Water baptism--required for salvation?

[yeshaberto]

oh yeah, thanks j

[hefdaddy42]

It doesn't have to be, I know, but I subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration.  So, either there's an answer to this baptism conundrum or I jettison that belief...

Jettison it, there is no real need for it.  There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible, so many that I have no idea why anyone would subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration.

[Ħ]

Well, thanks j, that answers that question.

And yesh,

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.  (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)  For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

So, I get the impression that Paul baptized a handful of people, and then stopped because it caused divisions.  I probably shouldn't have used the word "refused," but at any rate, it doesn't seem Paul emphasizes baptism to the extent he should if it is indeed necessary for salvation.

Not to mention, I think we can deduce that even if Paul baptized them later on, he hadn't at the point of time he wrote this letter.  Yet in 1 Corinthians, he speaks to them as saved believers (even though they were still immature in the faith).

That's my take on it.  Maybe there's a better explanation, I dunno.

[Fiery Winds]

I think the emphasis is on the fact the "he" didn't baptize them, not that they were not baptized at all.  Given the fact that he was very influential in establishing the church, it's understandable that people would start looking up to him as more than he was; a brother in Christ.  He just tells them that there shouldn't be any divisions among them and that it doesn't matter who baptizes them because we're all baptized into Christ.

[Vivace]

We need to be very careful with thinking we know the right answer here without even taking Canon Law and Christ's words into account for this all. Water is a requirement for Baptism per Canon Law and the Rite of Baptism. It can be performed by anyone, even an Atheist just so as long as the water is natural (not mineral water  ) Baptism as a requirement for salvation is true, but let's be very practical and realistic here, God chooses who to save and if he chooses to save that which was not baptised, then amen... so be it. To assume a person who has not been baptised is doomed to hell is a bit arrogant in my opinion. Yes.. we have the rules in place as the Holy Spirit guides us with them which is why the Holy Spirit guides us to baptise and to baptise quickly. But also remember children back in the good old days of Christianity were not baptised until they were around 7 or 8 and they were baptised, had communion and confirmation all at the same time. This baptism of babies is a newer tradition. But again, to assume that a baby who dies and is not baptised will go to hell is an arrogant and ignorant stance to take. God does what God does and our actions do not add to God. They add to us. Baptism moves our spirit towards God. But who knows what happens when you have passed on. So whenever I get someone who thinks I believe they will go to hell because they are not Christian I usually take a moment to chuckle and then ask them "who told you that?" because afterwards I tell them how wrong that person was for saying something like that.

Take it from me. I study this stuff for a living. 

[sneakyblueberry]

Hey, welcome!  Good to hear someone else's opinon on the matter, but there are a few points I'd like to address;

We need to be very careful with thinking we know the right answer here without even taking Canon Law and Christ's words into account for this all. Water is a requirement for Baptism per Canon Law and the Rite of Baptism. It can be performed by anyone, even an Atheist just so as long as the water is natural (not mineral water  )

Eh???  Sorry, I don't agree with this at all.  You're saying a person who has no belief in God can baptise someone in his name?  How is that even possible?  And as long as the water contains no minerals?  Thats crazy, as I would imagine most of the water the apostles would've baptised in were teeming with them ( @ teeming), being natural water sources.  I won't comment on the whole thing about Canon Law, or Catholicism for that matter; thats a can of worms for another thread.

Baptism as a requirement for salvation is true, but let's be very practical and realistic here, God chooses who to save and if he chooses to save that which was not baptised, then amen... so be it.

So it is a requirement... but it really isn't because God can do whatever he sees fit?  Then its not a requirement.

But also remember children back in the good old days of Christianity were not baptised until they were around 7 or 8 and they were baptised, had communion and confirmation all at the same time.

Again, I'm not sure about this as the whole communion at a certain time and confirmation thing are Catholic rituals that I have no in depth knowledge of.  Do have some sort of source for the above quote?

God does what God does and our actions do not add to God. They add to us. Baptism moves our spirit towards God. But who knows what happens when you have passed on. So whenever I get someone who thinks I believe they will go to hell because they are not Christian I usually take a moment to chuckle and then ask them "who told you that?" because afterwards I tell them how wrong that person was for saying something like that.

Take it from me. I study this stuff for a living.  

I agree with the first part of your post, for sure; Jesus is Lord .  Out of interest, what exactly do you study for a living?  
  

