What is faith without works and is baptism necessary?

[waitasec]

He was certainly telling the truth to that rich young ruler.

a passage joel osteen ignores...

 

[Strength & Honor]

I don't think it's up to us to decide why God cares about something or to decide that we don't think He's justified in requiring it. Through Jesus Christ's words and example, we know that's what God expects of us.

Thinking about the question of "Why does God care about baptism?" almways makes me think of the story of Naaman. Baptism is not about getting into water, it's about (at least, in part) obedience.

 

[Strength & Honor]

Acts 8 has two people going down into the water...however, nothing is said of him being 'dunked' as done today (by some).

But Romans 6 and Colossians 2 both refer to baptism as a burial (being completely covered).

how do you know that when Jesus told a set group of people that they must be baptized to be saved, it was a general instruction for all of humanity and not a specific instruction for those individual people?

He told the Apostles to make disciples of all antions by baptising them - hardly a command for a specific group of people.

 

[Katzpur]

Thinking about the question of "Why does God care about baptism?" almways makes me think of the story of Naaman. Baptism is not about getting into water, it's about (at least, in part) obedience.

You are absolutely right about that.

 

[james2ko]

a passage joel osteen ignores...

It's no wonder. Although he may be sincere, he's just as blinded as the rest of mainstream Christianity.

 

[Green Kepi]

But Romans 6 and Colossians 2 both refer to baptism as a burial (being completely covered).

Where did I say that its not considered a burial? The early Christians stood in the water, with hands held out, naked, and actually submerged themselves 3 times by going straight up and down. If you think I'm 'full-of-bull' on this...check the history of it out. It was done, somewhat as the Jews conducted it (during that era)...that is until the service of baptism was changed with someone else assisting submerge the person being baptized....

 

[Katzpur]

Where did I say that its not considered a burial? The early Christians stood in the water, with hands held out, naked, and actually submerged themselves 3 times by going straight up and down. If you think I'm 'full-of-bull' on this...check the history of it out. It was done, somewhat as the Jews conducted it (during that era)...that is until the service of baptism was changed with someone else assisting submerge the person being baptized....

Matthew 3:13-15 says, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."

To me, it's absolutely clear that (1) Jesus went to John to request that he (John) baptize Him (Jesus), (2) John questioned Him, asking if it shouldn't be the other way around (i.e. Jesus baptizing John), (3) Jesus explaining that what He was asking John to do was what the Father wanted, and (4) John baptizing Jesus. Nowhere in any of the gospel accounts is there any indication that Jesus submerged Himself 3 times.

Baptism is an ordinance requiring authority from God to perform. That's why Jesus sought out John. It is not someone decides to do by submerging himself, and it's not something just anybody can do for someone else. It is also to be done by immersion. We have a very specific example given to us by none other than the Savior Himself. Who cares how anybody else performed this ordinance when we know how God expected it to be done?

 

[Green Kepi]

Again...check the history. It had to be witnessed by another. Jesus sought out John to witness the baptism....

 

[Katzpur]

Again...check the history.

The history is found in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

It had to be witnessed by another. Jesus sought out John to witness the baptism....

I never said there didn't have to be witnesses. There were obviously witnesses. Otherwise, who was God speaking to when He spoke from Heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"? Everyone who heard those words, whether it was one person or one hundred people, was a witness. My reading of the passage (regardless of which of the gospels I go to) is about as straightforward as it comes. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Jesus sought out John as a witness. He sought Him out to be baptized by him. Read it any way you want. That's what the words say.

 

[Strength & Honor]

There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Jesus sought out John as a witness. He sought Him out to be baptized by him. Read it any way you want. That's what the words say.

I'm glad I can agree with a Mormon on at least ONE thing!

Also, the Ethiopian was baptised by Phillip (Acts 8:38). Paul also said that he baptized people (1 Cor. 1:14). These, too, were more than just witnesses, they were participants.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm glad I can agree with a Mormon on at least ONE thing!

LOL! I have a feeling we could agree on more than a few things.

 

[ellenjanuary]

In the Pauline perspective...

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


Romans 6:3-5; 3:27-31

The purification ritual of baptism is elevated when the Holy Spirit is personified in the Christ; in that death of the flesh, of the carnal, frees one from the wages of sin to walk in spirit, worthy to come before the presence of God. Establishing the law of faith (without works) enables the Gentiles accessibility to God's sufficient grace.

