JLHPROF Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 3 hours ago, LittleNipper said: Well, when you do all the work yourself and the Holy Spirit isn't in it ---- it would be like banging one's head against a wall! First off, You are connecting with a guy who was Christened (Baby sprinkled/baptism) by the 1st Bishop of Camden, Monsignor Bartholomew Eustace (Appointed by Pope Pius XI) at CHRIST THE KING Roman Catholic church of Haddonfield NJ. It was from this church on December 24, 1947 that Channel 6 WFIL-TV broadcast the FIRST TV Telecast of any Roman Catholic Mass ever. And on top of that I was baptized by immersion (by an old time minister) at the Moorestown, NJ Bible Church at the age of 24. So, if water baptisms count in heaven for anything , then I'm about as special as one can be dunk wise! HOWEVER, I know that the water baptism is an illustration exactly as is the Lord's Supper. Now the Catholics believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION. They believe that the wafer actually becomes the BODY of Christ and the wine converts into the BLOOD of Christ. Jesus did in fact say, "THIS IS MY BODY." And spoke about eating His flesh... However He qualified this when He said , "Do this in remembrance of Me." And I know that Mormons do NOT believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Now when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus the Jewish priest, Nicodemus came from a belief that Jews went to heaven because they were BORN JEWISH. But Jesus said, "YOU MUST be born again." Nicodemus said, "How can this be? Does one become a baby again and be reborn?" Then Jesus speaking to this Jew, stated that one must be BORN and then REBORN of the spirit." The rational understanding is that a baby for 9 months floats around in the embryonic fluid and this water breaks and the baby is born. And in fact Jews are born. That is a necessary part. But then the Holy Spirit comes and embraces the individual and this is the second birth when one comes by faith in Christ/Messiah. Jesus is not speaking of the rite of immersion at all. He is speaking of birth and rebirth. Birth involves embryonic fluid and water breaking, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit involves being bathed in the Holy Spirit. I do not accept TRANSUBSTANTIATION though I do fully believe that the Lord's Supper is a very special tradition initiated by Jesus to illustrate what would happen to HIM in remembrance. Just as water baptism is an illustration of what happens inwardly when the Holy Spirit is invited into one's heart and baptizes that individual into the body of believers. Ok. Nobody is disagreeing that baptism is the outward sign of an internal change. Not the point. None of which addresses Christ's statement that he was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Which unavoidably means without partaking in baptism he would not have fulfilled righteousness and would therefore have been lacking in it.
LittleNipper Posted October 16, 2018 Author Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Ok. Nobody is disagreeing that baptism is the outward sign of an internal change. Not the point. None of which addresses Christ's statement that he was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Which unavoidably means without partaking in baptism he would not have fulfilled righteousness and would therefore have been lacking in it. He was saying and demonstrating that HE was the Messiah. Plain and simple. And HE was fulfilling a messianic sign. This would mark the start of His ministry. YOU are a human and by getting baptized you are not fulfilling righteousness. Why do you place salvation on what you physically do? Christ already did that and went to the cross. You are one of "them" that get baptized for the dead. You do this I imagine out of love, but I also feel you do it out of fear and obligation. When I was sprinkled as a baby ---- I didn't remember any of it. Sure, my mother saved the beautiful long ivory satin & lace outfit I wore that my "Godparents " provided. I saw them a few times growing up. It turns out that they were in fact PROTESTANT ITALIAN (A very rare oddity back in the early 50's). They were witnessing to my parents and my parents wanted someone who was really "into" GOD. So, right or wrong they participated. I feel now that this (among) other things moved my father to become a born-again believer and not someone performing "duties" and "church services" out of OBLIGATION! When I was baptized at 24, it was a most wonderful opportunity for me to give my testimony regarding my salvation and what Christ did for me. I couldn't do that as an infant. I didn't even know that event happened back then (though my mother says I was as good as gold --- and it all made a lovely picture). I'm sure my infant baptism made everyone else there feel good and happy, but I came to realize that it had no meaning for ME. I was just going along for the ride sorta speak. At an early age of about 4, an elderly spinster (that's what they called old unmarried women back then) came to our home and she had a real love of children. I believe we were all her children that she herself never had... Anyway, she had spoken to my parents and came to present the wordless color book. My heart was black with sin, until