DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on October 04, 2010, 05:30:16 PM
-
A genuine question as I research this topic. Right now I'm thinking no, but can change if proof is shown.
Also inquiring on the mode of baptism (i.e. infant, sprinkling, submerging).
So....give it to me.
-
Yes. More later when I have time (unless Yesh, FW, or somebody else gets to it before me).
-
I'm not religious, so take my words with a grain of salt :p
But from what I understand, Water baptism is a symbolic ritual representing someone being "reborn" through Christ (Water symbolizes life, and I suppose the cleansing of one's sins).
That being said, I don't personally believe in salvation nor Christianity, so I say no :p
But from my experiences with Southern Baptism it is typically said to be a requirement, yes.
So take that however you decide to.
-
Thanks guys. (By the way, it would be great to hear propenents from both sides, so I can decide for myself. Not to start a debate, although that might inevitably happen.)
The reason I ask is because from what I can see there are three groups:
1) Faith + Baptism = saved
2) Faith = saved, then baptism as a sign of obedience (or outward expression, whatever)
3) Faith alone w/o Baptism = saved
Aaaand, I don't wanna be in the wrong category. Although, getting baptized would not violate 1 or 2, since 3 is kind of exclusive. But I suppose that if 3 argues for eternal security, I could weasel my way into all three categories...
-
Thanks guys. (By the way, it would be great to hear propenents from both sides, so I can decide for myself. Not to start a debate, although that might inevitably happen.)
The reason I ask is because from what I can see there are three groups:
1) Faith + Baptism = saved
2) Faith = saved, then baptism as a sign of obedience (or outward expression, whatever)
3) Faith alone w/o Baptism = saved
Aaaand, I don't wanna be in the wrong category. Although, getting baptized would not violate 1 or 2, since 3 is kind of exclusive. But I suppose that if 3 argues for eternal security, I could weasel my way into all three categories...
Well it all depends. There are many sects of Christianity, and I'm sure some don't have baptism as a requirement for salvation while others do. I guess it all depends on what makes the most sense to you.
-
For starters, until I can type a detailed response, for recommended reading:
Mark 16:16
Matthew 28:18-20
Acts 2:38, 8:26-38
Rom 6:1-5
1 Pet 3:21
-
Not to be rude or anything, and certainly not to derail from the topic, but as a side note....
In my ESV it says that the verse in Mark 16 isn't in the originals. :huh:
Do you think we should use it to answer this question? It could be corrupted by early doctrinal fallacies.
Edit: Just got your PM. I don't mean to sound uptight or impatient, so take your time. Would rather get a proper detailed answer than a hasty one. Cheers! ;D
-
Yes. More later when I have time (unless Yesh, FW, or somebody else gets to it before me).
Go for it bosky. I don't have time either...
-
In my ESV it says that the verse in Mark 16 isn't in the originals.
1. Props for using ESV.
2. I think saying it isn't in the "originals" isn't exactly accurate. It isn't in many of the earliest transcripts that we have available today. If you are of the mind that it should be off the table because it is not in those earlier transcripts, that's fine. I don't think that passage is necessary for the discussion.
-
Obligatory Disclaimer: I haven't considered myself a Christian for a while now, but when I was, I used to be really into studying theology, Christian history/doctrine, etc. Either way, if you'd like to disregard my opinion because of it, you're welcome to. :biggrin:
In general, I think the answer to the OP question is yes. I seem to recall quite a few places in the NT that suggest it, and virtually none that strongly suggest otherwise (that is, without some seriously "creative" exegesis).
@ the OP: I admire your attitude toward this (and other, I assume) doctrine. The openness to learning and hearing new perspectives, and the willingness to change one's position if presented with the appropriate evidence, are attitudes that I find nearly absent from many Christian circles.
At any rate (not directed at anyone in particular, but it probably applies to most Christians), I think there's something fundamentally misguided about approaching Christianity with the goal of finding a checklist of things one needs to do to "get saved" (terminology I always hated as a Christian). Not only do I think it's damn near impossible to do, it also seems like the wrong motivation, thus missing the point entirely.
-J
-
Thanks j.
Just so you know, I was joking in my second post about finding the right "checklist" to salvation. Although, all things considered, where an individual spends eternity is kind of important, so I would like to know if I can.
I mean, I would like to be saved. I don't think there's anything really wrong with that. And if I am already saved, I sure would like assurance so I'm not biting my nails in anticipation the rest of my life.
Of course, I mean no offense to anyone by talking about salvation according to the Bible. This is a topic about Christianity from a Bible-believing viewpoint, after all.
Anywayyyy....I suppose this post is not really topic-related, but I'm kind of just stalling until bosk replies. That said, if anyone believes you don't need to get baptized, I would love your input as well.
-
Thanks j.
Just so you know, I was joking in my second post about finding the right "checklist" to salvation. Although, all things considered, where an individual spends eternity is kind of important, so I would like to know if I can.
I mean, I would like to be saved. I don't think there's anything really wrong with that.
Absolutely, I agree. It's kind of a paradox, because it's obviously of the utmost importance, but if you're only trying to live according to Jesus' teachings to avoid eternal damnation or get yourself into heaven, your motives aren't pure. Human nature makes it tough to separate them.
And if I am already saved, I sure would like assurance so I'm not biting my nails in anticipation the rest of my life.
I don't think this type of doctrine ("eternal security", OSAS, whatever) has any place in Christian theology. But it comes up in most threads on Christianity, and I won't address it here.
-J
-
... if anyone believes you don't need to get baptized, I would love your input as well.
I would like to read this input as well. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that baptism is required, and I'd like to see how some who disagree refute verses like John 3:5.
-
... if anyone believes you don't need to get baptized, I would love your input as well.
I would like to read this input as well. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that baptism is required, and I'd like to see how some who disagree refute verses like John 3:5.
I'm not the only one who has seen positions like this, am I? I used to go to a megachurch where they taught that baptism was just a public declaration of you having already gotten saved. I never got biblical justification for that teaching, but I know there's gotta be someone that at least knows what it is.
And if no one steps up, would someone explain it if they know the doctrine, even though they don't believe it?
-
I'll try. People who say you have to be baptized in order to be saved have the relationship between faith and works confused. We're saved purely because of God's grace, not because of anything we do (see John 3:16, 18, 36; 11:25-6; Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 John 5:1). The works we do after becoming saved, including baptism, are simply out of obedience. We will do them if we are saved, but we don't do them to become saved.
Let's go with John 3:5 for starters. People say it refers to baptism, but the context suggest that the verse has little to do with baptism as a requirement for salvation. For one, how would Nicodemus have understood what Jesus was referring to? For another, Jews would have understood the "born of water" phrase to be a metaphor. There is a good summary of the argument here (https://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html#john35):
The correct interpretation of this verse is found in light of the intimate connection of water, spirit, and cleansing in Judaism. As Beasley-Murray observes, "The conjunction of water and Spirit in eschatological hope is deeply rooted in the Jewish consciousness." This motif is found in Ezekiel 36:25-27:
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Similar sentiments are found elsewhere in Jewish literature...
*Waits for bosk to write a Ph.D. thesis in response.
-
No. My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."
Did Jesus quickly jump off of the cross to baptise the theif so he could be with him in paradise that day? No.
If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven? I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no. I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.
-
No. My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."
Did Jesus quickly jump off of the cross to baptise the theif so he could be with him in paradise that day? No.
If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven? I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no. I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.
A good point. I think we tend to get caught up in the rituals and forget about the foundations of our faith.
-
Thank you both for your input.
William Wallace, I have heard teachings on that verse in Ezekiel that this was the process of how Israel was to become a kingdom of priests. There are two steps to becoming a priest: washing with water, and annointing with oil. I have heard that water baptism is the the nationwide washing, and that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 in the annointing, since oil is a type of the Spirit. Although, it is interesting because I think in Ezekiel the washing is done by sprinkling (hence the reason why I asked the mode of baptism in my original post).
If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven? I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no. I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.
This is a paradox I am interested in an answer to as well. I think the typical response would be that God would understand that your intention was to get water baptized, and have mercy, but I don't see any support for that claim, especially if the washing + annointing thing is true.
-
No. My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."
Does it? Mine says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Ok, so it's not *my* bible per se, it was the first e-bible that came up on Google. Hence being a KJV. :biggrin:
But the point stands. Christianity, or even simply the Christian concept of salvation, cannot be summed up with a single verse.
Did Jesus quickly jump off of the cross to baptise the theif so he could be with him in paradise that day? No.
If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven? I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no. I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.
I definitely agree with your conclusion. But everything Jesus did, he did for a reason. Many of the "rituals" he instituted aren't meant to be empty "going through the motions" type things. Some are meant to be symbols or reminders of important facets of the faith, others I think are supposed to carry some kind of "spiritual" weight.
My point is, I agree that God is probably not so rigid that he would condemn a person to hell who converted on their deathbed and wasn't able to be baptized. But just because he might make an exception if it's called for, does that mean baptism is unimportant or unnecessary in general?
The works we do after becoming saved, including baptism, are simply out of obedience. We will do them if we are saved, but we don't do them to become saved.
I don't really want to get into a huge discussion about the scripture behind this, but yet again the ridiculous notion of salvation being some kind of an irreversible one-time experience during one's life, and everything that necessarily follows from that belief (especially the weird dichotomy of faith and works), will seriously muddy the water here. I have no idea how this doctrine made it into mainstream Christianity.
-J
-
The works we do after becoming saved, including baptism, are simply out of obedience. We will do them if we are saved, but we don't do them to become saved.
