Purpose and significance of baptism

[jonojim1337]

So I made the pastor uncomfortable when I said the theif on the cross didn't get baptised. It was clear he didn't have a clear meaning of baptism and even talked about churches doing rebabtism.

So I am curious to what answers I will get here. I think for starters it is worth noting that the theif on the cross was literally dying with Jesus. So thus a symbolical gesture of it was definitely not needed for him.

I also think it is worth noting that Jesus did not say baptism is a means to salvation. There will be many on that day, baptised and even professing Jesus as Lord, who will not enter the Kingdom.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the thief on the cross to be baptized. IMPOSSIBLE.

Christian baptism was instituted by Jesus after His resurrection (during the Great Commission) and before his ascension. The first Christian baptisms occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)...some 53 days AFTER the thief's death.

Saying the thief was not baptized is like saying Erza or Nehemiah or King David or Issac was not baptized.

The thief was saved exactly like all the other saints in the OT listed in Hebrews 11. BY FAITH.

 

[jonojim1337]

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the thief on the cross to be baptized. IMPOSSIBLE.

Christian baptism was instituted by Jesus after His resurrection (during the Great Commission) and before his ascension. The first Christian baptisms occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)...some 53 days AFTER the thief's death.

Saying the thief was not baptized is like saying Erza or Nehemiah or King David or Issac was not baptized.

The thief was saved exactly like all the other saints in the OT listed in Hebrews 11. BY FAITH.

I don't think you are taking everything into account. First of all, the theif was literally dying with Jesus. Why would he need to be baptised only to show his intention of doing so, when he is ACTUALLY doing it?

Second of all, if we die with Christ, and rise with him, we can only mean this in two ways. Either, it is only a foreshadowing of what is to come - the resurrection. So if we die with Christ, we will resurrect with Him on that day. Or, it is an actual dying as soon as you go under the water, and as soon as you rise up, you are alive with Christ from that moment.

But the other interpretation has some problems; it is not stated, that as soon as you rise up from baptism, you are alive with Christ. Just like Christ said, on the day of judgement he will say to the goats, he never knew them.

Thus, if we take the parable of the virgins in to the account, we learn that the process of getting to know Christ has a threshold, and that threshold is not met or predicated on baptism, but the individuals preseverence of the Word - in a quantity that meets the requirements of the Wedding.

Did not the disciples get baptised? Did the people who got baptised by John the Baptist - Jesus himself being one of them - need to get baptised again?

Regarding the salvation of the thief. I think it is worth ponding the initial premise of the Bible. That the wages of sin is death. Once a person has died for his sin, the price for his sin is also paid. However, as Jesus takes the punishment for sin, there is the possibility to live again - and according to Jesus, not even die. The thief then, due to his subordination to Christ, and his comittment unto death, will be resurrected with Christ. Thus foreshadowing the resurrection is not necessary for him, because he is in the process of doing it.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The first Christian baptism occurred 53 days after the thief's execution. Christian baptism doesn't apply in any way, shape, or form concerning the thief.

I have no idea what you are saying in your last post....So I am leaving this conversation and having nothing more to do with it.

 

[HTacianas]

So I made the pastor uncomfortable when I said the theif on the cross didn't get baptised. It was clear he didn't have a clear meaning of baptism and even talked about churches doing rebabtism.

So I am curious to what answers I will get here. I think for starters it is worth noting that the theif on the cross was literally dying with Jesus. So thus a symbolical gesture of it was definitely not needed for him.

I also think it is worth noting that Jesus did not say baptism is a means to salvation. There will be many on that day, baptised and even professing Jesus as Lord, who will not enter the Kingdom.

The thief on the cross did not need to be baptized because he died sinless. Jesus forgave all of his previous sins there in person. We receive that same forgiveness for sins through water baptism. A person goes into the water a sinner and comes out sinless, just as if Jesus forgave the sins himself. That has been the belief of Christianity since the beginning and is the belief today.

 

[jonojim1337]

The thief on the cross did not need to be baptized because he died sinless. Jesus forgave all of his previous sins there in person. We receive that same forgiveness for sins through water baptism. A person goes into the water a sinner and comes out sinless, just as if Jesus forgave the sins himself. That has been the belief of Christianity since the beginning and is the belief today.

Can you give me a source on that?

As far as I can see, it is only a stated intention just like the sacrament of wedding is. You intend to die and resurrect with Christ, just like you intend to be joined to your wife. The reality of that intention is then up to the individual. This is backed up by the scripture in numerous places but I already mentioned the parable of the virgins.

 

[Solo81]

So I made the pastor uncomfortable when I said the theif on the cross didn't get baptised. It was clear he didn't have a clear meaning of baptism and even talked about churches doing rebabtism.

So I am curious to what answers I will get here. I think for starters it is worth noting that the theif on the cross was literally dying with Jesus. So thus a symbolical gesture of it was definitely not needed for him.

I also think it is worth noting that Jesus did not say baptism is a means to salvation. There will be many on that day, baptised and even professing Jesus as Lord, who will not enter the Kingdom.

