Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Church offers 'baptism lite': "Less chilling, bastes great"   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Silly, baptisms, Church of England, Christianity, gospels, baptism lite  
•       •       •

3972 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2011 at 4:52 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-01-18 12:25:19 AM  
"I must be in the front pewwwww."
www.bobuecker.com
 
2011-01-18 01:01:44 AM  
To be fair, my Buddhist ass has been baptised. My Grandmother wanted to cover all the bases, I think...

She also made sure I went to Bible School when I was younger, and it did give me an appreciation for her faith. While I don't follow the Christian path, I can't say that I think it's a bad way to go.

Then again, I was raised in the idea it's what you do with your faith, as opposed to just having one, and sort of keeping it around like a hankey...
 
2011-01-18 01:04:40 AM  
comeyoumastersofwar.files.wordpress.com

Lord Palmerston!
 
2011-01-18 01:50:20 AM  
It really makes a lot of sense. A lot of people who grew up with these rituals feel that it's important to have that ceremonial introduction to the community, but, in an age when a lot of parents feel open to allowing their children to explore many different faiths, having a ritual designed specifically to make the child a member of one particular faith ("I mark you as Christ's own forever") puts a lot of people off. Reinterpreting the meaning of baptism as solely an introduction to the faith and the community and reserving promises of fidelity to the religion until the child comes of age is something that has a long tradition in Christianity, and there is no reason for the Anglicans not to embrace it.
 
2011-01-18 02:53:13 AM  
Forgive me, but... if you're a non-church-goer and don't like all the references to Christianity (apparently the target audience), why the fark would you have your baby baptized in the first place?
 
2011-01-18 04:59:39 AM  
I'll have cake, please.
 
2011-01-18 05:12:38 AM  
The Southern Baptist ceremony could be vastly improved by just holding them under a few more minutes.
 
2011-01-18 06:00:53 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Forgive me, but... if you're a non-church-goer and don't like all the references to Christianity (apparently the target audience), why the fark would you have your baby baptized in the first place?


Didn't RTFA, but I would in case they chose it. Not a christian, but I plan on giving my kids a taste of all religions and letting them choose for themselves. If they decided to go that route, I'll be glad I did; if not, no harm no foul.

/just my gut reaction, haven't really looked into it yet. No kids yet, so not in any hurry.
 
2011-01-18 06:02:05 AM  
so it's the fluffy and inconsequential version of indoctrination into a set of belief in fairy tales?
 
2011-01-18 06:31:38 AM  
They are still doing it wrong. The bible clearly states in Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized". Babies cannot repent. Also the greek clearly calls for immersion not pouring....
 
2011-01-18 06:46:44 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

Well gotta do something, now that Easter's canceled.

/they found the body
 
2011-01-18 07:14:53 AM  
Reinterpreting the meaning of baptism as solely an introduction to the faith and the community and reserving promises of fidelity to the religion until the child comes of age is something that has a long tradition in Christianity

Really? Christianity has a long tradition of 'reserving promises of fidelity to the religion until the child comes of age'...really?
 
2011-01-18 07:26:09 AM  
In Catholicism, while baptism is the major sacrament of initiation, it can actually be pretty simple. You don't even need a priest in some cases:

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
-Catechism of the Catholic Church

Interestingly, converts from other Christian denominations don't undergo baptism again if they become Catholics as they are already considered to be initiated into Christianity if they've already been baptised.
 
2011-01-18 08:28:55 AM  

thisispete: In Catholicism, while baptism is the major sacrament of initiation, it can actually be pretty simple. You don't even need a priest in some cases:

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
-Catechism of the Catholic Church

Interestingly, converts from other Christian denominations don't undergo baptism again if they become Catholics as they are already considered to be initiated into Christianity if they've already been baptised.


I baptized my cats when I was little. I don't understand why confirmation is never mentioned when talking about Catholics. Isn't that the renewal of the Baptism?
 
2011-01-18 08:34:59 AM  
If they are serious about this they should think of a new term for christenings.
 
2011-01-18 08:37:44 AM  

oryx: If they are serious about this they should think of a new term for christenings.


If they are serious maybe they should think about how easy it is to water down their faith, and actually question many many other parts as well.

/just sayin'
 
2011-01-18 08:45:05 AM  

BumpyMcNipples: Didn't RTFA...


Let me stop you right there to say, "Then STFU until you do".
 
2011-01-18 08:49:08 AM  

thisispete: You don't even need a priest in some cases:


In necessity, Catholic doctrine says you don't even need a Christian.
 
2011-01-18 08:50:45 AM  

agoodbook: Really? Christianity has a long tradition of 'reserving promises of fidelity to the religion until the child comes of age'...really?


Well, yes... really. Or at least I'd think what he's probably referring to would be the fairly common practices revolving around commitment to religious orders. From medieval times onward (and to some extent even today) there were/are several different titles or positions for an incoming religious community member. Although they were often mandated by the individual's age - this was not always the case. (Please note that "titles" I'm using subsequent to this paragraph probably had different meanings at different times and in different orders, I'm just trying to be fairly generic here.)

