Trinitarians and Christening

[Serenity7855]

This may well be a little controversial. I hope not but it does bring into question the majority of Christian’s faiths. I was only really made aware of Trinitarians over the last 2 or 3 weeks. I did not know that most faiths believe in it, hence my concern now for ruffling feathers. It is not my intention. It is my intention to better understand it.

[FONT=&quot]The first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Christ[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Holy Ghost[/FONT][FONT=&quot].”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] They believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. They believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]forgiveness[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and redemption. I think it is accurate to say they believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bible[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Dictionary[/FONT][FONT=&quot] records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]4[/FONT][FONT=&quot] as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It seems self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His [/FONT][FONT=&quot]baptism[/FONT][FONT=&quot] at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]With these New Testament sources and more ringing in our ears, it may be redundant to ask what Jesus meant when He said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]On another occasion He said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Of His antagonists He said, “[They have] … seen and hated both me and my Father.” And there is, of course, that always deferential subordination to His Father that had Jesus say, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“My father is greater than I.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To whom was Jesus pleading so fervently all those years, including in such anguished cries as “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” and “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said it best: “Christ Jesus … being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”[/FONT]

Source.

The question, therefore, must be asked, “if Christians are defined as those who follow the teachings of Christ is someone who believes in the Trinity not a Christian as it is not a teaching of Christ”

My second inquiry is a little more serious.

Mark 16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3: 4-6

It seems evident to me that in order for us to enter the Kingdom of God we must be Baptized by water and spirit.

Mark 1:9,10

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them
.
24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:


25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.


26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.


27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

Now what I get from that is we have to be baptized by the complete immersion into water. My real concern is therefore “Christening” During a recent debate I was told that Trinitarians believe that Christening is the same as baptism, only it is nothing like baptism. From what I can see it is the naming of a child and the giving of God parents who never have any legal obligation or responsibility to that child. Those I was debating with were quite adamant that they meant the same. Are they?

I once read that only a handful of the Lords elect will hear the Masters voice. I found that strange as there are so many devout Christians in the world doing good. Strange, until I considered the doctrine of Christening. If the majority of Christians are Trinitarians, and therefore believe in Christening, then there is going to be so many unbaptized Christians waiting outside of the gates of heaven. There will literally be just a handful of genuinely baptized people going through those gates. You can no doubt see me concern. It seems that Satan, the father of all lies, has been misleading the children of men for centuries causing them to be Christened and not baptized excluding them from the Kingdom of God. A belief in the trinity will not prevent you from gaining entry into the Kingdom of God but the omission of being baptized and Christened instead will.

I hope that I have not offended anyone in my analysis. I hope I am wrong, however, I cannot see that I am, unless you can show me where I have erred.

 

[Breathe]

Wait, quick questions. You live in Wales, but you never knew most Christians were Trinitarians? What denomination are you? You quoted LDS... so are you Mormon?

 

[Serenity7855]

No, i am not Mormon, however, I was for many years so my belief system will undoubtedly reflect the beliefs of Mormonism.

Why should living in Wales mean that I should know all about Trinitarian. Let me assure you that Wales is not a particularly religious place, in my experience.

 

[Breathe]

No, i am not Mormon, however, I was for many years so my belief system will undoubtedly reflect the beliefs of Mormonism.

Why should living in Wales mean that I should know all about Trinitarian. Let me assure you that Wales is not a particularly religious place, in my experience.

Hm, really? I've found a fair few Welsh people in my encounters and visits to be pretty religious. There's even a Welsh chapel in my city (not in Wales) which I'm hoping to visit sometime.

Living in Wales shouldn't mean you know "all about Trinitarian" (those are your words, though; not mine), still, the Trinity crops up a lot in different church services.

Have you ever visited any churches besides the LDS church?
If so, didn't you never hear "Yn Enw'r Tad, a'r Mab, a'r Ysbryd Glân, Amen" either in English or Welsh, even in passing? If you did, how did you understand the Trinitarian formula?

