I'm not baptized. Am i a Christian?

[sojourner]

Salvation according to the bible is arrived at by faith in Jesus and repentance of our sins.

I disagree. I'm an ordained minister in a recognized, mainstream denomination. I think that viewpoint can be extrapolated from the texts, but I don't think it's in any way the entire scope of salvation, and I don't think it's the only valid way to interpret the texts.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I'm not baptized. Am I not technically a Christian? Doesn't it state in the Bible that Xians must be baptized? Do you believe that?

Im referring tt the water baptism, of John, in this thread.

If you have repented for your sins (repentance entails a little more than some may think) and accept Jesus as the Christ ie your (ie your soul's) savior you are indeed a Christian. Personally I think there may be levels of Christianity in the spiritual* world or heaven etc.

* The bible states our bodies will be made new, perhaps in a transformation from ordinary atom based matter to a substance that is atemporal. Then most of us will remain on earth and not in what is commonly thought of as heaven. Earth and the universe will also be transmuted into a beautiful world. What I find really strange is how science seems to agree with much of the more strange biblical passages. Physicists are finding that time itself may not be real which would lend credence to the eternal worlds in the bible and other religions texts. For example time stops at the event horizion of a black hole. For instance if an observer was watching his friend falling into a black hole he would appear to stop forever at the event horizon! However his hapless friend falling into the black hole would experience time passing normally and soon be spaghettized'. Lastly to the mods or members; if the above is too off topic please notify or delete the paragraph.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I disagree. I'm an ordained minister in a recognized, mainstream denomination. I think that viewpoint can be extrapolated from the texts, but I don't think it's in any way the entire scope of salvation, and I don't think it's the only valid way to interpret the texts.

Well we can agree partly. However consider that the Bible gives us many examples of people have been saved without baptism. All of the Old Testament believers were saved without baptism. For a New Testament example think of the thief on the cross. He wasn't baptized but was saved. Lastly I agree there is danger in accepting any biblical interpertation as 100% correct, well, unless Jesus Christ was the one doing the interpretation!

 

[sojourner]

Well we can agree partly. However consider that the Bible gives us many examples of people have been saved without baptism. All of the Old Testament believers were saved without baptism. For a New Testament example think of the thief on the cross. He wasn't baptized but was saved. Lastly I agree there is danger in accepting any biblical interpertation as 100% correct, well, unless Jesus Christ was the one doing the interpretation!

I understand, but what I'm saying is that there are other valid ways to interpret what constitutes the method of salvation. For example, some groups interpret the salvific process as taken care of in the incarnation -- the very act of God becoming Incarnate reconciles humanity. some make the valid claim that it's faith that saves, but that it's the faith of Christ, not our faith in Christ that saves. Any of these are valid biblically and bear fleshing out. I think that "having faith in Jesus and repenting of sins is certainly one valid way to look at it, but it's not the only valid way.

The bible supports any number of valid interpretations, so, while I think an interpretation can be, as you say, "100% correct," I also think that other interpretations can be "100% correct" simultaneously.

 

[sojourner]

If you have repented for your sins (repentance entails a little more than some may think) and accept Jesus as the Christ ie your (ie your soul's) savior you are indeed a Christian.

I say that if one lives out the paradigm of love as the basis for one's life as best one can, one is a Christian, inasmuch as that person is following the way Christ set for us. If one is so disposed to define one's life by this love, the repentance and relationship with Jesus will follow.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I say that if one lives out the paradigm of love as the basis for one's life as best one can, one is a Christian, inasmuch as that person is following the way Christ set for us. If one is so disposed to define one's life by this love, the repentance and relationship with Jesus will follow.

Thanks for your replies my friend, we can agree to disagree. I have no qualms* with anyone living their lives as they want including via their interpertation of the bible etc. It seems to me by your criteria of defining ones life by love maybe Lord Buddha or many others may follow. If one accepts Buddhism (or other religion based on love) because its a love based religion, are they christian as well in your opinion?