[Vivace]

Hey, welcome!  Good to hear someone else's opinon on the matter, but there are a few points I'd like to address;

We need to be very careful with thinking we know the right answer here without even taking Canon Law and Christ's words into account for this all. Water is a requirement for Baptism per Canon Law and the Rite of Baptism. It can be performed by anyone, even an Atheist just so as long as the water is natural (not mineral water  )

Eh???  Sorry, I don't agree with this at all.  You're saying a person who has no belief in God can baptise someone in his name?  How is that even possible?  And as long as the water contains no minerals?  Thats crazy, as I would imagine most of the water the apostles would've baptised in were teeming with them ( @ teeming), being natural water sources.  I won't comment on the whole thing about Canon Law, or Catholicism for that matter; thats a can of worms for another thread.

Sorry, natural water as in "real" water. Not something like club soda or gatorade. [] Remember the Rite of Baptism is above human power. We simply perform the rite. It God who baptises. A sacrament is a rite that can only be fulfill with God. The sacramentals of the rite are for human purposes only but have a significant meaning. This is why anyone can baptise one who "truly" wishes to be baptised. It is not the human that makes this sacrament possible, it is God.

Baptism as a requirement for salvation is true, but let's be very practical and realistic here, God chooses who to save and if he chooses to save that which was not baptised, then amen... so be it.

So it is a requirement... but it really isn't because God can do whatever he sees fit?  Then its not a requirement.

Why would we believe that anyone not actively seeking something is going to find this object? There is a penny on such and such street. The odds of you finding this penny when you are not actively looking for it it is next to impossible. But if you are looking for it, you will end up finding it as you begin to inquire more and more into where this penny is. Knowing this, why do people expect to find salvation when they are not actively looking for it? And also, why should God refuse salvation to someone who may never know what baptism is but is still actively seeking Him. That put's the cart before the horse.

But also remember children back in the good old days of Christianity were not baptised until they were around 7 or 8 and they were baptised, had communion and confirmation all at the same time.

Again, I'm not sure about this as the whole communion at a certain time and confirmation thing are Catholic rituals that I have no in depth knowledge of.  Do have some sort of source for the above quote?

I do not but it's common historical knowledge. I would assume wikipedia should provide one for you. I may be wrong about the age but I'm 100% sure I'm right about all three happening at once in history.

God does what God does and our actions do not add to God. They add to us. Baptism moves our spirit towards God. But who knows what happens when you have passed on. So whenever I get someone who thinks I believe they will go to hell because they are not Christian I usually take a moment to chuckle and then ask them "who told you that?" because afterwards I tell them how wrong that person was for saying something like that.

Take it from me. I study this stuff for a living.  

I agree with the first part of your post, for sure; Jesus is Lord .  Out of interest, what exactly do you study for a living?  
  

Theology and Philosophy. 

[sirbradford117]

Welcome to the forums, Vivace.  We need someone like you in P/R who can articulate Catholic belief eloquently!!

[j]

@ Vivace: Welcome to P/R!

I don't know if I agree that anyone can perform a valid baptism, but I definitely share your position on making assumptions about salvation, whether it's our own or someone else's.  In the end, nobody knows a person's soul but God, and only he can judge them.  It's very presumptuous to think that we know who will and will not be saved based on our own flawed, imperfect understanding of God and the scriptures.

-J

[sirbradford117]

@ Vivace: Welcome to P/R!

I don't know if I agree that anyone can perform a valid baptism, but I definitely share your position on making assumptions about salvation, whether it's our own or someone else's.  In the end, nobody knows a person's soul but God, and only he can judge them.  It's very presumptuous to think that we know who will and will not be saved based on our own flawed, imperfect understanding of God and the scriptures.

-J

YES.  This is my big problem with modern-day Evangelicals who take it upon themselves to decide who is going to hell and who is "saved."

[Vivace]

@ Vivace: Welcome to P/R!

I don't know if I agree that anyone can perform a valid baptism, but I definitely share your position on making assumptions about salvation, whether it's our own or someone else's.  In the end, nobody knows a person's soul but God, and only he can judge them.  It's very presumptuous to think that we know who will and will not be saved based on our own flawed, imperfect understanding of God and the scriptures.

