clearly recognize his faith and admire his perseverance, (even if misplaced imho).

And CC, if one liners it is, then that IS how you would see it. I have studied for many years now and MUCH of the 'one liners' that you propose have become intricately woven pieces of a 'beautiful tapestry' that IS The Word of God. That I simply deny the teachings of 'your church' doesn't negate my understanding in the least.

I am NOT here to convince ANYONE of 'my faith'. For words are 'cheap' and ineffectual in PROVING 'truth'. But I AM here to offer understanding to any and all who seek it.

This issue of Baptism is a 'prime example' of JUST how diverse beliefs in 'man-made churches' truly are.

Water Baptism important? I guess it CAN be. But it's the Spiritual Baptism that is ABLE to offer circumcision of the heart of those that ARE Baptized in The Spirit. Is water a 'sign' of those that ARE saved? I guess it CAN be. But simple emersion in water can be performed by ANY and CAN be ineffectual as ANY other physical ritual or pagentry. To 'eat a wafer' doesn't MEAN 'anything' in and of itself. For MANY have 'eaten the wafer' to NONE effect except to condemn themselves. And I believe water Baptism can be compared to the same.

IS 'water Baptism' a TRUE sign of the 'Christian'? Can be. But IS IT. Can WE determine that JUST because one has been dipped or sprinkled with water that they HAVE accepted Christ INTO their hearts?

I would imagine that there have been MANY religions of the historical past that used water in their cerimony. Ritualistic cleansing is NOTHING NEW.

And IS IT POSSIBLE to be Baptized into a 'false Christ'? Could one have a 'false understanding' or believe in 'something that resembles Christ' and be Baptized into this false belief or understanding?

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Okay, then back to the topic: “Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?â€Â. The question I have is: Enough for what? Enough to guarantee you heaven? No, it is not.

Baptism is what it is, no more, and no less. For us, baptism is the washing away of sin, the means by which one is “born againâ€Â, and the entrance into the covenant family of God. It does NOT cover sins committed afterwards, and therefore does not guarantee your salvation. It also does not guarantee that you will always be a good Christian, just as your formula of asking Jesus to be your “personal Lord and Savoir†does not guarantee that a person who does so will always be a good Christian either.

Where we disagree is that Baptism is merely symbolic.

 

[stranger]

Drew wrote:

In 1 Corinthians 15, we learn that for Paul, a "spiritual" body is still a body - it is made out of "stuff" we can see and touch. I think if Paul were reading this thread, he would claim that the "flesh - spirit" distinction really consists in the following distinction:

1. Flesh = the "Adamic" fallen human person.
2. Spirit = the redeemed "new creation" human person

The important point being that Paul would not, in my view, even think in terms of a physical - nonphysical distinction. I submit that Paul sees human beings as essentially monistic in nature and not decomposable into a physical part and a non-physical part. I emphasize "essentially" because I think there are indeed some important qualifications that I would like to add, but will not in this post.

How does this all relate to baptism? If my assertions about Paul's views are correct, I think this strengthens the argument that water baptism may play a mysterious role in salvation because there is no real distinction between the "physical" and what most modern Christians mean when they refer to the "spiritual".

Hi Drew,

As you probably recall there have been extensive discussions about the physical and the spiritual.
What interests in your reply was this:

1. Flesh = the "Adamic" fallen human person.
2. Spirit = the redeemed "new creation" human person

Why the 'human person' terminology? Isn't a human a person and vica versa?

Here is something that came up in another tread:

Adam before and after the fall had the same physical body. Most would agree with this. So what changed? It must be something other than the physical body. My own thoughts are that it was Adam's nature or more specifically the nature that Adam was a partaker in.

Baptism as per Romans 6:1-4 is, I believe, essential to salvation. What is brought to death in union with our Lord is our old nature, and it is buried, then we are raised with our Lord to walk in newness of life or the Spirit. (new creation, new nature etc.) There are lists in the NT where descriptions are given about the fruits of the Spirit as well as the flesh. It is amazing how opposite they are to one another.