I don't really want to get into a huge discussion about the scripture behind this, but yet again the ridiculous notion of salvation being some kind of an irreversible one-time experience during one's life, and everything that necessarily follows from that belief (especially the weird dichotomy of faith and works), will seriously muddy the water here. I have no idea how this doctrine made it into mainstream Christianity.
-J
Not following your criticism. Faith is an unending commitment but the conversion is a one-time experience. Anyway, what's the correct view of salvation? Do you have any evidence to suggest that the doctrine I described is some kind of later alteration of Jesus' teachings?
-
He's saying that he doesn't subscribe the the doctrine of Once-Saved, Always-Saved doctrine.
It does have deal with the issue of salvation, but this thread is about a specific aspect of salvation that has nothing to do with OSAS. After this issue is wrapped up, I might start a thread on that, too. (Or you can, if you want.) But, it is to my understanding that that issue has been hammered to death on the P/R forums.
-
He's saying that he doesn't subscribe the the doctrine of Once-Saved, Always-Saved doctrine.
I don't either. Didn't mean to suggest I do.
-
Not following your criticism. Faith is an unending commitment but the conversion is a one-time experience.
Agree. I think we just disagree on what exactly that conversion experience does. What if, after the conversion, a person doesn't live a life of virtue? Will God still accept them into heaven? Did they ever really become a Christian? Or what if, before someone converts, they do good deeds? Does that mean nothing to God, who loves all things good?
The most consistent biblical view of faith and works as I understand it is a "both/and" scenario. Faith is obviously necessary, but it is not sufficient. Works are necessary, but they do not score you points toward "earning" salvation or whatever. But without them, salvation cannot be attained.
Whether or not a person becomes more inclined to do good works after becoming a Christian, I don't know. But I'm skeptical.
He's saying that he doesn't subscribe the the doctrine of Once-Saved, Always-Saved doctrine.
I don't either. Didn't mean to suggest I do.
I apologize. The view of faith and works that you hold (coupled with the way you referred to "getting saved" as a singular event) *usually* goes hand in hand with OSAS, eternal security, etc. My mistake.
Anyway, what's the correct view of salvation? Do you have any evidence to suggest that the doctrine I described is some kind of later alteration of Jesus' teachings?
Don't get me wrong, I have no clue what the "correct" view of salvation is. As for the doctrine you described, I apparently misunderstood it. But there is plenty of evidence that OSAS and all that are very recent phenomena.
-J
-
Not following your criticism. Faith is an unending commitment but the conversion is a one-time experience.
Agree. I think we just disagree on what exactly that conversion experience does. What if, after the conversion, a person doesn't live a life of virtue? Will God still accept them into heaven? Did they ever really become a Christian? Or what if, before someone converts, they do good deeds? Does that mean nothing to God, who loves all things good?
If they don't follow Christ after accepting salvation, then they haven't really committed, have they? Doing good deeds is irrelevant to accepting salvation, so far as I can tell. But after the fact is a completely different story.
The most consistent biblical view of faith and works as I understand it is a "both/and" scenario. Faith is obviously necessary, but it is not sufficient. Works are necessary, but they do not score you points toward "earning" salvation or whatever. But without them, salvation cannot be attained.
It's easy to get lost in semantics during these types of discussions, but I think I agree. The works are an expression of the inward change that has taken place; you decide to follow Christ and then you do. My only beef is with the Church of Christ and other denominations who insist on a certain act as a means of attaining salvation. There are many verses that be can made to support that view, but I think there's much more textual evidence that can't.
He's saying that he doesn't subscribe the the doctrine of Once-Saved, Always-Saved doctrine.
I don't either. Didn't mean to suggest I do.
I apologize. The view of faith and works that you hold (coupled with the way you referred to "getting saved" as a singular event) *usually* goes hand in hand with OSAS, eternal security, etc. My mistake.
No worries. I'm not sure how, but apparently I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to suggest that Christians are OSAS. I believe that once you accept Christ being a Christian is a conscious effort.
-
I love the analogy of a wedding:
you meet, begin building a relationship, fall in love, forsake all others and commit one to the other, make a commitment to marriage and then the wedding ceremony. I think the biblical picture of baptism (lit immersion/dip, btw) is the wedding ceremony. It isn't a checklist anymore than a wedding ceremony is a checklist. It is the culmination of an entire process and is a physical demonstration of something much deeper. In the case of baptism, it is a demonstration of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ/us.
PS...welcome brotherh
-
Thanks dude. Appreciate the welcome.
So, when you believe, that's like getting engaged, and when you get baptized, that's like putting on the wedding ring?
And forgive me for being blind, but are you saying yes or no? I can't figure it out.
-
I think the biblical picture is not a "this represents that" as much as it is a process. as mentioned, you can easily point to other verses that state that belief is a part of salvation, or confession or repentance, etc.
Two people who are in love don't look at the wedding as we are "required" to do it, they look at it as the fulfillment and capstone of their love.
In any case, just as two people who do not go thru the wedding ceremony are merely living together, I think immersion is a key part of the process of our marriage to Christ. So, ultimately I would say yes. Scripture is emphatically clear that immersion plays a fundamental role in the process. My question to someone (in the face of innumerable texts) is why not?
However, when we turn it into a cold, legalistic act devoid of its profound meaning, we have missed the point.
-
I totally follow you. So the heart has to be in the act, as well. Following from that logic, if a person purposes in his heart to get baptized, but tragically passes away before he is able, he is still saved. Would you agree with that?
-
I totally follow you. So the heart has to be in the act, as well. Following from that logic, if a person purposes in his heart to get baptized, but tragically passes away before he is able, he is still saved. Would you agree with that?
I am hesitant on hypotheticals, and that judgment would be in the hands of God, but I would think that it would be reasonable to think that God would look at their heart...
reminds me of Hezekiah when the people hadn't practiced the passover for years and were unclean and wrong date, but Hezekiah prayed that God would look at their heart and overlook their legalities, and the text implies that God did. Jesus uses the same analogy when the pharisees were mad because the disciples picked grain from the fields on the sabbath and Jesus spoke of David eating the shewbread (and some other thing I can't remember) and God looked at the heart
-
I think a lot of confusion arises with the phrase "Calling on the name of the Lord". I know a lot of people who interpret that as praying the Sinner's Prayer, or asking Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior, etc. If we look at the text, we can find out exactly what it means.
First, Peter tells us in Acts 2:21;36-38
21And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Quoting the Prophet Joel)
So how do we call upon the name of the Lord?
36Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
So first we acknowledge that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, repent and then are baptized for forgiveness of sins, so that we may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Salvation).
Then with Paul we find out that not even repenting and praying to God is enough to wash away our sins, or is equivalent to "calling on the name of the Lord".
Acts 9:10-12
10Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." 11And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight."
So he had a miraculous experience on the road to Damascus, was struck blind, and is praying to God. Let's continue to Acts 22 for more info on what happened.
Acts 22:12-16
12"And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing by me said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14And he said, 'The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. 16And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'
If baptism wasn't necessary for salvation, what else would have saved Paul? He was praying to God, obviously moved by the experience. He fasted for three whole days. He was a devout Jew, well versed in the Law of Moses. He had every other base covered, but Ananias still asked, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."
-
No. My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."
Does it? Mine says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Ok, so it's not *my* bible per se, it was the first e-bible that came up on Google. Hence being a KJV. :biggrin:
But the point stands. Christianity, or even simply the Christian concept of salvation, cannot be summed up with a single verse.
I suppose the point I was trying to make was that it doesn't say 'whoever is baptised with water in my name will be saved'. The christian concept of salvation centres on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and that this sacrifice is what brings salvation, not water baptism.
Did Jesus quickly jump off of the cross to baptise the theif so he could be with him in paradise that day? No.
If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven? I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no. I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.
I definitely agree with your conclusion. But everything Jesus did, he did for a reason. Many of the "rituals" he instituted aren't meant to be empty "going through the motions" type things. Some are meant to be symbols or reminders of important facets of the faith, others I think are supposed to carry some kind of "spiritual" weight.
My point is, I agree that God is probably not so rigid that he would condemn a person to hell who converted on their deathbed and wasn't able to be baptized. But just because he might make an exception if it's called for, does that mean baptism is unimportant or unnecessary in general?
Baptism is an important part of the Christian walk of course, but by no means is it required for salvation, which is what the OP is asking. Baptism is a symbol of the 'old man' (which Paul talks about in Romans) dying, giving birth to new creation in Christ Jesus. When you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour, the old sinful nature is put to death; baptism is both a symbol of that and a public declaration of your intent to follow Jesus with the rest of your life.
I would think that it would be reasonable to think that God would look at their heart...
I agree wholeheartedly. We too often attempt to put God in a box. I for one believe that God is not bound by anything other than that he is holy and sinless and can not tolerate evil. If a person dies who loves God with every fibre of their being and accepts the atonement Jesus gives for their sins, then the question of whether or not they have been baptised with water is irrelevant. God's grace is enough.
-
What do you guys think of this. I'm not very religious so I may sound like a complete n00b, but I'm cool with that.
I run public swimming pools, 3 of them. In the 5 years I've ran them in the summer I have had various church groups coming in that do baptisms in the water. This has always confused me and never really asked them the reasoning behind it. Since they are customers, I really have no problem them doing this and wouldn't want to ask anything that may be offensive, but they are always friendly and pleasant.
These pools are water disinfected by sodium hypochlorite (liquid chlorine) and also uses Carbon Dioxide to control Ph and alkalinity levels. So, is this bizarre, or is the water type not that important for this practice?
-
The chlorine just makes it more clensyer.