-J

I never understand the position of some evangelists and how they can stand by their beliefs with total resolve when even in the OT Abraham asked God that if even one person was true of heart God would spare the rest. If God would spare the rest who are immoral then why on earth do evangelists decide it upon themselves to cast judgment OVER God? It never ceases to amaze me and believe me, trying to get them to understand why their ideas are flawed is worse. However it is important to realize that Christ told humanity EVERYTHING they need to know. the Bible is only a foundational teaching. Everything we call moral comes from a foundational idea presented in the Bible. Why people insist on making it harder than it really is astounds me. Even God follows the KISS method. Keep It Simple Stupid.  

[sirbradford117]

@ Vivace: Welcome to P/R!

I don't know if I agree that anyone can perform a valid baptism, but I definitely share your position on making assumptions about salvation, whether it's our own or someone else's.  In the end, nobody knows a person's soul but God, and only he can judge them.  It's very presumptuous to think that we know who will and will not be saved based on our own flawed, imperfect understanding of God and the scriptures.

-J

I never understand the position of some evangelists and how they can stand by their beliefs with total resolve when even in the OT Abraham asked God that if even one person was true of heart God would spare the rest. If God would spare the rest who are immoral then why on earth do evangelists decide it upon themselves to cast judgment OVER God? It never ceases to amaze me and believe me, trying to get them to understand why their ideas are flawed is worse. However it is important to realize that Christ told humanity EVERYTHING they need to know. the Bible is only a foundational teaching. Everything we call moral comes from a foundational idea presented in the Bible. Why people insist on making it harder than it really is astounds me. Even God follows the KISS method. Keep It Simple Stupid.  

Vivace, are you still in school?  If so, where at?

[Vivace]

I am studying in Rome right now.

[Ħ]

Thanks for the input, Vivace!

Let me ask you, when you say

We need to be very careful with thinking we know the right answer here without even taking Canon Law and Christ's words into account for this all.

I honestly don't know what you mean.  Aren't we supposed to take Christ's words into account?  He is, you know, the source of all our information...

And what is Canon Law?  Is that Catholicism or something?

[Vivace]

That is exactly what I meant and I apologize if that didn't come out. All revelation comes from the Bible and also from Christ. It's the foundational teaching tool. That is where everything "should" begin, but it is not where it should end. All knowledge should compliment the words of Christ, not contradict it. So to believe that a non-believer cannot baptise is a contradiction to Christ's words who constantly tells his followers to hope in God.  

[sneakyblueberry]

Cheers for the reply man!

Hey, welcome!  Good to hear someone else's opinon on the matter, but there are a few points I'd like to address;

We need to be very careful with thinking we know the right answer here without even taking Canon Law and Christ's words into account for this all. Water is a requirement for Baptism per Canon Law and the Rite of Baptism. It can be performed by anyone, even an Atheist just so as long as the water is natural (not mineral water  )

Eh???  Sorry, I don't agree with this at all.  You're saying a person who has no belief in God can baptise someone in his name?  How is that even possible?  And as long as the water contains no minerals?  Thats crazy, as I would imagine most of the water the apostles would've baptised in were teeming with them ( @ teeming), being natural water sources.  I won't comment on the whole thing about Canon Law, or Catholicism for that matter; thats a can of worms for another thread.

Sorry, natural water as in "real" water. Not something like club soda or gatorade. [] Remember the Rite of Baptism is above human power. We simply perform the rite. It God who baptises. A sacrament is a rite that can only be fulfill with God. The sacramentals of the rite are for human purposes only but have a significant meaning. This is why anyone can baptise one who "truly" wishes to be baptised. It is not the human that makes this sacrament possible, it is God.

Ahh right, got you on the water thing I don't agree with you about the whole 'anyone can perform a baptism' though; I don't see a scriptural basis for that.  I know that Jesus said to his disciples to go and baptise in His name, I don't know where this idea that anyone can baptise came from, but if you could show me a source or better yet a scripture that'd be good to see  To me it just seems silly that someone who outright denies the existence of God could baptise someone in His name.

Why would we believe that anyone not actively seeking something is going to find this object? There is a penny on such and such street. The odds of you finding this penny when you are not actively looking for it it is next to impossible. But if you are looking for it, you will end up finding it as you begin to inquire more and more into where this penny is. Knowing this, why do people expect to find salvation when they are not actively looking for it? And also, why should God refuse salvation to someone who may never know what baptism is but is still actively seeking Him. That put's the cart before the horse.

