• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Baptism with no purpose, any takers?

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
Baptism is how one obtains the 'Wedding Clothes'. In Matthew 22 - there is the story of the King who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. This king...is portrayed as God. God invites many...but, few accept His offer.There was no excuse for the man who did not have the wedding clothes. In those days, if a person didn't have clothes fit to wear to a wedding, he was given clothes by the family. There was no excuse...all he had to do was ask.

Now we are married to Christ in Baptism; however, many people "still" show up to serve Christ without the "wedding garment" Galatians 3:26-27 tells us how we get the garments..."You are all sons of God through faith in Christ...for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ".
Interesting connection. I may look into that.
 

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
When I was a little older; I've been baptized so many times. LOL.
I went for various reasons but as far as baptism goes or saying the sinners prayer. I often did it because it made some people feel good about themselves. I was like I've already been baptized.
But I didn't tell them that.
Later like a 4th time another one wanted to give me a baptism. I said in my heart that I would happily do it for GOD, didn't. But I don't want to do this again and again by every new this or that and I literally felt an arm land on my shoulder. Freaked out; later I told the person no thanks and I started ignoring some of the church. Not in a cold way. Most of that came from the tongues people yada yada yada.
I feel for you. I read what you wrote and from what you describe it feels like everyone wanted to stamp you with their own brand. Correct me if I'm wrong. Baptism is not meant to be or feel that way. Obviously, multiple different teachings on baptism cannot all be right. The original Bible authors had one teaching in mind (referring to the purpose of water baptism in Jesus's name). So we know the correct teaching exists in their writings. When I was first corrected on the false teachings on baptism I had previously received, my friend Joel was very respectful and practical, he simply asked me to show him the scriptures I had been given to back up what I was taught. I looked and looked and looked, and then realized, "They're not there, why then did they teach me this?" Joel just waited silently until I came up empty and when I did, he showed me the verses on what the Bible actually does state on baptism. It's as simple as what's written, and this has proven itself true time and again over the last thirty three years. Since then, as I've come across many teachings on water baptism in Jesus's name, I compare it to scripture and never get confused or it answers the questions I do have. The key word is "written"! I compared the baptism as a Christian's first act of obedience and nope, it wasn't written in scriptures. I compared baptism as a Christian's public proclamation of his faith, and nope that wasn't written in the Bible either. Baptism as an outward sign demonstrating inward grace, not written there either. Baptism as a parents dedicating their child to God, not written there either. It is the one standard that will never fail you separating the chaff from the original teaching. If I got four different teachings from four different belief systems, I asked them to show me where that's written in scripture.

P.S. - I'm not denying the role of prayer, they're both needed. Otherwise it's just an excercise in Biblical academia, and not ever drawing close to God.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Active Member
Do you not fear being called out on your complete omission of
Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ "

...the crucial "why" he was told to do these things, and egregiously replacing and wash your sins away with your
"Because God said so" is a lot closer to being the correct answer ?

I mean, did you really think somebody wouldn't notice this omission and switcheroo that you did?

Secondly, why were Paul's sins not yet washed away three days after he did everything in Romans 10:9-10 as accounted for in...?
Acts 22:7-8, 10 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?' [8] “ 'Who are you, Lord?' I asked. “ 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. [10] “ 'What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. “ 'Get up,' the Lord said, 'and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.'

Forgive me on all the bold, I couldn't figure out how to turn it off.

Because Paul doesn't have to say every aspect of getting saved in every verse. Paul doesn't even say belief/faith in every salvation verse. It's abominable to even suggest that Paul or anyone has to meet a quota of salvation baptism statements for it to be true. If they have said it once through the Holy Spirit, then it is so. And it is stated considerably more than once. Where on earth did you get this requirement that it must be stated so many times?!

Along the same lines, you can't debate sprinkling babies as it is no where in scripture, not once, and it has to be written there once for it to be true.

Your in between the lines theology is more valid to you than explicitly written texts. This is the by faith alone, through faith alone downfall, and only method of justifying (to themselves) teachings that never exist in the Bible.
No 'omission' was intended on my part. I was focusing on what Paul DID and even you would not credit Paul with the power to wash away his own sins. However, the power to 'get up', to 'be baptized' and to 'call on His name' were actions for Paul to perform, just as the choice to be 'sprinkled' or 'dunked' is an action that is within the power of a modern believer to perform.

When Paul set out to explain WHAT I MUST DO, he described it as follows:

Romans 10:8-12
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” [NKJV]

Do you notice a conspicuous lack of emphasis on the ESSENTIAL water that you want to make a prerequisite for salvation?
Do you draw the conclusion that "whoever calls on the name of the Lord SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH WATER" since you claim that it is ESSENTIAL to the washing away of sins. Or do you propose that some people will be 'saved' without 'washing your sins away'?

I told you, I am willing to be convinced by scripture, but not opinions. Your telling me that I have no reason to question how Paul was saved compared to other verses like Romans 10 (quoted above) with a flippant 'God only needs to say it once' is a little light for me to reject the clear explicit statements of Romans 10 for your OPINIONS.

"if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
I choose to believe Paul instead of you, sorry.
 
Last edited:

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
I believe the baptism in that verse is a spiritual baptism ie that which Jesus talks about when He says "you must be born again."
The only spiritual baptism is baptism with the Holy Spirit, which is recorded only twice in the NT.
 
Top