the Savior came in. His precious blood I know, has washed it white as snow. And in that world I'm told, I'll walk the streets of gold. What a wonderful wonderful day, when He washed my sins away. At the age of 9, I made a voluntary profession of my faith at a youth group altar call, and I knew I was changed somehow. Jesus and the Bible were all I'd talk about. I remember one guy in high school saying, " ______ , No matter what the subject matter, you always seem to bring the Bible and GOD into everything..!" and "You are such a Bible thumper --- preacher boy..." Anyway, I was not pressured to be water baptized nor ever considered it a necessary part of my salvation. I eventually grew to a the point in life that I felt led to be a role model and here was a good opportunity to be an illustrative witness for my Lord and Savior. Edited October 16, 2018 by LittleNipper
Gray Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 On 10/12/2018 at 7:37 AM, JLHPROF said: Then why was Christ baptized to fulfill all righteousness? A tevilah in at the site where the Israelites were said to have crossed into the Promised Land. A ritual preparation for the the coming eschaton, as preached by John.
Anakin7 Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 On October 13, 2018 at 9:28 PM, Anakin7 said: Christ Jesus, Peter, James, John, the other True Apostles including Paul, Apostolic Fathers, Early post N.T Church leaders, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and a # of non LDS Christians believe/adhere to water baptism as necessary for salvation. The wedding analogy works because once one receives the engagement ring it symbolizes the acceptance of the new covenant and makes a decision to follow Christ Jesus as there Vice Monarch, Lord Of Life, Lord, Redeemer, Savior God, King Master of other lives - Luke 14:25-35 , they count the cost and weigh if they can do it. Water Baptism [The Wedding Ring] seals the acceptance of the New Covenant written In Christ Jesus Blood and symbolical washes away the sins of the individual. In response to the other questions of individuals in Holy writ not saying about being Baptized and other criticisms about no Baptism as necessary for True salvation there are answers. See http://www.bebaptized.org May True Grace be with all. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Repost in case no one read or saw.
LittleNipper Posted October 16, 2018 Author Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Anakin7 said: Repost in case no one read or saw. Christ Jesus, Peter, James, John, the other True Apostles including Paul, Apostolic Fathers did not believe that water baptism was necessary for salvation. They all held to the baptism of the Holy Spirit as necessary, and water doesn't entice Him (the SPIRIT) one way or the other. Edited October 16, 2018 by LittleNipper
MiserereNobis Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 22 hours ago, LittleNipper said: Now the Catholics believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION. They believe that the wafer actually becomes the BODY of Christ and the wine converts into the BLOOD of Christ Actually, we believe that the substance of the bread and wine both become in reality Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine. But all four are present in both, so one could receive only the bread but in reality still receive Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity.
MiserereNobis Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 10 hours ago, LittleNipper said: but I came to realize that it had no meaning for ME. Well, it did remove original sin and left an indelible mark on your soul 1
MiserereNobis Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 4 hours ago, LittleNipper said: Christ Jesus, Peter, James, John, the other True Apostles including Paul, Apostolic Fathers did not believe that water baptism was necessary for salvation. They all held to the baptism of the Holy Spirit as necessary, and water doesn't entice Him (the SPIRIT) one way or the other. The early Church fathers clearly taught that baptism was essential for salvation, but I suppose you don't accept any teachings of Christianity post 100 AD. 1
LittleNipper Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 43 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Well, it did remove original sin and left an indelible mark on your soul My Faith in Christ did that, which was brought on by being pursued by the Holy Spirit and me humbly repenting of my selfish ways. This had nothing to do with being sprinkled as a baby.
LittleNipper Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Actually, we believe that the substance of the bread and wine both become in reality Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine. But all four are present in both, so one could receive only the bread but in reality still receive Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity. And this is another subject that's related to the similar confusion over water baptism. Christ died once for all. The Roman Catholic Church would have Him crucified over and over in their MASS. I believe this is an error that allows a manipulative authoritative church to scare its congregants into submission with threats of EXCOMMUNICATION (the withholding of the Lord's Supper).
