The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!

[bluebell]

I didn't say there was a "law of baptism."

If you weren't saying that Christ fulfilled the law which required that He be baptized or not fulfill righteousness, thus making it unnecessary for anyone else to be baptized, then I guess I'm not understanding your post and need you to clarify.

[MorningStar]

Catholics believe in baptismal regeneration but could not be comfortable with this argument. It could be argued that the Saviour set an example to follow. Most evangelicals believe that one should get baptized after salvation. They undoubtedly believe, as do Catholics, that Jesus did not need to be saved. Further, Jesus was baptized with John's baptism, which is apparently not quite the same as apostolic baptism, having the formula, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: ---Ac 19:3-5

Scripturally speaking, I would tend to point to the words of Ananias to Paul when the latter was baptized. --Ac. 22:16

It seems to me like baptism "washed away Paul's sins".

But I could go either way with it if I wasn't Catholic. I see both arguments as being impossible to exclude if the 66 Book Protestant Bible is the only authority.

I can see why people have different beliefs about it, but I can't understand why it would be called heretical to teach that a person must be baptized when Jesus was baptized and stated that a man must be born of water and of the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of God.

[Pahoran]

Actually, it's faith in Christ that tells me that the Just shall live by faith, and following rules or works of the law don't bring about salvation, or a righteous life.

Does this mean that your "blind faith" tells you that "the Just shall live by faith" entails doing just whatever they like, however wicked it might be?

What a remarkably convenient faith...

For, if living by rules or a righteous life was enough to save us, we wouldn't need Christ.

IOW, your "blind faith" tells you that there's a binary solution set here, and anyone who actually makes an effort to obey commandments can't possibly have actual faith in Christ.

For those of us whose faith in Christ is actually strong enough to motivate us to do something -- a motivation with which you seem to be quite unfamiliar -- the opposite is the case. We know perfectly well that "living by rules or a righteous life" is not at all "enough to save us," but we find that a rather ridiculous excuse for the laziness you advocate as if it were an appropriate response to the One who sacrificed all for our salvation.

And oddly enough, not only do those whose minds are capable of holding more than one thought disagree with you, but so did Jesus Himself:

24

[thesometimesaint]

evangelist:

In the ancient world "Belief" was a verb.

[Hughes]

If you weren't saying that Christ fulfilled the law which required that He be baptized or not fulfill righteousness, thus making it unnecessary for anyone else to be baptized, then I guess I'm not understanding your post and need you to clarify.

John was the last of the OT prophets. His job was to make the way for the Messiah. Jesus' confirmation and dedication as THE priest who will make an offering of Himself "once and for all" was done by John's Baptism.

"As evidence of the fact that Christ was made a priest by John's baptism, we note that when Jesus cleansed the temple (Mt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15), He was exercising the authority of a priest. And when the Jews came to Him asking, "By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority?" (Mk. 21:23; Mk. 11:28), Jesus cited to them John's baptism, which He had received, and asked, "Was it from heaven or of men?" In Jesus' mind there is obviously a definite connection between His priestly "authority" and His "baptism by John." He indicates that if John's baptism was from heaven, and He surely believed it was, then He had been truly ordained a priest and possessed authority to cleanse the temple." Rose, Ben L., Baptism by Sprinkling (Reprint from the Southern Presbyterian Journal: Weaverville, 1949) p. 11.

[Pahoran]

John was the last of the OT prophets. His job was to make the way for the Messiah. Jesus' confirmation and dedication as THE priest who will make an offering of Himself "once and for all" was done by John's Baptism.

"As evidence of the fact that Christ was made a priest by John's baptism, we note that when Jesus cleansed the temple (Mt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15), He was exercising the authority of a priest. And when the Jews came to Him asking, "By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority?" (Mk. 21:23; Mk. 11:28), Jesus cited to them John's baptism, which He had received, and asked, "Was it from heaven or of men?" In Jesus' mind there is obviously a definite connection between His priestly "authority" and His "baptism by John." He indicates that if John's baptism was from heaven, and He surely believed it was, then He had been truly ordained a priest and possessed authority to cleanse the temple." Rose, Ben L., Baptism by Sprinkling (Reprint from the Southern Presbyterian Journal: Weaverville, 1949) p. 11.

And this is a representative sample of the quality of exegesis in which you have such "blind faith," is it?

Mr. Rose needs to read a couple more verses.

23

[Hughes]

Does this mean that your "blind faith" tells you that "the Just shall live by faith" entails doing just whatever they like, however wicked it might be?

What a remarkably convenient faith...

IOW, your "blind faith" tells you that there's a binary solution set here, and anyone who actually makes an effort to obey commandments can't possibly have actual faith in Christ.