How did you think most Christians saw the Trinity? Did you imagine it to be similar to the LDS way, or Unitarianism? And how did you find out?

 

[Desert Snake]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bible[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Dictionary[/FONT][FONT=&quot] records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But it is. It is not just described as such, and in fact doesn't have to be described as such IMO.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.”[/FONT]

[/FONT]
I believe this had more to do with theologically explaining something already understood rather than inventing an explanation in order to understand the theology.
[FONT=&quot]

In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

[/FONT]
No, because Jesus really is the "Son of God" He is seperate.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]With these New Testament sources and more ringing in our ears, it may be redundant to ask what Jesus meant when He said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]On another occasion He said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Of His antagonists He said, “[They have] … seen and hated both me and my Father.” And there is, of course, that always deferential subordination to His Father that had Jesus say, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“My father is greater than I.”[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Separate beings, but one in nature, and divine.[/FONT]

The question, therefore, must be asked, “if Christians are defined as those who follow the teachings of Christ is someone who believes in the Trinity not a Christian as it is not a teaching of Christ”

I don't consider myself a Trinitarian, though I see nothing inherently wrong with the concept or description.

My second inquiry is a little more serious.

Mark 16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It means that although baptism is great, it is belief/faith that really matters.

John 3: 4-6

It seems evident to me that in order for us to enter the Kingdom of God we must be Baptized by water and spirit.

Not at all. I've refuted this on other threads. Baptism is for the repenting of sins and is used for conversion, that is the BIBLICAL use and description. It's not magical or a ticket to heaven.

Mark 1:9,10

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them
.
24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:
25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

This is not literal, we don't have it in our power to be investing divine authority, only Jesus did so in the Bible.

Now what I get from that is we have to be baptized by the complete immersion into water. My real concern is therefore “Christening” During a recent debate I was told that Trinitarians believe that Christening is the same as baptism, only it is nothing like baptism. From what I can see it is the naming of a child and the giving of God parents who never have any legal obligation or responsibility to that child. Those I was debating with were quite adamant that they meant the same. Are they?

It's just the style IMO, I think both are valid.

I once read that only a handful of the Lords elect will hear the Masters voice. I found that strange as there are so many devout Christians in the world doing good. Strange, until I considered the doctrine of Christening. If the majority of Christians are Trinitarians, and therefore believe in Christening, then there is going to be so many unbaptized Christians waiting outside of the gates of heaven. There will literally be just a handful of genuinely baptized people going through those gates. You can no doubt see me concern. It seems that Satan, the father of all lies, has been misleading the children of men for centuries causing them to be Christened and not baptized excluding them from the Kingdom of God. A belief in the trinity will not prevent you from gaining entry into the Kingdom of God but the omission of being baptized and Christened instead will.

Extremely doubtful, I don't believe it. Baptism never had that much importance in the NT, even when John was performing it.
It only had divine importance when Jesus was performing it, as I stated earlier

I hope that I have not offended anyone in my analysis.

Not at all, valid questions IMO.

 

[fallingblood]

This may well be a little controversial. I hope not but it does bring into question the majority of Christian’s faiths. I was only really made aware of Trinitarians over the last 2 or 3 weeks. I did not know that most faiths believe in it, hence my concern now for ruffling feathers. It is not my intention. It is my intention to better understand it.

I will just deal with the idea of the Trinity. If we look at Judaism at the time of Jesus, we have a view that is a binitarian idea. The basic was that there was a immanent God, and a transcendent God (but the two were the same being). Daniel Boyarin has written a couple of good books that mention this subject. The first one is the Border-Lines.

But if we read the OT, we see that figures such as the Spirit of God, Divine Wisdom, etc. These are understood to be a God, but still a distinct entity in their own right.