Anakin7 Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 5 hours ago, LittleNipper said: Christ Jesus, Peter, James, John, the other True Apostles including Paul, Apostolic Fathers did not believe that water baptism was necessary for salvation. They all held to the baptism of the Holy Spirit as necessary, and water doesn't entice Him (the SPIRIT) one way or the other. Yes The Vice Monarch, Lord Of Life, Lord, Redeemer, Savior, God, King, Master, Christ Jesus, Peter, James, John, and the other True Apostles including Paul held the True Baptism of The Holy Ghost/Spirit as necessary, but also True Water Baptism as well for one'sTrue Salvation Soteriological Journey, Quest, Walk. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My robe/Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
LittleNipper Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 57 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: The early Church fathers clearly taught that baptism was essential for salvation, but I suppose you don't accept any teachings of Christianity post 100 AD. Water baptism was a tricky issue in the early church. The short answer is that ALL the early fathers believed that part of the conversion experience was going under the water in baptism. At the same time NONE of the early fathers said faith without baptism was impossible - in other words, NO church father argued that salvation was impossible without water baptism. It was simply assumed that a believer would be immersed. Now the longer answer: Without knowing the historical context (especially of the second century) you could read the early fathers and come away thinking that most of them believed water baptism was essential in salvation. The danger with reading the early fathers is taking them literally without knowing the historical context. 1. The early church was not "monolithic." Though the church claimed to be catholic/universal, sects, or schools of thought always existed within the church that disagreed on many, things. "Denominations," (to use a contemporary term) have always existed. What does this mean in this discussion? Church fathers were rarely in 100% agreement on many things when it came to details, thus you find different slants and views when it comes to water baptism. 2. The record in the book of Acts seems to indicate that water baptism was done fairly quickly (even immediately) after conversion. Though universally seen as something the Christian must do upon conversion, by the second century baptism was typically not done immediately after conversion. This delay is probably due to the changing nature of the church, moving from a Jewish orientation to mainly a Gentile church. Jews practiced various forms of water baptism. Gentile converts needed some explanation. What you find in the records of the second century and following is a training period for a new convert to follow before he/she is allowed to celebrate the Lord's Supper or be baptized in water. [It's called catechesis, (Greek word meaning "to sound" something). It carries the idea that "catechumens" (students) would be taught by "repeat after me," or "sound this out:" I believe in God the Father Almighty...]" This training period might last a few months, but most records from the few first centuries indicate it to be more than a year of training and learning. This is evidence that these early Christians did NOT think baptism was "required" to be saved. In fact, there is mention in Origen (Contra Celsum) and in the Didascalia (both early third century) that should a catechumen meet a martyr's death prior to being baptized, he/she would be saved through a "baptism of blood." This mention is made in defense of the necessity of baptism, yet is given to show that there is an exception - like the thief on the cross for those who insist that water baptism is a necessity for salvation. 3. Another difficulty in reading statements by early fathers regarding water baptism is contention with heretical groups. The Marcionites, Gnostics, Montanists, and many others - all practiced their own form of baptism and all considered themselves to be "Christian." There is a great amount of difference among church fathers as to whether "converts" from these unorthodox groups should be baptized again OR could their unorthodox baptism be considered sufficient. While some of these groups were certainly outside the boundaries (Gnostics and Marcionites for example), others should be seen more like a modern-day denomination (Montanists and Novatians for example) because their basic theology was not the problem. Whatever the case, dealing with unorthodox baptism confused the issue in the early church AND throws a wrench in trying to figure out the issue in this discussion. 