Let me just say that my stance on this whole topic is a bit further up in this thread; basically I'm not too sure on whether or not it is required but I believe that God is beyond any ritual or rite that we believe in, taking the example of Saul and Annanias (baptism), and the thief on the cross (no baptism, yet still saved).  My questions are just so I can understand where you're coming from, not in any way an attack on what you believe, friend

Anyway, I agree with your notion that God is sovereign, but I don't think you've really addressed my question, which is really based on the topic of this thread; What I'm reading from this quote in a nutshell is: "Baptism is required for salvation, but, when it comes down to it, it isn't because God makes the final judgement".  Am I reading that right?  Again, just wanting to clarify your stance  

But also remember children back in the good old days of Christianity were not baptised until they were around 7 or 8 and they were baptised, had communion and confirmation all at the same time.

Again, I'm not sure about this as the whole communion at a certain time and confirmation thing are Catholic rituals that I have no in depth knowledge of.  Do have some sort of source for the above quote?

I do not but it's common historical knowledge. I would assume wikipedia should provide one for you. I may be wrong about the age but I'm 100% sure I'm right about all three happening at once in history.

Ahh, I see the problem; I'm seeing baptism from a 'believer's baptism' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believer%27s_baptism) perspective, and you from a Catholic perspective.  Confirmation and communion rites are foreign to me, and there's no problem in that.  Thanks for sharing, Vivace.

[Vivace]

This might help. Look at Canon Law 861 here https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2W.HTM

Now perhaps it worth being a bit more clear, the Church would rather you baptised by a priest. Period. But when it is impossible for that to happen, just as long as the intensions of the person baptising are clear, the baptism is still valid even though it would be consider illicit which is basically not done according to the norm but not done out of specified doctrines.

Remember the Sacraments are for us, they are not for God. God is over the sacraments. They do not add to Him. however, the sacraments bring us closer to God. They add to us. Sure God can act outside the sacraments but everything that is a part of the Rite is there for our purposes and for our benefit not for God's benefit. This is very important. I have a friend that usually questions the idea that we should have mass in the basement of our house. Well, yes, this can work, but building churches and having mass in them is for OUR benefit.

Also your thoughts on the baptism and the difference between baptism with water and with the Holy Spirit is correct. John who is human baptises with water. We as human baptise with water. Christ who is God baptises with the Holy Spirit. In our action with the baptism of water, Christ responds with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The water becomes a symbol of this Rite. I highly recommend the following book if you can find it called The Sacraments by A.G Mortimort. Great stuff with plenty of references and resources that help explain ALL of the Sacraments and the details found therein.

[sneakyblueberry]

Thanks for that link.  I have my own opinion on Canon law which I suppose makes me biased against it, but thanks for sharing in any case.

EDIT:  Just came across this, and it jumped out at me:

"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

What does that say about the sovereignty of God?

[Vivace]

Nothing. Again you have to make sure that you are not placing God "under" His own creation. God is over the Sacraments not under the control of them.

[Ħ]

So, bosk, do you have any more input?  I know you know your Scriptures...

[Philawallafox]

 

Oh goody You're from the Roman Church. This WILL be fun

First of all. If it's not in the bible i'm not reading it.

Second of all i find no basis for baptismal regeneration in the bible. (unless it's the baptism of the spirit) (but i'm open to being told i'm wrong)

Thirdly baptism is an interesting subject. Some say that infant baptism is a nono, others say that you should be fully immersed. i quite simply don't care I'm happy to have a minister drip some water on my child's forehead (when I have one in the future) but i'm also happy when people decide to go for the full immersion. In fact if I become a pastor I'd be excited to take someone to a river and dunk them.

for Adult baptism it's a symbol of your coming to faith and being "reborn" into the family of God

for Infant baptism it's a symbolic gesture of the parents saying they'll raise the baby as a Christian.

[j]

First of all. If it's not in the bible i'm not reading it.

 

 

-J

[Philawallafox]

First of all. If it's not in the bible i'm not reading it.

 

 

-J

I should qualify that with a disclaimer.
If you're going to argue *christian doctrine* with me you do it from the bible. Extra biblical texts are not the bible so don't come to me with them.

[bosk1]

So, bosk, do you have any more input?  I know you know your Scriptures...