* I have no qualms unless they are beyond salvation, then I do worry they may be headed for Sheol.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I understand, but what I'm saying is that there are other valid ways to interpret what constitutes the method of salvation. For example, some groups interpret the salvific process as taken care of in the incarnation -- the very act of God becoming Incarnate reconciles humanity. some make the valid claim that it's faith that saves, but that it's the faith of Christ, not our faith in Christ that saves. Any of these are valid biblically and bear fleshing out. I think that "having faith in Jesus and repenting of sins is certainly one valid way to look at it, but it's not the only valid way.

The bible supports any number of valid interpretations, so, while I think an interpretation can be, as you say, "100% correct," I also think that other interpretations can be "100% correct" simultaneously.

"but what I'm saying is that there are other valid ways to interpret what constitutes the method of salvation"

Isn't that what I said when I opined baptism is not required for salvation? Some say baptism is mandatory, some say certain ways of baptism are mandatory for salvation. I say if one wants to be baptized that is good and correct. If one has an aversion to baptism for some reason I do not beleive it will effect their salvation.

 

[sojourner]

Thanks for your replies my friend, we can agree to disagree. I have no qualms* with anyone living their lives as they want including via their interpertation of the bible etc. It seems to me by your criteria of defining ones life by love maybe Lord Buddha or many others may follow. If one accepts Buddhism (or other religion based on love) because its a love based religion, are they christian as well in your opinion?

Anything espousing love, also espouses the path that Jesus laid out for us. Labels are secondary identifiers, only convenient in that they point us to the foundational identity of children of God (and we know that God is love).

I have no qualms unless they are beyond salvation, then I do worry they may be headed for Sheol.

God's grace is efficacious for all. God will save every person.

 

[sojourner]

"but what I'm saying is that there are other valid ways to interpret what constitutes the method of salvation"

Isn't that what I said when I opined baptism is not required for salvation? Some say baptism is mandatory, some say certain ways of baptism are mandatory for salvation. I say if one wants to be baptized that is good and correct. If one has an aversion to baptism for some reason I do not beleive it will effect their salvation.

I got that, but that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing your stated "formula" that, apparently, "constitutes" salvation: "repentance and accepting Jesus." I don't think that formula is the only way to salvation. I think that, if one loves as much as one can, one will turn from egotistical thinking, and when one embraces the way of love, one embraces what Jesus taught.

 

[savagewind]

I got that, but that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing your stated "formula" that, apparently, "constitutes" salvation: "repentance and accepting Jesus." I don't think that formula is the only way to salvation. I think that, if one loves as much as one can, one will turn from egotistical thinking, and when one embraces the way of love, one embraces what Jesus taught.

Some people may think that accepting Jesus is cause to love MORE. To not accept him is to choose to love less. Is that OK?

 

[sojourner]

Some people may think that accepting Jesus is cause to love MORE. To not accept him is to choose to love less. Is that OK?

Jesus said, "See how they love one another!" It wasn't about belief, it was about loving each other and serving each other.

 

[savagewind]

Jesus said, "See how they love one another!" It wasn't about belief, it was about loving each other and serving each other.

Right and I agree. He is the shepherd who knows the way. To follow him is to do good to him and those who belong to him. To deny him is to deny the least of his brothers. Matthew 25:31-46 I am sorry that I can't believe that everyone is his family. Mark 3:35

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Anything espousing love, also espouses the path that Jesus laid out for us. Labels are secondary identifiers, only convenient in that they point us to the foundational identity of children of God (and we know that God is love).

God's grace is efficacious for all. God will save every person.

Yes I agree that Jesus placed paramount importance on forgiveness and love. However one can love but still not be a christian. Jesus laid out a path of law and other things we should do for salvation as well as love our fellow man. I am sorry my friend I do not understand why you are so opposed to a mantle. Many people have a problem with labels and I do too, when they are misused. They can be weapons used to harm. However some words are necessary for basic communication. Maybe I am missing something or misunderstanding you. That said I think you and I are very close in our beliefs on most important issues.

.