There was a postulant sort of position, which was often given to those younger than the age of majority who were nonetheless members of the community (often foundlings or orphans.) These people were considered either too young, too unknowledgable, or both to make a full and complete commitment to the community and/or to god to serve. These individuals could, and often did decide to leave the community when they came of age (or just changed their mind in the case of older people.) This was expected and acceptable. Or they could make full vows on the age on majority/when they felt ready.

There was also a lay-brother position in many monasteries, which was esstentially "You're a member of the community, but you've made no religious commitment." They did the same things the monks (or sisters) in the religious community did, ate the same food, about the only differences being that they were not required to attend all religious services, and that they could leave when they desired. Other than that they did vow obedience to the abbot or abbotess of the community - for as long as they remained lay brothers/sisters. They could also at any time decide to take greater vows and become monks/what have you. Sort of a trial run at being a monk/nun for many. Others just wanted peace, quiet, and contemplation.

Lastly the position of Deacon - it's changed a bit mostly in modern church-going, but originally it was often a person that wished to make a solid contribution/assist with the religious life of the community - but for whatever reason desired to make no binding vows or long term commitments. A Deacon, in the original sense, was simply a member of the community at large who would assist with all religious functions possible to be done by one who was not at least a vowed initiate in the priesthood. Accepting a deacon-ship required no vows, no initiation other than that standard for a member of that religion. One could although "resign" as it were at any time, with no real negative consequences, other than possibly irritating the priest who now has to organize bake sales their own self. I mostly include the Deacon as an example of a "temporary" religious commitment to flesh out the others.

Meh - /War & Peace off - but I sort of felt I had to respond to that sentence. And since it's me, with lots of instructive examples! /Cough. Anyway - YES - western religion at least DOES have a long history of reserving promises of fidelity until the child comes of age, or even later. And of declarations of partial fidelity based on age, preference, desire, and a lot of other things. It was (and indeed not is currently) not "YES OR NO, biatch??" A lot of people would like for you to THINK that it works that way, but nearly all of the major sects/schools of thought have some sort of equivalency to the above states/conditions.
 
2011-01-18 08:52:35 AM  
QFA:Stephen Parkinson, of the Anglo-Catholic Forward in Faith organisation, said there were problems with the 1997 service, but added: 'Simply dumbing it down is not the answer.'

I thought we were getting smarter and most of our problems with these ceremonies was the amount of time chewed up by a priest mumbling something no one really cared about...
 
2011-01-18 08:57:04 AM  
And yes, in the sense of not making a commitment until one is old/knowledgeable enough to wish to do so with full knowledge, the connection being made in the article to this new form of baptism certainly seems quite relevant to me. Sort of a modern-day form of "Try it and see what you think?" Which was certainly common, acceptable, and laudable practice in years past. I see nothing wrong with resurrecting it, personally. Simply symbolizes a commitment to explore the idea carefully. And that's from the outside looking in - I'm an agnostic leaning quite far toward atheism, at least in any sense that it's defined.
 
2011-01-18 08:57:56 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Forgive me, but... if you're a non-church-goer and don't like all the references to Christianity (apparently the target audience), why the fark would you have your baby baptized in the first place?


Because you're tired of fighting with your parents about it.
 
2011-01-18 09:13:28 AM  
"This was not a plea for a prayer in Scouse"

For non-Liverpudlians out there: Anyone from the area is referred to as a "Scouser". Scouse would be the idiomatic english used by them.

As a Scouser born, that made me LOL.
 
2011-01-18 09:16:44 AM  

riverwalk barfly: I baptized my cats when I was little.


So you're not just a Catholic, you're a cat-holic!
 
2011-01-18 09:30:28 AM  

thisispete: In Catholicism, while baptism is the major sacrament of initiation, it can actually be pretty simple. You don't even need a priest in some cases:

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
-Catechism of the Catholic Church

Interestingly, converts from other Christian denominations don't undergo baptism again if they become Catholics as they are already considered to be initiated into Christianity if they've already been baptised.


Most of the time at least. The baptism had to include "father, son and the holy ghost/spirit" in there, so non-Trinitarian baptisms (such as ones performed by the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon) don't count.

However, yes, it's quite possible for the Catholic church to count almost any baptism performed by almost any Church that professes to be Christian.

As theologically, at the moment of baptism all of a persons sins are forgiven and they are spiritually "regenerated", under Catholic dogma, any person who has been baptized but never committed a mortal sin would go to Heaven.

Now, mortal sins typically are the "big" ones in Catholic thinking. The Catechism gives examples being murder, adultery, theft, fraud, remarriage after divorce (technically adultery since they don't count the first marriage as gone) ect. They also have to be done knowing that it was wrong and performed of free will (i.e. blackmailing somebody into something, or using force or the threat of force to compel someone to do something sinful means it's not a mortal sin, but probably a venial one).

Venial sins are the "little sins" everyone commits, and they don't stop you from going to Heaven, but you'll have to do some kind of penance for forgiveness, and if you don't do it in life you'll have to do it in purgatory before moving along to Heaven.

