quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

---

Pretty much all Christian denominations in the US are declining. Including conservative ones like the Southern Baptist Convention. And the SBC's decline is more severe than his numbers show. SBC numbers are based on membership, not attendance. If you tracked attendance, the decline would be about as steep as Methodists. The video seem ignores conservative declines. Many conservative churches have abandoned evangelism for culture war.

Roman Catholics would also be in a steep decline in the U.S. were it not for growth from Latino immigrants.

The decline is much more complex than liberal or conservative theology. The video pursues the simplistic, inadequate thesis that conservative theology is the difference. I meet lots of people who call themselves "recovering Baptist" or "recovering Catholic" who are spiritual but who have rejected their former churches for various reasons.

The heart of the problem for many churches is that they refuse to move away from institutional thinking and move to missional and incarnational thinking. They think too much about satisfying their members and too little about reaching out in love and grace to people outside their churches. This issue transcends theology.

---

The non-denominational bible church is growing in large numbers. Many of the mainline denominations are seeing congregants flock to them. It's what happens when you actually preach the word of God, and stick to the fundamentals, instead of tickling the ears of the woke generation.

---

Pentecostal churches are growing even faster, particularly those that feature the Prosperity Gospel. Does this mean their preaching is closer to the Bible than Bible churches?

Also, the Southern Baptist Convention was growing at a high rate in the late 1960s and the 1970s, when it was allegedly "liberal." Now that it's more conservative, it's declining. Does that mean it was doing a better job honoring the Bible when it was more liberal?

---

Can't comment on how liberal the SBC was in the 60's and 70's. I highly doubt they strayed from biblical teachings, however, given what I know about the denomination.

---

Paul Pressler et al l disagree with you.

---

It seems likely that Paul Pressler is a homosexual sexual predator. As such I reckon he strayed a lot further from Biblical teachings than the SBC of the 1970s.

Mothra said:

---

Perhaps we are talking past each other. If you are saying baptism is not the act of dunking or sprinkling, but encompasses something different, such as true repentance and conversion, while I do not agree that the scriptural text supports the view that is "baptism," perhaps it is akin to a true conversion for Catholics and we are merely arguing semantics. It appears you concede that the mechanical act of baptism by water is unnecessary. Indeed, none of the verses you cited call it a requirement, and we have examples in scripture of those who were not baptized by water, but still saved.

---

We may be talking past one another; however, I am stating that Baptism is the physical act of sprinkling, pouring, or submersing one into water using the trinitarian formula removes all sin (including original sin) and leaves an indelible mark on one's soul. Baptism by water IS necessary to enter into heaven. It is the gateway sacrament.

Mothra said:

---

As for baptism by desire, I am not sure what that is so I looked it up and here is what it says: a teaching of the Anglican Communion, Lutheran Church and Roman Catholic Church explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian Sacrament because of death, nevertheless receive the fruits of Baptism at the moment of death if their grace of conversion included "divine and catholic faith", an internal act of perfect charity, and perfect contrition by which their soul was cleansed of all sin."

---

Imagine a man who decides to accept Jesus into his heart after being introduced to Christ's saving message. He's truly repentant of his sins. He's on his way to church to get baptized and gets hit by a bus and dies.

All those high churches you listed believe that that man would have been saved by baptism of desire. He desired it; however, he died before he could be baptized.

Mothra said:

---

Quite frankly, I am not sure what the heck all of this means, nor do I find scriptural support for this view.

---

How do you argue with 1500+ years of church teaching?
Why should I believe Zwingli over the church fathers?
Where do I find sola-scriptura in the Bible?

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Perhaps we are talking past each other. If you are saying baptism is not the act of dunking or sprinkling, but encompasses something different, such as true repentance and conversion, while I do not agree that the scriptural text supports the view that is "baptism," perhaps it is akin to a true conversion for Catholics and we are merely arguing semantics. It appears you concede that the mechanical act of baptism by water is unnecessary. Indeed, none of the verses you cited call it a requirement, and we have examples in scripture of those who were not baptized by water, but still saved.

---

We may be talking past one another; however, I am stating that Baptism is the physical act of sprinkling, pouring, or submersing one into water using the trinitarian formula removes all sin (including original sin) and leaves an indelible mark on one's soul. Baptism by water IS necessary to enter into heaven. It is the gateway sacrament.

Mothra said:

---

As for baptism by desire, I am not sure what that is so I looked it up and here is what it says: a teaching of the Anglican Communion, Lutheran Church and Roman Catholic Church explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian Sacrament because of death, nevertheless receive the fruits of Baptism at the moment of death if their grace of conversion included "divine and catholic faith", an internal act of perfect charity, and perfect contrition by which their soul was cleansed of all sin."

---

Imagine a man who decides to accept Jesus into his heart after being introduced to Christ's saving message. He's truly repentant of his sins. He's on his way to church to get baptized and gets hit by a bus and dies.

All those high churches you listed believe that that man would have been saved by baptism of desire. He desired it; however, he died before he could be baptized.

Mothra said:

---

Quite frankly, I am not sure what the heck all of this means, nor do I find scriptural support for this view.

---

How do you argue with 1500+ years of church teaching?
Why should I believe Zwingli over the church fathers?
Where do I find sola-scriptura in the Bible?

---

Now I am unclear. You claim that baptism is the physical act of sprinkling, pouring, or submersing one into water using the trinitarian formula and removes all sin (including original sin) and is a mechanical act that is necessary to enter into Heaven, but in reality isn't actually necessary as long as someone converts and wants to be baptized before they pass?

With all due respect, in addition to lacking any semblance of logic or scriptural support, this sounds like a convenient (albeit absurd) way for Catholics to explain the numerous instances of people being told they were saved in scripture without being baptized. Christ said faith and repentance are all this is required.

This also doesn't comport with the Catholic idea that baptism of babies - who haven't been introduced to Christ's saving grace and have no understanding of the trinity or Christ's work on the cross - can be saved or washed from sin without any understanding of what that actually means (yet another Catholic practice that doesn't comport with scripture, BTW).

