The Answer That Just Makes Sense

[Polaris]

I'm sure you've all seen this question many times before, but just to be thourough I'll restate it once again. It is virtually indisputable that millions of people have come and gone without ever having heard of Jesus Christ much less had the chance to believe in him, accept his gospel, and be baptised. In the light of statements such as "except a man be born of the water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" and "he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned" what is to become of the millions who never had such opportunities?

Some scriptural literalists claim that those millions will indeed be denied salvation, otherwise God would be a liar.

The majority of Christians believe that God is not so merciless. Many simply believe that the grace of God will prevail and that God will save whom he chooses. While this stance definitely promotes a trust in God and in the power of his mercy, it does so at the expense of justice. Assuming the scriptures quoted above actually mean what they say, it seems quite clear that baptism is a requisite for any to enter the kingdom of God. Is God merciful to the point that He would go against his own word?

I would suggest that he is not. He is perfectly just. He cannot go against his word -- to do so would make him a liar. However I also believe that he is perfectly compassionate and merciful. So how can these seemingly contradictory principles both be made manifest?

Unfortunately the answer is only discussed briefly in the Bible. Peter taught that after Christ's death "he went and preached unto the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19). He taught clearly that the gospel was preached "to them that are dead" (1 Peter 4:6). This suggests that the dead can be instructed concerning Jesus Christ and his gospel.
This would give them the opportunity to believe and accept his gospel. But what then about baptism? Paul gives a little insight concering this. In 1 Corinthians 15 he is defending the doctrine of the resurrection and in doing so he uses the practice of baptism for the dead as a supporting argument for his cause (verse 29). It makes absolutely no sense to assume that he would use a false practice as the basis for his argument. This verse suggests that baptism for the dead was something that was understood and even practiced in the early church.

These two doctrines combined: the preaching of the gospel to the spirits who have passed on, and vicarious baptism for the same, makes perfect sense. Through such doctrine God is both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. None will be denied the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, and all will be afforded the opportunity to choose for themselves whether or not to accept it.

 

[Katzpur]

Squirt and FerventGodSeeker had a one-on-one debate on this subject not too long ago. Since FerventGodSeeker bailed out before the agreed-upon number of posts, I guess Squirt should be declared the winner.

 

[Comet]

I was batized in sweat from Richard Simmons and his "Sweatin to the Oldies" videos. Luckly, those are available everywhere.....

Seriously though: Your God has been known to change his mind from time to time....
Create.... nah, destroy..... okay, I won't do that again.....well, I will when the judgement by fire comes- so I kept the rainbow promise.......... what's next?

Serious question: If baptism is so important, then isn't John the Baptist the savior and not Jesus??? (please think before you answer on that)

2nd serious question: Does being baptized, even as a child, mean we are saved? Or do you have to do this as a "knowing" person/adult? (different beliefs on this with different denomonations of Christians - that term used loosely to not offend and branch this into another debate)

 

[kai]

i think the mormons have that covered

(no offence intended just my sense of humour)

 

[Polaris]

Serious question: If baptism is so important, then isn't John the Baptist the savior and not Jesus??? (please think before you answer on that)

The main purpose for baptism is for remission of sins. Baptism would be almost pointless if Jesus hadn't atoned for our sins. Repentance and baptism allow us to enjoy the blessings of the atonement of Christ and receive forgiveness for our sins. While John the Baptist was a great prophet and performed a great work, it was Christ's atonement and resurrection that give everything else purpose.

2nd serious question: Does being baptized, even as a child, mean we are saved? Or do you have to do this as a "knowing" person/adult? (different beliefs on this with different denomonations of Christians - that term used loosely to not offend and branch this into another debate)

Again, because baptism is for the remission of sins, a person must be capable of choosing to repent, follow Christ, and be baptised.

 

[Comet]

The main purpose for baptism is for remission of sins. Baptism would be almost pointless if Jesus hadn't atoned for our sins. Repentance and baptism allow us to enjoy the blessings of the atonement of Christ and receive forgiveness for our sins. While John the Baptist was a great prophet and performed a great work, it was Christ's atonement and resurrection that give everything else purpose.

Almost pointless.....???? Then you say "it was Christ's atonement and resurrection that give EVERYTHING ELSE purpose". So what is the purpose of baptism again?

Again, because baptism is for the remission of sins, a person must be capable of choosing to repent, follow Christ, and be baptised

Okay, I will take that to mean you must be old enough to understand. Then why are babies baptised? (Not sure if LDS do that or not, or if they are more like 7th Day Adventists and you get baptised when you are ready) Or do you do both as others?

Is a baby who is not old enough to understand saved with baptism as a baby? Is a young child who has sinned but not old enough to understand and was never baptised as a baby saved or damned?

 

[Comet]

Also, didn't Christ die to forgive our sins..... so why is baptism still needed?