/Canon law is kind of fun for a non-Christian to know
//Why does God need a bureaucracy?
 
2011-01-18 10:08:49 AM  
itsmyoyster.com
 
2011-01-18 10:10:10 AM  
Baptism Light....

sounds good. Sign me up.
 
2011-01-18 10:47:16 AM  
so they just sprinkle?

/rantizo
 
2011-01-18 11:18:19 AM  

abb3w: In necessity, Catholic doctrine says you don't even need a Christian


now if they can just figure out whether or not to "baptize" infants, we might actually make some progress...

then maybe we can convince the Baptists that it is necessary

/next thing you know cats and dogs will be living together
//mass hysteria
 
2011-01-18 12:11:34 PM  

Washo_the_Gorilla: They are still doing it wrong. The bible clearly states in Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized". Babies cannot repent. Also the greek clearly calls for immersion not pouring....


You sound very Church of Christ (Boston movement, even). Agree on the repent part, but be careful not to interpret Acts as a book of doctrine (like Romans) as it was a book of history. Immersion makes for better symbolism, but it's not a salvation issue.
 
2011-01-18 12:18:03 PM  

Silverstaff: thisispete: In Catholicism, while baptism is the major sacrament of initiation, it can actually be pretty simple. You don't even need a priest in some cases:

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
-Catechism of the Catholic Church

Interestingly, converts from other Christian denominations don't undergo baptism again if they become Catholics as they are already considered to be initiated into Christianity if they've already been baptised.

Most of the time at least. The baptism had to include "father, son and the holy ghost/spirit" in there, so non-Trinitarian baptisms (such as ones performed by the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon) don't count.

However, yes, it's quite possible for the Catholic church to count almost any baptism performed by almost any Church that professes to be Christian.

As theologically, at the moment of baptism all of a persons sins are forgiven and they are spiritually "regenerated", under Catholic dogma, any person who has been baptized but never committed a mortal sin would go to Heaven.

Now, mortal sins typically are the "big" ones in Catholic thinking. The Catechism gives examples being murder, adultery, theft, fraud, remarriage after divorce (technically adultery since they don't count the first marriage as gone) ect. They also have to be done knowing that it was wrong and performed of free will (i.e. blackmailing somebody into something, or using force or the threat of force to compel someone to do something sinful means it's not a mortal sin, but probably a venial one).

Venial sins are the "little sins" everyone commits, and they don't stop you from going to Heaven, but you'll have to do some kind of penance for forgiveness, and if you don't do it in life you'll have to do it in purgatory before moving along to Heaven.

/Canon law is kind of fun for a non-Christian to know
//Why does God need a bureaucracy?


What's amazingly stupid about the Catholic church not recognizing Mormon baptisms (Which are trinitarian by the way. The exact phrase 'In the name of the father, son, and the holy ghost' is used, to the letter) Is that it was a purely political move. Both JWs and Mormons are having success in converting catholics in South america. What do you do to scare Catholics into thinking that both JWs and Mormons? Make the populace believe that these reiigions are non-trinitarian. Hell, the catholic church recognizes eastern orthodox baptisms and they're farther off catholic trinity belief than any protestant religion including mormons(Except for JWs)
 
2011-01-18 12:29:40 PM  

Washo_the_Gorilla: They are still doing it wrong. The bible clearly states in Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized". Babies cannot repent. Also the greek clearly calls for immersion not pouring....


what's your religion so i can make fun of it?

latenite: You sound very Church of Christ


problem?

latenite: but be careful not to interpret Acts as a book of doctrine (like Romans) as it was a book of history.


i wasn't aware of a list describing, "interpret these books as doctrine" and "don't interpret these", [citation needed]?

latenite: Immersion makes for better symbolism,


well that's kinda the whole point now isn't it? perhaps that is why it is commanded?

latenite: but it's not a salvation issue


are there any other commands from Jesus (God) that are also not a salvation issue? just so we don't get confused...

/perhaps any of them that we simply don't agree with?
 
2011-01-18 12:33:36 PM  

agoodbook: Really? Christianity has a long tradition of 'reserving promises of fidelity to the religion until the child comes of age'...really?


Yes, really. In Reformed Churches, baptism is purely an introduction to the community, and confirmation is your acceptance of saving grace, and in the Anabapist community, baptism is reserved for someone that can make their own decision (hence the name). These movements both date back to the Reformation, which was the 16th century, so I'd call that a "long tradition."
 
2011-01-18 12:46:23 PM  
Washo_the_Gorilla: They are still doing it wrong. The bible clearly states in Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized". Babies cannot repent. Also the greek clearly calls for immersion not pouring....

Agreed. We're not talking about a magical ceremony here. Baptism was intended to be a symbolic act, an "outward sign of an inner grace".

While I understand the desire of parents to prevent their babies from going to Hell or Purgatory, Christianity is supposed to be a religion that you willingly choose. You aren't automatically a Christian just because your parents are, and you aren't automatically a Christian because that's the official faith of your nation.
 
