How do you become a Christian according to the Bible?

[Baroodi]

avoiding sins?
what that means? what is a sin? do you consider what was considered as a sin at the time of the Christ, still called a sin at this time?

 

[CohenDavidson]

The Bible describes whole families being baptized when the male head of the household decided to do it. I think you're assuming a modern degree of autonomy that wasn't accepted - or even contemplated - in Biblical times.

I don't think I've ever read of that. Can you show me where that is in the Bible? The part about the whole family being baptized.

 

[CohenDavidson]

avoiding sins?
what that means? what is a sin? do you consider what was considered as a sin at the time of the Christ, still called a sin at this time?

Yes

 

[CohenDavidson]

The Bible covers every aspect of living and life. A cursory reading is just the first layer of life-long seeking and understanding.

There are many baptisms and there are different types of salvation.

The word salvation itself is complete wholeness, (spirit-soul-body) in which the word "salvation" would have different applications depending on what part one is talking about. Likewise, there are more than one baptism with each using a different element in the process.

So the "faith without works" doesn't have anything to do with the born-again experience that Jesus mentioned addressing the spiritual part of man. There are various applications to faith and works depending on what one is talking about.

There is only one baptism today. Ephesians 4:5

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think I've ever read of that. Can you show me where that is in the Bible? The part about the whole family being baptized.

There are two accounts in Acts 16:

14 A woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, a God-fearing woman, listened to us. The Lord opened her heart to respond to what Paul was saying. 15 After she and her household were baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me to be a believer in the Lord, come and stay in my house.” And she persuaded us.

30 Then he brought them outside and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house. 33 At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away.

I’m fairly sure there are other examples.

Also, something else that infant baptism proponents frequently cite: the many times in the epistles where Paul says that physical circumcision is no longer needed because Christians are “circumcised in Christ.” Traditionally, circumcision was something done to infants.

 

[Grandliseur]

The Bible describes whole families being baptized when the male head of the household decided to do it. I think you're assuming a modern degree of autonomy that wasn't accepted - or even contemplated - in Biblical times.

There are clearly things that are stated about conversions and baptism that leave things like this in the 'we do not know' group. However, you are also assuming that families back there were as fragmented as ours. These people had no TV or game machines to distract their lives, and what the father was doing, the whole family most likely was into.

When we read this about the Cornelius account, we see something, "(Acts 10:44) While Peter was yet speaking about these matters the holy spirit fell upon all those hearing the word. " And, "47 “Can anyone forbid water so that these might not be baptized who have received the holy spirit even as we have?” 48 With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to remain for some days."

Here we see that those who heard - were also baptized. The implication is not that of infants and babies, small children. The implication is that of people who could hear, listen, and understand. When the holy spirit fell upon these hearing the word, it also doesn't just mean 'hear' as in having heard, it means hear as in hear and having accepted with faith the matters being explained.

It is obvious that the text here is leaving a lot of details out we might want - but, what is - is, what is not, isn't.

 

[CohenDavidson]

There are two accounts in Acts 16:





I’m fairly sure there are other examples.

Also, something else that infant baptism proponents frequently cite: the many times in the epistles where Paul says that physical circumcision is no longer needed because Christians are “circumcised in Christ.” Traditionally, circumcision was something done to infants.

Those two accounts do not adequately support the idea of if the father is baptized, then all the house is saved. I believe the idea of "you and your household" is that the father in a house has the greatest influence. The Bible clearly states that the man is the head of the house. If this is so, then if a father is converted, then he is able to influence the whole family. In this account, the whole family may have been of accountable age and were consciously able to obey. Infants are by no means able to consciously obey. Infant baptism is useless. Babies are without sin anyways, so what is the use of baptism for them?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

The Bible covers every aspect of living and life. A cursory reading is just the first layer of life-long seeking and understanding.

You're saying that the Bible doesn't have a clear meaning if one simply reads it? How are we supposed to know Christians interpret it correctly then? I think this is special pleading.

There are many baptisms and there are different types of salvation.

Clarification please?

Also that says nothing about water baptism. That's just adding an unrelated dimension to my initial premise. The New Testament seems quite clear that baptism is part of the salvation process.

So the "faith without works" doesn't have anything to do with the born-again experience that Jesus mentioned addressing the spiritual part of man. There are various applications to faith and works depending on what one is talking about.

It doesn't? That sounds rather arbitrary to me. It also seems like you're not so much addressing my points, and more just pummeling me with 'additional details'. Anyone can do that until their opponent wears out.

 

[RedDragon94]

I know this answer, but many do not seem to know this answer these days. The truth has been twisted and misrepresented. How exactly do you guys go about this process? I want every step please!

Jesus seems to emphasize repentance (turning away from sin to God) over everything else in the New Testament. That's why I inquired whether or not I'm even a Christian in this thread:

Am I a Christian?