For those of us whose faith in Christ is actually strong enough to motivate us to do something -- a motivation with which you seem to be quite unfamiliar -- the opposite is the case. We know perfectly well that "living by rules or a righteous life" is not at all "enough to save us," but we find that a rather ridiculous excuse for the laziness you advocate as if it were an appropriate response to the One who sacrificed all for our salvation.

And oddly enough, not only do those whose minds are capable of holding more than one thought disagree with you, but so did Jesus Himself:

Why isn't just hearing and believing good enough? Why must hearing be accompanied by doing?

Evidently Jesus wasn't an EV Protestant.

But Hughes, I do have another question: since your "blind faith" doesn't actually require you to do anything, why are you so anxiously engaged in opposing the Church of Jesus Christ? How is all that "doing" consistent with your alleged principles?

Regards,

Pahoran

Since I've made no excuse for laziness your charge is baseless, and not worth responding to.

[Bernard Gui]

But that is not bible !

I can also show good religious words from a Koran but does it hold any truth and void, and is the true word of God of the bible??

The word of God is in the bible, but it is not the only word of God.

The bible makes no such claim, and God makes no such statement.

Unfortunately, the problem of baptism cannot be solved by appealing

only to the bible. If it could, all Christian churches would have a common

understanding, which they do not.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

As the scripture said, he did it to fulfill all righteousness. Christ fulfilled all the law, thus bringing in the new covenant with his blood. He could only do this if he was completely righteous.

2 Nephi 31 does a thorough job explaining what it means to "fulfill all righteousness." The Father commanded that all men be baptized,

and Jesus obeyed, even though he was sinless, as an act of obedience to the Father and as an example for the rest of us.

Bernard

[Hughes]

The word of God is in the bible, but it is not the only word of God.

The bible makes no such claim, and God makes no such statement.

Unfortunately, the problem of baptism cannot be solved by appealing

only to the bible. If it could, all Christian churches would have a common

understanding, which they do not.

Bernard

All Christian churches (that I know of) teach that the act of baptism is symbolic, not actually a salvation requirement.

2 Nephi 31 does a thorough job explaining what it means to "fulfill all righteousness." The Father commanded that all men be baptized,

and Jesus obeyed, even though he was sinless, as an act of obedience to the Father and as an example for the rest of us.

Bernard

And who wrote 2 Nephi 31? And when did the Father command all men to be baptized?

[Bernard Gui]

If you want to see how Christ's words were implemented by his followers, you can look at the book of Acts and see what they did after he was resurrected.

Acts 9:18 Baptism--Saul/Paul

This is most compelling, because after Paul and his associates were stopped on their way to Damascus

Jesus himself told him, "But get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you have to do." (Acts 8:6)

One of those things was to be baptized immediately. (Acts 8:19)

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

All Christian churches (that I know of) teach that the act of baptism is symbolic, not actually a salvation requirement.

And who wrote 2 Nephi 31? And when did the Father command all men to be baptized?

Are you saying that all Christian churches have exactly the same doctrine and practice of baptism?

The words in 2 Nephi 31 are a mixture of those of a prophet and those of Jesus Christ and the Father Himself.

Can't get any better than that.

"If the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfill all righteousness,

O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, even by water!."

"And the Father said, 'Repent ye, repent ye and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.'"

"And also, the voice of the Son came to me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the

Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen

me do.'"

Bernard

[USU78]

All Christian churches (that I know of) teach that the act of baptism is symbolic, not actually a salvation requirement.

This is demonstrably false. Think it through and try again.

USU "Unless, of course, you're one of those guys that thinks Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons and Baptists are nonChristian" 78

[Hughes]

Are you saying that all Christian churches have exactly the same doctrine and practice of baptism?

The words in 2 Nephi 31 are a mixture of those of a prophet and those of Jesus Christ and the Father Himself.

Can't get any better than that.

"If the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfill all righteousness,

O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, even by water!."

"And the Father said, 'Repent ye, repent ye and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.'"

"And also, the voice of the Son came to me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the

Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen

me do.'"

Bernard

I didn't say all Christian churches have the same practice, did I? I meant what I said. "All Christian churches (that I know of) teach that the act of baptism is symbolic, not actually a salvation requirement."

Which is quite different than what 2 Nephi 31 teaches, wouldn't you agree?

So, when was 2 Nephi written?

[Hughes]

This is demonstrably false. Think it through and try again.

USU "Unless, of course, you're one of those guys that thinks Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons and Baptists are nonChristian" 78

Mormons are the only one's I know of that think that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Based on the BoM as it appears 2 Nephi 31

[USU78]

Mormons are the only one's I know of that think that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Based on the BoM as it appears 2 Nephi 31

You don't know much about Catholics and Orthodox then.