So Drew, in view of what I said about the physical body - the flesh and Spirit part is quite similar to what you have described. Like previous discussion I like to go down what could be called a common road and then identify the fork in the road, if any.

What's your take on this IMO? I admit that this is a little off topic.

 

[stranger]

Hi Imagican,

Romans 6:1-4 (New American Standard Bible)

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

In the NT there are passages that speak of God doing the baptising - as well as some person baptising another. Romans 6: 1-4 is unique in that it offers the theology of baptism - or put simply what the purpose of baptism is.

Whenever, I hear a preacher say 'baptism' doesn't save you - I think if baptism into Christ doesn't what does? They may be referring to water baptism but then is this simply baptism in water? Baptism would always be valid if God was the one who baptised.

 

[Imagican]

Okay, then back to the topic: “Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?â€Â. The question I have is: Enough for what? Enough to guarantee you heaven? No, it is not.

Baptism is what it is, no more, and no less. For us, baptism is the washing away of sin, the means by which one is “born againâ€Â, and the entrance into the covenant family of God. It does NOT cover sins committed afterwards, and therefore does not guarantee your salvation. It also does not guarantee that you will always be a good Christian, just as your formula of asking Jesus to be your “personal Lord and Savoir†does not guarantee that a person who does so will always be a good Christian either.

Where we disagree is that Baptism is merely symbolic.

And I will offer again, I have witnessed MANY that have been 'dunked in water' to NO AVAIL. Those that have BEEN Baptized in water that have produced NO FRUIT WHATSOEVER. And it DOESN'T take 'being judgemental' to WATCH someone abuse his brothers and sisters and SEE IT. It doesn't take 'being judgemental' to WATCH and WITNESS those that would be Baptized and CONTINUE in adultery, fornication, robbery, etc..............

But then I guess I just DON'T understand the 'Catholic WAY'. For as it is portrayed in the movies, even the members of the MAFIA were 'good Catholics' so long as they ate a wafer and gave the church a few bucks.

I've got a question. Can I BE a Catholic MURDERER? I mean can I KILL someone, come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again. Come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again, Come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again, Come to....................

I KNOW. SOUNDS kinda INSANE don't it? But seriously, CAN I get an answer to the question. For I am TRULY curious. For IF the answer is YES, then MAYBE I AM following the WRONG path. For HOW MUCH easier would it BE to have NO BURDEN other than 'showing up to confessional'. SWEET indeed.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Okay, then back to the topic: “Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?â€Â. The question I have is: Enough for what? Enough to guarantee you heaven? No, it is not.

Baptism is what it is, no more, and no less. For us, baptism is the washing away of sin, the means by which one is “born againâ€Â, and the entrance into the covenant family of God. It does NOT cover sins committed afterwards, and therefore does not guarantee your salvation. It also does not guarantee that you will always be a good Christian, just as your formula of asking Jesus to be your “personal Lord and Savoir†does not guarantee that a person who does so will always be a good Christian either.

Where we disagree is that Baptism is merely symbolic.

And I will offer again, I have witnessed MANY that have been 'dunked in water' to NO AVAIL. Those that have BEEN Baptized in water that have produced NO FRUIT WHATSOEVER. And it DOESN'T take 'being judgemental' to WATCH someone abuse his brothers and sisters and SEE IT. It doesn't take 'being judgemental' to WATCH and WITNESS those that would be Baptized and CONTINUE in adultery, fornication, robbery, etc..............

But then I guess I just DON'T understand the 'Catholic WAY'. For as it is portrayed in the movies, even the members of the MAFIA were 'good Catholics' so long as they ate a wafer and gave the church a few bucks.

I've got a question. Can I BE a Catholic MURDERER? I mean can I KILL someone, come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again. Come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again, Come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again, Come to....................