4. Finally, due to other issues in the early church, many people would postpone their baptism until they were near death. It was commonly believed in the early church that a Christian could not commit a "mortal" sin after being baptized and have assurance of salvation. This became known as the "Second Repentance" issue. It is never insisted that these people were not Christian because they had not been baptized - they were just never considered fully installed in the Church...which was considered the only vehicle for obtaining the grace of Christ. You can see that this statement is kind of fuzzy - so was the position of the early church on this matter. Many people were afraid that they MIGHT commit a "mortal" sin such as apostasy, adultery, fornication, and murder, and they wanted the assurance that they could repent, be forgiven, and then get baptized. Even this was a murky issue with some bishops saying that you could receive a "second" forgiveness after baptism and others (like Tertullian) saying that only God would know if you could obtain forgiveness for a mortal sin after having been baptized. The early fathers did not believe water baptism was a requirement for salvation - they just assumed you would be baptized and if you were not they questioned your salvation. When someone asks me if the early church believed a certain doctrine or not I try to go by the evidence of what we have which is not always as clear as we would like. Water baptism is a great example. Even the NT is not clear on this topic. Yes, there are a few texts which seem to indicate that baptism is a salvivic act, but then there are texts that seem to suggest that salvation is not dependent on baptism. This is why we have disagreement about the topic. Just like many other doctrines - think about it: almost ALL Christian churches hold to the divinity of Jesus and most hold the trinity. Yet many other doctrines (Calvinism, eschatology, the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Spirit) have many positions represented by several groups. This is evidence that the text is not crystal clear or at least has conflicting data. But the evidence in the first 100 years of Christian history tends to reflect what we find in the NT. As per my memory, none of the early documents clearly say that baptism is required to be saved. In fact, in the Didache, for example, we have this text: Chapter 7: Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. The person being baptized is encouraged to fast 1-2 days prior to the baptism, but notice there is nothing said about it being salvivic. The Didache is dated around 65-80AD and cites a version of what becomes Matthew's gospel. It is also instructive that this document gives various modes for the application of the water, dunking and pouring. The Didache does say that the Lord's Supper must not be served to anyone who has not been baptized. I will fully agree that the early writers say things that can be interpreted as baptismal regeneration/salvation, but I cannot remember any early church father clearly stating that one cannot be saved until they are immersed. .
MiserereNobis Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 45 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: My Faith in Christ did that, which was brought on by being pursued by the Holy Spirit and me humbly repenting of my selfish ways. This had nothing to do with being sprinkled as a baby. Well, you're a protestant heretic, so you better watch out or I'll burn you at the stake
Calm Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) Nipper, are you RA Baker who wrote the content of your post? http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/water-baptism.php If not, why did you not give him credit? Edited October 17, 2018 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: Nipper, are you RA Baker who wrote the content of your post? http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/water-baptism.php If not, why did you not give him credit? Oops. Busted!
LittleNipper Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Calm said: Nipper, are you RA Baker who wrote the content of your post? http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/water-baptism.php If not, why did you not give him credit? Just because the Book of Mormon is copyrighted --- since Joseph Smith wrote it and not GOD, doesn't mean that real historical facts cannot be exchanged among true Christians in an effort to set things right and minister to those in confusion. Edited October 17, 2018 by LittleNipper
Anakin7 Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: Just because the Book of Mormon is copyrighted --- since Joseph Smith wrote it and not GOD, doesn't mean that real historical facts cannot be exchanged among true Christians in an effort to set things right and minister to those in confusion. Joseph Smith did not write The Book of Mormon, he translated it from an ancient record that came into his possession.
LittleNipper Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 12 minutes ago, Anakin7 said: Joseph Smith did not write The Book of Mormon, he translated it from an ancient record that came into his possession. So, why is it copyrighted? Who got the royalties from the sale of that book?