These ideas were carried over into the ideas that Jesus and Paul had. With Paul though, he just added another figure into the equation. Yet, his view was not really that of the developed Trinity. Paul himself, as Judaism was in that time (Josephus and Philo both tell us this) was strictly monotheistic. Paul himself tells us that for him, there is just one God. So he was operating in a framework of monotheism. Yet, he found Jesus to be divine in some way. If we read the hymn in Philippians, he goes as far as to begin to equate God and Jesus. There is still a distinction, but in some manner, the two become equated as well.

So yes, the idea of the Trinity was not fully developed, and in fact, was just in it's infancy stages, but then again, Paul (who is accredited most of the NT) was not a systematic theologian, nor were the other authors. It wouldn't be until later, when we see the rise of the systematic theologians that we really begin seeing the idea develop and take shape. What has to be understood though is that the doctrine never stopped developing. As we begin to understand more, and are able to work on the shoulders of others, this doctrine continues to change. In fact, we can see this with nearly every doctrine that is out there.

Theology is an ever changing discipline. So it only makes since that theological ideas continue evolving.

 

[Mister Emu]

The question, therefore, must be asked, “if Christians are defined as those who follow the teachings of Christ is someone who believes in the Trinity not a Christian as it is not a teaching of Christ”

Is one who knows algebra not a Christian because they know algebra, which is not a teaching of Christ?

If the majority of Christians are Trinitarians, and therefore believe in Christening

Even granting that full immersion is necessary, that is a non-sequitur. There is no necessary tie between Trinitarian belief and rejection of immersion baptism.

That said, Christening, by which I understand you to mean baptism through aspersion or affusion is efficacious in my belief.

 

[Lady B]

You are not offensive in the least, no worries. I would like to answer your questions regarding Baptism from my belief and experience. Baptism is an outward symbolic gesture to the Lord. It is symbolizing death of sin, burial and resurrection in Christ.Immersion is the symbolic action of dying to sin, and being lifted out of death and becoming a new clean creature of God. The Christening of babies actually began from a practice called dedication. Which means the parents would promise God to raise their child up in the knowledge of him and the child was sanctified through the parents faith. This has changed radically and it is unfortunate that many so called "Catholics" grow up believing they are Christians because they were Christened as an infant and that is it.

Baptism is commanded as a follow up ritual after you are converted, however many times this is not possible and It does not mean you are not saved by God. If we look to the cross and see Jesus assured the criminal beside him that He would see him in paradise, Obviously Baptism was not a requirement of this promise. I hope this helps

...

 

[Ingledsva]

This may well be a little controversial. I hope not but it does bring into question the majority of Christian’s faiths. I was only really made aware of Trinitarians over the last 2 or 3 weeks. I did not know that most faiths believe in it, hence my concern now for ruffling feathers. It is not my intention. It is my intention to better understand it.

[FONT=&quot]The first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Christ[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Holy Ghost[/FONT][FONT=&quot].”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] They believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. They believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]forgiveness[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and redemption. I think it is accurate to say they believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bible[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Dictionary[/FONT][FONT=&quot] records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]4[/FONT][FONT=&quot] as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It seems self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His [/FONT][FONT=&quot]baptism[/FONT][FONT=&quot] at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]With these New Testament sources and more ringing in our ears, it may be redundant to ask what Jesus meant when He said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]On another occasion He said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Of His antagonists He said, “[They have] … seen and hated both me and my Father.” And there is, of course, that always deferential subordination to His Father that had Jesus say, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“My father is greater than I.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To whom was Jesus pleading so fervently all those years, including in such anguished cries as “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” and “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said it best: “Christ Jesus … being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”[/FONT]

The question, therefore, must be asked, “if Christians are defined as those who follow the teachings of Christ is someone who believes in the Trinity not a Christian as it is not a teaching of Christ”

My second inquiry is a little more serious.

Mark 16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3: 4-6

It seems evident to me that in order for us to enter the Kingdom of God we must be Baptized by water and spirit.

Mark 1:9,10

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them
.
24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:


25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.


26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.