-
I do not believe baptism by water is necessary for salvation, too stringent on a physical form. Various Christians don't believe in the necessity of water, as well. For instance, the Catholic Church holds anyone never made aware of Christ in life or anyone that wishes they were baptized at death, can find salvation. The way I remember it being explained as a rule of thumb is that anyone that would except Jesus upon being shown the truth after death will be saved. ...basically a big wide open door with no full explanation of requirements.
No water equals no heaven is like Old Testament God speaking. Sort of silly and makes God out to be a total ass.
On salvation the Catholic Church and other Christian divisions have made significant pushes over the last 50 years(maybe longer for non-Catholics) to leave archaic exclusive salvation teachings. That being you don't have to be a part of them, or even of the same family of religions, to have a chance at salvation. Obviously, any direction like that cannot require water baptism as an absolute. This is a more reasonable approach if you ask me, we're most likely all wrong anyways.
-
Here's a good article (https://creation.com/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation-further-feedback-plus-a-reader-asks-about-death) that addresses most of the arguments I've ever heard in support the baptism saves idea, most of which will likely be brought up in this thread. I like the summary at the beginning: baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to become saved.
-
Here's a good question. If I was baptized as a kid, but no longer believe in it, am I still saved?
-
Here's a good question. If I was baptized as a kid, but no longer believe in it, am I still saved?
You should be.
-
If someone thinks baptism is a guarantee of salvation then sure, but I don't think that is a prominent belief. Otherwise, it just comes down to the same topics on what it takes for salvation.
-
Here's a good question. If I was baptized as a kid, but no longer believe in it, am I still saved?
I would say no. After all, if you no longer believe, you reject god (At least the Christian god) anyway.
-
Here's a good question. If I was baptized as a kid, but no longer believe in it, am I still saved?
that question points to the ritualistic aspect of baptism...there is nothing magical about the act itself, it is the obedience and faith of the heart represented in the act. Scripture is clear that we are saved by faith. Faith leads us to obey, which in this context includes baptism.
-
No. My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."
Does it? Mine says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Ok, so it's not *my* bible per se, it was the first e-bible that came up on Google. Hence being a KJV. :biggrin:
But the point stands. Christianity, or even simply the Christian concept of salvation, cannot be summed up with a single verse.
I suppose the point I was trying to make was that it doesn't say 'whoever is baptised with water in my name will be saved'. The christian concept of salvation centres on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and that this sacrifice is what brings salvation, not water baptism.
Of course the sacrifice of Jesus is what brings salvation, but does that mean that we don't have to do *anything* to participate in that sacrifice, or accept it, etc?
Baptism is an important part of the Christian walk of course, but by no means is it required for salvation, which is what the OP is asking. Baptism is a symbol of the 'old man' (which Paul talks about in Romans) dying, giving birth to new creation in Christ Jesus. When you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour, the old sinful nature is put to death; baptism is both a symbol of that and a public declaration of your intent to follow Jesus with the rest of your life.
Well, it's really *not* important at all if it's meaningless and has nothing to do with salvation. Jesus commanded us to do a lot of things: is it all just kind of "eh, do it if you want, but once you've "accepted me as your lord and savior", you're really done, so take it or leave it"? And as an aside, the whole "accepting Jesus into your heart" being some kind of central ritual to Christianity doesn't really make sense biblically, because the passages used to support it are usually referring to baptism. As in, I think they're supposed to go together.
If a person dies who loves God with every fibre of their being and accepts the atonement Jesus gives for their sins, then the question of whether or not they have been baptised with water is irrelevant. God's grace is enough.
You mean, God's grace is enough, as long as they have "loved God with every fibre of their being and accepted the atonement Jesus gives for their sins"? That's a "work" in itself, just like baptism.
Not that I disagree: like I said, I doubt God is so rigid that he doesn't look on a person's heart and judge each person accordingly. But that doesn't mean there aren't things that we're NORMALLY expected to do in obedience to him.
-J
-
12"And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing by me said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14And he said, 'The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. 16And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'
If baptism wasn't necessary for salvation, what else would have saved Paul? He was praying to God, obviously moved by the experience. He fasted for three whole days. He was a devout Jew, well versed in the Law of Moses. He had every other base covered, but Ananias still asked, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."
Although, it is worthy to note that Ananias was not commanded by God to baptize. Playing devil's advocate, it could have been false judgement on Ananias's part.
You mean, God's grace is enough, as long as they have "loved God with every fibre of their being and accepted the atonement Jesus gives for their sins"? That's a "work" in itself, just like baptism.
This really struck out to me as a good point. Obviously, all Christians still have the flesh, and the flesh hates God and his Word. I like the doctrine that teaches that we are saved by Christ's faith and not our own. (Not to be confused with the Salvation-for-all doctrine.) I don't think any Christian that's ever lived was truly 100% committed.
Good news--a friend's friend's dad is a pastor of a church that does not think baptism is necessary. He holds a Q&A on Wednesday. Apparently, they delve into the Word a lot. I'll be sure to ask him about baptism and take good notes, and report to you all if there is anything new to add to what's already been said.
-
No. My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."
Does it? Mine says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Ok, so it's not *my* bible per se, it was the first e-bible that came up on Google. Hence being a KJV. :biggrin:
But the point stands. Christianity, or even simply the Christian concept of salvation, cannot be summed up with a single verse.
I suppose the point I was trying to make was that it doesn't say 'whoever is baptised with water in my name will be saved'. The christian concept of salvation centres on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and that this sacrifice is what brings salvation, not water baptism.
Of course the sacrifice of Jesus is what brings salvation, but does that mean that we don't have to do *anything* to participate in that sacrifice, or accept it, etc?
We accept the sacrifice by accepting Jesus into our heart. Baptism is not a means of salvation, it is an act that comes out of salvation. It is an act which renounces the ways of the past and a public declaration of a change of allegiance, i.e turning one's heart to God. Galatians 3:26 says that it is an act of joining the body of Christ i.e the people of God. So again, I think baptism comes out of salvation and it is an important part of the discipleship process, but I can't find anywhere in the bible that explicitly says that it is required for salvation; that comes from the cross and the cross alone.
Well, it's really *not* important at all if it's meaningless and has nothing to do with salvation. Jesus commanded us to do a lot of things: is it all just kind of "eh, do it if you want, but once you've "accepted me as your lord and savior", you're really done, so take it or leave it"? And as an aside, the whole "accepting Jesus into your heart" being some kind of central ritual to Christianity doesn't really make sense biblically, because the passages used to support it are usually referring to baptism. As in, I think they're supposed to go together.
So just because it is not required for salvation it is meaningless? True, there are lots of commands that Jesus/the bible gives us, but not all of them are centred around salvation; does that make them all meaningless? Not at all, they are all important facets of the Christian life. The only command that is required for salvation is the acceptance of Jesus as Lord. John 1:12 says "To all who recieved him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God".
I totally agree that they are meant to go together (baptism is usually done at or near the beggining of someone's Christian walk, after their repentance and their acceptance of Christ), but the question that the OP is asking is whether it is required for salvation, which I don't believe it is.
If a person dies who loves God with every fibre of their being and accepts the atonement Jesus gives for their sins, then the question of whether or not they have been baptised with water is irrelevant. God's grace is enough.
You mean, God's grace is enough, as long as they have "loved God with every fibre of their being and accepted the atonement Jesus gives for their sins"? That's a "work" in itself, just like baptism.
No, that is not what I'm saying at all. The first part was meant as a hypothetical situation, to illustrate why I believe baptism by water is not required for salvation. What I'm saying is, if a person receives Christ, and dies a minute later without having the chance to be baptised, they are still saved because baptism itself is an outworking of one's desire to follow Christ, NOT a requirement to ensure salvation.
When I say God's grace is enough, I mean that there are no boundaries to God's love, all we have to do to receive salvation is receive Christ, believe in him and his sacrifice and the gift of forgiveness, grace, love and (John 3:16). It has nothing to do with 'works' (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is not bound by rituals or acts. All we have to do is receive. Of course, given the chance, we are to do all that we are commanded to do by Jesus, but above all else, God sees our hearts and thats what matters the most to him (1st Samuel 16:7).
-
How do we accept Jesus into our heart?
-
Pray, acknowledging him as Lord and saviour, repenting of your sins and sinful nature and asking for his cleansing, and asking Him to come into your life, opening your heart to receive his gifts of mercy, forgiveness, love etc and receiving his Holy Spirit.
EDIT: After reading FW's first post this suddenly occured to me: I think an important thing to acknowledge that I haven't before is the difference between baptism in the Holy Spirit and baptism with water. I think you'll find that most times the NT refers to baptism, it is referring to baptism in the Holy Spirit. Luke 3:16 (NIV) 'John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." The whole thing of baptising with the Holy Spirit happens when you accept Jesus into your life and receive the Holy Spirit. When the disciples are baptizing with water it is done as a part of 'making disciples' as I explained above.
I don't claim to have all the answers, in fact I am pretty much a dumbass irl. Just my thoughts on the matter.
-
Didn't Paul do most if not all of that? He fasted for three days, was obviously a changed repentant man, was praying during that time, acknowledged that Jesus was Lord during the vision, etc. I've heard conversion experience testimonials that sound very similar (I'm not doubting their experience) and just stop there. If praying and repenting was all that was necessary, then why did Ananias tell him that he needed to wash away his sins through baptism, which we are explicitly told is how we call on his name?
-
I think the baptism in question is baptism of the H.S:
Acts 9:17 (NIV) [Ananias] placing his hands on Saul said: "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here - has sent me so that you may be filed with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes and he could see again. He got up and was baptised.
Because there is mention of the H.S and no mention of water, I'm inclined to believe that Saul's baptism was indeed a baptism of the Holy Spirit. If the passage had read, "He got up, went to the nearest body of water, and was baptised", it would be a different story. But even then, I would say that its was done as the hand in hand with salvation thing that i mentioned before.