Perhaps the more logical explanation, my friend, is that the mechanical act of baptism is not necessary, and Christ's words in John 3:16-18 are true.

As for how do I argue with the Catholic Church's 1500 years of teachings? Easy. I go to the bible, instead of a sect and rituals created by man. The bible doesn't support any of what you said above. The church for 2000 years has had sects that distort the word of God. Catholicism is no different.

Mothra said:

---

With all due respect, in addition to lacking any semblance of logic or scriptural support, this sounds like a convenient (albeit absurd) way for Catholics to explain the numerous instances of people being told they were saved in scripture without being baptized. Christ said faith and repentance are all this is required.

---

I was not very clear. That's my fault. for 99.999999999% percent of the world, Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation - stated in several of the passages I quote. For the remainder of those, God knows what on the heart of the repentant of those in dire circumstances. He can save those individuals without Baptism. He can operate outside the sacraments, we can't.

Mothra said:

---

This also doesn't comport with the Catholic idea that baptism of babies - who haven't been introduced to Christ's saving grace and have no understanding of the trinity or Christ's work on the cross - can be saved or washed from sin without any understanding of what that actually means (yet another Catholic practice that doesn't comport with scripture, BTW).

---

Colossians 2:11-12

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 1having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Clearly Paul is talking about baptism becoming the new circumcision (which enters one into God's family). Hebrews males were all circumcised when they were 8 days old.

Jesus institutes the sacrament of Baptism for ALL, not just Hebrew males. These 8-day old babies didn't know what they were doing. The NT perfects the OT. To say that the new "circumcision" was only of the adults would make it inferior to the OT.

Infant Baptism - here is an article/tract that will explain it better than I. You may not agree with it; however, you will have true understanding of the Catholic faith.

Mothra said:

---

As for how do I argue with the Catholic Church's 1500 years of teachings? Easy. I go to the bible, instead of a sect and rituals created by man. The bible doesn't support any of what you said above. The church for 2000 years has had sects that distort the word of God. Catholicism is no different.

---

What makes your interpretation of the Bible on this matter (or others) better than Luther's or the Church father's or your neighbor's? Why should I believe you, when I have 2000 years of evidence?

Do you not see the pattern? Luther (who believed in baptismal regeneration) broke away from the Church when he disagreed with some of the tenants of faith. He was actually shocked when others broke away from him. The same thing has happened over and over again for the last 500 years. If someone doesn't like the preacher's message, quit and start your own church. When everyone gets to believe what they want about the Bible, who's to say who's right?

I'm still looking for sola-scriptura in the Bible.

Does FTW think he represents mainline Christianity?

Wasn't he the guy who wants to live with his mother until he gets married so mom can do his laundry and cooke for him until his wife takes over those duties and so he masturbates less? He sounds more young Christian taliban than mainline.

Can't respond to all of this right now, but your position that 99.9% of Christians believe Baptism is necessary for salvation is simply erroneous. I would suggest checking out this website, which talks about the different sects' positions on baptism. You will see that more than half of Christians do not believe in Baptism as anything other than symbolic.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Which-Religions-Practice-Baptism-Which-Do-Not

Ok, a little more in depth post on infant baptism (we are covering the gamut on this thread, aren't we?). I believe based on my review of scripture, and my studies of other theologians thoughts on the topic, that if anyone teaches that the new birth is conveyed through water baptism, whether with infants or adults, he is teaching serious heresy on that crucial doctrine. Again, we have been over this, but the Holy Scriptures are clear that the new birth comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone (John 3:1-16).

I have of course seen the argument that infant baptism is akin to circumcision in the Old Testament, especially as seen in the context of the covenant community. The clear teaching of Scripture is that all who believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord should be baptized in obedience to Him. However, the New Testament order is always: 1) The preaching of the gospel; 2) faith in the gospel; 3) then, baptism. Not once is there any example of baptism preceding faith as the norm to be followed in all of scripture. And there are no examples or commands concerning the baptism of the infants or yet unbelieving children of believing parents.

Consider the following verses from Acts, noting the order of belief first, then baptism:

2:41: ... those who had received his word were baptized; ...

8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

8:36-38: And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him.

So, the abundant testimony of the New Testament is that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ always precedes baptism. While there are some parallels between baptism and circumcision, there are also many differences. The sign of circumcision was administered to the male, physical descendants of Abraham in obedience to the specific command of God. But the New Testament is clear that it is not the physical seed of Abraham who are saved, but the spiritual seed. There simply is no command to administer baptism to the physical seed of Christians, male or female, anywhere in scripture. Again, it is reserved only for those who "believed."

I would posit that while I respectfully disagree with those who believe in infant baptism, I also believe that the practice is potentially detrimental. If an adult mistakenly assumes that because he was baptized as an infant, he possesses salvation and is a member of Christ's church, then he is sadly deceived on the most important issue of all - eternal salvation. There is no grace imparted in the physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized. To count on one's baptism, whether as an infant or an adult, as the basis for standing before God is to trust in a false hope. Again, scripture is clear that personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior saves a person from sin and judgment. And to baptize an infant is to rob the person of a very meaningful spiritual experience, namely, the public confession of Christ in obedience to His command after one has come to saving faith. My wife, who grew up Presbyterian, experienced this personally. For years she was incorrectly taught that her infant baptism saved her. Only as an adult, after experiencing a true conversion in accordance with scripture, did she realize the error of this teaching.

Makes no mistake - I believe Baptism is very important for those who believe. It is a public confession of faith in Christ, done in obedience to His command, and as such is a picture of what salvation means. Baptism is important because Christ commanded it as a part of the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). If we neglect baptism, we're disobeying our Lord. But once again, scripture is clear that no mechanical act saves us, but instead only faith in Christ and repentance of sin.

Appreciate the discussion.