 

[Polaris]

Almost pointless.....???? Then you say "it was Christ's atonement and resurrection that give EVERYTHING ELSE purpose". So what is the purpose of baptism again?

The main purpose for baptism is for remission of sins. It is also the means by which a person officially becomes a member of Christ's church. You're probably right though baptism would be pointless without Christ's atonement... there's no almost about it.

Okay, I will take that to mean you must be old enough to understand. Then why are babies baptised? (Not sure if LDS do that or not, or if they are more like 7th Day Adventists and you get baptised when you are ready) Or do you do both as others?

Correct, you must be old enough to understand and choose to repent and be baptised. We (the LDS) do not baptise infants for this very reason.

Is a baby who is not old enough to understand saved with baptism as a baby?

No because a baby cannot choose to be baptised -- a baby can't choose to repent. A valid baptism requires proper priesthood authority by the baptiser and a willing and conscious decision by the baptisee to repent and accept Christ.

Is a young child who has sinned but not old enough to understand and was never baptised as a baby saved or damned?

That's essentially the whole point of my post. A literal interpretation of scripture would suggest that anyone who has not been baptised "cannot enter the kingdom of God", however God has provided a way that all will be given the opportunity to accept the gospel and choose to be baptised, if not in this life then the next.

 

[Polaris]

Also, didn't Christ die to forgive our sins..... so why is baptism still needed?

Yes, but just because He did doesn't mean that everyone is automatically forgiven of all their sins unconditionally. He constantly taught "repent and be baptised" and some of his final words of counsel to his disciples was to preach repentance and baptism to the world because that is how we make the atonement take effect for us individually.

 

[Comet]

The main purpose for baptism is for remission of sins. It is also the means by which a person officially becomes a member of Christ's church. You're probably right though baptism would be pointless without Christ's atonement... there's no almost about it.
Correct, you must be old enough to understand and choose to repent and be baptised. We (the LDS) do not baptise infants for this very reason.
No because a baby cannot choose to be baptised -- a baby can't choose to repent. A valid baptism requires proper priesthood authority by the baptiser and a willing and conscious decision by the baptisee to repent and accept Christ.
That's essentially the whole point of my post. A literal interpretation of scripture would suggest that anyone who has not been baptised "cannot enter the kingdom of God", however God has provided a way that all will be given the opportunity to accept the gospel and choose to be baptised, if not in this life then the next.

Ahhh, that actually answered many of my questions.....

What about the people before Christ that were baptized? How is it they are lumped into Christ's church when he had not come yet? Didn't you say baptism is for the "remission of sins"? Same purpose that Christ served then? (I didn't say it was Christ's actions that gave it meaning.... I was quoting you saying what baptism was and that Christ gave "everything else" meaning)
So if you are not baptised you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? Doesn't that make baptism the most important thing then? Or is there a scripture that contradicts this and says that professing your allegance to Jesus is the only way in and not baptism?

 

[Comet]

Yes, but just because He did doesn't mean that everyone is automatically forgiven of all their sins unconditionally. He constantly taught "repent and be baptised" and some of his final words of counsel to his disciples was to preach repentance and baptism to the world because that is how we make the atonement take effect for us individually.

So baptism to repent and have remission of our sins is more important than Jesus and his actions? Afterall, even he preached we must do so..... right?

 

[Polaris]

What about the people before Christ that were baptized? How is it they are lumped into Christ's church when he had not come yet?

In the context that I used it, Christ's church = God's covenant people. People before and after Christ became God's covenant people through baptism. After Christ came an organized body/church was established that comprised of the covenant people. Christ's church was simply an organized body of people who were God's covenant people through baptism.

Didn't you say baptism is for the "remission of sins"? Same purpose that Christ served then? (I didn't say it was Christ's actions that gave it meaning.... I was quoting you saying what baptism was and that Christ gave "everything else" meaning)

Without Christ there would be no remission of sins for anyone. If I don't repent and am not baptised then there is no remission of sins for me. I must do my part to be worthy of the blessings made possible through Christ's atonement.

So if you are not baptised you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? Doesn't that make baptism the most important thing then? Or is there a scripture that contradicts this and says that professing your allegance to Jesus is the only way in and not baptism?

There are many requirements to enter the kingdom of heaven, baptism is one of them and it is a very important one.

 

[Melody]

Almost pointless.....???? Then you say "it was Christ's atonement and resurrection that give EVERYTHING ELSE purpose". So what is the purpose of baptism again?

In my belief, baptism is not what saves us but it is our public declaration of our repentance and acceptance of Christ.

My belief also requires awareness and understanding in order to be baptized. Babies are not baptized in the churches I attend although they have dedication ceremonies where the parents introduct their infant to the congregation and vow to raise their child in their belief.

