Baptizement required?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Bandit

yah. i dont think water -by itself- saves anyone...there is more to it than that. i have always seen a package deal in the good book.

i suppose there could be many intentions for why people get baptised or baptise others, but i think repentance is probably the greater of the two & naturally faith is what gets the ball rolling.

Hey Bandit, well I believe baptism is a sacrament, is meaningful and more than that is a *real* thing--along the lines as Thomas has explained so very well. One may never hear of Christ or baptism yet that does not mean they are outside the knowledge and love of Christ. One may know about baptism and decide that is not a meaningful or necessary thing for them (shrug), and though I disagree I do not think that puts anyone outside the love of Christ either. We can talk about infant vs. adult (conscientious) baptism, but that's a whole other discussion for another time.

I just see no need to belittle baptism, or insist that baptism is meaningless, or that Christians, or the Church, or name your favorite representative of religious thought and dogma, does not understand baptism. That is when I start to see intolerance, not too different from those who say you must be baptized to be saved.

my 2 c,
lunamoth

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hey Bandit, well I believe baptism is a sacrament, is meaningful and more than that is a *real* thing--along the lines as Thomas has explained so very well. One may never hear of Christ or baptism yet that does not mean they are outside the knowledge and love of Christ. One may know about baptism and decide that is not a meaningful or necessary thing for them (shrug), and though I disagree I do not think that puts anyone outside the love of Christ either. We can talk about infant vs. adult (conscientious) baptism, but that's a whole other discussion for another time.

I just see no need to belittle baptism, or insist that baptism is meaningless, or that Christians, or the Church, or name your favorite representative of religious thought and dogma, does not understand baptism. That is when I start to see intolerance, not too different from those who say you must be baptized to be saved.

my 2 c,
lunamoth

did you see me belittle water baptsim? i am probably the only one here who believes it is something we should do without question.

oh yes. i know water baptism is a *real* thing. i would never belittle water. i believe it is very meaningful & has a purpose behind it. i dont think the Apostles went around baptising for nothing or made it up. they did it because Jesus told them to do it & because they loved him so they followed his commandments.

if we dont love Him, then we wont do His commandments.

i cant say i see in the scripture says it is a sacrament though & i dont see in the scripture where everyone automatically is baptised with the Holy Ghost just because of water & that is not how it happened for me.

what was Peters answer to "What must we do?" ?

as i said from the start, baptism of the Holy Ghost can come before, during or after water & the scripture shows that...there is no absolute biblical dogma for that.
so we will have to agree to disagree that both baptisms *always* happen at the same time.

[Faithfulservant]

back to what I said in my previous post.. I believe that part of what Jesus did during His ministry was to show US what to do and how to act.. He was baptized in water.. He prayed to the Father.. He showed compassion and mercy.. He gave of Himself.. He is in fact.. the ideal role model Christian.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Bandit

did you see me belittle water baptsim?.

oh my goodness no, Bandit. I was just ranting. I see where you are coming from and agree completely about repentance and I like your take on the baptism by the Spirit.

sorry for the misunderstanding.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

back to what I said in my previous post.. I believe that part of what Jesus did during His ministry was to show US what to do and how to act.. He was baptized in water.. He prayed to the Father.. He showed compassion and mercy.. He gave of Himself.. He is in fact.. the ideal role model Christian.

And those are excellent points, Faithfulservant.

peace,
lunamoth

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Thank you all...

Peter 3:21 refers to the water signifying the flood...

Thomas refers to the Jordan signifying the seperation wilderness from the promise land..

yes I agree we all need to cross the Jordan (get to the other side), and we get to G-d by living the way, the nature of Jesus

And now we want to prove that water is required because nowhere it says it isn't required...or forbidden.

Yes I think there exists a spiritual baptism, a crossing of the Jordan, an accepting that you are in the wilderness and a willingness to follow our elder borther and wayshower to get out...

But does someone have to sprinkle some water made holy by some ceremony, or does one need to be dunked in a tank or a river...is it required that someone holier than thou, or with some such credentials perform such feat?

To me that is how I read the question...

And I think, neither water, nor someone sanctioned by someone else, need perform it...me thinks it is between you and the master...

I for one am perfectly happy that people have their religious traditions and ceremonies. That some dunk and some sprinkle, that one says this chant and another this method. It is all wonderful. But does that mean it has to be imposed on others? The vagaries in the text opened the door for and allowed there to exist so many denominations...

1 Peter 3:21

...who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the are was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism which now save you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ...


Gotta read all of it, not just part.. Otherwise the whole meaning is changed, from what the author was trying to convey. The Flood was an anology to place in the reader's mind the importance of Baptism. The flood was not the main point, baptism was.

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

1 Peter 3:21

...who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the are was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism which now save you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ...