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 2:24-28

The scope of Paul's vision was to bring God to the Gentiles, where God was previously blasphemed; and make God readily accessibly through baptism of the Holy Spirit and the law of faith. Yet it wasn't quite about bringing God to men so much as bringing men to God. In unity, spiritually as Israelites.

What seems to be overlooked in evaluating works, is that the ministry of Paul is a doorway, not the whole house. It is a gateway to the presence of God, not the antechamber of the mansion of God. If one merely accepts the Spirit in ritual, and then goes off thinking he or she is "saved;" it seems quite clear there will come a reckoning, when one is taught the difference between a key, and a kingdom.

 

[Green Kepi]

Let me see if I can clarify myself...I guess I came across as implying that it had to be done by an individual and not by anyone else...that's not what I meant to say. All I was trying to say was that there are records of some continuing the tradition of submerging themselves like the proselytes did. Yes...as far as we know...John actually touched Him and lowered Him under the water (it does say..."He came straight up out of the water"); however, there is an old sketch in the catacombs which show John on the bank, helping Jesus out of the water. Does it matter as long as one follows the example of the dead, burial, and resurrection by going down into the water? Besides...who baptized John...or was he? The Bible doesn't say. Either way...I believe that baptism is essential for and to salvation....

 

[Katzpur]

...however, there is an old sketch in the catacombs which show John on the bank, helping Jesus out of the water.

I'm just curious... in this sketch, does John's clothing appear to be wet or dry? Or is it even possible to tell?

Does it matter as long as one follows the example of the dead, burial, and resurrection by going down into the water?

Personally, I believe it does. I believe the following about baptism:
1. In order for the baptism to have any effect, the person receiving the ordinance must have repented of his sins and have come to accept that Jesus Christ is his Savior.
2. The baptism must be my immersion.
3. The baptism must be done in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
3. The person performing the baptism must hold the authority to do so.

Besides...who baptized John...or was he? The Bible doesn't say.

True, the Bible doesn't say, but according to my belief, he would have had to not only have been baptized, but he would have had to hold the priesthood of Aaron in order to be baptizing other people.

Either way...I believe that baptism is essential for and to salvation....

So do I.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would He require one group of people to be baptized and not another, particularly since it's not a difficult commandment to obey?

I don't know, but I think the answer depends on what we assume about what baptism was supposed to accomplish.

The last thing He told His Apostles before ascending into Heaven was, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

... if you go by the Gospel of Matthew. Going by the Gospel of Luke, the last thing he told his disciples to do was to stay in Jerusalem. Going by John, the last thing he said was to Peter, telling him "follow me".

Going by the long ending of Mark, he says weird stuff about handling snakes and driving out demons... though personally, I put even less stock in the long ending of Mark than I do in the Gospels generally.

That sounds to me like the "set group of people" that was supposed to be baptized was "all nations."

Hmm.

If anything in the Gospels sounds like a command to all people, I think it's this passage from John 13:

12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

IMO, Jesus' command to engage in ritual foot-washing is much clearer than any command to baptize.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just on the subject of John 13...

Do you think that this passage from earlier in the chapter is an allusion to baptism?

6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”
7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”
8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”
Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”
9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”
10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

If so, what do you think the overall message is?


On the one hand, "unless I wash you, you have no part with me" seems to suggest the necessity of baptism. OTOH, the bit about how if you're already clean (which I think refers to either conduct or character, since Judas' betrayal is mentioned in this context) seems to suggest that baptism isn't necessary (except for the feet? ) if you're a good person.


What does everyone think? Is the passage even talking about baptism?

 

[Katzpur]

I don't know, but I think the answer depends on what we assume about what baptism was supposed to accomplish.

Since it's referred to multiple times as "baptism of repentence for the remission of sins," I'm gussing it had something to do with the remission of sins. That said, I would have to add that from the LDS perspective, the ordinance of baptism is a symbolic cleansing, but it is also the means by which a person enters into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. So, it's a matter of being cleansed from both prior and future sins, contigent upon continued faith and obedience.

... if you go by the Gospel of Matthew. Going by the Gospel of Luke, the last thing he told his disciples to do was to stay in Jerusalem. Going by John, the last thing he said was to Peter, telling him "follow me".

Actually, Mark says that the last instruction Jesus gave His Apostles was: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Luke doesn't even cover the forty day period of time that Jesus spent with His Apostles after His initial appearance, so it really doesn't make much sense to even look to it for His instructions with respect to baptism.