I thought I was going to have more time to respond while I was away in D.C., but the work over there was overwhelming.  By the time I got back, the thread had taken off quite a bit, and seeing that Yesh and FW had posted, I figured it was covered.  I'll try to get to a detailed response over the weekend and see if we can't cut through all the Calvinistic and Catholic nonsense and see what the Scriptures actually teach on the subject.

[Philawallafox]

So, bosk, do you have any more input?  I know you know your Scriptures...

I thought I was going to have more time to respond while I was away in D.C., but the work over there was overwhelming.  By the time I got back, the thread had taken off quite a bit, and seeing that Yesh and FW had posted, I figured it was covered.  I'll try to get to a detailed response over the weekend and see if we can't cut through all the Calvinistic and Catholic nonsense and see what the Scriptures actually teach on the subject.

Well snap. You just disregarded me before I even got onto Calvinism. GOOD SHOW SIR! JOLLY GOOD SHOW!

I don't actually know what Calvin taught on the subject. I probably align more with Zwingli I expect.

[bosk1]

No, I disregarded what you wrote because it is not Scriptural.  When discussing Scriptural topics, let's make sure we are sticking to Scriptural authority.  If Jesus didn't teach it, and nobody he gave authority to teach (i.e. the Apostles) taught it, it doesn't belong in the discussion--especially when it contradicts what Jesus and the Apostles taught.  Whether we're talking Calvin, Zwingli, the Pope, bosk1, or Philawallafox, none of what any of them have to say is relevant on the subject without book, chapter, and verse backing it up.

[Philawallafox]

I'm going to reiterate I didn't mention Calvin in this thread. I expressed an opinion based on what I see in the text. I also said that anyonew who wants to contradict me *from the text* is perfectly able to.

I said that I saw now scriptural basis for baptismal regeneration (ie being baptised makes you saved) and that I was happy for either *form* of baptism at any stage of life.

but how about this.

John the baptist. in Mk and I couldn't be bothered to look this up at 2am but he says something along the lines of I baptise with water but a man will come who will baptise with the Holy spirit (or something like that)

Cornelius in Acts is baptised *after* he converts. as with the Ethipoian Eunuch. Philip Evangelises the samaritans and gives them the "baptism of John" but they didn't receive the Holy Spirit until later (chapter 6 maybe? though I'm happy if you want to discount that one) or how about this Jesus is baptised in water THEN the HS descends on him and God says "This is my son..." Mk 1:9-11? i don't know if those are all the verses but the heavens tearing open is in v10

is that enough scriptural evidence for you?

I reiterate Baptism (for adults) is a symbol of repentance. For infants it's a symbolic gesture of the parents saying that they will raise the baby as a christian.

now shut up and stop identifying me as a Calvinist before a Christian and stop using Calvinist like it's a bad word. I'll just pick it up as a badge of honour.

I may have only come to this forum yesterday but I didn't come by way of a haycart you know what I'm saying?

[bosk1]

Lies.  I distinctly recall approving your forum account, and I distinctly recall being surpised that it did in fact arrive in a haycart (which I was not aware was even compatible with the forum software to begin with).


As I mentioned, I will see if I can get to a detailed response over the weekend.  I appreciate the examples you cited.  For reasons I will explain in more detail, those individuals were not saved before they were baptised.  And as for Jesus' baptism (or the example of the thief on the cross, for that matter, since I will need to address that later), a couple of points to think about in the mean time:  (1) it is a completely different baptism than the baptism for Christians.  As FW pointed out earlier in the thread, the baptism of John was completely different, which is why Appollos needed to be corrected on the issue by Aquila and Priscilla.  (2) (which ties into #1):  As Christians, we are baptised into Christ's death.  (see, e.g., Rom 1)  Jesus could not have been baptized into his own death.  Likewise, the thief on the cross (and others prior to Christ's death) could not have been baptized into his death when he had not yet died.  The new covenant had not yet been established at that time (although it was about to be), so we cannot point to those examples as new covenant baptisms.  We can look at what Jesus taught would occur in that regard under the new covenant (e.g. John 3, Matt 28, Mark 16), but we can NOT look at what people actually did prior to Jesus' death and resurrection because that was a whole different ballgame.

[Philawallafox]

Lies.  I distinctly recall approving your forum account, and I distinctly recall being surpised that it did in fact arrive in a haycart (which I was not aware was even compatible with the forum software to begin with).