Is a baby who is not old enough to understand saved with baptism as a baby? Is a young child who has sinned but not old enough to understand and was never baptised as a baby saved or damned?

My belief says that until a child reaches the maturity where he is capable of understanding repentance and acceptance of Christ, they are covered by God's mercy.

 

[Polaris]

Hi Melody, I agree with you 100%. While young children don't need baptism because a) they can't choose to be baptised and b) they aren't capable if sinning in the first place, there have however been many people who have passed on without the opportunity to be baptised who need baptism. I'm curious what your thoughts are concerning the them as explained in the opening post.

 

[michel]

I am always a bit concerned when I hear God said "This" or "That".

Scripture may be God inspired, but has been handed down, written, translated, and generally messed about with. There are time that I think (for me - this obviously is what suits me) that I am far better off understanding what God wants, by my own communing with him.

The way I see it, baptism is not the "be all and end all"; neither do I have any problem in saying that I believe that we will all 'make it to heaven' in the long run.

God will finaly judge us by our motives.

 

[Polaris]

I am always a bit concerned when I hear God said "This" or "That".

Scripture may be God inspired, but has been handed down, written, translated, and generally messed about with. There are time that I think (for me - this obviously is what suits me) that I am far better off understanding what God wants, by my own communing with him.

The way I see it, baptism is not the "be all and end all"; neither do I have any problem in saying that I believe that we will all 'make it to heaven' in the long run.

God will finaly judge us by our motives.

Hi michel, to a large extent I agree with you. Where our heart is (i.e. our motives) will likely be the most important factor in our final judgement. But you can't deny that baptism is an important commandment. Unless the N.T. is completely inaccurate and not trustworthy, baptism and repentance are necessary for salvation. If our motives are indeed pure then we will do all we can to obey Gods commandments, including baptism. All I'm trying to say with this post is that God has provided a perfectly just way for all of us to be given the opportunity to keep his commandments and show what our true motives are, whether we're given the opportunity in this life or the next.

 

[A4B4]

I have two theories, and please point out any problems you find with them:

1) I consider baptism a spiritual rebirth. Romans 6:23 tells us "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in [or through] Christ Jesus our Lord." Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Hell does not exist, but the "fire", "lake of fire" and all similar words simply mean eternal destruction--where whatever lies therein ceases to exist for eternity. After we die, we temporarily rest in the common grave--dead--until the resurrection, at which point God will resurrect and rebuild all of us. Now, here's where I differ from Jehovah's Witnesses in that I believe this is the spiritual rebirth--the baptism you speak of. Beyond paying the wages of sin (being reborn; being baptised), then we must believe to be saved for the eternity.

Furthermore, Luke 3:16 says: "John answered them all, "I baptize you with [or in] water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." According to the Witness's conjecture that "fire" means death, I gather this means we will be baptised--that is, reborn--with/through death in some capacity.

2) Although this comes from the Qur'an--and most (if not all) Muslims don't believe baptism is necessary--, the Qur'an on numerous occasions gives a commandment, followed by a disclaimer. It follows the general formula: do this if at all possible, but if you can't, God will understand and be merciful. In that light, it could be seen that all who have access to a baptism are commanded to do so, but those who do not have access will not be held accountable.

Beyond those two theories, I have two more points to make:

It says in your verse Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." It does not explicitly mention what happens to those who are not baptised. Also, Mark 16:9-20 supposedly was not found in certain ancient manuscripts, which has some theologists quesetion its authenticity--that is, if you believe, or accept the possibility that the Bible has been tampered with.

Interestingly, Jews--John the Baptist included--required the baptism to take place in running water, and to be a full immersion. Of course, most Christian churches do not have these criteria.

 

[Katzpur]

I have two theories, and please point out any problems you find with them:

1) I consider baptism a spiritual rebirth. Romans 6:23 tells us "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in [or through] Christ Jesus our Lord." Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Hell does not exist, but the "fire", "lake of fire" and all similar words simply mean eternal destruction--where whatever lies therein ceases to exist for eternity. After we die, we temporarily rest in the common grave--dead--until the resurrection, at which point God will resurrect and rebuild all of us. Now, here's where I differ from Jehovah's Witnesses in that I believe this is the spiritual rebirth--the baptism you speak of. Beyond paying the wages of sin (being reborn; being baptised), then we must believe to be saved for the eternity.

Furthermore, Luke 3:16 says: "John answered them all, "I baptize you with [or in] water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." According to the Witness's conjecture that "fire" means death, I gather this means we will be baptised--that is, reborn--with/through death in some capacity.

2) Although this comes from the Qur'an--and most (if not all) Muslims don't believe baptism is necessary--, the Qur'an on numerous occasions gives a commandment, followed by a disclaimer. It follows the general formula: do this if at all possible, but if you can't, God will understand and be merciful. In that light, it could be seen that all who have access to a baptism are commanded to do so, but those who do not have access will not be held accountable.