2011-01-18 01:17:13 PM  

I drunk what: Washo_the_Gorilla: They are still doing it wrong. The bible clearly states in Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized". Babies cannot repent. Also the greek clearly calls for immersion not pouring....

Washo: what's your religion so i can make fun of it?


Christian. Sorry, didn't mean to come across as making fun.

latenite: You sound very Church of Christ

Washo: problem?


Only with the Boston Movement. Very manipulative hierarchy. Lots of zeal, not much knowledge (Rom. 10:2). I never ran into anyone with solid seminary training. Just lay-pastors that could toss out enough Greek to appear scholarly. Nobody like Paul to point out doctrinal errors (like gotta be baptized to be saved). They justified a lack of scholarship rather than admit it's a shortcoming and doing something about it.

latenite: but be careful not to interpret Acts as a book of doctrine (like Romans) as it was a book of history.

Washo: i wasn't aware of a list describing, "interpret these books as doctrine" and "don't interpret these", [citation needed]?


You're looking for milk instead of meat. Bible basics: there are books of law (e.g. Leviticus), poetry (e.g. Song of Solomon), prophecy (e.g. Daniel), and doctrine (e.g. Romans). You'll get into trouble if you interpret one as another. Acts is Luke's account of the early church and how Christianity initially spread. He described what commands were given to people at the time. Many apply to us today, but not all. CoC also has trouble interpreting why things were done (baptism in order to be saved rather than because of it contradicts Eph. 2:8-9). As far as citations go, any good book on hermeneutics is a good start, like How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Fee and Stuart.

latenite: Immersion makes for better symbolism,

Washo: well that's kinda the whole point now isn't it? perhaps that is why it is commanded?


*was* commanded. Keep in mind, the Bible wasn't written *to* us, though it was written *for* us. As I said, immersion is the best symbolism of association with Christ's burial and resurrection, and helps people better keep in mind what it's all about. It's just a symbol, though; one's salvation isn't in jeopardy whether it's done by pouring or sprinkling (immersed in the Jordan myself, BTW).

latenite: but it's not a salvation issue

Washo: are there any other commands from Jesus (God) that are also not a salvation issue? just so we don't get confused...

/perhaps any of them that we simply don't agree with?


Tons: take care of widows and orphans, don't forsake the fellowship of believers, taking communion, etc., etc. I agree with all of them, but they're not part of the gospel and thus aren't required for salvation. Paul opens I Cor. 15 with the gospel essentials. Note baptism is conspicuously missing. If our own actions are required for salvation, we contradict Eph. 2:8-9 as I mentioned. We have a system of legalism, and we deny God's grace because we're trying to get in on our own merits. Granted, if there's no fruit being displayed, it's evidence of a lack of faith, but the fruit is just the indicator, not the vehicle for salvation.
 
2011-01-18 01:29:15 PM  
Why am I not surprised that it's the Anglicans who came up with this brilliant notion?

Seriously guys, it's time to admit Henry VIII made a mistake. Either go back to being real Catholics, or actually make the effort to become real Protestants.

Kinek: What's amazingly stupid about the Catholic church not recognizing Mormon baptisms (Which are trinitarian by the way. The exact phrase 'In the name of the father, son, and the holy ghost' is used, to the letter) Is that it was a purely political move. Both JWs and Mormons are having success in converting catholics in South america. What do you do to scare Catholics into thinking that both JWs and Mormons? Make the populace believe that these reiigions are non-trinitarian. Hell, the catholic church recognizes eastern orthodox baptisms and they're farther off catholic trinity belief than any protestant religion including mormons(Except for JWs)

"Trinitarian" refers specifically to a formula defining the relationship of Jesus the Son, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, promulgated at the 1st Council of Nicea in 325 AD and later formalized at the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD. "Trinitarian baptisms" are those carried out by Christian churches who adhere to that formula, which include Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and almost all Protestant denominations.

From the Mormons I've talked with, I'm pretty sure the Mormon church is "non-trinitarian" in that sense. Therefore the Catholics (and any other "trinitarian" Christian church) have a perfectly good reason not to accept the validity of a Mormon baptism. I can't speak for JWs, but it wouldn't surprise me if they also fall under the ban, and for the same reason.
 
2011-01-18 01:40:11 PM  
Yay baptism thread. I was batptized at age 9 and still hold it to by my covenant with the Creator. I left the OTO because of baptism rites that I did not want to take part of as I had already been baptized once and consider myself good. At Mass (Gnostic Mass, btw) we had a baptism ceremony and all comers were asked by what name they wished to be called by in the Church. Everyone else just gave their name but this one cat, when he came forward to be baptized asked to be called (and I shiat you not) DragonMaster. It was a solemn ceremony and thank heavens no one heard my snicker, but that was my last Gnostic Mass, evar.

/OTO's are good peeps, tho just not my flavor of Pagan
//hubs is not baptized and I had a bit of acceptance to learn before coming to terms with that (he was raised JW)
 
2011-01-18 01:45:54 PM  
In before the fundie Atheists with hair dryers,
 
2011-01-18 02:01:03 PM  

Mouser: Why am I not surprised that it's the Anglicans who came up with this brilliant notion?