As I mentioned, I will see if I can get to a detailed response over the weekend.  I appreciate the examples you cited.  For reasons I will explain in more detail, those individuals were not saved before they were baptised.  And as for Jesus' baptism (or the example of the thief on the cross, for that matter, since I will need to address that later), a couple of points to think about in the mean time:  (1) it is a completely different baptism than the baptism for Christians.  As FW pointed out earlier in the thread, the baptism of John was completely different, which is why Appollos needed to be corrected on the issue by Aquila and Priscilla.  (2) (which ties into #1):  As Christians, we are baptised into Christ's death.  (see, e.g., Rom 1)  Jesus could not have been baptized into his own death.  Likewise, the thief on the cross (and others prior to Christ's death) could not have been baptized into his death when he had not yet died.  The new covenant had not yet been established at that time (although it was about to be), so we cannot point to those examples as new covenant baptisms.  We can look at what Jesus taught would occur in that regard under the new covenant (e.g. John 3, Matt 28, Mark 16), but we can NOT look at what people actually did prior to Jesus' death and resurrection because that was a whole different ballgame.

I'm trying to figure it out. You don't seem to be part of the Roman church. You're discounting reformed theology. I'm not sure where you actually stand on Baptism. Do you align yourself with a denomination?

[hefdaddy42]

I may have only come to this forum yesterday but I didn't come by way of a haycart you know what I'm saying?

You only got here yesterday and you already have 49 posts?  I guess you don't believe in "easing your way in" huh? 

[Philawallafox]

I may have only come to this forum yesterday but I didn't come by way of a haycart you know what I'm saying?

You only got here yesterday and you already have 49 posts?  I guess you don't believe in "easing your way in" huh? 

It's like I left a Philawallafox shaped hole in the wall.

I came to P/R yesterday. Although I think i had a grand total of three or four posts before that I'm from MP.com and lately have been wanting to talk more and more about christianity but can't.

[yeshaberto]

welcome, philawallafox, btw

great points on the role of the Spirit in baptism.  It is something that is easily overlooked in the face of the abuses of it.  Regarding the significant role of baptism in the process of our salvation (which I like to think of as the process of a marriage), Peter speaks of the balance.  He speaks of immersion as an antitype of the flood waters and states that it "now saves us" but he adds "not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God."  (I Pet 3:15).  In other words, there is nothing magical about the act or the water, but it is the heart of obedience spoken of through the act that relates to our salvation.

[Ħ]

Oh goody You're from the Roman Church. This WILL be fun

Actually, no I'm not.

I have a quick question.  I'm going to read through the other posts to make sure that it hasn't been covered already, but I think there's a big difference between water baptism and spirit baptism.  The way I've seen the baptism into Christ's death and resurrection taught is that it was the spirit baptism that did so.  After reading Rom 6, it doesn't seem like Paul is extremely clear in clarifying which baptism it actually is.  So, more clarity on that issue would be helpful as well.

[Philawallafox]

Oh goody You're from the Roman Church. This WILL be fun

Actually, no I'm not.

I have a quick question.  I'm going to read through the other posts to make sure that it hasn't been covered already, but I think there's a big difference between water baptism and spirit baptism.  The way I've seen the baptism into Christ's death and resurrection taught is that it was the spirit baptism that did so.  After reading Rom 6, it doesn't seem like Paul is extremely clear in clarifying which baptism it actually is.  So, more clarity on that issue would be helpful as well.

lol I was talking to vivace.

I'll get back to you when I wake up. It's 4am at the moment

[bosk1]

I'm trying to figure it out. You don't seem to be part of the Roman church. You're discounting reformed theology. I'm not sure where you actually stand on Baptism. Do you align yourself with a denomination?

I'll clarify, I promise.  I know I've done so in the past, so, again, I didn't see the urgency in posting something detailed.  However, there are a number of newer users here who have asked, so I will do so.

I grew up in the Roman church and left once I began some detailed study and learned that they were teaching lies as part of their doctrine.  As far as aligning myself with a denomination, I do not.  I believe denominations are flatly condemned by Paul in I Cor 1 (especially v. 10) and elsewhere.

By the way, even if we disagree on some things, I'm not attacking you.  My posts are short because I'm incredibly busy (and probably shouldn't be posting at all right now).  When my posts are emphatic and I don't have the time to elaborate, they probably come across more harshly than I intend.

Oh, and lastly, I think I really need to make a new "Just Off The Haywagon Calvinist" usergroup for the forum.