27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

Now what I get from that is we have to be baptized by the complete immersion into water. My real concern is therefore “Christening” During a recent debate I was told that Trinitarians believe that Christening is the same as baptism, only it is nothing like baptism. From what I can see it is the naming of a child and the giving of God parents who never have any legal obligation or responsibility to that child. Those I was debating with were quite adamant that they meant the same. Are they?

I once read that only a handful of the Lords elect will hear the Masters voice. I found that strange as there are so many devout Christians in the world doing good. Strange, until I considered the doctrine of Christening. If the majority of Christians are Trinitarians, and therefore believe in Christening, then there is going to be so many unbaptized Christians waiting outside of the gates of heaven. There will literally be just a handful of genuinely baptized people going through those gates. You can no doubt see me concern. It seems that Satan, the father of all lies, has been misleading the children of men for centuries causing them to be Christened and not baptized excluding them from the Kingdom of God. A belief in the trinity will not prevent you from gaining entry into the Kingdom of God but the omission of being baptized and Christened instead will.

I hope that I have not offended anyone in my analysis. I hope I am wrong, however, I cannot see that I am, unless you can show me where I have erred.

I watched a show called - Ask The Pastors - the other day, and they were asked the baptism question. They said you do not have to be baptized. They said it was something you do as an outward symbol of an inner "God" experience. But not required.

As to Jesus - I've read the Bible, and nothing I've read in it actually says that Jesus is God, or even an actual son of god.

 

[Windwalker]

I once read that only a handful of the Lords elect will hear the Masters voice. I found that strange as there are so many devout Christians in the world doing good. Strange, until I considered the doctrine of Christening. If the majority of Christians are Trinitarians, and therefore believe in Christening, then there is going to be so many unbaptized Christians waiting outside of the gates of heaven. There will literally be just a handful of genuinely baptized people going through those gates.

I know this whole thinking you are wrestling with, and your whole question of the Trinity and baptism in Jesus name by full immersion doctrine. What you are expressing are the banner teachings of the United Pentecostal Church International, the "Jesus only", "Oneness Pentecostals". I know this as I was part of them for some years, and this is more than slightly familiar to me; it's pretty much verbatim to the talking points we would raise. Am I correct?

I'm not sure where to begin to address this for you. To say the least I would think it is causing some inner conflict, correct? How is it that God would be so loving on the one hand, and yet be so picky and more concerned that someone said the right words and performed the act of baptism just right, and that that somehow actually would matter to "get into heaven". Again, am I correct? I ask this because as a young Bible college student under their teachings I would deeply struggle and wrestle with this hyper-legalistic view of God, against what I knew of God living within my heart as Infinite Love. Such doctrines, such teachings that imagined this God as concerned about "getting it right", created a huge conflict in my heart, in my spirit, which eventually led me to leave them in being true to that Heart.

Where do you want me to begin to speak to these things?

I wish to refer you to something I posted yesterday in response to someone from another Christian group who thinks they alone have the true Christian understanding. In the end, what you have is you and your particular flavor of Christianity's interpretation of things. Those interpretations are not the Truth itself, but your minds way of looking at things. That is very different from God "Himself", and should never be confused with that. It assumes what you read on the pages of a book is somehow understood directly without any of your own thoughts in there.

Anyway, please read this post here to get what I'm really get at, and then we can take it from there: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3221743-post21.html

Also this follow up response post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3221754-post23.html

 

[Serenity7855]

Hm, really? I've found a fair few Welsh people in my encounters and visits to be pretty religious. There's even a Welsh chapel in my city (not in Wales) which I'm hoping to visit sometime.

Living in Wales shouldn't mean you know "all about Trinitarian" (those are your words, though; not mine), still, the Trinity crops up a lot in different church services.

Have you ever visited any churches besides the LDS church?
If so, didn't you never hear "Yn Enw'r Tad, a'r Mab, a'r Ysbryd Glân, Amen" either in English or Welsh, even in passing? If you did, how did you understand the Trinitarian formula?

How did you think most Christians saw the Trinity? Did you imagine it to be similar to the LDS way, or Unitarianism? And how did you find out?