-
Yes, the Holy Spirit plays a huge part as well, but there is a difference between being filled with the H.S. and receiving the gift of the H.S. Those who were able to perform miracles were filled with the H.S., which I think we agree required laying on of hands to pass on and that not all Christians could do. However, all those who are baptized receive the gift of the H.S. which is Salvation.
You mention the absence of water, yet if you go back one chapter in Acts, we see Phillip preaching Jesus to the eunuch which prompts him to want to be baptized in water.
-
Hmmm, interesting. I would've thought that the gift of the H.S was H.S himself? The helper that Jesus said he would send? I'm not sure I can see the gift of the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit being two different things, to me they are one and the same. Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is being filled with the Holy Spirit, I would think.
Yep, I'm aware that Philip baptised the Ethiopian in nearby water. In an interesting footnote in my NIV bible there is a verse 37 that is left out for some reason. The passage, including the part left out reads: Acts 8:36-38, 'As they travelled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" Philip said "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered. "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God." And he gave orders to stop the chariot...
The bolded part is verse 37 which is left out for some reason. Wow, I had never even seen this before until just now! So the eunuch confesses Jesus as lord before he is baptised. First, the acceptance of Jesus as Lord, and then baptism with water. Interesting! I wonder why that was left out ???
-
Interesting! I wonder why that was left out ???
Same reason as this: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=17249.msg617907#msg617907
-
We accept the sacrifice by accepting Jesus into our heart.
What is your basis for this belief?
Baptism is not a means of salvation, it is an act that comes out of salvation. It is an act which renounces the ways of the past and a public declaration of a change of allegiance, i.e turning one's heart to God. Galatians 3:26 says that it is an act of joining the body of Christ i.e the people of God. So again, I think baptism comes out of salvation and it is an important part of the discipleship process, but I can't find anywhere in the bible that explicitly says that it is required for salvation; that comes from the cross and the cross alone.
I can agree with most of that, at least the part that baptism is not a "means of salvation". My theology in this area's a little rusty, and I don't have the time to prepare a scripturally sound counter argument, so I'm gonna bow out of this particular topic (water baptism as symbolic or sacramental) here. I do take issue with your last sentence though, as I'll address in a minute.
So just because it is not required for salvation it is meaningless? True, there are lots of commands that Jesus/the bible gives us, but not all of them are centred around salvation; does that make them all meaningless? Not at all, they are all important facets of the Christian life.
But why? What is important about them? You'll spend eternity in heaven once you "accept Jesus", so there is really no eternal point.
The only command that is required for salvation is the acceptance of Jesus as Lord. John 1:12 says "To all who recieved him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God".
And what exactly does the verse you quoted entail? How did you arrive at the conclusion that "to receive him and believe in his name" means nothing more than some nebulous experience of "accepting him into your heart"? That no outward action is required? That none of the rest of his commands must be upheld?
Though verses like that are often made out to be "clear" instructions on what we must do for salvation (and to the exclusion of all else), they're really anything but. I'd say that nearly ALL of the differences in most Christian denominations stem from how they interpret something like that.
No, that is not what I'm saying at all. The first part was meant as a hypothetical situation, to illustrate why I believe baptism by water is not required for salvation. What I'm saying is, if a person receives Christ, and dies a minute later without having the chance to be baptised, they are still saved because baptism itself is an outworking of one's desire to follow Christ, NOT a requirement to ensure salvation.
It's a part of the whole. That doesn't rule out your scenario: like I said, God is just and merciful, and I'm sure he accommodates for extraordinary circumstances.
And nobody's said baptism "ensures" anything. I think the idea of being able to "ensure" one's salvation--in the literal sense--at any point before death is completely unbiblical (although it's certainly quite an attractive doctrine).
When I say God's grace is enough, I mean that there are no boundaries to God's love, all we have to do to receive salvation is receive Christ, believe in him and his sacrifice and the gift of forgiveness, grace, love and (John 3:16).
Again, how do you "receive" Christ and believe in him? The devil "believes" in God. I see nothing about a sinner's prayer or "accepting Jesus as lord and savior" anywhere in the bible.
It has nothing to do with 'works' (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is not bound by rituals or acts. All we have to do is receive. Of course, given the chance, we are to do all that we are commanded to do by Jesus, but above all else, God sees our hearts and thats what matters the most to him (1st Samuel 16:7).
Works do not "earn" salvation, but faith without works is dead. Thus, they're a de facto requirement. Not sure why the faith and works thing is such a point of contention.
-J
-
Because there is mention of the H.S and no mention of water, I'm inclined to believe that Saul's baptism was indeed a baptism of the Holy Spirit. If the passage had read, "He got up, went to the nearest body of water, and was baptised", it would be a different story. But even then, I would say that its was done as the hand in hand with salvation thing that i mentioned before.
Your thinking is backward. Since there is no mention of the Holy Spirit and no mention of water, then Saul's baptism was a baptism of water. Baptism means "immersion" and the basic, given meaning was "in water." That part was understood. Since this doesn't mention "of the Holy Spirit," then it is talking about water.
But I tend to think this stressing of baptism of the Holy Spirit as a separate thing is a bunch of hooey.
-
***This thread is aimed at Christians it seems since it assumes one believes in salvation and the purpose baptism, so please ignore the following if you are not interested, and its kinda off topic too***
Ghandi once stated something like "i like your Christ, I don't like your Christians," which is the same stance I take.
I find it disturbing that over time Christians have turned the very simple, very in-ornate, and very earthly rituals of early Christianity (simple breaking of break and drinking of wine) into these monolithic celebrations of pomp which appears to require massive structures with statues of marble and gold, and investments of money which, I know, would sadden Christ.
I wonder what Christ would think if he saw the money my cousins payed for their daughter's baptism and the money that went into building the Church in which it occurred.
-
Because there is mention of the H.S and no mention of water, I'm inclined to believe that Saul's baptism was indeed a baptism of the Holy Spirit. If the passage had read, "He got up, went to the nearest body of water, and was baptised", it would be a different story. But even then, I would say that its was done as the hand in hand with salvation thing that i mentioned before.
Your thinking is backward. Since there is no mention of the Holy Spirit and no mention of water, then Saul's baptism was a baptism of water. Baptism means "immersion" and the basic, given meaning was "in water." That part was understood. Since this doesn't mention "of the Holy Spirit," then it is talking about water.
But I tend to think this stressing of baptism of the Holy Spirit as a separate thing is a bunch of hooey.
??? There is mention of the Holy Spirit in this txt. Unless you're meaning there is no mention of baptism with the H.S, then I'm with you. I dunno, I'll have a think about it. I just get the feeling from this txt that, seeing its after John's comment about Jesus baptising with the HS and fire, that its more than just baptism with water.
I would like to answer J's rebuttal but I don't have enough time, I will in a couple of hours. Yay, I hear you say. :D
I'm sorry if my posts are worded a little retardedly, I have a difficult time with words; and combined with the intimidation I get from P/R, sometimes my brain turns to mush. Everytime I step into the P/R board it feels like every little thing you say is put under a microscope, and any mistakes are ripped apart :lol It feels like there's malice behind the replies to my posts, but hopefully thats just me. In any case, its been a nice discussion and I've gotten heaps out of it myself. :)
-
I agree, it seems whenever religion or politics is up for debate, it's war. When I ask questions I hope it's not seen as a way to "trap" someone, I'm genuinely curious how people arrive to their conclusions based upon the same evidence we all have. Paraphrasing here, but just as iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens each other.
-
I would like to answer J's rebuttal but I don't have enough time, I will in a couple of hours. Yay, I hear you say. :D
I'm sorry if my posts are worded a little retardedly, I have a difficult time with words; and combined with the intimidation I get from P/R, sometimes my brain turns to mush. Everytime I step into the P/R board it feels like every little thing you say is put under a microscope, and any mistakes are ripped apart :lol It feels like there's malice behind the replies to my posts, but hopefully thats just me. In any case, its been a nice discussion and I've gotten heaps out of it myself. :)
No worries dude, take your time. I won't have time to respond until tomorrow night probably anyway. And I'm not sure what you're talking about with your criticism of your own posts. They seem solid and well-thought out as far as I can tell, and not worded poorly at all. ??? Nothing to be intimidated by, we're all just a bunch of clueless people posting our thoughts on the internet. :tup
And I hope it hasn't come across this way, but I mean *absolutely* no hostility toward you or anybody whatsoever. I know it's hard to convey tone and stuff through posts on a message board, and I can word things a little rudely at times, but trust me, it's nothing personal. I'm enjoying the discussion and learning from it as well. :tup
-J
-
I agree, it seems whenever religion or politics is up for debate, it's war. When I ask questions I hope it's not seen as a way to "trap" someone, I'm genuinely curious how people arrive to their conclusions based upon the same evidence we all have. Paraphrasing here, but just as iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens each other.
I would like to answer J's rebuttal but I don't have enough time, I will in a couple of hours. Yay, I hear you say. :D
I'm sorry if my posts are worded a little retardedly, I have a difficult time with words; and combined with the intimidation I get from P/R, sometimes my brain turns to mush. Everytime I step into the P/R board it feels like every little thing you say is put under a microscope, and any mistakes are ripped apart :lol It feels like there's malice behind the replies to my posts, but hopefully thats just me. In any case, its been a nice discussion and I've gotten heaps out of it myself. :)
No worries dude, take your time. I won't have time to respond until tomorrow night probably anyway. And I'm not sure what you're talking about with your criticism of your own posts. They seem solid and well-thought out as far as I can tell, and not worded poorly at all. ??? Nothing to be intimidated by, we're all just a bunch of clueless people posting our thoughts on the internet. :tup
And I hope it hasn't come across this way, but I mean *absolutely* no hostility toward you or anybody whatsoever. I know it's hard to convey tone and stuff through posts on a message board, and I can word things a little rudely at times, but trust me, it's nothing personal. I'm enjoying the discussion and learning from it as well. :tup
-J
Thanks dudes! :tup That is a relief to hear, and cheers for this discussion. I think I've read my bible more in one day than I do most weeks! :lol Not something I'm proud of...