Seriously guys, it's time to admit Henry VIII made a mistake. Either go back to being real Catholics, or actually make the effort to become real Protestants.

Kinek: What's amazingly stupid about the Catholic church not recognizing Mormon baptisms (Which are trinitarian by the way. The exact phrase 'In the name of the father, son, and the holy ghost' is used, to the letter) Is that it was a purely political move. Both JWs and Mormons are having success in converting catholics in South america. What do you do to scare Catholics into thinking that both JWs and Mormons? Make the populace believe that these reiigions are non-trinitarian. Hell, the catholic church recognizes eastern orthodox baptisms and they're farther off catholic trinity belief than any protestant religion including mormons(Except for JWs)

"Trinitarian" refers specifically to a formula defining the relationship of Jesus the Son, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, promulgated at the 1st Council of Nicea in 325 AD and later formalized at the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD. "Trinitarian baptisms" are those carried out by Christian churches who adhere to that formula, which include Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and almost all Protestant denominations.

From the Mormons I've talked with, I'm pretty sure the Mormon church is "non-trinitarian" in that sense. Therefore the Catholics (and any other "trinitarian" Christian church) have a perfectly good reason not to accept the validity of a Mormon baptism. I can't speak for JWs, but it wouldn't surprise me if they also fall under the ban, and for the same reason.


Except Catholocism and Eastern Orthodox view the Trinity in different ways. Whereas Catholic believe the Son and Father to be equal and the Holy ghost (or spirit) to be in subjection to them, Eastern orthodox, and by extension most of the eastern churches believe that the Holy ghost (or spirit) and the Son are in subjection to the Father. So. Yeah. Not the same.

Mormons hold the co-equal (Of like substance, not of same substance) stance, so yes, they don't qualify under the Nicene creed, but frankly, so do most of the evangelicals, and they still don't have to get re-baptized. Oneness Pentecostals believe something markedly different, and still don't have to get re-baptized.

Frankly, we're arguing about abstract concepts which may or may not be true. But it's always pissed me off that mormons got singled out -when- there was success in converting catholics. Not before.

/Also, I like that LDS treatment of trinitarianism gets its own wikipedia heading.
 
2011-01-18 02:06:14 PM  

latenite: Christian. Sorry, didn't mean to come across as making fun.


1. that was addressed to washo, but i don't mind anyone jumping in
2. i'm very unclear however why all of my words look like washo was saying them in your post??
3. Christian, also. However you don't really need to apologize when "making fun" of other people's religions just so long as you aren't being a douche-troll about it, though i find it better to remain somewhat light-hearted about such topics since, things get too serious very quickly and then the emotional roller coaster ride begins, which usually just ends up in a bunch of name calling, spitting, etc..
4. since you did bother to answer for washo, i'm still curious, your religion? declare it

latenite: Only with the Boston Movement. Very manipulative hierarchy. Lots of zeal, not much knowledge (Rom. 10:2). I never ran into anyone with solid seminary training. Just lay-pastors that could toss out enough Greek to appear scholarly. Nobody like Paul to point out doctrinal errors (like gotta be baptized to be saved). They justified a lack of scholarship rather than admit it's a shortcoming and doing something about it.


hmmm, so then you don't have to be baptized in order to be saved?

latenite: He described what commands were given to people at the time.


i see, so exactly at what point did Jesus' command to baptized cease to have it's authority?

while i'm very aware of:

latenite: Many apply to us today, but not all.


things such as baptism of the Holy spirit, (which was a special case for apostles n' such, giving them miraculous gifts, etc..) I'm not seeing where you decided that baptism (of any kind, specifically the water-symbol kind) became obsolete at some point in time, indicating that 1) though God commanded it, 2)it is no longer necessary because of latenite's reason X??

/hopefully it's a scriptural reason X

latenite: *was* commanded.


*IS* commanded. just like hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, etc..

interesting how those didn't become obsolete...? just the one part you feel was only directed at early xtians but not any after that?

latenite: Keep in mind, the Bible wasn't written *to* us, though it was written *for* us.


so when Jesus said:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (new window)

that command wasn't to-for us?

latenite: baptism in order to be saved rather than because of it contradicts Eph. 2:8-9


8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

hmm, so baptism is a work? i thought it was just a symbol?

just so we are clear, is hearing a work? believing a work? repenting a work? confessing a work? living faithfully unto death a work?

latenite: As I said, immersion is the best symbolism of association with Christ's burial and resurrection, and helps people better keep in mind what it's all about. It's just a symbol, though


ah so it's just a symbol, what is it a symbol of? if Jesus commanded it wouldn't that qualify it as a pretty important symbol?