Mothra said:

---

I would posit that while I respectfully disagree with those who believe in infant baptism, I also believe that the practice is potentially detrimental. If an adult mistakenly assumes that because he was baptized as an infant, he possesses salvation and is a member of Christ's church, then he is sadly deceived on the most important issue of all - eternal salvation. There is no grace imparted in the physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized. To count on one's baptism, whether as an infant or an adult, as the basis for standing before God is to trust in a false hope. Again, scripture is clear that personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior saves a person from sin and judgment. And to baptize an infant is to rob the person of a very meaningful spiritual experience, namely, the public confession of Christ in obedience to His command after one has come to saving faith. My wife, who grew up Presbyterian, experienced this personally. For years she was incorrectly taught that her infant baptism saved her. Only as an adult, after experiencing a true conversion in accordance with scripture, did she realize the error of this teaching.

---

I assume Coke Bear isn't saying salvation is something one can "possess," either as a result of baptism or anything else. That would be the crucial error in Presbyterian teaching as you describe it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I would posit that while I respectfully disagree with those who believe in infant baptism, I also believe that the practice is potentially detrimental. If an adult mistakenly assumes that because he was baptized as an infant, he possesses salvation and is a member of Christ's church, then he is sadly deceived on the most important issue of all - eternal salvation. There is no grace imparted in the physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized. To count on one's baptism, whether as an infant or an adult, as the basis for standing before God is to trust in a false hope. Again, scripture is clear that personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior saves a person from sin and judgment. And to baptize an infant is to rob the person of a very meaningful spiritual experience, namely, the public confession of Christ in obedience to His command after one has come to saving faith. My wife, who grew up Presbyterian, experienced this personally. For years she was incorrectly taught that her infant baptism saved her. Only as an adult, after experiencing a true conversion in accordance with scripture, did she realize the error of this teaching.

---

I assume Coke Bear isn't saying salvation is something one can "possess," either as a result of baptism or anything else. That would be the crucial error in Presbyterian teaching as you describe it.

---

I am not going to engage in a semantics argument, but you can read for yourself what Coke Bear argues. In his own words, "Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation."

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I would posit that while I respectfully disagree with those who believe in infant baptism, I also believe that the practice is potentially detrimental. If an adult mistakenly assumes that because he was baptized as an infant, he possesses salvation and is a member of Christ's church, then he is sadly deceived on the most important issue of all - eternal salvation. There is no grace imparted in the physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized. To count on one's baptism, whether as an infant or an adult, as the basis for standing before God is to trust in a false hope. Again, scripture is clear that personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior saves a person from sin and judgment. And to baptize an infant is to rob the person of a very meaningful spiritual experience, namely, the public confession of Christ in obedience to His command after one has come to saving faith. My wife, who grew up Presbyterian, experienced this personally. For years she was incorrectly taught that her infant baptism saved her. Only as an adult, after experiencing a true conversion in accordance with scripture, did she realize the error of this teaching.

---

I assume Coke Bear isn't saying salvation is something one can "possess," either as a result of baptism or anything else. That would be the crucial error in Presbyterian teaching as you describe it.

---

I am not going to engage in a semantics argument, but you can read for yourself what Coke Bear argues. In his own words, "Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation."

---

It's a major substantive difference, but that's fine. I'm sure CB can explain it himself.

Mothra said:

---

Can't respond to all of this right now, but your position that 99.9% of Christians believe Baptism is necessary for salvation is simply erroneous. I would suggest checking out this website, which talks about the different sects' positions on baptism. You will see that more than half of Christians do not believe in Baptism as anything other than symbolic.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Which-Religions-Practice-Baptism-Which-Do-Not

---

No. I am stating that 99.9% of people receive water baptism. A very small percentage of people will be baptized by desire or fire.

Mothra said:

---

Ok, a little more in depth post on infant baptism (we are covering the gamut on this thread, aren't we?). I believe based on my review of scripture, and my studies of other theologians thoughts on the topic, that if anyone teaches that the new birth is conveyed through water baptism, whether with infants or adults, he is teaching serious heresy on that crucial doctrine. Again, we have been over this, but the Holy Scriptures are clear that the new birth comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone (John 3:1-16).

---

Who are you reading pre-Zwingli? Christ's Church has consistently taught this for 2000 years. The heresy exists with Zwingli and those that follow him.

Here is an article/track that discusses infant baptism. Very early, the fathers discuss this in their writings. One council discussed not whether infants should be baptized, but whether they should wait to the 8th day just like circumcision.

Infant Baptism

Mothra said:

---

I have of course seen the argument that infant baptism is akin to circumcision in the Old Testament, especially as seen in the context of the covenant community. The clear teaching of Scripture is that all who believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord should be baptized in obedience to Him. However, the New Testament order is always: 1) The preaching of the gospel; 2) faith in the gospel; 3) then, baptism. Not once is there any example of baptism preceding faith as the norm to be followed in all of scripture. And there are no examples or commands concerning the baptism of the infants or yet unbelieving children of believing parents.

---

The "belief and faith" is from the family. Baptism makes one an adoptive son or daughter into God's family. Why should one wait for that?

What happened to babies or kids who die before they make their profession of faith? What about kids that are mute or suffer with CP or MR? Are they bound for hell in your system?

Mothra said:

---

So, the abundant testimony of the New Testament is that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ always precedes baptism. While there are some parallels between baptism and circumcision, there are also many differences. The sign of circumcision was administered to the male, physical descendants of Abraham in obedience to the specific command of God. But the New Testament is clear that it is not the physical seed of Abraham who are saved, but the spiritual seed. There simply is no command to administer baptism to the physical seed of Christians, male or female, anywhere in scripture. Again, it is reserved only for those who "believed."

---

Like I mentioned, circumcision made males part of God's chosen people, His family. Baptism is the fulfillment of the OT. Now everyone can be part of God's family.