Well after thinking about this whole issue, I think I've decided on my stance. At first, I believed that baptism wasn't required for salvation. But after asking a few people about it and reading a bit more into it, I'm not so sure about it. My heart leans towards 'no, baptism is not required for salvation', but as a Christian, I wouldn't want to be the one to run the risk of not being baptised and getting rejected at the gates! :lol So, really, I don't know. I'm a believer and follower of Christ and was baptised when I was 11 or 12, so its not such a huge issue for me. I would encourage any believer of Christ who hasn't been baptised to get it done because aside from it being a public stand, there is also an exchange that takes place in the water that can only happen through baptism.
J, I don't think its neccesary to carry on our entire discussion, due to the change of heart I've had in regards to it all. The one thing I will say in response to your comment about the 'sinner's prayer' is this: You're right, there is no mention of a sinner's prayer in the bible at all. 'The sinners prayer' is the name Christians have given to the prayer that encapsulates all of the things that the bible says are needed for salvation i.e, repentance, confessing Jesus as lord, filling of the Holy Spirit and so on. I have no idea how the phrase came about.
I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again; God is not limited to our rules, rituals or perceptions of Him and His ways. What we have been discussing here displays that perfectly: I find it amazing that in the case of Paul, there is no "sinner's prayer" yet God tells Paul through Annanias to 'Rise and be baptised', through which Paul recieves salvation. Yet at the other end of the spectrum, Jesus tells the theif that he will be in paradise with Him, with just the "sinner's prayer", with no water baptism at all. I suppose if you make the 'rules', you can bend them at will :D
-
??? There is mention of the Holy Spirit in this txt. Unless you're meaning there is no mention of baptism with the H.S, then I'm with you.
Yes, that's what I mean.
-
Thanks dudes! :tup That is a relief to hear, and cheers for this discussion. I think I've read my bible more in one day than I do most weeks! :lol Not something I'm proud of...
Well after thinking about this whole issue, I think I've decided on my stance. At first, I believed that baptism wasn't required for salvation. But after asking a few people about it and reading a bit more into it, I'm not so sure about it. My heart leans towards 'no, baptism is not required for salvation', but as a Christian, I wouldn't want to be the one to run the risk of not being baptised and getting rejected at the gates! :lol So, really, I don't know. I'm a believer and follower of Christ and was baptised when I was 11 or 12, so its not such a huge issue for me. I would encourage any believer of Christ who hasn't been baptised to get it done because aside from it being a public stand, there is also an exchange that takes place in the water that can only happen through baptism.
Couldn't agree more. Our views on this are based on our own study and perspectives; I don't think either of us can claim it to be certain, absolute truth. I never really had a super-strong opinion about this particular subject, but I generally took the position you have: err on the side of caution. Why NOT be baptized? It may or may not be required, but it was promoted by Jesus and the apostles and it certainly figures prominently into scripture one way or the other.
J, I don't think its neccesary to carry on our entire discussion, due to the change of heart I've had in regards to it all. The one thing I will say in response to your comment about the 'sinner's prayer' is this: You're right, there is no mention of a sinner's prayer in the bible at all. 'The sinners prayer' is the name Christians have given to the prayer that encapsulates all of the things that the bible says are needed for salvation i.e, repentance, confessing Jesus as lord, filling of the Holy Spirit and so on. I have no idea how the phrase came about.
My issue with this is more than just nominal. It's that I don't think a prayer--no matter what it includes--is all that is needed for salvation. Sure, those things you listed are definitely requirements, but are they sufficient by themselves? Say the magic words, and boom, you're done? Topic for another thread though. :lol
I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again; God is not limited to our rules, rituals or perceptions of Him and His ways. What we have been discussing here displays that perfectly: I find it amazing that in the case of Paul, there is no "sinner's prayer" yet God tells Paul through Annanias to 'Rise and be baptised', through which Paul recieves salvation. Yet at the other end of the spectrum, Jesus tells the theif that he will be in paradise with Him, with just the "sinner's prayer", with no water baptism at all. I suppose if you make the 'rules', you can bend them at will :D
Well-said. I think this came up in another thread fairly recently (the idea of God making "exceptions" to his rules). Interesting stuff to think about, IMO.
-J
-
I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again; God is not limited to our rules, rituals or perceptions of Him and His ways. What we have been discussing here displays that perfectly: I find it amazing that in the case of Paul, there is no "sinner's prayer" yet God tells Paul through Annanias to 'Rise and be baptised', through which Paul recieves salvation. Yet at the other end of the spectrum, Jesus tells the theif that he will be in paradise with Him, with just the "sinner's prayer", with no water baptism at all. I suppose if you make the 'rules', you can bend them at will :D
Props for being willing to evaluate your beliefs, it's something that's sorely needed among Christians today. :tup
Also, the bolded part is a common argument, however, when you consider that baptism is described in the NT as being buried with Christ and rising in him as a symbol of his resurrection, he couldn't have been baptized yet because Jesus hadn't been raised from the dead yet! I'm not saying the baptism of John was worthless, but we know from Priscilla and Aquilla teaching Apollos that the baptism of John wasn't sufficient after Christ's death. But you're right, Jesus (God) judges the heart, and I can't say that didn't have anything to do with it either.
-
So, basically at the Bible study I went to, we looked at a lot of cases where someone was considered saved but not baptized. Many examples have already been listed. A major one that was emphasized at the study was that how Paul refused to baptize practically the entire congregation at Corinth. (I forget the verses.)
At any rate, I think that there is very strong evidence for both sides. If not for my belief that the Bible is perfect, I would certainly come to the conclusion that there are some major contradictions here. This is a very faith-pressing topic for me...
-
the only thing I could think of that you are referring to in I Cor is in ch 1 where Paul is warning them of the problem of sectarianism and how stupid it was for anybody to be a follower of Paul. He says, "I did not come to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (vs. 17). It is obvious that he isn't being literal because he just finished saying that he had baptized a number of people. His point is that they shouldn't follow Paul because he baptised them (or anyone for that matter) but they should follow Jesus (ie. the one who is the heart of the gospel Paul preaches).
I can understand someone having doubts about the timing of salvation in baptism, I can see someone having doubts about the salvational efficacy of baptism, but I am hardpressed to see how someone could argue that baptism is not necessary at all.
-
^ Is it worth sacrificing their salvation by not baptizing them to teach them a lesson? I don't know if I'm seeing this the right way...
-
At any rate, I think that there is very strong evidence for both sides. If not for my belief that the Bible is perfect, I would certainly come to the conclusion that there are some major contradictions here. This is a very faith-pressing topic for me...
Doesn't necessarily have to be. It depends on the sense in which--and the degree to which--you think the bible is inerrant, infallible, etc.
-J
-
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...
-
^ Is it worth sacrificing their salvation by not baptizing them to teach them a lesson? I don't know if I'm seeing this the right way...
not sure what you mean, Paul isn't saying he isn't going to baptize them, he is only saying that his highest purpose isn't their baptism but the gospel. in other words, don't follow me because I baptized you, follow Jesus because He saved you.
does that hint at what you are getting at?
-
Yes, I understand the lesson Paul was trying to teach, but here's my problem:
Since Paul refused to baptize them, regardless of his reasoning, they never got a chance to be saved (if salvation comes by faith + baptism).
And actually, this leads me to another question: why are the apostles the only ones that baptized others? Were they specially ordained to that position? (Sorry if that's an ignorant question.)
-
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...
Out of curiosity, do you read the scriptures in their original languages? I was under the impression that that is almost a necessity if you hold strictly to that view of the bible, due to all the disparities that would invariably accompany translation.
-J
-
Yes, I understand the lesson Paul was trying to teach, but here's my problem:
Since Paul refused to baptize them, regardless of his reasoning, they never got a chance to be saved (if salvation comes by faith + baptism).
And actually, this leads me to another question: why are the apostles the only ones that baptized others? Were they specially ordained to that position? (Sorry if that's an ignorant question.)
where does Paul refuse to baptize them? I don't remember any comment like that but may have missed it.
interesting question about others baptizing besides apostles. surely there are others, but I can't think of any others off top of my head
-
And actually, this leads me to another question: why are the apostles the only ones that baptized others? Were they specially ordained to that position? (Sorry if that's an ignorant question.)
Acts 8:36-38 - Philip baptizes somebody. He was a deacon or something I believe.
-J
-
oh yeah, thanks j
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :angel:
-
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 (:lol @ 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. :angel:
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?
-
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 (:lol @ 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. :angel:
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. ;)
-
Welcome to the forums, Vivace. We need someone like you in P/R who can articulate Catholic belief eloquently!!
-
@ 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
-
@ 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: 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: 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?
-
I am studying in Rome right now.
-
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?
-
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. ;)
-
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 (:lol @ 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 :lol 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 :angel: :lol
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
So, bosk, do you have any more input? I know you know your Scriptures...
-
:biggrin:
Oh goody You're from the Roman Church. This WILL be fun :D
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 :D 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.
-
First of all. If it's not in the bible i'm not reading it.
:lol
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-J
-
First of all. If it's not in the bible i'm not reading it.