BTW is the obedience to God (getting baptized because He said so) a symbol?

for example when Naaman was told to go and dip-immerse himself 7 times in the river, was it literally the work of getting wet that cured him or the symbolic act (7 baptisms) of [literally] obeying God that cleansed him?

latenite: (immersed in the Jordan myself, BTW)


no different than being baptized in my bathtub water, BTW :)
 
2011-01-18 02:55:16 PM  

latenite: one's salvation isn't in jeopardy whether it's done by pouring or sprinkling


oh good you found a debatable point

so which do you think it is? just curious

/assuming you believe baptism is necessary-important

latenite: Paul opens I Cor. 15 with the gospel essentials. Note baptism is conspicuously missing.


could you narrow it down a bit or are you just referring to the entire chapter? also could you be so kind as to indicate exactly what those "essentials" are?

latenite: If our own actions are required for salvation, we contradict Eph. 2:8-9 as I mentioned.


are our thoughts 'actions'? are the choices we make 'actions'?

latenite: take care of widows and orphans, don't forsake the fellowship of believers, taking communion, etc., etc. I agree with all of them, but they're not part of the gospel and thus aren't required for salvation.


so our faith doesn't require any work? BTW what is faith without works?
 
2011-01-18 03:09:19 PM  

I drunk what: latenite: Christian. Sorry, didn't mean to come across as making fun.

1. that was addressed to washo, but i don't mind anyone jumping in
2. i'm very unclear however why all of my words look like washo was saying them in your post??
3. Christian, also. However you don't really need to apologize when "making fun" of other people's religions just so long as you aren't being a douche-troll about it, though i find it better to remain somewhat light-hearted about such topics since, things get too serious very quickly and then the emotional roller coaster ride begins, which usually just ends up in a bunch of name calling, spitting, etc..
4. since you did bother to answer for washo, i'm still curious, your religion? declare it

[previous post omitted for brevity]


Sorry, wasn't paying attention to the header. Meant to credit Drank instead of Washo.

Per your request for declaration, I am a Christian. Pure and simple.

No, you don't have to be baptized to be saved. I know the CoC anchors their theology on Acts 2:38, but it's dangerous. Just as in English, the Greek eis can mean "in order to (receive)" ("I work for my pay"), but it can also mean "because of" ("For he's a jolly good fellow"), and there are plenty of examples in scripture of it. If you assume that everyone documented having been baptized has repented and has received salvation already, there are no contradictions with other scripture. If you make the counter assumption that one hasn't yet been saved and receives it upon baptism, you run into significant contradictions, like in Ephesians. Would I want to hang my salvation on the debatable meaning of a single verse? Nope. I sure hope you don't.

Although I see how I came across as implying that baptism isn't a command that still applies to us; my poor writing. It does indeed still apply, but we disagree on the reasons. My point is that the commands in Acts were given to the people of the time, not directly to us. Luke wrote his correspondence to "Theophilus", not to "I Drunk What". It was written in the first century, not the twenty first. Though many of the commands given then do still apply (including baptism), be careful what and how you interpret across the span of time and intended audience. No need for us to go to Troas and retrieve Paul's cloak, is there?

Is there no such thing as a symbolic act? When you challenge me about baptism being a work vs. a symbol (mutually exclusive), you really come across as dumber than I sense you are. First of all, can we at least agree that act=work? I can't think of any situation where they're not synonymous. So what constitutes a "work" or "act"? What is it the *doesn't* save you that Paul is warning against in Ephesians. It doesn't matter what we *think* Paul meant, it matters what he, himself, actually meant. This is where hermeneutics comes in, which I see a lack of in the CoC. The Greek word for work, ergon, is related to a unit in physics called the erg, which can be defined as a force applied to an object over distance. This implies motion, which hints at what Paul meant. You can't help what you hear (without actively blocking it out), so that doesn't fit the description, nor do thought processes, like repentance. You couldn't perform any *less* work than a thought and still remain breathing. Without splitting hairs too finely, what Paul meant by a work/act is something you have to get up and do. If you can see someone do it (like baptism), it's a work. If it takes place on the inside, it's not. Baptism is an act of faith, to be sure (as is tithing, communion, etc.), but keep in mind that it's an act of faith (a work done in relation to faith), not faith itself. The difference can mean whether one's saved or not.

I said that baptism is "just" a symbol, in comparison to faith, which is what actually saves. It's an important symbol, to be sure, but it is a symbol nonetheless. BTW, what does Naaman have to do with anything? It makes no difference whether he was cured through his baptism or not. It states nowhere that we are saved in the same way that Naaman was cured; that's reading things into scripture that just aren't there. If you're leaning on concepts like that for your salvation, I seriously worry.

Lastly, I have to point to the thief on the cross, who was saved without being baptized. I've heard lots of CoC nonsense about Jesus having special authority to forgive sins while He was on earth, but that holds no doctrinal water whatsoever. God is consistent in the standards He applies to everyone, including salvation. If you start fabricating exceptions wherever it doesn't fit into your theology, the Bible becomes useless because it no longer holds any authority.
 
2011-01-18 03:20:59 PM  

I drunk what:
latenite: Paul opens I Cor. 15 with the gospel essentials. Note baptism is conspicuously missing.

could you narrow it down a bit or are you just referring to the entire chapter? also could you be so kind as to indicate exactly what those "essentials" are?