IMO, Jesus' command to engage in ritual foot-washing is much clearer than any command to baptize.

I can't buy that, at least not in a literal sense. I think Jesus was commanding His followers to serve one another, and I agree that He wanted us to continue to do so today. Anciently, foot-washing would be one way in which a person could serve another. But washing one another's feet nowadays? Nah.

 

[Uldin]

Faith and works is a subject that has divided Christians for centuries. A hard-core Catholic will tell you that to go to heaven, you must be baptized, go to mass, go on a pilgrimage, take communion, be buried in Christian land, and lots of other rituals. On the other hand, the extremely liberal Protestant will tell you that faith...and nothing else matters, that you can do basically do whatever you want, so long as you believe in Christ.
I think both are wrong, and this is how I take it. As said in the parable of the goats and the sheep, God will not separate the Christians from the Non-Christians, but the righteous from the non-righteous. So where does faith play a role, and how does one become righteous? By following the example and the teachings of Yeshua. You see, faith as described by the Bible is not 'passive', but 'active'. Having 'faith' in Yeshua doesn't mean sitting back and saying "Yes I believe in him, now leave me alone please." THAT would be too easy. It's about following his way. Why do you think Yeshua insisted so much on letting go of everything else to follow him? (" Lord, let me bury my father first" "Let the dead bury their dead and follow me".
I do believe that people are able of following this way (and thus being saved) without knowing him (Gandhi?). Look at the Good Samaritan, his religious views were probably unorthodox, did that make him unrighteous? Still, I consider that since we Christians have the true Word of God with us (the Bible), in a way we 'escape' judgement because we've been told how to be righteous. That said, Christians who DON'T follow Yeshua will be judged severely (remember the parable of the two slaves and the lashes? The one who knew more than the other receives more lashes. Also, Yeshua says that before he spoke to them, the Pharisees were not sinners).
If you have trouble with this, my advice to you is that you just leave it to God. None of us can understand how flawless his judgement will be, and we must put all our trust into him. Remember, he knows what he's doing, and knows what is just.
So just acknolwedge that He embodies Justice and Wisdom, and do your best to follow Messiah. Remember also that even if you're having a hard time, God knows your heart and your intentions.

 

[james2ko]

Just on the subject of John 13...Do you think that this passage from earlier in the chapter is an allusion to baptism? On the one hand, "unless I wash you, you have no part with me" seems to suggest the necessity of baptism. OTOH, the bit about how if you're already clean (which I think refers to either conduct or character, since Judas' betrayal is mentioned in this context) seems to suggest that baptism isn't necessary (except for the feet? ) if you're a good person. What does everyone think? Is the passage even talking about baptism?

The ceremony has several implications. Christians are "bathed"--made perfectly clean--at baptism (Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Revelation 1:5). The foot washing acts as a yearly renewal of our baptism, our commitment to living God's way of life. As Jesus told Peter in vs 10, we do not need to be fully immersed again to renew our vow--to be recleansed from sin; we need only to have our feet washed to remove the dirt and dust we collect in our walk through life. It was for this reason that Jesus insisted that Peter allow Him to wash his feet (John 13:6-9) and instructed His servants to do the same today (vs 13-14)

If so, what do you think the overall message is?

First century Jewish custom delegated the task of washing guests dust-ridden feet to the lowliest of servants. By performing this act, Christ implies a level of humble service extending beyond the realm of simply removing dirt --to the way His servants would live their lives. If Christ extended and humbled Himself to perform the work of the lowliest servant, they had to be willing to do the same --even if it meant laying down their lives. The eleven loyal disciples went on to become apostles and, with the exception of John, eventually laid down their lives.

 

[Green Kepi]

I'm just curious... in this sketch, does John's clothing appear to be wet or dry? Or is it even possible to tell?

Personally, I believe it does. I believe the following about baptism:
1. In order for the baptism to have any effect, the person receiving the ordinance must have repented of his sins and have come to accept that Jesus Christ is his Savior.
2. The baptism must be my immersion.
3. The baptism must be done in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
3. The person performing the baptism must hold the authority to do so.

True, the Bible doesn't say, but according to my belief, he would have had to not only have been baptized, but he would have had to hold the priesthood of Aaron in order to be baptizing other people.

So do I.

Why does the person actually doing the baptism have to "have the authority to do so"? Why would that matter? God's doing the cleaning, not the other person. Besides...from where does one get the authority to approve or disapprove anyone? Scriptures do not address this....