Posted on 10/25/2010 9:27:38 AM PDT by GonzoII
>>1 Peter 3:21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.<<
You cannot put that period there and have a legitimate conversation on the text. If you take out of context and put punctuation where you want it please don’t accuse me of insinuating errors in Scripture.
I have to disagree. "Through" is a prepostion, making "through resurrection of Jesus Christ" a prepositional phrase.
It is the Baptism that Saves you because if your bview was correct all men would be saved since Jesus came and died that all men might be saved Loose trabnslation if 1 Tim 2:4.
Since we know that ALL men will be saved something else must be required. And 1 Peter tells us that the "little extra" is Baptism.
That is what I get for hitting send with out previewing.
>>It is the Baptism that Saves you because if your view was correct all men would be saved since Jesus came and died that all men might be saved Loose translation if 1 Tim 2:4.<< (I corrected your fat finger hitting the b) hehe
There you go taking verses out of context again. He died that all men might be saved means that it’s available to all men. All men will not be saved because all men will not believe.
Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved-and your house.
>>And 1 Peter tells us that the “little extra” is Baptism.<<
If you believe that something in addition to Jesus death and resurrection is needed to be saved you are saying that Jesus sacrifice was not perfect but that it needed adding to. You would also deny the salvation of hundred during Bible times who were saved but not Baptized including the thief on the Cross.
You may be interested that (if you are Catholic) your own Churches Catechism teaches that Baptism is not required for Salvation.
Taking Matt 19:14 totally out of context.
The children were bothering Jesus and keeping the adults from being able to talk to him. Infants “in arms” would not be bothering anybody except the parent holding them. The disciples were specifically trying to keep “self-ambulating” children away from Jesus and this is what he is referencing.
My children have accepted the Lord at age 4.5 and up. I would never keep one of my children from accepting the Lord when they, in their hearts, determine they need to. But if infant baptism makes you sleep better, keep on believing it.
"Baptism Now Saves You" - Nuts & Bolts - Tim Staples
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Baptism: Initiation and Regeneration
Are Catholics “Born Again?”
Baptizing infants, Pope speaks of 'adventure of being disciples'
Celebrate Your Birthday in the Church
Infant Baptism
Once a Catholic . . . (and part 2) . . . The Chicken's Questions
How Soon Should a Baby be Baptized?
Baptismal Complexes- The Sacrament of Baptism, Part 2
The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas BAPTISM
Beginning Catholic: The Sacrament of Baptism: Gateway to New Life [Ecumenical]
Converted Muslim Tells Story Behind Papal Baptism
What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Baptism [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 20: The Sacrament of Baptism
Baptism and the Usus Antiquior (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Justified by Baptism (fallout from the Beckwith conversion grows)
The Million-Dollar Infant Baptism
Mystical Baptism and Limbo
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
A Critique of a Critique (On Baptism by Immersion)
Catholics, Reformed Christian Churches sign document recognizing common baptism
**the thief on the cross never entered heaven...**
Actually he didn’t — he entered Paradise — a waiting place until Christ could be the first person to enter heaven. Remember the stories of souls rising from their graves and roaming through Jerusalem, visible only to some?
Now to the Baptism of the Good thief on the cross.
He had a super Baptsim of Desire and a Baptism of Blood also. But Catholic believe more in the Baptism of Desire.
Do you believe that an unbaptized baby will burn in hell for someone elses sin?
I am taking it at face value, you are adding to it >>And 1 Peter tells us that the “little extra” is Baptism.<< If you believe that something in addition to Jesus death and resurrection is needed to be saved you are saying that Jesus sacrifice was not perfect but that it needed adding to. You would also deny the salvation of hundred during Bible times who were saved but not Baptized including the thief on the Cross.
You are contradicting your self. First you say that Jesus death is sufficient, then you say that you need to beleive in him as well. That is a contradiction (whether you admit it or not.
Now the Bible does tell us that we must "add" to Christ's death:
The principle of lifting up our sufferings for the sake of someone's good comes from Colossians 1:24: "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the Church."
That being said we must add our obiedience and that includes but is not limited to Baptism, (whether it is baptism or blood, Desire, or water.)
I have personal reasons for declining to answer that.
Once again I cannot find the version of the Bible you are quoting from. I have access to over 30 including foreign language and original Greek and Hebrew.
Oh well, Paul was talking about what he lacked not what was lacking in Jesus sacrifice.
Either way. I will wish you much luck in your quest to try to be good enough.
Having reading all the preceding posts pro- and con- the article, I note that there is a great deal of talking past each other and of arguing “what the church teaches” instead of what Scripture teaches. This is true of both Catholic and non-Catholic posters.
Wouldn’t it be simpler and more constructive to stick with one point, settle it on the basis of Scripture, and then move on to the next point?
So, point one: For whom is baptism commanded (I trust no one will say that it isn’t)? Where is this written?
What would you suggest he repent from, exactly? People who can't commit sin can't repent. Are you saying it's necessary to sin in order to become a Christian?
This, along with the earlier comment someone (was it you?) made about baptism "not having inherent power of its own" is really an example of a pretty profound disconnect. What we have here is a failure to communicate, or maybe just a large school of red herrings.
Apart from the crucifixion and resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ, baptism only makes people wet. No sacrament, baptism included, has "inherent power" apart from the power given to it by Christ.
The argument is not over whether we are saved by baptism instead of by the resurrection of Christ, the argument is whether Christ communicates his covenant and the merits of his death and resurrection to us through baptism, in the ordinary case. To use the language of Aquinas, don't confuse the meritorious cause (the death and resurrection of Christ) with the merely instrumental cause (baptism).
(Notice I said "ordinary". God is free to save the penitent thief, or anyone else, any way he pleases. He doesn't have to stick to ordinary means, but we do. We are only free to do what God has told us to do. The question at hand is, What has God told us to do?. I believe the operative command is "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".)
I am not saying that one MUST sin prior to becoming a Christian. I am saying that if a person has sinned, one must repent and be baptized. That being dunked, immersed, sprinkled, dabbed or wiped ALONE does not meet the criteria set forth by Jesus. Repentance is a key required component.
That is ok, I kind of figured I wouldn’t get a straight answer (not just from you, I’ve never gotten any Catholic to give me a straight answer on that one.)
Having reading all the preceding posts pro- and con- the article, I note that there is a great deal of talking past each other and of arguing “what the church teaches” instead of what Scripture teaches. This is true of both Catholic and non-Catholic posters.
Wouldn’t it be simpler and more constructive to stick with one point, settle it on the basis of Scripture, and then move on to the next point?
Well over 24 hours and no responses? Sad. Problem is that half the people on this thread place their tradition and “The Church” above the authority of scripture....or at least that is how it seems.
Yes, too bad.
On the other hand, why don’t you get the ball rolling?
The closest verse I can find to a commandment is Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Now I ain’t one for fancy book learnin’, but I am pretty darned sure that babies cannot make a conscious decision to “believe.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.