Paul is describing himself beginning with verse 9, so the gospel he describes is up to and including verse 8. I think you're perfectly capable of gleaning the essentials from these verses yourself. Given the description Paul uses of the gospel ("By this gospel you are saved", "first importance", etc.) why would he leave out mention of baptism if it's that important?

latenite: If our own actions are required for salvation, we contradict Eph. 2:8-9 as I mentioned.

are our thoughts 'actions'? are the choices we make 'actions'?

latenite: take care of widows and orphans, don't forsake the fellowship of believers, taking communion, etc., etc. I agree with all of them, but they're not part of the gospel and thus aren't required for salvation.

so our faith doesn't require any work? BTW what is faith without works?


As I said, the works are the indicators of faith, not faith itself. Lack of works implies lack of faith, but not necessarily. Only God knows the heart. If you presume that someone isn't saved solely because you can't see their works, you are setting yourself up as God.
 
2011-01-18 03:21:32 PM  

latenite: Per your request for declaration, I am a Christian. Pure and simple.


ah good so am i! so we agree on everything concerning doctrine right?

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent
4. Confess
5. Be baptized
6. Live faithfully unto death

(in a nutshell) for starters, right?

ALL required in order to be Saved.

latenite: I know the CoC anchors their theology on Acts 2:38, but it's dangerous.


well then you don't know my flavor very well because we anchor our theology on this:

truereligiondebate.files.wordpress.com

which contains just a few more verses...

such as (new window):

BAPTISM PART 1


Taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (C) 1978 by the New
York Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.

ISA 44:3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry
ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on
your descendants.

JOE 2:28 "And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your
sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your
young men will see visions.

29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in
those days.

ZEC 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants
of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the
one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an
only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

MAT 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come
one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He
will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that
moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a
dove and lighting on him.

MAR 1:8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy
Spirit."

LUK 3:16 John answered them all, "I baptize you with 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.

22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a
voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well
pleased."

24:49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the
city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

JOH 1:32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from
heaven as a dove and remain on him.

33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize
with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and
remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of
God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

ACT 1:5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be
baptized with the Holy Spirit."

2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.

2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and
filled the whole house where they were sitting.

3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to
rest on each of them.

4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other
tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name
of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit.

8:15 When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the
Holy Spirit,

16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had
simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the
Holy Spirit.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the
apostles' hands, he offered them money

10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power,
and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power
of the devil, because God was with him.

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all
who heard the message.

45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that
the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have
received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

11:15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on
us at the beginning.

16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water,
but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

19:2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

1CO 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether
Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to
drink.

TIT 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but
because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
renewal by the Holy Spirit,

BAPTISM PART 2


Taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (C) 1978 by the New
York Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.

MAT 3:6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan
River.

11 "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one
who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will
baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.

14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and
do you come to me?"

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that
moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a
dove and lighting on him.

21:25 John's baptism--where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from
men?" They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From
heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?'

28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

MAR 1:4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a
baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to
him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by
John in the Jordan.

10 As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open
and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.

11:30 John's baptism--was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"

16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
believe will be condemned.

LUK 3:7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You
brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to
yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of
these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what
should we do?"

21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as
he was praying, heaven was opened

7:29 (All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus'
words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been
baptized by John.

30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for
themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)

20:4 John's baptism--was it from heaven, or from men?"

JOH 1:25 questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the
Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"

26 "I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do
not know.

31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water
was that he might be revealed to Israel."

33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize
with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and
remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of
God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean
countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.

23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was
plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.

4:1 The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more
disciples than John,

2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

10:40 Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had
been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed

ACT 1:5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be
baptized with the Holy Spirit."

22 beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from
us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

2:28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with
joy in your presence.'

41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand
were added to their number that day.

8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the
kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men
and women.

13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip
everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch
said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"

37

38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch
went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

9:18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he
could see again. He got up and was baptized,

10:37 You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee
after the baptism that John preached--

47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have
received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then
they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

11:16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water,
but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

16:15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited
us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said,
"come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds;
then immediately he and all his family were baptized.

18:8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in
the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were
baptized.

25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great
fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism
of John.

19:3 So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism,"
they replied.

4 Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the
people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your
sins away, calling on his name.'

ROM 6:3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death?

4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order
that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
Father, we too may live a new life.

1CO 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized
into the name of Paul?

14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and
Gaius,

15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.

16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't
remember if I baptized anyone else.)

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not
with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its
power.

10:2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews
or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized
for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized
for them?

GAL 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed
yourselves with Christ.

EPH 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

5:26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the
word,

COL 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him
through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

HEB 6:2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the
resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

just to name a few...

/but lets not bicker about, what verse says what, or how many there are
 
2011-01-18 03:31:57 PM  

latenite: I think you're perfectly capable of gleaning the essentials from these verses yourself.


i wasn't asking if i was capable, i was asking you

/a simple bulleted list shall be sufficient

latenite: Lack of works implies lack of faith, but not necessarily.


and a lack of faith implies what? when does it necessarily indicate such? if only God knows then how are we decide if we are doing something right or not?

