Oh. So he may have been saved (by baptism) before he was crucified and before he made his confession of faith to Jesus?
Talk about inventions.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not to bring up the Catholic thing again, but...
- Thread starter Emily25069
- Start date
- Status
Oh. So he may have been saved (by baptism) before he was crucified and before he made his confession of faith to Jesus?
Talk about inventions.
Your 'baptism is only a symbol' is the invention.
What I said was, he very well may have been baptized (according to Mark's Gospel) before the crucifixion. Your need him not to be baptized in order to 'prove' your case. Obviously you won't consider this because it weakens your position.
We do know! He never came down from the cross, he had his legs broken and died!
Same objection Amy had but I never said it occurred after the crucifixion. I said it very well may have occurred before and the thief simply fell back into sin. We don't know.
Mark 1:4-5 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then ALL the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
Emily25069
New Member
As far as we can tell, the theif on the cross was saved by faith.. not to mention the fact that he had God in human flesh right next to him talking to him.
Is that how God saved you?
did He come down from heaven, knock on your door and tell you that you were saved..
or was it maybe something a little less direct than that, like perhaps the bible?
I am pretty sure that RCC theology would tell you that the theif on the cross was saved by faith.
But it doesnt get rid of the fact that in Gods word, it says that baptism is for the remission of sins. The exeption is not the rule. The bible lays it out plainly for us to see.
For adults, it is as you say. Believe, repent, be baptized---only the catholic and lutheran would add to that "for the remission of sins" and we would add that because the word of God says that this is the reason.
Infants are a different topic altogether. I understand why you all dont believe baptism is for infants. If its just a work that we do for God, then you are absolutely right. An infant cannot really repent with understanding like we can.. but even the ability to repent is a gift, no?
But we believe that baptism is a work God does for us (using men) and that is where we differ. Since we view baptism as a gift that God does for us, then we think excluding infants is like not bringing infants to Jesus when he says "let the children come".
God has always attatched means. In fact, he used works to save you-the preaching of the gospel. It had sound and eardrums and brainwaves all as the means of grace for you.
Baptism is also a means of grace. It is the visible gospel. It is us being attached to Christs death and ressurrection. it is no light thing.
Is that how God saved you?
did He come down from heaven, knock on your door and tell you that you were saved..
or was it maybe something a little less direct than that, like perhaps the bible?
I am pretty sure that RCC theology would tell you that the theif on the cross was saved by faith.
But it doesnt get rid of the fact that in Gods word, it says that baptism is for the remission of sins. The exeption is not the rule. The bible lays it out plainly for us to see.
For adults, it is as you say. Believe, repent, be baptized---only the catholic and lutheran would add to that "for the remission of sins" and we would add that because the word of God says that this is the reason.
Infants are a different topic altogether. I understand why you all dont believe baptism is for infants. If its just a work that we do for God, then you are absolutely right. An infant cannot really repent with understanding like we can.. but even the ability to repent is a gift, no?
But we believe that baptism is a work God does for us (using men) and that is where we differ. Since we view baptism as a gift that God does for us, then we think excluding infants is like not bringing infants to Jesus when he says "let the children come".
God has always attatched means. In fact, he used works to save you-the preaching of the gospel. It had sound and eardrums and brainwaves all as the means of grace for you.
Baptism is also a means of grace. It is the visible gospel. It is us being attached to Christs death and ressurrection. it is no light thing.
You can't have it both ways. You have criticized baptists for saying salvation comes by grace through faith. Now here you are saying the same thing, yet after saying that baptism saves.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Emily25069
New Member
Amy
that is because the bible talks out of both sides of its mouth then.
We're just going with what the bible says.
that is because the bible talks out of both sides of its mouth then.
We're just going with what the bible says.
Emily25069
New Member
Its not either grace through faith OR baptism.
Its both.
As the bible states.
Its both.
As the bible states.
So the thief on the cross is in hell.
For adults, it is as you say. Believe, repent, be baptized---only the catholic and lutheran would add to that "for the remission of sins" and we would add that because the word of God says that this is the reason.
Absolutely, Emily, the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it! We will continue to be faithful to God's word and not try to ignore an obvious teaching that has been around since the apostles. Don't let them con you into thinking their teaching that 'baptism is a only a symbol' can be traced back to apostolic times. The 'Trail of Blood' has been debunked even on this forum. Anabaptists, by name, began with the Radical Reformers in the 16th century.
I am so glad you are becoming Lutheran. You have a church that is rich in liturgy, word and sacrament.
Absolutely, Emily, the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it! We will continue to be faithful to God's word and not try to ignore an obvious teaching that has been around since the apostles. Don't let them con you into thinking their teaching that 'baptism is a only a symbol' can be traced back to apostolic times. The 'Trail of Blood' has been debunked even on this forum. Anabaptists, by name, began with the Radical Reformers in the 16th century.
I am so glad you are becoming Lutheran. You have a church that is rich in liturgy, word and sacrament.
It cannot and does not contradict. If it seems to be saying two things, context needs to be looked at.
You have yet to address my posts showing that, according to Mark's gospel, he may very well have been baptized.
Repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins.
First, you are going to have to show some scripture to back that up. What exactly is in Mark's gospel that even hints that the thief was baptized?
Mark 16:16 -- "Whoever believes and is Baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."
So, aside from one's personal faith, the act of Baptism itself appears to be very important indeed. Those who hold that Baptism is merely symbolic cannot ignore this if they wish to take Scripture seriously.
Mark 1:4-5 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then ALL the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
This would include the thief on the cross.
FACT: The vast majority of Christians (i.e. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) believe that Baptism is regenerational -- that is to say, that the Sacrament itself transforms the person by "water and the Word," ( Eph 5:26) thus adopting that person into the Body of Christ and making that person a participant in the very same Sonship which Christ Himself enjoys with the Father (Romans 8:15-17, Galatians 4:6-7).
FACT: From earliest times, literally every Church Father and Christian bishop, as well as every orthodox Christian scholar until the Protestant reformation, understood Baptism as regenerational. This included Martin Luther and most of the Protestant reformers who followed him.
FACT: From earliest times, literally every Church Father and Christian bishop, as well as every orthodox Christian scholar until the Protestant reformation, understood Baptism as regenerational. This included Martin Luther and most of the Protestant reformers who followed him.
Really? Do you think John baptized Herod? :laugh:
How do you know the thief was even a Jew?
How do you know he wasn't? How probable is it that he was a Jew??
Again, the fact is that the early church believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. The Anabaptist can't trace their roots back to the time of the Apostles. That is why in "The Trail of Blood" they go from a un-broken line to the sixteenth century and then it become a dotted line. They just don't have the history to support their heresy.
- Status