Mothra said:

---

I would posit that while I respectfully disagree with those who believe in infant baptism, I also believe that the practice is potentially detrimental. If an adult mistakenly assumes that because he was baptized as an infant, he possesses salvation and is a member of Christ's church, then he is sadly deceived on the most important issue of all - eternal salvation. There is no grace imparted in the physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized. To count on one's baptism, whether as an infant or an adult, as the basis for standing before God is to trust in a false hope. Again, scripture is clear that personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior saves a person from sin and judgment. And to baptize an infant is to rob the person of a very meaningful spiritual experience, namely, the public confession of Christ in obedience to His command after one has come to saving faith. My wife, who grew up Presbyterian, experienced this personally. For years she was incorrectly taught that her infant baptism saved her. Only as an adult, after experiencing a true conversion in accordance with scripture, did she realize the error of this teaching.

---

I'm sure you mean no disrespect; however, I and millions of other infant baptized people, have had "very meaningful spiritual experiences". I've been to retreats and felt the love of the Father and the fire from the Holy Spirit. I've been to adoration and confession and felt the same.

We are not our emotions. They're nice, but not a necessity and have nothing to do with salvation. People of other faiths (Jews, Muslims, Hindu's) have these same emotions

The only thing that happened when you wife was "baptized" a second time was that she got wet.
Ephesians 4:5 -
One Lord, one faith, one baptism

Is the thief on the cross in heaven today? Was he baptized?

If you answered yes on 1 and no on 2, then you don't believe that baptism is required. However, if you are saved, have not been baptized and are not currently on your deathbed, what the heck are you waiting for? Do what Christ commanded you to do! What good reason can you possibly have for not being baptized.

Christ also commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves-I'm still working on this one. And, he commanded us to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I'm still working on this one too.

Some commands are easy to follow, like baptism. DO IT! Others take a bit more knowledge and , sometimes, a bit more faith.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ok, a little more in depth post on infant baptism (we are covering the gamut on this thread, aren't we?). I believe based on my review of scripture, and my studies of other theologians thoughts on the topic, that if anyone teaches that the new birth is conveyed through water baptism, whether with infants or adults, he is teaching serious heresy on that crucial doctrine. Again, we have been over this, but the Holy Scriptures are clear that the new birth comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone (John 3:1-16).

---

Who are you reading pre-Zwingli? Christ's Church has consistently taught this for 2000 years. The heresy exists with Zwingli and those that follow him.

Here is an article/track that discusses infant baptism. Very early, the fathers discuss this in their writings. One council discussed not whether infants should be baptized, but whether they should wait to the 8th day just like circumcision.

Infant Baptism

Mothra said:

---

I have of course seen the argument that infant baptism is akin to circumcision in the Old Testament, especially as seen in the context of the covenant community. The clear teaching of Scripture is that all who believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord should be baptized in obedience to Him. However, the New Testament order is always: 1) The preaching of the gospel; 2) faith in the gospel; 3) then, baptism. Not once is there any example of baptism preceding faith as the norm to be followed in all of scripture. And there are no examples or commands concerning the baptism of the infants or yet unbelieving children of believing parents.

---

The "belief and faith" is from the family. Baptism makes one an adoptive son or daughter into God's family. Why should one wait for that?

What happened to babies or kids who die before they make their profession of faith? What about kids that are mute or suffer with CP or MR? Are they bound for hell in your system?

Mothra said:

---

So, the abundant testimony of the New Testament is that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ always precedes baptism. While there are some parallels between baptism and circumcision, there are also many differences. The sign of circumcision was administered to the male, physical descendants of Abraham in obedience to the specific command of God. But the New Testament is clear that it is not the physical seed of Abraham who are saved, but the spiritual seed. There simply is no command to administer baptism to the physical seed of Christians, male or female, anywhere in scripture. Again, it is reserved only for those who "believed."

---

Like I mentioned, circumcision made males part of God's chosen people, His family. Baptism is the fulfillment of the OT. Now everyone can be part of God's family.

Mothra said:

---

I would posit that while I respectfully disagree with those who believe in infant baptism, I also believe that the practice is potentially detrimental. If an adult mistakenly assumes that because he was baptized as an infant, he possesses salvation and is a member of Christ's church, then he is sadly deceived on the most important issue of all - eternal salvation. There is no grace imparted in the physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized. To count on one's baptism, whether as an infant or an adult, as the basis for standing before God is to trust in a false hope. Again, scripture is clear that personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior saves a person from sin and judgment. And to baptize an infant is to rob the person of a very meaningful spiritual experience, namely, the public confession of Christ in obedience to His command after one has come to saving faith. My wife, who grew up Presbyterian, experienced this personally. For years she was incorrectly taught that her infant baptism saved her. Only as an adult, after experiencing a true conversion in accordance with scripture, did she realize the error of this teaching.

---

I'm sure you mean no disrespect; however, I and millions of other infant baptized people, have had "very meaningful spiritual experiences". I've been to retreats and felt the love of the Father and the fire from the Holy Spirit. I've been to adoration and confession and felt the same.

We are not our emotions. They're nice, but not a necessity and have nothing to do with salvation. People of other faiths (Jews, Muslims, Hindu's) have these same emotions

The only thing that happened when you wife was "baptized" a second time was that she got wet.
Ephesians 4:5 -
One Lord, one faith, one baptism

---

A few things...

I am not sure who Zwingli is. Believe it or not, the basis of my belief regarding infant baptism is scripture itself. I notice you post a lot of links to what our "church fathers" believed, instead of going to the source - scripture. Is there a reason you keep going to man instead of the Holy Scriptures for your insight? Do you believe as believers we are incapable of reading and understanding scripture for ourselves? I know that has often times been the traditional Catholic belief.

I disagree. The Holy Scriptures are my source. I do not need to know what man believes of baptism, but God. And again, there isn't a single instance in scripture that belief did not precede baptism. In short, there just simply is no scriptural support for the Catholic position on infant baptism. It has no cognizable effect whatsoever on the baby who is completely unaware what is going on, and certainly lacked the requisite belief that always precedes baptism.

There is no scriptural support for the idea that mere baptism makes one an adoptive son or daughter into God's family. You are not a part of God's family until you believe, as Jesus said himself (John 3:1-16).