This line of inquiry bares no resemblance to my OP. I am not sure why you doubt my word but doubt you do. You have assumed that because I live in Wales that I am welsh. I am not. I came here to attend University and simply stayed. I have never stepped inside a Church of Wales. I have never stepped inside a Church of England either, for that matter. The only church that I have ever been a member of is the LDS Church, which is why I was oblivious to the trinity, however, as I have said, my OP is whether there will e a crowd of disappointed individuals outside of the Gates of Heaven because they were Christened and not Baptized.

I thought everyone saw the Godhead as three separate and distinct individuals, Of course, I thought it was the same as LDS and Unitarianism. I found out during the course of a debate.

 

[Serenity7855]

disciple

But it is. It is not just described as such, and in fact doesn't have to be described as such IMO.

Hmm, and easy answer to give but it will not appease all. Indeed, it does not appease me, unfortunately. My interpretation of the word Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. The teachings of Christ as contained within the Holy Bible. As the Trinity is not mentioned anywhere within the Scriptures how can it be a Christian belief.

No, because Jesus really is the "Son of God" He is separate.

Yes, I Agree

Separate beings, but one in nature, and divine.

I would agree with this as well but it does not describe the Trinity

I don't consider myself a Trinitarian, though I see nothing inherently wrong with the concept or description.

Neither do I. In fact the whole concept of the Trinity is irrelevant to our eternal progression. One day we will know for sure, but until then there is no commandment which compels us to believe it. So why do those who believe in it insist that only those who believe in the Trinity are true Christians and everyone else are not?

It means that although baptism is great, it is belief/faith that really matters.

Agreed again, however, it must be a given before one enters the waters of baptism. It would be pointless to be baptized without a belief/faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even that takes nothing away from the fact baptism is an essential function for entry into the Kingdom of God.

Not at all. I've refuted this on other threads. Baptism is for the repenting of sins and is used for conversion, that is the BIBLICAL use and description. It's not magical or a ticket to heaven.

Yet again I agree, however, it is but one requirement. There are many.

This is not literal, we don't have it in our power to be investing divine authority, only Jesus did so in the Bible.

The Disciples were given the authority to baptize. The Melkezedek Priest gives the recipient authority to baptize.

It's just the style IMO, I think both are valid.

It would not be viable to post this thread if this were true. It simply is not. I have attended both and have witnessed that one is a ritual for naming a child and the other is the baptism for the remission of sin. They are as different as their names suggest. If Satan has convinced the children of men that they are the same look at what he has achieved. If baptism is a requirement without which entry into the Kingdom of God is impossible look as how powerful this misconception has been for him.

Extremely doubtful, I don't believe it. Baptism never had that much importance in the NT, even when John was performing it.
It only had divine importance when Jesus was performing it, as I stated earlier

We are told that if we are not baptized that we will not be able to be in the presence of our God in his Kingdom. I think that is important, regardless as to who was performing the ordinance.

Serenity

 

[Serenity7855]

Mister Emu

Is one who knows algebra not a Christian because they know algebra, which is not a teaching of Christ?

I am sorry but this analogy appears to be nonsensical. Algebra bares no significant connection to religion, whereas, the trinity does and could affect the salvation and eternal life of man. As a Christian that concerns me as we are not only responsible for our own salvation but we are also responsible for feeding his sheep, as Christ told Peter three times. You can be a Christian whether you know algebra or no. You cannot enter into the Kingdom of God unless you are baptized.

Even granting that full immersion is necessary, that is a non-sequitur. There is no necessary tie between Trinitarian belief and rejection of immersion baptism.

You are correct. It is a non-sequitur between the Trinity and Christening. I was not making a connection, or I hope that I have treated them separately. My real concern is not in whether a belief in the Trinity will be beneficial to us or not. I do not see it effecting our eternal progression. I was just trying to get an explanation from Christians who do believe in it as to why they claim that they are true Christians and I am not just because I see the Godhead as three distinct individuals. My real concern is for the possibility that many will be deceived by the doctrine of Christening and forego the essential ordinance of Baptism.