Beyond those two theories, I have two more points to make:

It says in your verse Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." It does not explicitly mention what happens to those who are not baptised. Also, Mark 16:9-20 supposedly was not found in certain ancient manuscripts, which has some theologists quesetion its authenticity--that is, if you believe, or accept the possibility that the Bible has been tampered with.

Interestingly, Jews--John the Baptist included--required the baptism to take place in running water, and to be a full immersion. Of course, most Christian churches do not have these criteria.

Hi, A4B4.

You've raised some interesting points. While I definitely accept the liklihood that the Bible has been "tampered with" over the years, I think the point it makes for the necessity of baptism is pretty clear. We are also told that there are two kinds of baptism -- baptism of water and of Spirit. I have heard it argued that being born of water means nothing more than physically entering mortality (water representing amniotic fluid). This, however, would make no sense at all in light of Christ's own insistence upon being baptized by John. If being born of water meant being physical born to a woman, Jesus -- like all the rest of us -- would have fulfilled that requirement on the night in Bethlehem in which He entered the world. So obviously, two forms of baptism are required of us -- baptism by water (being fully immersed) and baptism by the the Spirit (or receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost).

There are over 100 references to baptism in the New Testament. The Savior's two statements ("He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned..." and "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.") appear to leave little wiggle room as to the need for all men and women to obey this commandment. The last thing, literally the very last thing Jesus told His Apostles prior to His ascension into Heaven after His resurrection was, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Why the emphasis on this ordinance if God was willing to turn a blind eye to it in the majority of instances? There have, over the roughly 6 millenia since Adam, undoubtedly been more individuals who died without having had th opportunity to be baptised than there have been individuals who complied with this commandment. Would God require something of His children that they have no possible way of doing? I don't believe He would, nor do I believe that He would say that it is an absolute requirement unless it is.

 

[Polaris]

Just to add to Katzpur's comments...

Furthermore, Luke 3:16 says: "John answered them all, "I baptize you with [or in] water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." According to the Witness's conjecture that "fire" means death, I gather this means we will be baptised--that is, reborn--with/through death in some capacity.

In this case, I take "fire" to refer to the purifying and cleansing effect of the Holy Ghost. We are baptised by water to outwardly show our willingness to follow Christ and keep his commandments, but the true purification and remission of sins comes through the baptism of fire (i.e the reception of the Holy Ghost). Acts 19 recounts how one receives the Holy Ghost. Following baptism by water Paul "laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them" (v. 6).

2) Although this comes from the Qur'an--and most (if not all) Muslims don't believe baptism is necessary--, the Qur'an on numerous occasions gives a commandment, followed by a disclaimer. It follows the general formula: do this if at all possible, but if you can't, God will understand and be merciful. In that light, it could be seen that all who have access to a baptism are commanded to do so, but those who do not have access will not be held accountable.

While the Qur'an may have certain disclaimers, the Bible does not, at least concerning the requirements to believe in Christ, repent, and be baptized. What I am suggesting is that those who never had access to baptism in this life will one day have that opportunity. God will not need to make exceptions to his commandments because he will give everyone adequate chance to keep them. The verses that I have quoted in my opening post show scriptural support for this.

It says in your verse Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." It does not explicitly mention what happens to those who are not baptised. Also, Mark 16:9-20 supposedly was not found in certain ancient manuscripts, which has some theologists quesetion its authenticity--that is, if you believe, or accept the possibility that the Bible has been tampered with.

John 3:5 makes the requirement of baptism pretty clear.

Interestingly, Jews--John the Baptist included--required the baptism to take place in running water, and to be a full immersion. Of course, most Christian churches do not have these criteria.

There is no scripture that I know of (I may be wrong) that implies the requirement for running water. However, in Romans 6, Paul explains quite well why baptism should be performed by immersion -- that our being buried in the water is symbolic of being buried with Christ and being raised up in a newness of life. I believe baptism must be performed by immersion.

 

[A4B4]

Katzpur, that is a very interesting point you bring up; why Jesus would be baptised if it wasn't necessary.

I hadn't thought about that too much, and I really don't know how that fits into my beliefs. Thanks for bringing that up! I'll do some research and report back what I find.

To be honest, this has always been a subject I've questioned.

Polaris:
No, I don't believe there is really any scripture which outlines baptism, right? I actually asked a theologist where baptism originated from. He said it was chiefly Jewish tradition, which did require running water, but that it may have originally come from Leviticus.

Also, pardon the references I will use the Qur'an in. As I do believe the Bible has been changed, I therefore use the Qur'an to "verify that which [we] possess already of the Scripture," namely the Bible (see Qur'an 2:41). That is partly why I do not believe in baptism.