The Answer That Just Makes Sense

[Katzpur]

Also, didn't Christ die to forgive our sins..... so why is baptism still needed?

Of course Christ died that we might be forgiven for our sins. But baptism is still needed for one very important reason: He requires it of us. Without His atoning sacrifice, baptism would be a pointless ritual. It would serve no purpose whatsoever. But the fact is, Jesus did die that we might be reconciled to God. The reconciliation, however, is not automatic. It requires (1) that we have faith in Him, (2) that we repent of our sins and (3) that we enter into a covenant relationship with Him, and promise to love and obey Him. Baptism is the means by which this third step is accomplished. It is a symbolic cleansing and rebirth, but the fact that it is symbolic does not change the fact that it is a requirement for entrance into God's Kingdom. If it were not essential, Christ would not have been baptized Himself. But He was, and the reason He said He needed baptism was "to fulfill all righteousness." In other words, He did it out of obedience His Father, even though He was without sin.

So if you are not baptised you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? Doesn't that make baptism the most important thing then? Or is there a scripture that contradicts this and says that professing your allegance to Jesus is the only way in and not baptism?

Well, according to the Bible, and in Jesus' own words, it is a requirement, and not simply something we do as an outward show of commitment. Baptism is important because it is a commandment. When it gets right down to it, that's the only reason for it. Could God have permitted anyone to enter into Heaven, baptized or not? Of course He could, but that apparently was not the way He wrote the rules. The fact that we must be obedient to those rules in no way lessens the wonder and beauty of the Atonement, because in the end, it is the Atonement that saves us. Baptism is merely the way that we choose to demonstrate to God that we are willing to walk the Christian walk. If there are any scriptures that contradict the ones Polaris and I have mentioned, I am certainly not familiar with them.

So baptism to repent and have remission of our sins is more important than Jesus and his actions? Afterall, even he preached we must do so..... right?

Again, absolutely not. Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of those individuals who have covenanted to keep His Father's commandments. Baptism is merely one of those commandments. As the scriptures tell us, "...he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:9)

 

[A4B4]

Okay, here's what I've gathered. Christian baptism is believed to have its roots in the Jewish cleaning ritual Mikvah. Mikvah was used to clean up after dealing with the sick, dead, or after a woman had her period, and so forth, all before one could enter the temple. There were also certain requirements for Mikvah, such as it could only be in a pool of a certain size, or it must be a spring or river, or a device used to catch rainwater. The "unclean" conditions which Mikvah would follow are (obviously) outlined in Jewish law.

Although Christians do still follow certain Jewish laws, the laws declaring one unclean aren't still followed, to the best of my knowledge. Anymore, many of these conditions are common sense--wash your hands after dealing with someone who's sick, etc. In that sense, most everyone who has access to be clean is clean, Christian or not.

The actual meaning of the Jewish laws, as they pertain to Christians, is debated. Are Christians still accountable to all these laws? Or do these laws no longer apply since Jesus came?

As most Christians probably believe the latter, I'll focus on that. If Jesus really was the threshold of the old covenant to the new covenant, then shouldn't he abide by both covenants? Thus, as the Jews would expect to see Jesus baptized by their standards, so he was.

Now consider the fragment Oxyrhynchus 840, which you can find at Gospels.net. In this, a Pharisee accuses Jesus of not washing before entering the temple (Mikvah, I'm assuming). You can read Jesus' entire response online, but he does say: "But my disciples and I, whom you say have not washed, we have washed in waters of eternal life that come from the God of heaven."

If this fragment is true to what Jesus said, then we see water does not have to be the scientific Dihydrogen Monoxide, but instead can be symbolic.

Thus, I wonder if John 3:5 is talking about a physical or spiritual baptism, with regards to the "born in water." In fact, it almost seems the concept of baptism has been blown out of proportion--from a washing ritual to a divine condition necessary for salvation. Perhaps it is just talking about being spiritually clean before we enter into Heaven and/or the Paradise Earth. I don't see how cleaning ourself physically will make us any cleaner in the hereafter. It seems the only baptism which could transcend the bounds of life is spiritual. Being reborn in the resurrection seems to be the most fitting baptism, particularly if you're beliefs coincide with the Witness's over the 1,000 year cleansing education which will immediately follow the resurrection preparing us for Heaven or the Paradise Earth (although Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in baptising their members in water).