That said, Christening, by which I understand you to mean baptism through aspersion or effusion is efficacious in my belief.

If it is effective in your belief than that is your belief, however, if God wanted us to be baptized and not Christened then we will be held accountable for making the wrong or right decision. All that is expected of us is to warn our neighbors and having done that it is the responsibility of our neighbor to act on that warning or ignore it. My work is done.

I do not know what you mean by baptized by aspersion (disparagement or denunciation) or affusion (effusion, proclamation, or declaration)

 

[Serenity7855]

You are not offensive in the least, no worries. I would like to answer your questions regarding Baptism from my belief and experience. Baptism is an outward symbolic gesture to the Lord. It is symbolizing death of sin, burial and resurrection in Christ.Immersion is the symbolic action of dying to sin, and being lifted out of death and becoming a new clean creature of God. The Christening of babies actually began from a practice called dedication. Which means the parents would promise God to raise their child up in the knowledge of him and the child was sanctified through the parents faith. This has changed radically and it is unfortunate that many so called "Catholics" grow up believing they are Christians because they were Christened as an infant and that is it.

Baptism is commanded as a follow up ritual after you are converted, however many times this is not possible and It does not mean you are not saved by God. If we look to the cross and see Jesus assured the criminal beside him that He would see him in paradise, Obviously Baptism was not a requirement of this promise. I hope this helps

...

The first paragraph is an exact reflection of my own personal beliefs. I still cannot move on from second base though as something inside of me tells me that baptism is an essential ordinance that one must obtain in the flesh.

The second paragraph is sadly open to interpretation. God has told us that unless we are baptised by water and fire then in no wise can we enter into the Kingdom of God. Your second paragraph suggests that Paradise is the Kingdom of God when, IMHO, it is part of the spirit world that contains paradise and spirit prison, in my belief. The thiefs on the cross were forgiven of theirs sins and therfore quite intiltled to entry into paradise. We only gain entry into the Kingdom of God after the day of Judgement.

Serenity

 

[Desert Snake]

Odion

Actually those were my replies.

 

[Serenity7855]

Ingledsva

I watched a show called - Ask The Pastors - the other day, and they were asked the baptism question. They said you do not have to be baptized. They said it was something you do as an outward symbol of an inner "God" experience. But not required.

As to Jesus - I've read the Bible, and nothing I've read in it actually says that Jesus is God, or even an actual son of god.

This really worries me. The scriptures make it perfectly clear that we cannot enter the Kingdom of God without first being baptized for the remission of sin. This Pastor is preaching false doctrine that has the potential of preventing entry into his Kingdom should anyone take his word to be true.

John 10

I agree with half of your second point.

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

 

[Desert Snake]

You attributed my comments to another member, can you change that?

 

[Desert Snake]

O.k., I've reported your post.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hmm, and easy answer to give but it will not appease all. Indeed, it does not appease me, unfortunately. My interpretation of the word Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. The teachings of Christ as contained within the Holy Bible. As the Trinity is not mentioned anywhere within the Scriptures how can it be a Christian belief.

I explained why they came up with the term, it was to rationalize a concept they already thought was in the Bible.

I would agree with this as well but it does not describe the Trinity

Actually, different churches have different interpretations of the 'trinity', you'll have to specify which denominational beliefs/doctrines as many of us here do not come from a Catholic or Trinitarian background.

So why do those who believe in it insist that only those who believe in the Trinity are true Christians and everyone else are not?

I can only guess that in their theology non-trinitarianism questions the divinity of Jesus, other than that, I don't know.

Agreed again, however, it must be a given before one enters the waters of baptism. It would be pointless to be baptized without a belief/faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even that takes nothing away from the fact baptism is an essential function for entry into the Kingdom of God.

Quote the Biblical Scripture to back up this opinion. I would encourage you to check out the threads on RF that refer to baptism, and verify for yourself that your belief actually isn't Scriptural.