I KNOW. SOUNDS kinda INSANE don't it? But seriously, CAN I get an answer to the question. For I am TRULY curious. For IF the answer is YES, then MAYBE I AM following the WRONG path. For HOW MUCH easier would it BE to have NO BURDEN other than 'showing up to confessional'. SWEET indeed.

MEC

I believe I covered all that when I said:

....It also does not guarantee that you will always be a good Christian, just as your formula of asking Jesus to be your “personal Lord and Savoir†does not guarantee that a person who does so will always be a good Christian either.....

 

[Imagican]

Not an answer, but I didn't expect one.

But CC, I do appreciate your BEING 'specific' in your offering that Baptism ALONE is NOT 'enough' for Salvation. That was the POINT that I have attempted to make since starting this thread.

A 'step' in the right direction? Could be. A profession of faith? It CAN be. A ritualistic and symbolic 'outward sign' of a 'cleansing of sins'? Can be this as well. But a 'catch all' and 'end all' means of Salvation? Hardly.

I guess if EVERYONE is ABLE to agree on these statments, then there IS a 'universal understanding' of Baptism.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Not an answer, but I didn't expect one....

Whats that supposed to mean? I don't come here for your insults dude. I always answer questions. Just because you don't have the brainpan to get them doesnt mean I don't give them. Save your snotty remarks for someone else.

Can't you see how you have come to worship an institution MORE than 'anything else'?

Actually, I see how some worship their own personal understanding rather than submit to that which Christ established: The ultimate act of PRIDE, the sin that caused Lucifer to fall.

 

[Imagican]

Here's the question:

I've got a question. Can I BE a Catholic MURDERER? I mean can I KILL someone, come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again. Come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again, Come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again, Come to....................

I certainly didn't 'catch the answer'. Maybe it IS the 'brain pan' that just didn't UNDERSTAND it.

CC, temper, temper, my friend. What did I say that brought on this tirade? Whatever you THOUGHT I was 'saying', it CERTAINLY wasn't SAID in order to elicite such a response. I think you KNOW me well enough by NOW to KNOW that I am NOT the 'snotty person' that you have SO accused me of BEING. That I don't always, (or even rarely), agree with what you offer doesn't MAKE ME A 'bad guy'.

I asked the question above with an HONEST intent to 'judge the answer given'. That is ONE WAY that we ARE to discern the 'spirit' through which TRUE understanding is offered. Sorry that you missed it or took offense to my statement that: I really didn't EXPECT an answer', (for I didn't). For to answer this TRUTHFULLY according to Catholic doctrine, the answer is YES. One COULD concievably come back OVER AND OVER for forgiveness for the SAME SINS. And I don't get this. It seems UTTERLY contrary to EVERYTHING that we have been offered. Like the 'dog returning to his vomit', at SOME POINT the 'cross' MUST mean SOMETHING other than 'words'.

MEC

 

[Scott1]

Hello there Imagician... maybe our newfound friendship can help answer these questions:

Here's the question:

I've got a question. Can I BE a Catholic MURDERER? I mean can I KILL someone, come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again. Come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again, Come to confessional, confess my sins, BE forgiven, then go out NEXT week and KILL again, Come to....................

Part of our Church teaching on "confession" is that among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."

In your quest to become a Catholic murderer (hehe), after you confess the first time, yes... you are technically "forgiven".... Christ will forgive any of us who are truly repentant.... BUT.... since you obviously confessed the first time without contrition (hence the next murder) the confession WAS NOT VALID and you gonna fry big boy!

Now.... to elaborate... I suppose it is possible to commit the same sin over and over again and be truly sorry each and every time.... I doubt it, but I suppose it is possible.

I liken this to someone who is "born again"..... then murders someone..... then repents..... then murders..... lather, rinse, repeat. I suppose if they truly repent, Christ will welcome them into the body of Christ every time... but like with the Catholic example, I doubt this is possible.

Peace in Christ,
S

 

[returntochristianity]

I did a couple of posts on baptism, if anybody is interested:
Part 1
Part 2

I did a lot of research to write those articles...