It's easier to teach repentance than practice it.

If you want the steps:
1. Sinner.
2. Repentance.
3. Further repentance.
4. Death.
5. Glorification.

 

[CohenDavidson]

Jesus seems to emphasize repentance (turning away from sin to God) over everything else in the New Testament. That's why I inquired whether or not I'm even a Christian in this thread:

Am I a Christian?

It's easier to teach repentance than practice it.

If you want the steps:
1. Sinner.
2. Repentance.
3. Further repentance.
4. Death.
5. Glorification.

I agree, repentance is the hardest part of being a Christian. Are you saying all you have to do is turn from sin to become a Christian?

 

[Kenny]

There is only one baptism today. Ephesians 4:5

In the context of what he was refering to, yes.

But there are many baptisms:

Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

 

[Kenny]

First... let me express my apologies if I came across like I was trying to plummel you. It wasn't my intention. Let me slow it down and I am more than happy to bow out.

My deepest regrets if it came across wrong.

You're saying that the Bible doesn't have a clear meaning if one simply reads it? How are we supposed to know Christians interpret it correctly then? I think this is special pleading.

I'm sorry, that isn't what I was implying. There are clear meanings but there are deeper meanings that can also be extracted. You can say "I love you" and it is easy to understand but there are also deeper truths in "I love you" that still can be uncovered.

Clarification please?

Also that says nothing about water baptism. That's just adding an unrelated dimension to my initial premise. The New Testament seems quite clear that baptism is part of the salvation process.

Sure...

For an example, the thief on a cross next to Jesus said "Remember me..." to which immediately Jesus said "I say to you this day, I will see you in Paradise". Saved because of repentance and no water baptism to follow.

So you have the baptism into Christ for uniting oneself with God (eternal salvation of one's spirit). His blood is the medium for this salvation and Jesus is the baptizer. This is not of works, it is a gift.

The expression of what happened spiritually is the water baptism which a man is the baptizer and water is the medium. It is where your faith has a work to it because you believe.

Kinda like a horse with a carriage behind it which he is pulling. The horse is the spiritual salvation but the carriage of good works should be the loving response which includes a water baptism and not visa versa.

Hopefully, I am not coming across harsh... again, my apologies.

 

[metis]

I believe the idea of "you and your household" is that the father in a house has the greatest influence.

Exactly, and this is why baptizing the entire family was often done, although by far most were not baptized until they were older. Infant baptism didn't become the norm until one of the plagues ravaged through Europe several centuries later, killing an estimated 1/3 of all children.

 

[Kenny]

Exactly, and this is why baptizing the entire family was often done, although by far most were not baptized until they were older. Infant baptism didn't become the norm until one of the plagues ravaged through Europe several centuries later, killing an estimated 1/3 of all children.

I had always wondered how it started.

Curious. If it started centuries later, did it always have the santictification from the "original sin" as its purpose? Or did it start as a simple guesture of dedicating the baby to God returning the gift back to him?

Nothing wrong with doing it. We see it as just a dedication to rear up the child in the way that they should go so that when they are old they will not depart from it.

 

[metis]

Curious. If it started centuries later, did it always have the santictification from the "original sin" as its purpose? Or did it start as a simple guesture of dedicating the baby to God returning the gift back to him?

Yes to the first question, and I can't answer the second one as I've never heard of that before.

Baptism was a rite of introduction into the church and also a forgiveness of sins, not just "original", which is why many delayed baptism until near their death.

The early church was very strict on this, namely that if you were baptized but then committed any kind of serious sin, you could be excommunicated, and having that sin forgiven was a traumatic experience that took time and some shunning, and ya better be on your best behavior (which leaves you out of course).

Nothing wrong with doing it. We see it as just a dedication to rear up the child in the way that they should go so that when they are old they will not depart from it.

Well, as you well know, one still retains free will, so there's no guarantee they will never depart. Really, it's a commitment, so what the Church did to adjust to infant baptism was to split the sacrament into two sacraments, with infant "baptism" followed later by the sacrament of "confirmation". Also, the issue of sin was dealt with by the sacrament of "penance", since there's no reason why a person can't be forgiven by God at any time.

The original penance was practiced by the early church in a confession to the entire church, but over time that created many problems, so the church eventually began to use that which the Irish monks were practicing, namely private penance.

 

[Kenny]

Yes to the first question, and I can't answer the second one as I've never heard of that before.

Baptism was a rite of introduction into the church and also a forgiveness of sins, not just "original", which is why many delayed baptism until near their death.

The early church was very strict on this, namely that if you were baptized but then committed any kind of serious sin, you could be excommunicated, and having that sin forgiven was a traumatic experience that took time and some shunning, and ya better be on your best behavior (which leaves you out of course).