My wife getting sprinkled as a child had zero effect on her salvation. It was just water on her forehead. Just like dunking in water has zero effect on anyone's salvation. It is merely an act of obedience to show others the transformation that has occurred inside of you.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Can't respond to all of this right now, but your position that 99.9% of Christians believe Baptism is necessary for salvation is simply erroneous. I would suggest checking out this website, which talks about the different sects' positions on baptism. You will see that more than half of Christians do not believe in Baptism as anything other than symbolic.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Which-Religions-Practice-Baptism-Which-Do-Not

---

No. I am stating that 99.9% of people receive water baptism. A very small percentage of people will be baptized by desire or fire.

---

How many people in the U.S. today do you think are baptized either by sprinkling or immersion?

My guess, fewer than 25 percent?

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Can't respond to all of this right now, but your position that 99.9% of Christians believe Baptism is necessary for salvation is simply erroneous. I would suggest checking out this website, which talks about the different sects' positions on baptism. You will see that more than half of Christians do not believe in Baptism as anything other than symbolic.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Which-Religions-Practice-Baptism-Which-Do-Not

---

No. I am stating that 99.9% of people receive water baptism. A very small percentage of people will be baptized by desire or fire.

---

How many people in the U.S. today do you think are baptized either by sprinkling or immersion?

My guess, fewer than 25 percent?

---

I'll go out on a limb and say that the 99.9% was of those practicing Ir at least claiming to be Christians. Obviously those that have never been involved with a church would not be a part of that mix.

Here's to hoping my limb doesn't break.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Can't respond to all of this right now, but your position that 99.9% of Christians believe Baptism is necessary for salvation is simply erroneous. I would suggest checking out this website, which talks about the different sects' positions on baptism. You will see that more than half of Christians do not believe in Baptism as anything other than symbolic.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Which-Religions-Practice-Baptism-Which-Do-Not

---

No. I am stating that 99.9% of people receive water baptism. A very small percentage of people will be baptized by desire or fire.

---

How many people in the U.S. today do you think are baptized either by sprinkling or immersion?

My guess, fewer than 25 percent?

---

I'll go out on a limb and say that the 99.9% was of those practicing Ir at least claiming to be Christians. Obviously those that have never been involved with a church would not be a part of that mix.

Here's to hoping my limb doesn't break.

---

This argument about baptism strikes me as about as relevant to most Americans as arguments among the Hasidim about which rabbi's interpretation of some arcane law in the Torah is authoritative.

We're at a stage in American Christianity where churches are just grateful if people younger than 50 walk through the door and if they were baptized, however they were baptized, that's a bonus.

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Can't respond to all of this right now, but your position that 99.9% of Christians believe Baptism is necessary for salvation is simply erroneous. I would suggest checking out this website, which talks about the different sects' positions on baptism. You will see that more than half of Christians do not believe in Baptism as anything other than symbolic.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Which-Religions-Practice-Baptism-Which-Do-Not

---

No. I am stating that 99.9% of people receive water baptism. A very small percentage of people will be baptized by desire or fire.

---

How many people in the U.S. today do you think are baptized either by sprinkling or immersion?

My guess, fewer than 25 percent?

---

I'll go out on a limb and say that the 99.9% was of those practicing Ir at least claiming to be Christians. Obviously those that have never been involved with a church would not be a part of that mix.

Here's to hoping my limb doesn't break.

---

This argument about baptism strikes me as about as relevant to most Americans as arguments among the Hasidim about which rabbi's interpretation of some arcane law in the Torah is authoritative.

We're at a stage in American Christianity where churches are just grateful if people younger than 50 walk through the door and if they were baptized, however they were baptized, that's a bonus.

---

below, is a repeat of an earlier post I made on the same thread. God commands us to love one another. Is it okay if we don't make an attempt?

"Is the thief on the cross in heaven today? Was he baptized?


If you answered yes on 1 and no on 2, then you don't believe that baptism is required. However, if you are saved, have not been baptized and are not currently on your deathbed, what the heck are you waiting for? Do what Christ commanded you to do! What good reason can you possibly have for not being baptized.

Christ also commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves-I'm still working on this one. And, he commanded us to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I'm still working on this one too.

Some commands are easy to follow, like baptism. DO IT! Others take a bit more knowledge and , sometimes, a bit more faith. "

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Can't respond to all of this right now, but your position that 99.9% of Christians believe Baptism is necessary for salvation is simply erroneous. I would suggest checking out this website, which talks about the different sects' positions on baptism. You will see that more than half of Christians do not believe in Baptism as anything other than symbolic.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Which-Religions-Practice-Baptism-Which-Do-Not

---

No. I am stating that 99.9% of people receive water baptism. A very small percentage of people will be baptized by desire or fire.

---

How many people in the U.S. today do you think are baptized either by sprinkling or immersion?

My guess, fewer than 25 percent?

---

I'll go out on a limb and say that the 99.9% was of those practicing Ir at least claiming to be Christians. Obviously those that have never been involved with a church would not be a part of that mix.

Here's to hoping my limb doesn't break.

---

This argument about baptism strikes me as about as relevant to most Americans as arguments among the Hasidim about which rabbi's interpretation of some arcane law in the Torah is authoritative.

We're at a stage in American Christianity where churches are just grateful if people younger than 50 walk through the door and if they were baptized, however they were baptized, that's a bonus.

---

Sounds like you haven't been to church in a while...

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is the thief on the cross in heaven today? Was he baptized?

If you answered yes on 1 and no on 2, then you don't believe that baptism is required. However, if you are saved, have not been baptized and are not currently on your deathbed, what the heck are you waiting for? Do what Christ commanded you to do! What good reason can you possibly have for not being baptized.

Christ also commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves-I'm still working on this one. And, he commanded us to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I'm still working on this one too.

Some commands are easy to follow, like baptism. DO IT! Others take a bit more knowledge and , sometimes, a bit more faith.

---

I see Baptism like a wedding. Some people are married but could not have a wedding ceremony beyond standing before a judge, but their marriage is every bit as real. But if a couple want to be married, it's certainly reasonable that they would want to have a wedding ceremony when that marriage begins.

