Baptism: How necessary is it?

[pearl]

And Cecil De mille is your go to source for biblical info?

 

[Faithofchristian]

When Christ Jesus was baptized, he was fulling the baptism of the old testament/scriptures.
For a Christian baptism is the professing of their faith in God the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[syo]

Baptism is pagan. Christians took it from pagans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Baptism is pagan. Christians took it from pagans.

... which doesn't make it necessarily not Christian.

 

[Muffled]

I got oil on forehead when the ceremony came my way....

ok......fine

I see display of full immersion now and then
and I wonder if John the Baptist made that practice
and again....If Jesus went under

I think of it as a ritual recognition of a pending burial

you are laid down on your back
to breathe no more

of course the ritual allows you to arise
and breathe again

so it leans to the belief of resurrection.

not so much the washing away of sin.....but the intent of it's decline

I believe that is the symbolism. One dies to sin and rises up to everlasting life.

 

[Muffled]

My first thought is "Yes very much needed for Christians; they still preach they are born in sin and are sinners. Then they need tons of water IMO"

I believe one can drown in a bathtub. It isn't that sin is taken away by water it is the sin nature that is washed away. Sin is removed by the blood of Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

We don't want our Christians brothers and sisters drowning! I do wonder if its benefit today is little more than carrying a rabbits foot round for good luck!

I believe there are people who receive the Holy Spirit while doing it. For me it was symbolic. I already had received the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don't know the answer to the poll question, but as to the thread title, I don't see it as necessary at all. Jesus notes that ritual is made for man. In other words, it's something dreamed up to kill time. Keep them busy and out of your hair.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

For example in the Bhagavad Gita Arjuna was also taught that it was his Dharma (as a warrior) to fight and kill (even his own family). And he should offer it to God and the lesson was "God is the do-er".

Isn't the lesson also: you made the bed, now lie in it? In other words, the plot's climax could've been avoided on just about every page but everyone decided to be horrible people instead and now this is the only way the plot can pan out? Like, it's less about the ethics of violence and more about committing to your choices, even if they sucked?

Isn’t circumcision a Jewish tradition?

Well, other people did it too. History of male circumcision - Wikipedia

 

[stvdv]

The biblical phrase is about having a clean heart inwardly rather than outwardly. An another example is when Christ criticises the Pharisees saying they are like a cup clean on the outside but dirty on the inside. Matthew 23:25

I know. I did not mean the person does not have an "unclean heart", he just kills in name of God. For example in the Bhagavad Gita Arjuna was also taught that it was his Dharma (as a warrior) to fight and kill (even his own family). And he should offer it to God and the lesson was "God is the do-er".
So maybe this was also implied in the Bible verse.

Isn't the lesson also: you made the bed, now lie in it? In other words, the plot's climax could've been avoided on just about every page but everyone decided to be horrible people instead and now this is the only way the plot can pan out? Like, it's less about the ethics of violence and more about committing to your choices, even if they sucked?

Very true. The Bhagavad Gita is all about "killing your inner enemies" like: desire, anger, hate, envy etc. Cleansing the heart. They put it in a story with family and stuff. Most people forget about the "inner meaning" and think it's all about the "outer meaning". Same in the Bible. People focus too much on "outer meaning". Pointing fingers at others to avoid doing the "hard" work to transform their own "heart".

 

[e.r.m.]

The purpose of baptism in water in Jesus's name is

-Acts 2:38 ...and be baptized for the remission (forgiveness) of your sins...

-Acts 22:16 ...arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, ...

Self explanatory.

-Romans 6:2,5-7 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? [5] For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, [6] knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; [7] for he who has died is freed from sin.

We die, our old man is crucified, we are freed from sin.

-Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

We are clothed with Christ.

-1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

We are saved, making an appeal to God for a good conscious. These two are in unison, not opposing each other.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Among others.

 

[e.r.m.]

In my opinion rituals have their value, especially when you are not Self Realized yet. It is symbolic. Water is quite clean/pure and able to cleanse. Even with dirty water you can cleanse other things (I am not a germophobe).

It can not be a necessary part of the Christian Faith, else Christians who don't follow this ritual would be wrong. And we are talking "belief system" NOT "fact system", so there is no right or wrong in my opinion. Jesus did not even judge the woman committing adultery. Just advising her not to sin.

Any analysis that goes beyond the surface will reveal that baptism in Jesus's name was first commanded after Jesus's resurrection. From that point, it was expected, not from before then which included the woman committing adultery.

 

[stvdv]

In my opinion rituals have their value, especially when you are not Self Realized yet. It is symbolic. Water is quite clean/pure and able to cleanse. Even with dirty water you can cleanse other things (I am not a germophobe).

It can not be a necessary part of the Christian Faith, else Christians who don't follow this ritual would be wrong. And we are talking "belief system" NOT "fact system", so there is no right or wrong in my opinion. Jesus did not even judge the woman committing adultery. Just advising her not to sin.

Any analysis that goes beyond the surface will reveal that baptism in Jesus's name was first commanded after Jesus's resurrection. From that point, it was expected, not from before then which included the woman committing adultery.

Feels to me that you imply that my analysis does "not go beyond the surface". If so, then it seems that you missed my point.
Of course you are free to your opinion as am I. So I agree to disagree on this one.

 

[e.r.m.]

Baptism in Judaism is identification - a proselyte who becomes a Jew must be baptized and renounce all Gods besides I AM.

I asked a Rabbi if their mikveh was merely a commemoration of the conversion to Judaism or part of the conversion itself, and he said very emphatically it's part of the conversion itself. I don't know of any literature, history, or any Jewish authority who would say it's just an identification. I don't know where anybody actually gets this idea.