Do we require God to come down from Heaven and personally reassure us, each and every time? otherwise it's just all blind guessing??

latenite: If you presume that someone isn't saved solely because you can't see their works, you are setting yourself up as God.


True, Only God can Judge. But we Christians, can certainly make an educated inference.

Though i can't say for 101% certain, i can assume (99.9%) that someone who hasn't done the work to Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess AND Be BAPTIZED, then Live faithfully unto death, WILL NOT BE SAVED.
 
2011-01-18 03:40:22 PM  

I drunk what: latenite: Per your request for declaration, I am a Christian. Pure and simple.

ah good so am i! so we agree on everything concerning doctrine right?

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent
4. Confess
5. Be baptized
6. Live faithfully unto death

(in a nutshell) for starters, right?

ALL required in order to be Saved.


Nope. 5. and 6. are a result of your salvation, not a requirement for it. If living faithfully until death is a requirement, how would you know if you're saved until you died? That's nuts.

latenite: I know the CoC anchors their theology on Acts 2:38, but it's dangerous.

well then you don't know my flavor very well because we anchor our theology on this:

which contains just a few more verses...

I'm not talking about every verse used to support every point of doctrine. I'm talking about the one most often quoted, and most badly misused by every member I've ever met. Believe me, I know your flavor better than you can imagine.
 
2011-01-18 03:52:06 PM  

I drunk what: latenite: I think you're perfectly capable of gleaning the essentials from these verses yourself.

i wasn't asking if i was capable, i was asking you

/a simple bulleted list shall be sufficient


Paul is perfectly clear in describing the gospel in those eight verses. Why do you need bullet points from me? You've obviously spent enough time in the word to do that yourself if you choose. Again I ask, though, why isn't baptism mentioned there?

latenite: Lack of works implies lack of faith, but not necessarily.

and a lack of faith implies what? when does it necessarily indicate such? if only God knows then how are we decide if we are doing something right or not?

Do we require God to come down from Heaven and personally reassure us, each and every time? otherwise it's just all blind guessing??


I don't understand your question. We're talking about works being a likely indicator of faith. Only you and God know if your faith is genuine, which is all that matters.

latenite: If you presume that someone isn't saved solely because you can't see their works, you are setting yourself up as God.

True, Only God can Judge. But we Christians, can certainly make an educated inference.

Though i can't say for 101% certain, i can assume (99.9%) that someone who hasn't done the work to Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess AND Be BAPTIZED, then Live faithfully unto death, WILL NOT BE SAVED.


You can't "work" to hear, or "work" to believe in the Ephesians sense; that's a teaching error of the CoC. Baptism and living faithfully are the result of salvation and an expression of gratitude for it.
 
2011-01-18 03:54:30 PM  

latenite: Although I see how I came across as implying that baptism isn't a command that still applies to us; my poor writing. It does indeed still apply, but we disagree on the reasons.


wait a minute, so now you're saying that baptism IS a command that still applies to us??

now i am confused...

latenite: what Paul meant by a work/act is something you have to get up and do. If you can see someone do it (like baptism), it's a work.


hmmmmmm and yet:

latenite: Only God knows the heart. If you presume that someone isn't saved solely because you can't see their works, you are setting yourself up as God.


perhaps you should choose your words more carefully?

but let's get back to your definition,

latenite: what Paul meant by a work/act is something you have to get up and do. If you can see someone do it (like baptism), it's a work.


so then paralyzed people cannot do any work?

latenite: First of all, can we at least agree that act=work?


in your words they cannot perform any action?
 
2011-01-18 04:01:26 PM  

latenite: I drunk what:

ah good so am i! so we agree on everything concerning doctrine right?

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent
4. Confess
5. Be baptized
6. Live faithfully unto death

(in a nutshell) for starters, right?

ALL required in order to be Saved.


I gotta go, but I'll leave you with this, from personal experience: Paul could not be more clear than the first eight verses of I Cor. 15 as to what the gospel is, and that what is contained in those first eight verses is what saves you. If your package of six items that you've been taught matches those eight verses, you can sleep at night. If not, you are being taught by false prophets and you need to put as much distance between yourself and them as you can.

Blessings.
 
2011-01-18 04:15:06 PM  

latenite: That's nuts.


i never claimed to be sane, nevertheless i can assure you that my words are True

latenite: know your flavor better than you can imagine


i dunno i can imagine quite a bit :P

latenite: I'm not talking about every verse used to support every point of doctrine.


correct, for now we are only talking about baptism, did i post too many? perhaps we can just discuss the ones you are comfortable with?

latenite: Why do you need bullet points from me?


i'm sorry, i though you were attempting to make a point.

if you were i could indicate whether or not it is a valid point, if not then no worries.

do you feel that it is a trick question? it is not, its is just as simple as it appears, either you can answer it or you cannot, no tricks

latenite: Again I ask, though, why isn't baptism mentioned there?


you mean like in this verse?

I drunk what: I Corith. 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized
for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized
for them?


/is this a trick question?
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report