 

[savagewind]

Also I do think works are VERY important and beleive many of our churches and Christians are dropping the ball by being stingy with love and assistance to those on 'skid row' the addicted the very poor etc. I include myself in that as well , but again I don't think salvation depends on works at all. I do beleive repentance** and accepting Jesus as our savior* is mandatory.

Do you believe like many do that Matthew 25:31-46 is about anyone in need and not about Jesus' other sheep?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

God's grace is efficacious for all. God will save every person.

Do you have supporting scripture for that claim? I would like to beleive it but I don't. Verses such as the wages of sin is death and many others show that there may not be a burning hell for humans but those that are not saved are headed towards Sheol, which means 'the grave' among other things. I am currently researching scripture etc regarding Sheol. It may not be the end ie true death and absence of God. That said I am open minded and have changed my mind my life etc if there is reason for that change, so I would be interested in reading your sources etc that led you the belief that everyone will be saved.

Ecclesiastes 9:10
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going."

 

[savagewind]

Do you believe like many do that Matthew 25:31-46 is about anyone in need and not about Jesus' other sheep?

Like me?

 

[Glaurung]

I'm not baptized. Am I not technically a Christian? Doesn't it state in the Bible that Xians must be baptized? Do you believe that?

The traditional view is that baptism is necessary for salvation. However there are notable Protestant sects which reject that.

Are you a Christian? Depends on whom you ask. In my view deliberately refusing baptism renders whatever Christian faith held as unsalvific.

 

[sojourner]

Right and I agree. He is the shepherd who knows the way. To follow him is to do good to him and those who belong to him. To deny him is to deny the least of his brothers. Matthew 25:31-46 I am sorry that I can't believe that everyone is his family. Mark 3:35

I think there's a deeper meaning. I hear you saying that to deny Christ is to deny love. I turn it around. To deny Christ is to deny love. You're saying that accepting Christ is the true objective, and that love will follow. I say that love is the true objective, and that love is what Christ embodies. Whether we formally "accept Christ" is immaterial. What's important is that we "live love." To live love is to live the life of love that Jesus lived.

 

[sojourner]

However one can love but still not be a christian.

Correct. But the identity of being a follower of Jesus is secondary to the foundational identity of being a creature of love.

Jesus laid out a path of law and other things we should do for salvation as well as love our fellow man.

And that path hinges on two things: 1) loving God, 2) loving neighbor as oneself.

I am sorry my friend I do not understand why you are so opposed to a mantle. Many people have a problem with labels and I do too, when they are misused. They can be weapons used to harm. However some words are necessary for basic communication. Maybe I am missing something or misunderstanding you. That said I think you and I are very close in our beliefs on most important issues.

Because I think that "being a Christian" is secondary to "being a creature of love." Jesus is the way, the truth, the life. That, to me, has very little to do with "believing in Jesus," or "accepting Jesus." "Belief" and "acceptance" are metaphorical ways of saying that Jesus' way is the way of love, that Jesus' truth is the truth of love, and that Jesus' life is the life of love. Any time we love, we believe in what Jesus taught and lived for. Any time we love, we accept the one thing Jesus thought most important. Jesus isn't the object, but the avatar. There are any number of avatars that can show us the love Jesus wanted us to experience.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Do you believe like many do that Matthew 25:31-46 is about anyone in need and not about Jesus' other sheep?

Actually I haven't gave the verse too much consideration! My favorite bible is the apocalyptic writings, this Matt. verse you referenced is parable. Are you asking if Christians should minister to everyone? If so yes, we should minster to those with the most sin first if possible. But if you are asking about the verse specifically, I think it has two meanings and is in parable. The main thing Jesus was doing was demonstrating that our love of Jesus is shown by loving and serving others. See John 15:12

Jesus did not use the parable to show that works are enough for salvation. He was demonstrating some people act like they love God and have a relationship with him by discussing correct things, obeying the commandants but never really changed their life. They don't love others as themselves and Jesus has loved us. This type of parable is repeated in other areas of the bible. Examples; James 2:26, John 4:19. Leviticus 19:18. There is more to this scripture but have I answered your question?