Anakin7 Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: So, why is it copyrighted? Who got the royalties from the sale of that book? From my understanding it had to do with U.S copyright laws. I am not aware of any royalties received by anyone for the Book of Mormon. Thank you for asking. The Atonement It is the Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
Anakin7 Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 On October 13, 2018 at 5:35 AM, LittleNipper said: Water dunking saves no one. It is exactly like a ring at a wedding. The ring isn't the marriage. It is the promise --- the consummation with hope of children. The only baptism that counts is that of the Holy SPIRIT's indwelling. If water baptism was all important --- what about the Thief on the cross? What about Abraham, Moses, David, Lazarus? Who were baptized for them? But Jesus was nailed to the cross for them and permeated Jacob's bosom and released them but this also reaches forward to catch whosoever will in the future. JESUS saves the faithful of the past, in the present, and into the future. From my Archives regarding Water Baptism for True Salvation - http://www.bebaptized.org/ http://www.bebaptized.org/jewishroots.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/TheGospel.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Repentance.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Baptismis.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Forgiveness.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/waterandspirit.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Justification.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Matthew3.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Matthew28.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Mark16htm http://www.bebaptized.org/John3.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/BaptismActs238.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Acts8.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Acts8.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Acts22.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Romans6.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Galatians3.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Ephesians4.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Collossians2.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Titus3.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/1Peter3.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Somecommonarguments.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/UndeniableFacts.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/thekingdom.htm http://www.bebaptized.org/Trivia.htm May True Grace be with all. The Atonement It IsThe Central Doctrine Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior
pogi Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, LittleNipper said: So, why is it copyrighted? Who got the royalties from the sale of that book? Books can only be copyrighted by the original authors? A translated book can't be copyrighted? Hmmmmm, I wonder why the King James Bible is copyrighted then.... 1
Calm Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 6 hours ago, LittleNipper said: Just because the Book of Mormon is copyrighted --- since Joseph Smith wrote it and not GOD, doesn't mean that real historical facts cannot be exchanged among true Christians in an effort to set things right and minister to those in confusion. And this somehow allows you to plagiarize someone else's work? 1
RevTestament Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 5 hours ago, LittleNipper said: So, why is it copyrighted? Who got the royalties from the sale of that book? Translators certainly can copyright their work under U.S. law. There are many such examples.
Doctrine 612 Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 Salvation for the Dead According to 1 Peter 3: 18–20, those who died in the flood received special love and care from Jesus Christ: after His sacrificial death, He proclaimed the gospel to them in the realm of the dead. The fact that the dead need the proclamation of the gospel in order to “live in the spirit” is also stated in 1 Peter 4: 6: “For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” Jesus Christ is Lord over the dead and the living. His gospel is equally valid for all. It is the desire of God that all men be saved (1 Timothy 2: 4–6; John 3: 16). This means that God’s will to save is given to all who believe. Salvation is offered through the proclamation of the word, the forgiveness of sins, and baptism and the Holy Ghost. All of these are likewise intended for the dead. For them as for the living, belief in Jesus Christ is indispensable for attaining salvation. Redemption occurs solely through Jesus Christ. Those holding the priesthood fulfill the commission of Jesus Christ by submitting the ordinances of salvation upon both the living and the dead. They act in Christ’s stead and in His name. Just as Jesus Christ brought His sacrifice on earth, salvation is also imparted through the Priesthood on earth. The dispensation of Baptism with water and the Holy Ghost to the departed is effected when the visible act associated with each is performed upon a living person in the temple Here the salvific effect is not for the benefit of the living, but rather exclusively for the departed. Departed souls now have experienced the rebirth of water and the Spirit are of equal standing with the dead in Christ (1 Thessalonians 4: 16).
LittleNipper Posted October 18, 2018 Author Posted October 18, 2018 The truth is that unless you can stipulate absolute perfect consistency, then a belief that one must be baptized by immersion in water falls apart. There can be NO EXCEPTIONS. Anyone who missed getting dunked in water in a ritual of formal immersion is now in hell. Lot certainly never was baptized neither were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. In fact there is no record of Peter or Paul being immersed --- so they too must reside in hell. You cannot have it both ways. Sin is sin, disobeying is disobeying, and sins of omission are still sin. What Mormon has been baptized for Peter? The interpretation I regard makes far more sense. There can be exceptions where water baptism is a public illustrative declaration. In that way people on their deathbeds can rest in a belief that they will be with Christ in Paradise even if they repent on their deathbeds and cannot be dunked. People afraid of being dunked or are too feeble can rest assured that Christ through faith is ALL that is necessary.
Recommended Posts