That's interesting. Because we are PROTESTants we have a different view because of various reasons (although we are certainly fine if someone does):

1. We only read of baptisms for those who make a decision to follow Jesus (babies don't have that capacity)
2. We don't see it happening in the Tannakh (just dedicating of children) until the age of accountability ( a confirmation of sorts)
3. We believe babies automatically go to be with God as King David intimated,

Well, as you well know, one still retains free will, so there's no guarantee they will never depart. Really, it's a commitment, so what the Church did to adjust to infant baptism was to split the sacrament into two sacraments, with infant "baptism" followed later by the sacrament of "confirmation". Also, the issue of sin was dealt with by the sacrament of "penance", since there's no reason why a person can't be forgiven by God at any time.

The original penance was practiced by the early church in a confession to the entire church, but over time that created many problems, so the church eventually began to use that which the Irish monks were practicing, namely private penance.

Thanks for the historical update. Very helpful.

 

[CohenDavidson]

First... let me express my apologies if I came across like I was trying to plummel you. It wasn't my intention. Let me slow it down and I am more than happy to bow out.

My deepest regrets if it came across wrong.


I'm sorry, that isn't what I was implying. There are clear meanings but there are deeper meanings that can also be extracted. You can say "I love you" and it is easy to understand but there are also deeper truths in "I love you" that still can be uncovered.


Sure...

For an example, the thief on a cross next to Jesus said "Remember me..." to which immediately Jesus said "I say to you this day, I will see you in Paradise". Saved because of repentance and no water baptism to follow.

So you have the baptism into Christ for uniting oneself with God (eternal salvation of one's spirit). His blood is the medium for this salvation and Jesus is the baptizer. This is not of works, it is a gift.

The expression of what happened spiritually is the water baptism which a man is the baptizer and water is the medium. It is where your faith has a work to it because you believe.

Kinda like a horse with a carriage behind it which he is pulling. The horse is the spiritual salvation but the carriage of good works should be the loving response which includes a water baptism and not visa versa.

Hopefully, I am not coming across harsh... again, my apologies.

The theft on the cross was most likely baptized earlier in his life. I assume this because he knew of Jesus. We can no use this example and assume he had not been baptized simply because we have no prior knowledge.

 

[metis]

That's interesting. Because we are PROTESTants we have a different view because of various reasons (although we are certainly fine if someone does):

I think you forgot I grew up Protestant-- ok, I tried to grow up-- but many Protestant denominations do have infant baptism.

We only read of baptisms for those who make a decision to follow Jesus (babies don't have that capacity)

Which is what "confirmation" is all about , which also is found in some Protestant denominations.

We believe babies automatically go to be with God as King David intimated,

That's an interpretation, but maybe it's so. In the Tanakh, there is no specific teaching about heaven, although some see it as maybe being implied, such as near the end of the book of Job whereas Job says there's gotta be more than just the misery that he was enduring.

Anyhow, as the saying goes, "different strokes for different folks", and I don't see any particular approach as being intrinsically correct. What bothers me, and I know you as well, is that all too many people take the "my way or the highway" approach whereas their approach is the only one acceptable in order to be a "true Christian".

Secondly, the church was never meant to be a static entity made up of perfect people. First of all, perfect people don't need to be saved, therefore no need to go to church, plus the church would have to logically adjust to new situations as they occurred. When you take a look at what the CC did with the issue of sacraments, for example, it's all quite logical, which is not to say it's right however. In this case, "right" actually is subjective-- not objective.

Thanks for the historical update. Very helpful.

Hey, I'm just trying to edgumacate ya. And thanks for your input as well, my friend.

 

[Kenny]

The theft on the cross was most likely baptized earlier in his life. I assume this because he knew of Jesus. We can no use this example and assume he had not been baptized simply because we have no prior knowledge.

I'm not sure we can't assume that. He was a thief that had been caught. Pharisees knew Jesus and weren't baptised.

I think it weighs in favor on my side since, at first, he was making fun of Jesus on the cross.

 

[Kenny]

I think you forgot I grew up Protestant-- ok, I tried to grow up-- but many Protestant denominations do have infant baptism.

Which is what "confirmation" is all about , which also is found in some Protestant denominations.

True...

Anyhow, as the saying goes, "different strokes for different folks", and I don't see any particular approach as being intrinsically correct. What bothers me, and I know you as well, is that all too many people take the "my way or the highway" approach whereas their approach is the only one acceptable in order to be a "true Christian".

TRUE, TRUE...

Secondly, the church was never meant to be a static entity made up of perfect people. First of all, perfect people don't need to be saved, therefore no need to go to church, plus the church would have to logically adjust to new situations as they occurred. When you take a look at what the CC did with the issue of sacraments, for example, it's all quite logical, which is not to say it's right however. In this case, "right" actually is subjective-- not objective.

TRUE... TRUE... TRUE...

HEY!! STOP THAT!!