Gotta read all of it, not just part.. Otherwise the whole meaning is changed, from what the author was trying to convey. The Flood was an anology to place in the reader's mind the importance of Baptism. The flood was not the main point, baptism was.

v/r

Q

thanks for bringing out the whole thing there in 1 Peter, water baptism was the main point there, not the flood. i was going to also but glad you followed up on that.
Amen

Originally Posted by lunamoth

oh my goodness no, Bandit. I was just ranting. I see where you are coming from and agree completely about repentance and I like your take on the baptism by the Spirit.

sorry for the misunderstanding.

lunamoth

i thought you were mad at me. we are cool.

[Postmaster]

In the life of Christ he was doing things that was fulfilling prophecy to prove who he was. It's an important tradition to fulfil for a person as part of there Christian faith. Also the symbolism is very important, we are CLEANING away the sins ready to start a fresh life in the foot steps of Christ.

[Thomas]

Just a couple of points:

Baptism - and initiatic rites of entry/engagement - may take many forms in many diverse traditions - but the principle is the same everywhere - what is actually effected, of course, differs according to one's 'confessional horizon'.

Wil said:
And I think, neither water, nor someone sanctioned by someone else, need perform it...me thinks it is between you and the master...
Thy own lips have said it! I highlighted 'sanctioned' because it derives from the verb 'to sanctify' - something only God can do - and this is the very point - it is the 'master' who institutes - sanctions - sanctifies - baptism in the first place, so if you then refuse baptism, you refuse the master.

Make no mistake, its presence in every authentic spiritual tradition signifies it is a necessary rite - nothing the gods do is every arbitary - in that aspect it is non-negotiable, and in that aspect it is a requirement for salvation.

Bandit said:
I dont think everyone is just automatically entered just because of water or the Holy Ghost manifests everytime.
Agreed. In the Catholic Church baptism is entry into the 'Mystical Body' - this is what we understand by sanctification, or consecration, but one still has to engage within it - baptism in this regard is closely connected to the Eucharist.

The Christian tradition is principally one of conversion, not initiation (initiations can in fact guarantee, but only within the cosmological order), which is why it is a religion of being, not of knowledge, and thus the Spirit can operate 'outside' the cover of the tradition - but always to draw the person in (see Acts 10), never to set them up as a kind of 'independent operator' which is highly attractive to the ego, but denies the idea of 'union' at the personal level.

Everybody wants to be one with God,
only a few care to be one with their neighbour.

The Christian Church, the Buddhist Sangha, is the physical representation of that Divine and Cosmic unity. Christ, Scripture and Church are one. Buddha, Dharma and Sangha are one.

One either accepts all of it, or none of it.

Thomas

[seattlegal]

You have to "clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside may also be clean."

Originally Posted by taijasi

"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8)

Agreed.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by InChristAlways

I have another question.

Could the water baptism be a type of "OT fulfillment" since Jesus also was batized to fulfill all righteousness.

For example, in the OT, the Priests had to "wash" in the "Laver" before entering in the Tabernacle as an example, and since Jesus is our High Priest, perhaps that is what it symbolzed.

Another words, Christ waited about 30 yrs to be baptized and to minster the Gospel, and why I have difficulty in understanding the purpose of Him getting baptized. I myself was baptized in the Gulf of Mexico by a pastor friend of mine and could almost view it as being in the Jordan river during Jesus's days.

But to this day, I don't really know whether I did it as a commandment or to follow what Jesus had done to Him by JTB and therefore acknowlede Him as my Savior, King and High Priest [which I also do "figuratively" from the "rooftops"].
Steve

Matthew 3:15 But Jesus answering said to him, `Suffer now, for thus it is becoming to us to fulfil [#4137] all righteousness [#1343],' then he doth suffer him.

i think this is all a good point & should not go unnoticed. how Jesus met John to fulfil all righteousness in being baptised. i saw it like being in the river Jordan also. i also see it as a type of being buried with Christ. i also see the water in type- of blood, the blood of Christ is what washes away sin.

the washing before entering the Tabernacle with sacrifice is also a very good point & the ministry of Jesus started there at Jordan.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

In the life of Christ he was doing things that was fulfilling prophecy to prove who he was. It's an important tradition to fulfil for a person as part of there Christian faith. Also the symbolism is very important, we are CLEANING away the sins ready to start a fresh life in the foot steps of Christ.

Very true, Postmaster et al. However there are times when one accepts Christ however, does not have time to be baptised with water. Since by accepting Christ we are washed clean by the blood of the lamb (our linens are made white), it isn't a prerequisite for our salvation. If it were, a whole lot of people who accepted Christ in the end, have gone no where, and theirs was an exercise in futility.

Nothing physically saves us. What is inside and what we decide to accept or not is what is read, and acknowledged or ignored.

v/r

Q