So too with Baptism. God is not about restrictions and technicalities. If, for example, a man is dying in a car accident and with his last breaths believes in Christ and asks for the Holy Spirit, God will not withhold it because there is no chance at Baptism. But all who live in Christ should rejoice at the chance to be baptized, to show public sign of their belief and trust in God.

The rest is just details.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So too with Baptism. God is not about restrictions and technicalities. If, for example, a man is dying in a car accident and with his last breaths believes in Christ and asks for the Holy Spirit, God will not withhold it because there is no chance at Baptism. But all who live in Christ should rejoice at the chance to be baptized, to show public sign of their belief and trust in God.

The rest is just details.

---

What you are talking about is Baptism by desire.

Where does it say in the Bible that one should make a "public sign of their belief"? Where does Jesus ever say that Baptism is a symbol?

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure who Zwingli is. Believe it or not, the basis of my belief regarding infant baptism is scripture itself. I notice you post a lot of links to what our "church fathers" believed, instead of going to the source - scripture. Is there a reason you keep going to man instead of the Holy Scriptures for your insight? Do you believe as believers we are incapable of reading and understanding scripture for ourselves? I know that has often times been the traditional Catholic belief.

---

I talk about the church fathers because they are closet to the source. The Bible didn't fall from heaven into the hand of King James. It came from the men that either walked with Jesus or men that walked with men that walked with Jesus.

Irenaeus, who taught infant baptism, was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Evangelist. How did Irenaeus (and the others that followed him) misunderstand John and the other NT authors in only two generations and somehow it was corrected by Zwingli?

Mothra said:

---

I disagree. The Holy Scriptures are my source. I do not need to know what man believes of baptism, but God. And again, there isn't a single instance in scripture that belief did not precede baptism. In short, there just simply is no scriptural support for the Catholic position on infant baptism. It has no cognizable effect whatsoever on the baby who is completely unaware what is going on, and certainly lacked the requisite belief that always precedes baptism.

---

"Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:3839)

I don't see "belief" mentioned here.

Why should I trust your interpretation? We've had this conversation before. I'm looking at scripture as a whole coupled with the 2000 year history of the Church. I prefer my interpretation with the Biblical support that I'd offered.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure who Zwingli is. Believe it or not, the basis of my belief regarding infant baptism is scripture itself. I notice you post a lot of links to what our "church fathers" believed, instead of going to the source - scripture. Is there a reason you keep going to man instead of the Holy Scriptures for your insight? Do you believe as believers we are incapable of reading and understanding scripture for ourselves? I know that has often times been the traditional Catholic belief.

---

I talk about the church fathers because they are closet to the source. The Bible didn't fall from heaven into the hand of King James. It came from the men that either walked with Jesus or men that walked with men that walked with Jesus.

Irenaeus, who taught infant baptism, was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Evangelist. How did Irenaeus (and the others that followed him) misunderstand John and the other NT authors in only two generations and somehow it was corrected by Zwingli?

Mothra said:

---

I disagree. The Holy Scriptures are my source. I do not need to know what man believes of baptism, but God. And again, there isn't a single instance in scripture that belief did not precede baptism. In short, there just simply is no scriptural support for the Catholic position on infant baptism. It has no cognizable effect whatsoever on the baby who is completely unaware what is going on, and certainly lacked the requisite belief that always precedes baptism.

---

"Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:3839)

I don't see "belief" mentioned here.

Why should I trust your interpretation? We've had this conversation before. I'm looking at scripture as a whole coupled with the 2000 year history of the Church. I prefer my interpretation with the Biblical support that I'd offered.

---

if not belief, what does "in the name of Jesus Christ" mean?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure who Zwingli is. Believe it or not, the basis of my belief regarding infant baptism is scripture itself. I notice you post a lot of links to what our "church fathers" believed, instead of going to the source - scripture. Is there a reason you keep going to man instead of the Holy Scriptures for your insight? Do you believe as believers we are incapable of reading and understanding scripture for ourselves? I know that has often times been the traditional Catholic belief.

---

I talk about the church fathers because they are closet to the source. The Bible didn't fall from heaven into the hand of King James. It came from the men that either walked with Jesus or men that walked with men that walked with Jesus.

Irenaeus, who taught infant baptism, was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Evangelist. How did Irenaeus (and the others that followed him) misunderstand John and the other NT authors in only two generations and somehow it was corrected by Zwingli?

Mothra said:

---

I disagree. The Holy Scriptures are my source. I do not need to know what man believes of baptism, but God. And again, there isn't a single instance in scripture that belief did not precede baptism. In short, there just simply is no scriptural support for the Catholic position on infant baptism. It has no cognizable effect whatsoever on the baby who is completely unaware what is going on, and certainly lacked the requisite belief that always precedes baptism.

---

"Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:3839)

I don't see "belief" mentioned here.

Why should I trust your interpretation? We've had this conversation before. I'm looking at scripture as a whole coupled with the 2000 year history of the Church. I prefer my interpretation with the Biblical support that I'd offered.

---

if not belief, what does "in the name of Jesus Christ" mean?

---

And what does it mean to "accept his message" if not to believe what Peter said about Jesus?

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure who Zwingli is. Believe it or not, the basis of my belief regarding infant baptism is scripture itself. I notice you post a lot of links to what our "church fathers" believed, instead of going to the source - scripture. Is there a reason you keep going to man instead of the Holy Scriptures for your insight? Do you believe as believers we are incapable of reading and understanding scripture for ourselves? I know that has often times been the traditional Catholic belief.

---

I talk about the church fathers because they are closet to the source. The Bible didn't fall from heaven into the hand of King James. It came from the men that either walked with Jesus or men that walked with men that walked with Jesus.

Irenaeus, who taught infant baptism, was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Evangelist. How did Irenaeus (and the others that followed him) misunderstand John and the other NT authors in only two generations and somehow it was corrected by Zwingli?

Mothra said:

---

I disagree. The Holy Scriptures are my source. I do not need to know what man believes of baptism, but God. And again, there isn't a single instance in scripture that belief did not precede baptism. In short, there just simply is no scriptural support for the Catholic position on infant baptism. It has no cognizable effect whatsoever on the baby who is completely unaware what is going on, and certainly lacked the requisite belief that always precedes baptism.