Now granted, Oxyrhynchus 840 may not be divinely inspired, whereupon we can agree to disagree. And I'm not sure what to make of the fact that herein Jesus does not follow Jewish law, yet previously (when he was baptised) he did, unless the baptism was the rebirth of one covenant to another. Really though, I'm unsure about this.

But so much of what Jesus says is symbolic that I have trouble discerning which baptism really is. It seems a decent case can be made in support of either conclusion, therefore historically I've turned to outside resources, wherein the Qur'an--which states its purpose is to verify the Bible--does not require baptism; I have thus shaped my beliefs.

 

[Katzpur]

The actual meaning of the Jewish laws, as they pertain to Christians, is debated. Are Christians still accountable to all these laws? Or do these laws no longer apply since Jesus came?

As most Christians probably believe the latter, I'll focus on that. If Jesus really was the threshold of the old covenant to the new covenant, then shouldn't he abide by both covenants? Thus, as the Jews would expect to see Jesus baptized by their standards, so he was.

Yes, but He told His Apostles to baptize all those who were converted to His Gospel. It just seems so straightforward to me that I have a pretty hard time trying to interpret His commandment to mean something than what it appears to mean.

Thus, I wonder if John 3:5 is talking about a physical or spiritual baptism, with regards to the "born in water." In fact, it almost seems the concept of baptism has been blown out of proportion--from a washing ritual to a divine condition necessary for salvation.

And to me, when people try to say, well it's not really necessary, even though Jesus said it was, doesn't make sense. Far from blowing this commandment out of proportion, huge numbers of Christians simply try to rationalize it away. In my opinion, the reason they do so is clear: It's not so much that they see no need for it for themselves, they just can't conceive of a God who would deny someone entrance to Heaven for having failed to meet this seemingly mundane requirement. But the point of this thread is that Jesus said this is precisely what's going to happen. So how can God follow through with what He said He would do and still be merciful? Polaris's position (and mine) is that He can and has devised a plan whereby everyone who accepts Jesus Christ's Gospel can receive this ordinance.

Perhaps it is just talking about being spiritually clean before we enter into Heaven and/or the Paradise Earth. I don't see how cleaning ourself physically will make us any cleaner in the hereafter. It seems the only baptism which could transcend the bounds of life is spiritual. Being reborn in the resurrection seems to be the most fitting baptism, particularly if you're beliefs coincide with the Witness's over the 1,000 year cleansing education which will immediately follow the resurrection preparing us for Heaven or the Paradise Earth (although Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in baptising their members in water).

It's not a physical cleansing; it's a spiritual cleansing even though it's an earthly ordinance. It's the way we enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. Yes, it's symbolic, but it is not optional -- unless you try to reinterpret what the scriptures plainly say and what Jesus Christ plainly did himself.

But so much of what Jesus says is symbolic that I have trouble discerning which baptism really is. It seems a decent case can be made in support of either conclusion, therefore historically I've turned to outside resources, wherein the Qur'an--which states its purpose is to verify the Bible--does not require baptism; I have thus shaped my beliefs.

Well, as a Latter-day Saint, I can hardly say that any source other than the Bible is flawed. That would make me a hypocrite of monumental proportions. I don't personally refer to the Qur'an for answers, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that I might not find some there. I didn't actually realize that the purpose of the Qur'an is to verify the Bible. Would that be the Old Testament only, or also the New Testament? I don't know a lot about the Qur'an, but I have a kind of a hard time imagining that it would be verifying the New Testament which states conclusively that Jesus is the Christ, and not merely another prophet. The purpose of the Book of Mormon, incidentally, is also to stand as a companion volume to the Bible, to literally stand as a second witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ and to provide additional evidence of the truths that the Bible teaches.