:lol
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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? :)
-
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. :P
I came to P/R yesterday. Although I think i had a grand total of three or four posts before that :P I'm from MP.com and lately have been wanting to talk more and more about christianity but can't.
-
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.
-
Oh goody You're from the Roman Church. This WILL be fun :D
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.
-
Oh goody You're from the Roman Church. This WILL be fun :D
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 :(
-
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. :)
-
Sorry I got flustered last night. When you've got 5 differnt threads going at once and you're being called stupid for 5 differemt reasons at 4 am you get standoffish :(
-
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.
Seen you mention this before bosk, and I have to ask, just out of curiosity. I understand not aligning yourself with a "mainstream" denomination.
But what makes you think that your own belief set doesn't constitute a denomination itself? It's a particular view of Christianity, which you claim to have arrived at through study of the bible, history, philosophy, etc, just like every other denomination.
Is there an alternative, and if so, what is it in your opinion?
-J
-
I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?
I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.
-
As someone who's really just starting identifying themselves as a Christian again for the past 6 months or so, I've got to admit that this discussion is really intimidating. That's about all I can contribute.
-
I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?
I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.
I don't think they're all bad. Each of them has areas in which they are doctrinally sound, and other areas in which they're off-base (according to my own understanding, of course).
All I was saying is that I definitely understand some Christians' desire not to be associated with one of them, for various reasons.
-J
-
As someone who's really just starting identifying themselves as a Christian again for the past 6 months or so, I've got to admit that this discussion is really intimidating. That's about all I can contribute.
People sometimes like to complicate things that don't need to be complicated. Hence, theology.
-
I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?
I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.
1) It doesn't matter what we think on the issue, because God the Holy Spirit through the pen of the apostle Paul says that denominations/divisions within the church are bad. If we are to walk by faith, we ought to avoid them.
2) When you join a denomination, you get the "whole package." While there certainly might be good doctrine in there, it will likely be intermixed with poison. You also start developing the mindset of "Well, if such-and-such church says so, then they're probably right, even though I don't understand it."
-
I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?
I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.
1) It doesn't matter what we think on the issue, because God the Holy Spirit through the pen of the apostle Paul says that denominations/divisions within the church are bad. If we are to walk by faith, we ought to avoid them.
2) When you join a denomination, you get the "whole package." While there certainly might be good doctrine in there, it will likely be intermixed with poison. You also start developing the mindset of "Well, if such-and-such church says so, then they're probably right, even though I don't understand it."
Probably the first time I'll have agreed with you on P/R :lol
If the whole point is to save as many people as possible it seems silly to divide everyone up based on petty little things.
-
I wanna know what's wrong with mainstream denominations?
I understand some are pretty dodgy but they can't ALL be bad.
1) It doesn't matter what we think on the issue, because God the Holy Spirit through the pen of the apostle Paul says that denominations/divisions within the church are bad. If we are to walk by faith, we ought to avoid them.
How do you avoid them? Agree with everybody on everything?
2) When you join a denomination, you get the "whole package." While there certainly might be good doctrine in there, it will likely be intermixed with poison. You also start developing the mindset of "Well, if such-and-such church says so, then they're probably right, even though I don't understand it."
This is a good point, but what's the difference between you coming up with your own take on Christianity in your own home and a "denomination"? Is it the number of people? Because your interpretations may very well be "intermixed with poison" too; you're subject to all the same biases that anybody else is.
Of course, I get the aversion to all the "group-think" crap that goes on with large numbers of people. But divisions would seem to be inevitable based on the current state of things, and given the ambiguous nature of the Christian scriptures. I don't see how you and your neighbor individually arriving at different conclusions is any less a "division" than Baptists vs. Methodists or whatever.
-J
-
How do you avoid them? Agree with everybody on everything?
Actually the opposite. Be an individual thinker. You are to believe what you believe based on the word of God, and not based on what somebody else believes. That's the great danger of denominations.
This is a good point, but what's the difference between you coming up with your own take on Christianity in your own home and a "denomination"? Is it the number of people? Because your interpretations may very well be "intermixed with poison" too; you're subject to all the same biases that anybody else is.
Of course, I get the aversion to all the "group-think" crap that goes on with large numbers of people. But divisions would seem to be inevitable based on the current state of things, and given the ambiguous nature of the Christian scriptures. I don't see how you and your neighbor individually arriving at different conclusions is any less a "division" than Baptists vs. Methodists or whatever.
I can't really answer that question other than reiterate what Paul says. He doesn't want people prancing around saying, "I'm a Methodist" or "I'm Pentacostal" or "I'm Baptist." He wants people to say "I'm Christian" and leave it at that. Once you say you're a member of a denomination, it's like you're separating yourself from the rest of the Body. It's very elitist. We aren't supposed to fight with each other (debating the truth is ok, but you know what I mean). We're supposed to love and admonish one another, because we are all "in Christ."
-
How do you avoid them? Agree with everybody on everything?
Actually the opposite. Be an individual thinker. You are to believe what you believe based on the word of God, and not based on what somebody else believes. That's the great danger of denominations.
I agree. But that doesn't eliminate divisions.
This is a good point, but what's the difference between you coming up with your own take on Christianity in your own home and a "denomination"? Is it the number of people? Because your interpretations may very well be "intermixed with poison" too; you're subject to all the same biases that anybody else is.
Of course, I get the aversion to all the "group-think" crap that goes on with large numbers of people. But divisions would seem to be inevitable based on the current state of things, and given the ambiguous nature of the Christian scriptures. I don't see how you and your neighbor individually arriving at different conclusions is any less a "division" than Baptists vs. Methodists or whatever.
I can't really answer that question other than reiterate what Paul says. He doesn't want people prancing around saying, "I'm a Methodist" or "I'm Pentacostal" or "I'm Baptist." He wants people to say "I'm Christian" and leave it at that. Once you say you're a member of a denomination, it's like you're separating yourself from the rest of the Body. It's very elitist. We aren't supposed to fight with each other (debating the truth is ok, but you know what I mean). We're supposed to love and admonish one another, because we are all "in Christ."
I don't know what that accomplishes though. My first thought when somebody says that they're "a Christian" is "well that doesn't really tell me anything". There are so many different interpretations and stuff that at some point it makes sense to at least have terms that "blanket" certain aspects of a theology, just for identification purposes.
I'd also add that there have been a lot of great Christian thinkers and teachers in the past and present. Is no one qualified to teach others about Christianity, are we all just supposed to interpret the bible on our own, with our own biases and limitations?
I guess my point is: divisions are a reality, whether Paul likes it or not. So is it better to ignore them and pretend they don't exist, or to address the differences in the interest of seeking the truth?
-J
-
As someone who's really just starting identifying themselves as a Christian again for the past 6 months or so, I've got to admit that this discussion is really intimidating. That's about all I can contribute.
People sometimes like to complicate things that don't need to be complicated. Hence, theology.
Yeah. We complicate things so much. Jesus said the greatest and most important commandments were; Love God, Love People. I think if we can get those two right, the rest sort of falls into place. So sick of Christians who think they are the supreme knowledge in all things God (not anyone here); thats how we get all that awesome stuff like the the crusades and the fine folk at Westboro Baptist.
-
As someone who's really just starting identifying themselves as a Christian again for the past 6 months or so, I've got to admit that this discussion is really intimidating. That's about all I can contribute.
People sometimes like to complicate things that don't need to be complicated. Hence, theology.
Yeah. We complicate things so much. Jesus said the greatest and most important commandments were; Love God, Love People. I think if we can get those two right, the rest sort of falls into place. So sick of Christians who think they are the supreme knowledge in all things God (not anyone here); thats how we get all that awesome stuff like the the crusades and the fine folk at Westboro Baptist.
If you'll permit me to be slightly controversial and play the devil's advocate here.
Jesus also said that no one can go to the Father except through him. He also said that not everyone is a christian who says they are.
What about the churches that disagree with those points? There are churches that do.
How about Westboro Baps. Sure they're not a very nice group of people but they're just reacting against sin in this world trying to not only sanctify themselves but the whole country. They see the religious pluralism that is in the culture and come up with a catchy slogan to express that. They can quote to you from the bible arguments about religious pluralism and if the US is so exemplary of such a thing it's not a hard link to make. Same thing on the topic of Homosexuality. (Note: I don't condone the method with which they've tried to convey their message, though it is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of people started going to Westboro baptist as a result)
Did you know that one of the things the reformers did during the reformation was compare the Roman church to the whore of babylon (from revelation). They actually did a pretty good job of it too.
The Crusades were a Holy War. Jesus said to go and make disciples of all nations. The Old Testament says there are times for war. The New Testament says all scripture is useful. Therefore The Crusades were biblically based. This wasn't just about capturing Jerusalem either. It was war of Christians against Muslims.
Did you know that during the expansion of the Empire of the Roman Church there was alot of conversion to Christianity?
How can you be so thoroughly binary about things like that when there is nuance involved?
*devil's advocate hat off*
On the note of division in the church I can see where you come from (1 Cor 1:10-17) I agree. I'll be more than happy to join the Roman Church when they stop putting tradition on equal footing with the bible. (please note I'm stating a position for the purpose of the argument I'm about to make)
It'd be ideal if there was unity in the church. Frankly there's not. It'd be great if everyone understood the bible properly and became united but they (we) don't. Some people don't care enough, others care too much about the little things like why Mk focussed on the green grass in Mark 6:39. (I don't think it's possible to care too much when it comes to the bible but when you squabble over that verse you're taking it too far.)
There used to be one universal church. Luther tried to reform it before he nailed his theses to the Wittenberg Cathedral door. The church had gotten caught up in it's own power. Sometimes separation just can't be avoided. If someone's committing heresy when they preach and they get kicked out of the church; likelihood is that they will take a bunch of people with them. Simply because the heresy was pleasing to the ear. We can't ignore the Devil at work in the church.