---

"Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:3839)

I don't see "belief" mentioned here.

Why should I trust your interpretation? We've had this conversation before. I'm looking at scripture as a whole coupled with the 2000 year history of the Church. I prefer my interpretation with the Biblical support that I'd offered.

---

But brother, you aren't looking at scripture - not even the verses you cite. If you were, then the numerous verses I cited would carry more weight. Jesus himself could not be more clear regarding the necessity of belief in John chapter 3. It is ALWAYS the case in scripture that belief precedes baptism. In every single instance. You cannot cite to a single verse that says otherwise. Instead, you cite to extra-scriptural sources, such as the "church fathers." They aren't God, brother, and their beliefs are not the Holy Scriptures.

Instead I would respectfully submit that you pay attention to the words of Jesus himself. And the words of Paul. None of them support the idea you are propagating. Even the verse you mentioned above in Acts, says repentance precedes baptism. What do you think that requires, brother? Does repentance not require belief in Christ? Do you believe infants repent prior to baptism? Of course not. How can a baby repent and then be baptized? The answer is, it cannot.

Any interpretation which contradicts the words of Christ is not accurate, and it's also not 2000 years of Church history. It may be 2000 years of Catholic history, but sorry to break it to you - the Christian Church for centuries has encompassed far more than just the Catholics.

The focus should be on Christ's words, and his disciples, and the Apostle Paul, all of whom are clear belief is required, and baptism occurs afterward. To deny that is to deny scripture.

See John 3:5.

Sam Lowry said:

---

See John 3:5.

---

We discussed this one above, but I will summarize again. Notice that Jesus does not say here, one must be baptized to be saved. Indeed, he says that nowhere in scripture. In fact, all that is required is what he says in his most famous teaching in John Chapter 3 - which also has no mention of Baptism (though it does mention belief). There is no mechanical act required anywhere in scripture.

As I said above, to understand any single verse or passage, we must filter it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). The phrase "born of water and the Spirit" seems to be describing aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be "born again" or "born from above." So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must "be born of water and the Spirit," He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Otherwise, he would have called it baptism, and would have told us it is required to be saved. But he did not.

As I said above, there is no mechanical act required to be saved. The thief next to the cross was not baptized. Belief/repentance always precedes the mechanical act of baptism in scripture. In ever single instance.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

See John 3:5.

---

We discussed this one above, but I will summarize again. Notice that Jesus does not say here, one must be baptized to be saved. Indeed, he says that nowhere in scripture. In fact, all that is required is what he says in his most famous teaching in John Chapter 3 - which also has no mention of Baptism (though it does mention belief). There is no mechanical act required anywhere in scripture.

As I said above, to understand any single verse or passage, we must filter it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). The phrase "born of water and the Spirit" seems to be describing aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be "born again" or "born from above." So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must "be born of water and the Spirit," He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Otherwise, he would have called it baptism, and would have told us it is required to be saved. But he did not.

As I said above, there is no mechanical act required to be saved. The thief next to the cross was not baptized. Belief/repentance always precedes the mechanical act of baptism in scripture. In ever single instance.

---

What's the first thing Jesus does after the dialogue with Nicodemus? What is the second half of the chapter about?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

See John 3:5.

---

We discussed this one above, but I will summarize again. Notice that Jesus does not say here, one must be baptized to be saved. Indeed, he says that nowhere in scripture. In fact, all that is required is what he says in his most famous teaching in John Chapter 3 - which also has no mention of Baptism (though it does mention belief). There is no mechanical act required anywhere in scripture.

As I said above, to understand any single verse or passage, we must filter it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). The phrase "born of water and the Spirit" seems to be describing aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be "born again" or "born from above." So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must "be born of water and the Spirit," He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Otherwise, he would have called it baptism, and would have told us it is required to be saved. But he did not.

As I said above, there is no mechanical act required to be saved. The thief next to the cross was not baptized. Belief/repentance always precedes the mechanical act of baptism in scripture. In ever single instance.

---

What's the first thing Jesus does after the dialogue with Nicodemus? What is the second half of the chapter about?

---

Jesus goes to see John the Baptist, and he and his disciples baptized people who repented and believed - again the act of obedience in response to conversion.

Christ's words in John 3:16-18 are clear: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Baptism, while an act of obedience, is not required, and it's certainly not something we should be doing to infants.

I will go by what Christ taught, and you can keep your own special rules.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

See John 3:5.

---

We discussed this one above, but I will summarize again. Notice that Jesus does not say here, one must be baptized to be saved. Indeed, he says that nowhere in scripture. In fact, all that is required is what he says in his most famous teaching in John Chapter 3 - which also has no mention of Baptism (though it does mention belief). There is no mechanical act required anywhere in scripture.

As I said above, to understand any single verse or passage, we must filter it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). The phrase "born of water and the Spirit" seems to be describing aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be "born again" or "born from above." So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must "be born of water and the Spirit," He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Otherwise, he would have called it baptism, and would have told us it is required to be saved. But he did not.

As I said above, there is no mechanical act required to be saved. The thief next to the cross was not baptized. Belief/repentance always precedes the mechanical act of baptism in scripture. In ever single instance.

---

What's the first thing Jesus does after the dialogue with Nicodemus? What is the second half of the chapter about?

---

Christ's words in John 3:16-18 are clear:

---

And 3:5 isn't?

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Can't respond to all of this right now, but your position that 99.9% of Christians believe Baptism is necessary for salvation is simply erroneous. I would suggest checking out this website, which talks about the different sects' positions on baptism. You will see that more than half of Christians do not believe in Baptism as anything other than symbolic.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Which-Religions-Practice-Baptism-Which-Do-Not

---

No. I am stating that 99.9% of people receive water baptism. A very small percentage of people will be baptized by desire or fire.

---

How many people in the U.S. today do you think are baptized either by sprinkling or immersion?

My guess, fewer than 25 percent?

