Originally posted by Conrau K
... Jesus does not provide a theological tract.....

Of course Jesus doesn't put out a tract; he's not putting anything on paper. I have no idea what you're saying here, maybe it's the kitty again.

Originally posted by Badwater
Of course Jesus doesn't put out a tract; he's not putting anything on paper. I have no idea what you're saying here, maybe it's the kitty again.

perhaps you might fair better Baddy if you looked at the idea in the whole context of scripture rather than insisting to elevate one teaching at the exclusion of another, sublime as the teaching may be. Conrau has some very valid points, and scriptural references which give credence to the points that he has made, what this has to do with putty cats i do not know?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps you might fair better Baddy if you looked at the idea in the whole context of scripture rather than insisting to elevate one teaching at the exclusion of another, sublime as the teaching may be. Conrau has some very valid points, and scriptural references which give credence to the points that he has made, what this has to do with putty cats i do not know?

And all this completely ignores the fact that this is yet another pagan practice that is being rationalized as only christian.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
And all this completely ignores the fact that this is yet another pagan practice that is being rationalized as only christian.

who has stated that it is a purely Christian affair?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think it is quite obvious that I am talking about Christianity, unless you believe that Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans and Lutherans are not Christians. None of these churches deny the redemption of Christ's sacrifice.

I wasn't trying to be contentious.

I take your point about "being baptised into the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins" which is well made, I'm just highlighting that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

The baptism is an outward demonstration of the access that the believer’s faith has gained to the redemptive power of the blood of Jesus through his sacrifice. Interestingly his blood is not a baptism but a "sprinkling"; the other baptism is the Spirit.

Originally posted by Badwater
I talk about Matthew 28: 16-19, the only place where Jesus talks specifically about baptizing others, and then you say "Oh look, a kitty!" and are off somewhere else.

This is why I'm not an active minister for now, and maybe forever. People just can't seem to stay on task and be bothered with what Jesus says. So go right ahead - you know better than Jesus, so you go with your bad self and tell us all about baptism.

Firstly, you said made the claim that baptism is primarily about conferring holy authority. This is plainly wrong and has no scriptural evidence. Secondly, Matthew 28: 16-19 is not the only time Jesus mentions baptism. In John we have a clear allusion to baptism, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' (I should think that this implies some kind of remission of sin, if baptism is necessary for heaven); in the Gospels, John the Baptist is also described 'proclaiming the baptism of repetence for the forgiveness of sins' (Mark 1:4). Thirdly, quotes from the epistles and the book of Acts are not a 'kitty'. Since we see a link in the gospels between baptism and salvation and forgiveness, and we see a more explicit explanation of this in Acts, Romans, Ephesians and 1Peter, we can infer that this was taught by Jesus.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
And all this completely ignores the fact that this is yet another pagan practice that is being rationalized as only christian.

No doubt. Water is particularly symbolic and Christians cannot claim exclusive right over it. Baptism clearly predates Christianity in the Scriptures. It is mentioned in the Old Testament: 'I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you' (Ezekiel 36: 25). John the Baptist also practices baptism (and it is clearly not an innovation since everyone understands its significance.) What Christians do claim is that there is something unique about their form of baptism, that it is sacramental and it brings the person to share in the life of Jesus.

Originally posted by divegeester
I wasn't trying to be contentious.

I take your point about "being baptised into the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins" which is well made, I'm just highlighting that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

The baptism is an outward demonstration of the access that the believer’s faith has gained to the redemptive po ...[text shortened]... erestingly his blood is not a baptism but a "sprinkling"; the other baptism is the Spirit.

I take your point about "being baptised into the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins" which is well made, I'm just highlighting that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

I agree. St. Paul's argument is that through Jesus Christ's sacrifice, mankind is reconciled to God. However, only through baptism can individuals share in that sacrifice and be forgiven their personal sins. The shedding of blood is necessary for remission of sins but it is not sufficient.

The baptism is an outward demonstration of the access that the believer’s faith has gained to the redemptive power of the blood of Jesus through his sacrifice. Interestingly his blood is not a baptism but a "sprinkling"; the other baptism is the Spirit.

I disagree. I don't think that the baptism is just a symbolic event. As we see in St. Paul's writing, in baptism, we are well and truly buried in Christ and resurrected in Christ. This image is repeated again in 1Peter. This is not to deny the necessity of faith and Jesus' sacrifice -- these are absolutely necessary too.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I disagree. I don't think that the baptism is just a symbolic event. As we see in St. Paul's writing, in baptism, we are well and truly buried in Christ and resurrected in Christ. This image is repeated again in 1Peter. This is not to deny the necessity of faith and Jesus' sacrifice -- these are absolutely necessary too.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. However scripture and sound doctrinal investigation will show that baptism is an act of obedience but is absolutely NOT required for salvation - ask the thief on the cross!