Next point. Love. Is it more loving to let someone commit a heresy and let them be or to rebuke them. If someone sins should they not be rebuked for their sin? Love isn't patient but it stands it's ground. Love is kind when it rebukes the other person. sometimes people use "love" as an excuse to look past another person's sin. This is sin in itself and is not loving.
Last point. Theology is not "overcomplicating" things. I'd it's God Stuff. however some people apply Philosophy to Theology. This is when stuff get's overcomplicated.
In the end it all comes down to the fact that people are sinful. This includes Christians. Sometimes people forget that. There is stuff out there that just sounds good but isn't.
-
There was never one universal church.
-
There was never one universal church.
It's Sunday morning...shouldn't you be in church right now?
:biggrin:
-
There was never one universal church.
It's Sunday morning...shouldn't you be in church right now?
:biggrin:
hef will just have to catch the night service then, eh?
-
There was never one universal church.
It's Sunday morning...shouldn't you be in church right now?
:biggrin:
I'm between churches at the moment.
-
There was never one universal church.
Correct. I'm not even convinced it's possible, except in heaven.
-
Note: I don't condone the method with which they've tried to convey their message, though it is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of people started going to Westboro baptist as a result
Effective? :lol It certainly gets them publicity, but I'm fairly sure that church is still made up primarily of that wacko family.
Last point. Theology is not "overcomplicating" things. I'd it's God Stuff. however some people apply Philosophy to Theology. This is when stuff get's overcomplicated.
Theology is a branch of philosophy.
I think there are a lot of things that do get overcomplicated. But if a person is concerned with wanting to properly understand Christianity, it is going to get complicated. It's easy to drop little Jesus sound bytes ("love your neighbor as yourself", etc) and that may cover the most important things. But who decides what's "important"? There are lots of details and things in the bible, and much of it is ambiguous and can be difficult to understand or reconcile with other stuff. It's complicated by its nature: the time gap between humanity and Jesus continues to grow, the messages continue to be modified, and the primary scriptural document (the bible)--which wasn't exactly clear-cut to begin with--continues to be re-translated. What's to be expected?
-J
-
Note: I don't condone the method with which they've tried to convey their message, though it is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of people started going to Westboro baptist as a result
Effective? :lol It certainly gets them publicity, but I'm fairly sure that church is still made up primarily of that wacko family.
well neither of us have exactly investigated it have we :P I was trying to make the point that God uses human sin for good. That and to say that anything is universally bad is a huige claim to make and needs to be thoroughly researched. I don't actually think it's possible to say that any one thing/action was universally bad.
Last point. Theology is not "overcomplicating" things. I'd it's God Stuff. however some people apply Philosophy to Theology. This is when stuff get's overcomplicated.
Theology is a branch of philosophy.
Actually for christianity Theology isn't Philosophy at all. It's all in the bible. when you start to get theollogy that isn't biblical it's not theology it's philosophy. Simply Theology = Revelation, Philosophy - "what do you think?" I could be wrong but Philosophy translated to the love of knowloedge right?
I think there are a lot of things that do get overcomplicated. But if a person is concerned with wanting to properly understand Christianity, it is going to get complicated. It's easy to drop little Jesus sound bytes ("love your neighbor as yourself", etc) and that may cover the most important things. But who decides what's "important"? There are lots of details and things in the bible, and much of it is ambiguous and can be difficult to understand or reconcile with other stuff. It's complicated by its nature: the time gap between humanity and Jesus continues to grow, the messages continue to be modified, and the primary scriptural document (the bible)--which wasn't exactly clear-cut to begin with--continues to be re-translated. What's to be expected?
-J
That's probably why alot of churces like to trace their doctrines as far back as they can.
-
Phil: No offense bro, but I really can't be stuffed picking apart your post and addressing every single point; I think I've had enough of that in this thread :lol. If you have a specific question you want me to answer that'd be sweet, but you might've just been putting it out there for anyone :lol.
I think, along with a relationship with Jesus Christ, 'Love God, Love People' is a good enough ideology for me. The westboro baptist and the roman catholics and whoever can believe whatever they want, bless them on their way with a coke and a smile.
-
Note: I don't condone the method with which they've tried to convey their message, though it is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of people started going to Westboro baptist as a result
Effective? :lol It certainly gets them publicity, but I'm fairly sure that church is still made up primarily of that wacko family.
well neither of us have exactly investigated it have we :P I was trying to make the point that God uses human sin for good. That and to say that anything is universally bad is a huige claim to make and needs to be thoroughly researched. I don't actually think it's possible to say that any one thing/action was universally bad.
Just because God may take someone's sins and make good come of them doesn't mean things wouldn't have been better were they not committed in the first place. Sure, some good may come of Westboro Baptist's crazy antics, but bad things come of it too.
And no, I haven't done any research on their membership. But last I heard, it was comprised of about 80% family.
Last point. Theology is not "overcomplicating" things. I'd it's God Stuff. however some people apply Philosophy to Theology. This is when stuff get's overcomplicated.
Theology is a branch of philosophy.
Actually for christianity Theology isn't Philosophy at all. It's all in the bible. when you start to get theollogy that isn't biblical it's not theology it's philosophy. Simply Theology = Revelation, Philosophy - "what do you think?" I could be wrong but Philosophy translated to the love of knowloedge right?
The "revelation" has to be identified, interpreted, and understood correctly. That's where philosophy and using logic to draw conclusions come in. Theology is simply asking questions about God, which is one aspect of philosophy. What you believe is divine revelation might be your reference, but you still have to think about it (hopefully), and thus you're doing a type of philosophy.
I think there are a lot of things that do get overcomplicated. But if a person is concerned with wanting to properly understand Christianity, it is going to get complicated. It's easy to drop little Jesus sound bytes ("love your neighbor as yourself", etc) and that may cover the most important things. But who decides what's "important"? There are lots of details and things in the bible, and much of it is ambiguous and can be difficult to understand or reconcile with other stuff. It's complicated by its nature: the time gap between humanity and Jesus continues to grow, the messages continue to be modified, and the primary scriptural document (the bible)--which wasn't exactly clear-cut to begin with--continues to be re-translated. What's to be expected?
-J
That's probably why alot of churces like to trace their doctrines as far back as they can.
Right, with varying degrees of accuracy, and almost always with questionable results.
-J
-
I think, along with a relationship with Jesus Christ, 'Love God, Love People' is a good enough ideology for me. The westboro baptist and the roman catholics and whoever can believe whatever they want, bless them on their way with a coke and a smile.
:tup
I think that's as good an ideology to live by as there is.
-J
-
J, let me ask you, what is your definition of theology? If a man walks up to the Bible and says, "Bible, teach me about God." Is that theology? Because that's the idea that Phil is talking about if I'm correct.
-
J, let me ask you, what is your definition of theology? If a man walks up to the Bible and says, "Bible, teach me about God." Is that theology? Because that's the idea that Phil is talking about if I'm correct.
First, I'd say that the bible does not have the power to "teach"; all you have to do is step back and look at the state of Christianity to see that. Millions upon millions of Christians are looking at the same documents and "learning" different things. To learn from anything requires action on your part. You have to take in and process the information that it presents, interpret it, figure out how it applies, draw conclusions from it. That's philosophy, in a sense. When the document is a religious text, it's theology, as it all deals with God. They're not separable: theology is a subset of philosophy. It's asking questions about God, in any capacity. That's my take, at least.
At any rate, before the guy demands that the bible teach him things, I'd first ask this question: Is the bible a reliable source of information about God? Even that is a theological question.
-J
-
J, let me ask you, what is your definition of theology? If a man walks up to the Bible and says, "Bible, teach me about God." Is that theology? Because that's the idea that Phil is talking about if I'm correct.
First, I'd say that the bible does not have the power to "teach"; all you have to do is step back and look at the state of Christianity to see that. Millions upon millions of Christians are looking at the same documents and "learning" different things. To learn from anything requires action on your part. You have to take in and process the information that it presents, interpret it, figure out how it applies, draw conclusions from it. That's philosophy, in a sense. When the document is a religious text, it's theology, as it all deals with God. They're not separable: theology is a subset of philosophy. It's asking questions about God, in any capacity. That's my take, at least.
At any rate, before the guy demands that the bible teach him things, I'd first ask this question: Is the bible a reliable source of information about God? Even that is a theological question.
-J
I'll take that as a "yes."
-
J, let me ask you, what is your definition of theology? If a man walks up to the Bible and says, "Bible, teach me about God." Is that theology? Because that's the idea that Phil is talking about if I'm correct.
First, I'd say that the bible does not have the power to "teach"; all you have to do is step back and look at the state of Christianity to see that. Millions upon millions of Christians are looking at the same documents and "learning" different things. To learn from anything requires action on your part. You have to take in and process the information that it presents, interpret it, figure out how it applies, draw conclusions from it. That's philosophy, in a sense. When the document is a religious text, it's theology, as it all deals with God. They're not separable: theology is a subset of philosophy. It's asking questions about God, in any capacity. That's my take, at least.
At any rate, before the guy demands that the bible teach him things, I'd first ask this question: Is the bible a reliable source of information about God? Even that is a theological question.
-J
Bible teach me about God
2 Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Exodus 20:2-4
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Zechariah 9:9
9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
Matthew 20:1-5
1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."
4This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
Mark 14:60-62
60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Daniel 7:13,14
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
John 8:24
24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
Matthew 28:18-21
8Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Thankyou Bible for telling me that:
God inspired the scripture.
God is the only God
God sent Jesus who was prophecied in the Old Testament to die for our sins so that people could have eternal life with him.