---

I'll go out on a limb and say that the 99.9% was of those practicing Ir at least claiming to be Christians. Obviously those that have never been involved with a church would not be a part of that mix.

Here's to hoping my limb doesn't break.

---

This argument about baptism strikes me as about as relevant to most Americans as arguments among the Hasidim about which rabbi's interpretation of some arcane law in the Torah is authoritative.

We're at a stage in American Christianity where churches are just grateful if people younger than 50 walk through the door and if they were baptized, however they were baptized, that's a bonus.

---

Sounds like you haven't been to church in a while...

---

Only because of COVID.

Our church will reopen in late June and I'm looking forward to it. I've missed gathering and there's something about my church's old sanctuary that helps me worship.

Maybe focus more on your own walk and less on judging others? Tho it appears that's impossible for you. The ability to judge others and limit their activities to suit your opinions on what God permits and what he doesnt seems to be the paramount aspect of your religion. God = power for me to make personal decisions for other people because I've delegated myself to speak for him / has never been a persuasive argument to me.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

See John 3:5.

---

We discussed this one above, but I will summarize again. Notice that Jesus does not say here, one must be baptized to be saved. Indeed, he says that nowhere in scripture. In fact, all that is required is what he says in his most famous teaching in John Chapter 3 - which also has no mention of Baptism (though it does mention belief). There is no mechanical act required anywhere in scripture.

As I said above, to understand any single verse or passage, we must filter it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). The phrase "born of water and the Spirit" seems to be describing aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be "born again" or "born from above." So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must "be born of water and the Spirit," He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Otherwise, he would have called it baptism, and would have told us it is required to be saved. But he did not.

As I said above, there is no mechanical act required to be saved. The thief next to the cross was not baptized. Belief/repentance always precedes the mechanical act of baptism in scripture. In ever single instance.

---

What's the first thing Jesus does after the dialogue with Nicodemus? What is the second half of the chapter about?

---

Christ's words in John 3:16-18 are clear:

---

And 3:5 isn't?

---

I guess it depends. Is my interpretation of those verses above correct? I believe it is, especially when read in context with Jesus's other words and actions, and his conversation with the thief on the cross. At no place in scripture does Jesus mention Baptism is a requirement.

Yet, you have proffered those verses to support your interpretation that a mechanical act of baptism is required, when Christ did not say that, and it's clearly not something he has ever said in any other place in scripture.

So I now ask you the same question: Are Christ's words in John 3:5 clear? If so, what is he clearly saying, based on the context of his words and actions?

J.B.Katz said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Can't respond to all of this right now, but your position that 99.9% of Christians believe Baptism is necessary for salvation is simply erroneous. I would suggest checking out this website, which talks about the different sects' positions on baptism. You will see that more than half of Christians do not believe in Baptism as anything other than symbolic.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Which-Religions-Practice-Baptism-Which-Do-Not

---

No. I am stating that 99.9% of people receive water baptism. A very small percentage of people will be baptized by desire or fire.

---

How many people in the U.S. today do you think are baptized either by sprinkling or immersion?

My guess, fewer than 25 percent?

---

I'll go out on a limb and say that the 99.9% was of those practicing Ir at least claiming to be Christians. Obviously those that have never been involved with a church would not be a part of that mix.

Here's to hoping my limb doesn't break.

---

This argument about baptism strikes me as about as relevant to most Americans as arguments among the Hasidim about which rabbi's interpretation of some arcane law in the Torah is authoritative.

We're at a stage in American Christianity where churches are just grateful if people younger than 50 walk through the door and if they were baptized, however they were baptized, that's a bonus.

---

Sounds like you haven't been to church in a while...

---

Only because of COVID.

Our church will reopen in late June and I'm looking forward to it. I've missed gathering and there's something about my church's old sanctuary that helps me worship.

Maybe focus more on your own walk and less on judging others? Tho it appears that's impossible for you. The ability to judge others and limit their activities to suit your opinions on what God permits and what he doesnt seems to be the paramount aspect of your religion. God = power for me to make personal decisions for other people because I've delegated myself to speak for him / has never been a persuasive argument to me.

---

You seem touchy. I mentioned it because your statement - that we're at a stage in American Christianity where churches are just grateful if people younger than 50 walk through the door and if they were baptized - just doesn't bear any resemblance to reality, at least not in any church I have been to the last 10 years. Who knows? Maybe it's true in your church, and you're generalizing based on your limited experience. Only you know.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

See John 3:5.

---

We discussed this one above, but I will summarize again. Notice that Jesus does not say here, one must be baptized to be saved. Indeed, he says that nowhere in scripture. In fact, all that is required is what he says in his most famous teaching in John Chapter 3 - which also has no mention of Baptism (though it does mention belief). There is no mechanical act required anywhere in scripture.

As I said above, to understand any single verse or passage, we must filter it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). The phrase "born of water and the Spirit" seems to be describing aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be "born again" or "born from above." So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must "be born of water and the Spirit," He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Otherwise, he would have called it baptism, and would have told us it is required to be saved. But he did not.

As I said above, there is no mechanical act required to be saved. The thief next to the cross was not baptized. Belief/repentance always precedes the mechanical act of baptism in scripture. In ever single instance.

---

What's the first thing Jesus does after the dialogue with Nicodemus? What is the second half of the chapter about?

---

Christ's words in John 3:16-18 are clear:

---

And 3:5 isn't?

---

I guess it depends. Is my interpretation of those verses above correct? I believe it is, especially when read in context with Jesus's other words and actions, and his conversation with the thief on the cross. At no place in scripture does Jesus mention Baptism is a requirement.

Yet, you have proffered those verses to support your interpretation that a mechanical act of baptism is required, when Christ did not say that, and it's clearly not something he has ever said in any other place in scripture.

So I now ask you the same question: Are Christ's words in John 3:5 clear? If so, what is he clearly saying, based on the context of his words and actions?

---

I think the best answer is what the Church Fathers and most everyone believed until the Reformation. There are other references in Scripture too, for example 1 Peter 3:20-21, Acts 2:38-39, and Acts 22:16.