2 main points:
1) John the Baptist's ministry: did it come from God or was it a thing of human origin?

2) Jesus told the good thief "Today you will be with me in paradise".
Why then does Paul say Jesus spent 3 days in Hades/Hell, preaching to the dead?
When Jesus rose on Sunday morning, he tells Mary not to "...hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father".
How can these 3 different situations be reconciled? How can Jesus be in paradise with the thief, while not having yet ascended to His Father?

 

[jonojim1337]

2 main points:
1) John the Baptist's ministry: did it come from God or was it a thing of human origin?

2) Jesus told the good thief "Today you will be with me in paradise".
Why then does Paul say Jesus spent 3 days in Hades/Hell, preaching to the dead?
When Jesus rose on Sunday morning, he tells Mary not to "...hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father".
How can these 3 different situations be reconciled? How can Jesus be in paradise with the thief, while not having yet ascended to His Father?

I think the baptism of John and Jesus meant the same thing. John baptised in the name of Christ. So I don't know what this guy was going on about that the first baptism happened after crucifixion. It says in John 4 both John and the disciples were baptising.

I think the only way to make sense of your second question, taking everything into account, is that Jesus is truly one with the Father which allows him to share his presence with both the thief in heaven and the souls in hell.

 

[HTacianas]

Can you give me a source on that?

As far as I can see, it is only a stated intention just like the sacrament of wedding is. You intend to die and resurrect with Christ, just like you intend to be joined to your wife. The reality of that intention is then up to the individual. This is backed up by the scripture in numerous places but I already mentioned the parable of the virgins.

There is nothing anywhere, not in the bible nor the history of Christianity, that would lead anyone to believe anything else about baptism. Jesus said:

Mar 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Peter said:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

If we look to the jailer of Acts 16:

Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Baptism is one of the earliest teachings of Christianity. And it is for the remission of sins. And there is no reason whatever for anyone to dispute that.

 

[Solo81]

I think the baptism of John and Jesus meant the same thing. John baptised in the name of Christ. So I don't know what this guy was going on about that the first baptism happened after crucifixion. It says in John 4 both John and the disciples were baptising.

I think the only way to make sense of your second question, taking everything into account, is that Jesus is truly one with the Father which allows him to share his presence with both the thief in heaven and the souls in hell.

My point was to get you thinking on it.

John came baptising and Jesus confirmed John's ministry as being from God: Baptism and Christianity are inseperable. God wants it this way..."...for in this way, we will do all that God requires"

The point of the 3 cases was to get you to think. Why be so certain of the thief being in Heaven with Jesus, when Jesus says He hasn't yet ascended to His Father? (and didn't ascend until many weeks later)

 

[jonojim1337]

There is nothing anywhere, not in the bible nor the history of Christianity, that would lead anyone to believe anything else about baptism. Jesus said:

Mar 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Peter said:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

If we look to the jailer of Acts 16:

Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Baptism is one of the earliest teachings of Christianity. And it is for the remission of sins. And there is no reason whatever for anyone to dispute that.

Haha. Well allow me to laugh at that. First of all, is it not so, that any and all Christians today whom you have heard of are still sinners? So how is the sin remitted? You still die, which means, you still pay for your sin. But with Christ's sacrifice, you have the opportunity live. If the baptism actually remitted sin, you would not die. Death would be the one comitting a sin then.

In Mark as you quoted, the salvation predicament is belief, not baptism.

BUT

Baptism is important, it is however not the factor that will determine your salvation, as belief is. But then the question is what importance it has.

Baptism is first of all, the sacrament or rite you have to make to be allowed access to the other ones namely Holy Communion and Wedding. In the Orthodox Church, confession to a "father" is also a sacrament or rite.

By stating your intention to die and resurrect with Christ you witness of the RESURRECTION
Then you are allowed to partake in the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ which obviously is a witness to his DEATH
You are also allowed to make witness of the Wedding, which is the JUDGEMENT, when heaven will be rolled up like a scroll and the earth will be no more (nowhere to hide, uncovering of guilt)
Confessing your sin to a father is a witness that we have a Father to confess to.

These are good things but none of them are predicaments for salvation.

 

[jonojim1337]

My point was to get you thinking on it.

John came baptising and Jesus confirmed John's ministry as being from God: Baptism and Christianity are inseperable. God wants it this way..."...for in this way, we will do all that God requires"

The point of the 3 cases was to get you to think. Why be so certain of the thief being in Heaven with Jesus, when Jesus says He hasn't yet ascended to His Father? (and didn't ascend until many weeks later)

Jesus said on the cross, into you I commend my spirit. What Spirit? The Holy Spirit? And, let's say that the theif came to heaven, and Jesus was not there, but the Father and or the Holy Spirit was, then he is still correct for using the term "me" in referring to any of these, as is the premise of our faith. I think there is no account of the Father or the Holy Spirit or any angel being in hell.

Where does it say that baptism is all that God requires? You're gonna have to give me source on that.