Baptism in Christianity is identification - a convert who becomes born again is identifying with Jesus as Deity.

This much is definitely not the purpose of baptism. ALL talk that it's a public identification with Jesus has always only been commentator driven. There has never been any Scripture using the word identification or any other synonym in the Bible given as an instruction, command, or description of anyone's baptism. Whenever anyone has tried to use a scripture to justify this idea, they always have to insert the word "identify" themselves. But it's not Biblical.

 

[e.r.m.]

Feels to me that you imply that my analysis does "not go beyond the surface". If so, then it seems that you missed my point.
Of course you are free to your opinion as am I. So I agree to disagree on this one.

You may know indeed know volumes more than you presented. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. What was presented, however, is all I was addressing. The adultress cannot discount the significance of baptism in Jesus's name. Same goes for anyone before baptism in Jesus's name Matthew 28:19 Acts 2:38-39 was first commanded.

I am happy to hear the point that I missed in your post.

 

[stvdv]

The adultress cannot discount the significance of baptism in Jesus's name

True, I would never suggest that.
I never feel the need to "discount the significance in anything others believe in (for themselves)"

I did say "It can not be a necessary part of the Christian Faith (meaning ALL Christians), else Christians who don't follow this ritual would be wrong"
This does not mean that I discount the significance of Baptism, because that would be belittling ... which I rather stay far from
This does mean "Baptism can't be a necessary part for ALL Christians", otherwise that would be belittling to those who believe different

For those who believe Baptism to be essential, Baptism is essential
For those who believe Baptism not to be essential, Baptism is not essential

That is all I meant

 

[e.r.m.]

True, I would never suggest that.
I never feel the need to "discount the significance in anything others believe in (for themselves)"

I did say "It can not be a necessary part of the Christian Faith (meaning ALL Christians), else Christians who don't follow this ritual would be wrong"
This does not mean that I discount the significance of Baptism, because that would be belittling ... which I rather stay far from
This does mean "Baptism can't be a necessary part for ALL Christians", otherwise that would be belittling to those who believe different

For those who believe Baptism to be essential, Baptism is essential
For those who believe Baptism not to be essential, Baptism is not essential

That is all I meant

Thank you for clarifying, and sorry if I misrepresented your point in my rebuttal. I feel I must clarify some things in turn, which I did not make clear initially due to not understanding where you were coming from, for I which I blame only myself.

1. It is not my position that it is essential for Christians to be baptized. It is my position that baptism is part of becoming a Christian in the first place. Acts 11:26 disciples of Jesus were baptized immediately & these disciples were the ones called Christians.

2. I disagree with
For those who believe Baptism to be essential, Baptism is essential
For those who believe Baptism not to be essential, Baptism is not essential

Peter said it's for the forgiveness of sins
Acts 2:38-39
Paul said in baptism we die, our old man is crucified, and we are freed from sin
Romans 6:5-7
Paul also said that with faith and baptism we clothe ourselves in Christ.
Galatians 3:26-27

From a Biblical stand point, there's no option to decide for oneself whether or not it's essential. God is the one who makes that decision. If someone decides it's not essential because they don't care for these benefits, that's another matter.

 

[stvdv]

Thank you for clarifying, and sorry if I misrepresented your point in my rebuttal. I feel I must clarify some things in turn, which I did not make clear initially due to not understanding where you were coming from, for I which I blame only myself.

1. It is not my position that it is essential for Christians to be baptized. It is my position that baptism is part of becoming a Christian in the first place. Acts 11:26 disciples of Jesus were baptized immediately & these disciples were the ones called Christians.

2. I disagree with
For those who believe Baptism to be essential, Baptism is essential
For those who believe Baptism not to be essential, Baptism is not essential

Peter said it's for the forgiveness of sins
Acts 2:38-39
Paul said in baptism we die, our old man is crucified, and we are freed from sin
Romans 6:5-7
Paul also said that with faith and baptism we clothe ourselves in Christ.

From a Biblical stand point, there's no option to decide for oneself whether or not it's essential. God is the one who makes that decision. If someone decides it's not essential because they don't care for these benefits, that's another matter.

Thank you also for clarifying. With this explanation I do understand better what you meant.

 

[e.r.m.]

When Christ Jesus was baptized, he was fulling the baptism of the old testament/scriptures.

Perhaps. I'm not sure if while on earth, we'll ever confirm what He meant by "fulfill all righteousness".

For a Christian baptism is the professing of their faith in God the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

A Christian baptism is not the professing of their faith in God the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
There would have to be at least one verse in the entire New Testament that describes baptism's purpose as some sort of profession/declaration/public announcement, etc.
Acts 2:38-39, 41
1 Peter 3:21
Mark 16:16
Galatians 3:26-27
Romans 6:3-7
Acts 22:16
Acts 8:36-39
Acts 16:33-34
Acts 16:14-15
Acts 10:47-48
Acts 8:12
Acts 18:8

And more.

Never a mention of a public profession of faith. Never one time.

Any time anyone has tried to use a scripture to justify this idea, like Romans 6 and Colossians 2, they've had to insert the favored terms themselves to make it sound like the passages are actually saying it, there is no verse that does.

It is an artificially fabricated and counterfeit purpose. As far as the "Bible" is concerned, a baseless claim, has nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe that is the symbolism. One dies to sin and rises up to everlasting life.

I don't believe it's symbolism, as there was never an expectation expressed in the Bible for anyone to symbolize dying to sin and rising up to eternal life. It makes no sense to assign anything, like baptism, to fulfill a non-existent expectation.