Jesus actually claimed to be God which was prophecied in the Old Testament.
Faith in Jesus is the only way to have eternal life with God
Jesus has authority of Heaven and Earth and I should tell people about it.
-
Thankyou Bible for telling me that:
God inspired the scripture.
God is the only God
God sent Jesus who was prophecied in the Old Testament to die for our sins so that people could have eternal life with him.
Jesus actually claimed to be God which was prophecied in the Old Testament.
Faith in Jesus is the only way to have eternal life with God
Jesus has authority of Heaven and Earth and I should tell people about it.
Yes, I'm aware that the bible claims it is inspired. Is that enough to conclude that it's a good source? Does it say what writings make up the "scriptures", or what writings should be excluded?
God is the only God, but Jesus is also God? That's confusing. Why did God have to send Jesus to die for our sins?
What constitutes faith in Jesus? What does "authority of Heaven and Earth" entail? Why should I tell people about it?
I'm familiar with the typical answers to all of these questions and with the verses used to support the answers, etc. Don't bother trying to answer any of 'em, the point was to give examples of philosophical/theological questions one might ask based on your post.
-J
-
Thankyou Bible for telling me that:
God inspired the scripture.
God is the only God
God sent Jesus who was prophecied in the Old Testament to die for our sins so that people could have eternal life with him.
Jesus actually claimed to be God which was prophecied in the Old Testament.
Faith in Jesus is the only way to have eternal life with God
Jesus has authority of Heaven and Earth and I should tell people about it.
Yes, I'm aware that the bible claims it is inspired. Is that enough to conclude that it's a good source? Does it say what writings make up the "scriptures", or what writings should be excluded?
God is the only God, but Jesus is also God? That's confusing. Why did God have to send Jesus to die for our sins?
What constitutes faith in Jesus? What does "authority of Heaven and Earth" entail? Why should I tell people about it?
I'm familiar with the typical answers to all of these questions and with the verses used to support the answers, etc. Don't bother trying to answer any of 'em, the point was to give examples of philosophical/theological questions one might ask based on your post.
-J
Hate to answer it this way, but God's whole purpose in giving his word is so we don't have to dabble around in philosophy and questioning and defining terms, etc. Philosophy is wholly unfruitful in answering questions. Col 2:8 actually warns against using philosophy.
-
Hate to answer it this way, but God's whole purpose in giving his word is so we don't have to dabble around in philosophy and questioning and defining terms, etc.
What? You mean you don't ever question or try to understand things in the bible? I'd imagine God's "purpose in giving his word" is something more along the lines of *guiding* us to truth, rather than creating a bunch of drones who are slaves to a collection of varied and often ambiguous writings gathered together in controvertible fashion.
In other words: God gave you a brain, use it.
Philosophy is wholly unfruitful in answering questions.
That's the case, oftentimes. But just because a question can't be answered doesn't mean it isn't worth asking.
Col 2:8 actually warns against using philosophy.
::) No, it doesn't. Paul was writing to the Colossians, and was addressing a particular heresy probably derived from paganism and Jewish mysticism, as is clear because he talks about various aspects of this heresy elsewhere in the chapter. Not only that, but the Greek "philosophia" doesn't necessarily translate directly to what we consider "philosophy".
Only if you were to pluck that verse completely out of context could you possibly interpret it as a condemning of all philosophy. At best, it is probably intended to divorce "worldly" wisdom from "Godly" wisdom, as is a common theme of Paul's.
Based on Paul's letters, he was familiar with philosophy and used it. And by attempting to determine the meaning of this verse, we're philosophizing!
-J
-
Hate to answer it this way, but God's whole purpose in giving his word is so we don't have to dabble around in philosophy and questioning and defining terms, etc.
What? You mean you don't ever question or try to understand things in the bible? I'd imagine God's "purpose in giving his word" is something more along the lines of *guiding* us to truth, rather than creating a bunch of drones who are slaves to a collection of varied and often ambiguous writings gathered together in controvertible fashion.
In other words: God gave you a brain, use it.
Philosophy is wholly unfruitful in answering questions.
That's the case, oftentimes. But just because a question can't be answered doesn't mean it isn't worth asking.
Col 2:8 actually warns against using philosophy.
::) No, it doesn't. Paul was writing to the Colossians, and was addressing a particular heresy probably derived from paganism and Jewish mysticism, as is clear because he talks about various aspects of this heresy elsewhere in the chapter. Not only that, but the Greek "philosophia" doesn't necessarily translate directly to what we consider "philosophy".
Only if you were to pluck that verse completely out of context could you possibly interpret it as a condemning of all philosophy. At best, it is probably intended to divorce "worldly" wisdom from "Godly" wisdom, as is a common theme of Paul's.
Based on Paul's letters, he was familiar with philosophy and used it. And by attempting to determine the meaning of this verse, we're philosophizing!
-J
It seems that your definition of philosophy is different than mine, which is why we're having issues. I don't regard reading the Bible and believing it as philosophy, but you seem to. Why does knowledge and understanding have to arise out of philosophy? Reading the book, and saying "These facts are true" is completely different than saying, "I wonder what this could possibly mean?" You're making something incredibly simple and twisting it into something introspective and mystical. Which is what most Christians do, by the way, and which is why the Christian church as a whole is a mess.
You base a lot of your ideas around the fact that there are so many methods and views on interpreting Scripture. So many people come to so many different conclusions. But you know why? It's because they took something out of something simple that wasn't there in the first place. If you approach the Bible with a believing heart, interpreting the Bible as meaning what it says, and saying what it means (in other words, literally, then yes, you will run into problems, but not nearly to the extent of a Roman Catholic, for example.
Obviously God gave man a brain to collect and understand information. But it was never intended to be used apart from God's word. I've got a philosophy textbook for a class I'm taking. They address hundreds of questions, they present hundreds of arguments, but not a single thing is answered.
And Paul may have written about that specific issue in Colossians, but the principle applies, that philosophy, whether right or wrong, is decietful.
-
First Principles of Scriptural Interpretation:
1/ Scripture interprets itself
2/ refer to point 1
3/ Scripture is self interpreting.
If you stick to these principles you will not be likely to run into difficulty on doctrinal matters.
-
I'm not a Christian so if you choose to disregard what I have to say regarding the bible, whatever.
But I was under the impression that the bible is littered with metaphors, allusions and all kinds of imagery? Kind of silly to take it literally with that in mind.
First Principles of Scriptural Interpretation:
1/ Scripture interprets itself
2/ refer to point 1
3/ Scripture is self interpreting.
If you stick to these principles you will not be likely to run into difficulty on doctrinal matters.
This assumes that scripture itself is infallible. Which I'm sure you are of the opinion of, but to someone else who isn't a believer it seems rather silly. "I'm right because I say so," doesn't do a lot to convince me otherwise.
-
I have three rules as well.
1) Interpret it literally.
2) Compare Scripture with Scripture.
3) Understand where things "fit." (i. e. Don't read the law into the present, since we aren't under the law any more)
You wouldn't believe how simple it makes everything. 1 takes away the interpretation issue, 2 clears up any ambiguitiies, and 3 clears up 90% of so-called contradictions.
And SS, I hear ya, but this thread's question (which we've really strayed from) has to do with a Bible-believing viewpoint. That's a good question though, and one that concerns a lot of people as "circular reasoning."
-
What's the protocol in this situation then? Is it ok if I follow the tangent?
-
It seems that your definition of philosophy is different than mine, which is why we're having issues. I don't regard reading the Bible and believing it as philosophy, but you seem to.
If you use reason and logic, then you use philosophy. Maybe you don't, I don't know. But I can't imagine that scenario.
And have you never asked yourself WHY you believe the bible as absolute truth?
Reading the book, and saying "These facts are true" is completely different than saying, "I wonder what this could possibly mean?"
But how did you conclude that "these facts are true"? Don't you have to understand what things mean in order to "believe" in them, or apply them to your life?
You're making something incredibly simple and twisting it into something introspective and mystical. Which is what most Christians do, by the way, and which is why the Christian church as a whole is a mess.
Incredibly simple? We're talking about a collection of massively varied writings, with different authors, writing styles, intents, and time periods, among other things. Inspired by God or not, you're delusional if you think that any honest person can just sit down and immediately understand what they read. It's a popular idea among Christians who don't want to give too much consideration to things, but it's obviously and demonstrably false.
If you're a strict biblical "literalist" (can't remember the term, sorry :lol), which I get the feeling you might be, it's easy for things to seem simpler, but there are much bigger problems with that view that are probably beyond the scope of this thread. Not that we're not far beyond it already.
Anyway, there are a lot of reasons Christianity is a mess. People thinking "too much" is not one of them. :lol
You base a lot of your ideas around the fact that there are so many methods and views on interpreting Scripture. So many people come to so many different conclusions. But you know why? It's because they took something out of something simple that wasn't there in the first place. If you approach the Bible with a believing heart, interpreting the Bible as meaning what it says, and saying what it means (in other words, literally, then yes, you will run into problems, but not nearly to the extent of a Roman Catholic, for example.
See above. Of course people over-analyze things, but "under-analysis" and a demonizing of knowledge and reason is a much bigger problem.
-J
-
What's the protocol in this situation then? Is it ok if I follow the tangent?
The protocol for tangents is to make a new thread: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=17844.0
-
Answering the original question from my point of view would be; if a religious leader is telling you that salvation or whatever the end goal is can only be achieved through a set of protocols does not understand his/her religion. even though i'm an atheist, i can clearly see the point of the rituals and what they are supposed to represent and create open and uncensored discussion, not create road blocks.
-
Well, and the Dude abides, so...yeah.