 

[HTacianas]

Haha. Well allow me to laugh at that. First of all, is it not so, that any and all Christians today whom you have heard of are still sinners? So how is the sin remitted? You still die, which means, you still pay for your sin. But with Christ's sacrifice, you have the opportunity live. If the baptism actually remitted sin, you would not die. Death would be the one comitting a sin then.

In Mark as you quoted, the salvation predicament is belief, not baptism.

BUT

Baptism is important, it is however not the factor that will determine your salvation, as belief is. But then the question is what importance it has.

Baptism is first of all, the sacrament or rite you have to make to be allowed access to the other ones namely Holy Communion and Wedding. In the Orthodox Church, confession to a "father" is also a sacrament or rite.

By stating your intention to die and resurrect with Christ you witness of the RESURRECTION
Then you are allowed to partake in the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ which obviously is a witness to his DEATH
You are also allowed to make witness of the Wedding, which is the JUDGEMENT, when heaven will be rolled up like a scroll and the earth will be no more (nowhere to hide, uncovering of guilt)
Confessing your sin to a father is a witness that we have a Father to confess to.

These are good things but none of them are predicaments for salvation.

Well, as long as we're going to laugh at each other, allow me to laugh at you for attempting to refute the teachings of Christianity with nothing more than your opinion. If you for some reason disagree with the idea of baptism remitting sin, why then does it say, "be baptized for the remission of sin"? Why then would Jesus send his Apostles out "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"? Why then would the Nicene Creed plainly state, "We believe in one baptism for the remission of sin"?

 

[jonojim1337]

Well, as long as we're going to laugh at each other, allow me to laugh at you for attempting to refute the teachings of Christianity with nothing more than your opinion. If you for some reason disagree with the idea of baptism remitting sin, why then does it say, "be baptized for the remission of sin"? Why then would Jesus send his Apostles out "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"? Why then would the Nicene Creed plainly state, "We believe in one baptism for the remission of sin"?

I fail to see what sins are remitted in the rite of baptism. I can only see that it witnesses a death and a resurrection i.e. second coming. Your job as a Christian is to do just that. If you need your sins forgiven you can just confess to the Father.

 

[HTacianas]

I fail to see what sins are remitted in the rite of baptism. I can only see that it witnesses a death and a resurrection i.e. second coming. Your job as a Christian is to do just that. If you need your sins forgiven you can just confess to the Father.

Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed

2Pe 1:9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

 

[jonojim1337]

Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed

2Pe 1:9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

Well a prostitute could regret her ways and seek new ways in the Christian church and she would get baptised and one could say her sins are forgiven, she can proceed to the holy communion, and even marry if she wants. But will the baptism, or even the holy communion, deliver her from sin altogether, and unite her with God? If that were the case, Christians would not have the problems they have. Salvation comes from preserving the Word of God, but it is not exclusive to and not garuanteed by baptism or any other single act, except the one to really die to the world and live for Christ, but this takes a long time to understand what it is. I would like to see the individual who lived a sinless life after his baptism or anything close to it.

 

[HTacianas]

Well a prostitute could regret her ways and seek new ways in the Christian church and she would get baptised and one could say her sins are forgiven, she can proceed to the holy communion, and even marry if she wants. But will the baptism, or even the holy communion, deliver her from sin altogether, and unite her with God? If that were the case, Christians would not have the problems they have. Salvation comes from preserving the Word of God, but it is not exclusive to and not garuanteed by baptism or any other single act, except the one to really die to the world and live for Christ, but this takes a long time to understand what it is. I would like to see the individual who lived a sinless life after his baptism or anything close to it.

Well you're right about the prostitute in your example. In that case the prostitute has repented and been baptized for the remission of sin and has become a "new creation". And you are right again that it is not guaranteed by baptism. Take the case of the prostitute. What if the prostitute returns to the old ways:

2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

 

[jonojim1337]

Well you're right about the prostitute in your example. In that case the prostitute has repented and been baptized for the remission of sin and has become a "new creation". And you are right again that it is not guaranteed by baptism. Take the case of the prostitute. What if the prostitute returns to the old ways:

2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

Yes BUT, neither is that knowledge imparted by the baptism. It is mostly insignificant and serves a symbolic purpose.

 

[HTacianas]

Yes BUT, neither is that knowledge imparted by the baptism. It is mostly insignificant and serves a symbolic purpose.

The knowledge is the existence of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Look again to the Jailer of Acts 16. The knowledge he gained was from the catechism he went through.

Act 16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

It was the same with Apollos of Alexandria:

Act 18:26 ...When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

 

[jonojim1337]

The knowledge is the existence of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Look again to the Jailer of Acts 16. The knowledge he gained was from the catechism he went through.

Act 16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

It was the same with Apollos of Alexandria:

Act 18:26 ...When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Faith comes by hearing but not necessarily the knowledge of the Lord. If Aninas knew the Lord, he would not have tried to fool the church. (For some reason, I always thought these two were swallowed by the earth )