Yet again I agree, however, it is but one requirement. There are many.

It's not a requirement, and there aren't 'many' requirements, would you care to list them?

The Disciples were given the authority to baptize. The Melkezedek Priest gives the recipient authority to baptize.

Yes, for the repentance of sins and conversion, nothing more except by symbolism.

It would not be viable to post this thread if this were true. It simply is not. I have attended both and have witnessed that one is a ritual for naming a child and the other is the baptism for the remission of sin. They are as different as their names suggest. If Satan has convinced the children of men that they are the same look at what he has achieved. If baptism is a requirement without which entry into the Kingdom of God is impossible look as how powerful this misconception has been for him.

It is true, it is symbolic, one baptism is all that is needed if one attends those churches. Baptism in ancient times was often performed with sprinkling, and it wasn't just for adults.

We are told that if we are not baptized that we will not be able to be in the presence of our God in his Kingdom. I think that is important, regardless as to who was performing the ordinance.

Serenity

No, we are not. Quote the Verse if you believe in that.

 

[Serenity7855]

Windwalker

I know this whole thinking you are wrestling with, and your whole question of the Trinity and baptism in Jesus name by full immersion doctrine. What you are expressing are the banner teachings of the United Pentecostal Church International, the "Jesus only", "Oneness Pentecostals". I know this as I was part of them for some years, and this is more than slightly familiar to me; it's pretty much verbatim to the talking points we would raise. Am I correct?

Sorry, but no. I have heard of the Pentecostal Church but have not heard of the United Pentecostal Church International. By beliefs are very much based on the LDS Church.

I'm not sure where to begin to address this for you. To say the least I would think it is causing some inner conflict, correct?

Yes, this is correct, however, not for me because I have been baptized, but for those who think that they have entered the straight and narrow path that leads to life eternal only to find that they have been duped by the Adversary.

How is it that God would be so loving on the one hand, and yet be so picky and more concerned that someone said the right words and performed the act of baptism just right, and that that somehow actually would matter to "get into heaven". Again, am I correct?

On the whole I think that if we do our level best to serve him and his children by keeping his commandments that the saving grace of our Lord and Saviour will bridge the gap. Having said that, I believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent which demands order in all things. Baptism is a point of order, IMHO, as is the Sacrament etc etc… If he says that we will not gain entry into His Kingdom unless we enter the waters of baptism then I take it seriously and would advise all to take it seriously. In that context you are right. I do believe that it is a necessary ordinance that should be conducted as it was when John the Baptist Baptized Jesus Christ

I ask this because as a young Bible college student under their teachings I would deeply struggle and wrestle with this hyper-legalistic view of God, against what I knew of God living within my heart as Infinite Love. Such doctrines, such teachings that imagined this God as concerned about "getting it right", created a huge conflict in my heart, in my spirit, which eventually led me to leave them in being true to that Heart.

I do not think that it has to be word perfect just that it has to be water and that we are lowered into that water as if being lowered into the grave. At the end of the day God wants us all to succeed but there are laws contained in the scripture to which we must abide in order to facilitate that.

Where do you want me to begin to speak to these things?

I wish to refer you to something I posted yesterday in response to someone from another Christian group who thinks they alone have the true Christian understanding. In the end, what you have is you and your particular flavor of Christianity's interpretation of things. Those interpretations are not the Truth itself, but your minds way of looking at things. That is very different from God "Himself", and should never be confused with that. It assumes what you read on the pages of a book is somehow understood directly without any of your own thoughts in there.

This is very true. My belief is personal to me and just me. Having said that, if we all believe that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God then we must concede that he desires for us to be baptized. I have done that so my concern must turn to those who could lose their salvation by ignoring his words. It would be a travesty to say nothing and realize that I could have save at least one soul. I know the reality of Satan and know what he desires for us. What a master plan it would be to convince millions that Baptism is not required thereby securing their souls in hell.