Vatican II does not obviate the need for baptism. It merely clarifies very narrow circumstances when a person's desire to be baptized is thwarted by events, either martyrdom (the "baptism of blood") or other cause of death (the "baptism of desire"). Baptism itself is still required of everyone.

And Vatican II remains somewhat controversial.

You are also not aware of how recent a thing in the world it is for Baptists not to require baptism. It's mindboggling for those who've lived longer than the last 30 years.

[Pahoran]

Since I've made no excuse for laziness your charge is baseless, and not worth responding to.

Really?

Then what did you mean when you wrote:

Actually, it's faith in Christ that tells me that the Just shall live by faith, and following rules or works of the law don't bring about salvation, or a righteous life.

For, if living by rules or a righteous life was enough to save us, we wouldn't need Christ.

Does the above actually mean anything at all?

Or is it a mere slogan, empty of meaning?

If it does actually mean something, does that meaning include actually doing anything, or not?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nathair/|\]

I didn't say all Christian churches have the same practice, did I? I meant what I said. "All Christian churches (that I know of) teach that the act of baptism is symbolic, not actually a salvation requirement."

Which is quite different than what 2 Nephi 31 teaches, wouldn't you agree?

So, when was 2 Nephi written?

About 588-570 BC.

[Hughes]

You don't know much about Catholics and Orthodox then.

Vatican II does not obviate the need for baptism. It merely clarifies very narrow circumstances when a person's desire to be baptized is thwarted by events, either martyrdom (the "baptism of blood") or other cause of death (the "baptism of desire"). Baptism itself is still required of everyone.

And Vatican II remains somewhat controversial.

You are also not aware of how recent a thing in the world it is for Baptists not to require baptism. It's mindboggling for those who've lived longer than the last 30 years.

Being "Required" by the church, as your explanation points out doesn't indicate that it's a "must" for salvation.

[Hughes]

Hughes, on 06 February 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

Actually, it's faith in Christ that tells me that the Just shall live by faith, and following rules or works of the law don't bring about salvation, or a righteous life.

For, if living by rules or a righteous life was enough to save us, we wouldn't need Christ.

Really?

Then what did you mean when you wrote:

Does the above actually mean anything at all?

Or is it a mere slogan, empty of meaning?

If it does actually mean something, does that meaning include actually doing anything, or not?

Regards,

Pahoran

I meant what I said. Righteousness doesn't come from following rules. Of course I'm talking about the righteousness that is a gift of God, through Christ. You might be talking about sanctification, that part where God works on our hearts to will and to do his good works.

Either way, it's God who does the work. Our job is to let him. Neither is a permission to be lazy.

[Hughes]

About 588-570 BC.

So in light of this.

Bernard Gui, on 06 February 2011 - 05:47 PM, said:

Are you saying that all Christian churches have exactly the same doctrine and practice of baptism?

The words in 2 Nephi 31 are a mixture of those of a prophet and those of Jesus Christ and the Father Himself.

Can't get any better than that.

"If the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfill all righteousness,

O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, even by water!."

"And the Father said, 'Repent ye, repent ye and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.'"

"And also, the voice of the Son came to me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the

Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen

me do.'"

Bernard

We have the prophet Nephi supposedly quoting Jesus before he existed? Please explain how you guys see this because it's just bizarre to me.

[USU78]

Being "Required" by the church, as your explanation points out doesn't indicate that it's a "must" for salvation.

Vatican II, again . . . Prior thereto there was no question that, in order to obtain salvation, a person had to receive the RC sacraments, including baptism, as the sine qua non to salvation.

The exceptions carved out by Vatican II, again, do not obviate the need for baptism or its necessity for baptism in order to obtain salvation. It's just that they carved out exceptions to priest-performed baptisms because of exigencies.

3DOP could explain it far better than I.

[USU78]

So in light of this.

We have the prophet Nephi supposedly quoting Jesus before he existed? Please explain how you guys see this because it's just bizarre to me.

Yeshu'a = Yahweh, Son of the Father (Who is also sometimes called Yahweh).

[Nathair/|\]

So in light of this.

We have the prophet Nephi supposedly quoting Jesus before he existed? Please explain how you guys see this because it's just bizarre to me.

Wait, I thought Jesus was with God from the beginning. (John 1). You mean the Bible is wrong!?

[Hughes]

Wait, I thought Jesus was with God from the beginning. (John 1). You mean the Bible is wrong!?

No wait... you have Nephi quoting the gospels before they were written... hmmm... that's what I'm asking?