Jesus work of redemption was "finished" at Calvary, anything after that claiming to add to it, is man's effort or a misinterpretation of scripture.

Are you a Catholic my friend?

Originally posted by divegeester
You are entitled to your opinion of course. However scripture and sound doctrinal investigation will show that baptism is an act of obedience but is absolutely NOT required for salvation - ask the thief on the cross!

Jesus work of redemption was "finished" at Calvary, anything after that claiming to add to it, is man's effort or a misinterpretation of scripture.

Are you a Catholic my friend?

You are entitled to your opinion of course. However scripture and sound doctrinal investigation will show that baptism is an act of obedience but is absolutely NOT required for salvation - ask the thief on the cross!

Jesus himself says 'Unless a man is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5). This is not to deny the possibility that the unbaptised can be saved. Tradition has taught that a person can be baptised by desire or by martyrdom as well

Jesus work of redemption was "finished" at Calvary, anything after that claiming to add to it, is man's effort or a misinterpretation of scripture.

No one denies that. But the redemption does not mean that every sin has been absolved and God now stands indifferent to people's sins. A person must still repent, be baptised and obey God's commandments. The Scriptures are equally clear about that.

Are you a Catholic my friend?

Yes. But this is not specifically a Catholic doctrine.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You are entitled to your opinion of course. However scripture and sound doctrinal investigation will show that baptism is an act of obedience but is absolutely NOT required for salvation - ask the thief on the cross!

Jesus himself says 'Unless a man is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5). This is not to deny ...[text shortened]... e you a Catholic my friend?[/b]

Yes. But this is not specifically a Catholic doctrine.[/b]

were the apostles ever baptised into a Christian baptism?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
were the apostles ever baptised into a Christian baptism?

There is no record of a ritual baptism in the Scriptures. However, the Gospel of St. John does say that the disciples were baptising. In Acts, we also see Phillip baptise the eunuch, St. Paul baptise the prisoners, and St. Peter call for the Gentiles to be baptised. I would think that this implies that the apostles had already been baptised themselves. The Catholic Church teaches too that God is not bound by the sacraments and that Jesus could have willed that the apostles be absolved of their sins without the need for ritual baptism.

Originally posted by Conrau K
There is no record of a ritual baptism in the Scriptures. However, the Gospel of St. John does say that the disciples were baptising. In Acts, we also see Phillip baptise the eunuch, St. Paul baptise the prisoners, and St. Peter call for the Gentiles to be baptised. I would think that this implies that the apostles had already been baptised themselve ...[text shortened]... uld have willed that the apostles be absolved of their sins without the need for ritual baptism.

yes is it not very interesting that the scriptures themselves are silent on the subject? never the less, here is another interesting question, if Baptism is performed for recognition of and in redemption of sins committed, why was the Christ himself baptised, by John, for he himself was a sinless man.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes is it not very interesting that the scriptures themselves are silent on the subject? never the less, here is another interesting question, if Baptism is performed for recognition of and in redemption of sins committed, why was the Christ himself baptised, by John, for he himself was a sinless man.

Firstly, I don't think the silence particularly surpising. St. John the evangelist says that if everything Jesus did and said were recorded, the whole world would not fill the books that would be written.

Secondly, Jesus' baptism is a problem for all Christians, not just me. The Gospels say that John preached baptism 'for the forgiveness of sins'. So why did Jesus need to be baptised? I don't know. John's baptism is not the same as the Christian baptism (which is generally said 'in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit'😉. I can only guess that this baptism was symbolic, a precursor to the baptism which Christ would later institute.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Depending on your beliefs, it unites the adult, child, or infant to the religious family (i.e. to the church in question such as Lutherans or Catholics) and/or removes the stain of original sin. In those who have reached the age in which they are old enough to sin and have done so, those sins are washed away as well.

This is close. Baptism is p ...[text shortened]... particular church. A Lutheran who chooses to become a Catholic does not need to be re-baptised.[/b]

True in that there is one baptism and people don't need to be rebaptized when they change within Christian faiths generally (if they were baptised in the name of the Trinity). But http://www.interchurchfamilies.org/resource/baptism/bapt12.shtm points out what I meant -- the words of the formulary include that the child has been ".received as a member of the Church."