It's a very complicated formula that includes Bible school performance, ability to follow directions, acknowledgement of crushing existential guilt and self-loathing, ability to properly be overwhelmed with fear of eternal burning hellfire, and being able to hold your breath for approximately 5 seconds. Secondary factors account for generational immaturity, peer pressure, and grandstanding.

So basically the same the process that determines when cheese is mature enough for Cheez-its

The anabaptists, at least, brought baptism back into the church. I think baptism had become a largely civic event where the church had very little to do with it anymore. Everyone got baptized like they got birth certificates. It might not have been the worst thing to attach it to faith again. It's been a bunch of years since I looked at it though and don't remember the specifics.

But, you can't say grace alone if there is something that we have to to to earn it. What if you didn't really "accept" in the right way? What if you didn't really believe hard enough? I like the side that God is doing all the work in baptism and not me.

There was a story from a non-infant baptizing pastor and he was having a conversation with his mother on her death bed. She asked him flat out if she had done enough when she made that alter call. Apparently she came to faith much later in life when he was already a pastor or old enough to remember it. His response was, "of course mom." But she had attached her salvation to that alter call and her profession of faith and she had doubts that it would be enough. Did she have "saving faith"?

That's why it's important to me on who is doing the work in baptism. I like it on the side of grace.



(I know I don't post much on this board, but I looked after the Lakeland thread on the Politics board and you were kicking around the Lutheran tires, so I wanted to give my 2 cents)

Also welcome!

FriscoKid said:

---

The anabaptists, at least, brought baptism back into the church. I think baptism had become a largely civic event where the church had very little to do with it anymore. Everyone got baptized like they got birth certificates. It might not have been the worst thing to attach it to faith again. It's been a bunch of years since I looked at it though and don't remember the specifics.

But, you can't say grace alone if there is something that we have to to to earn it. What if you didn't really "accept" in the right way? What if you didn't really believe hard enough? I like the side that God is doing all the work in baptism and not me.

There was a story from a non-infant baptizing pastor and he was having a conversation with his mother on her death bed. She asked him flat out if she had done enough when she made that alter call. Apparently she came to faith much later in life when he was already a pastor or old enough to remember it. His response was, "of course mom." But she had attached her salvation to that alter call and her profession of faith and she had doubts that it would be enough. Did she have "saving faith"?

That's why it's important to me on who is doing the work in baptism. I like it on the side of grace.



(I know I don't post much on this board, but I looked after the Lakeland thread on the Politics board and you were kicking around the Lutheran tires, so I wanted to give my 2 cents)

---

I, and most "serious" Christians have struggled with this my whole life. I know in my mind I am saved by grace and have faith yet I always wonder if I have "done enough". A guy in my Friday morning Bible study said something I like "With your baptism, you are declared righteous". In other words, you still will fall short and be perplexed about how much you have to do, but you are still declared righteous. And I am convinced that the whole guilt and anxiety brought about by wondering what we "have to do" comes from Satan. Makes us get out of step and rest with the Lord which is where I think we are most useful for the Kingdom.

Well, I have become convinced it is a journey and not a binary event where you are "saved" and that is it. And journeys are better with others than by yourself. Also removes a large portion of the fear factor.

So many evangelical churches seem to put so much emphasis on "saving" people that they neglect the journey after justification. I am now secure in my faith but need to continue the journey.

dermdoc said:

---

Well, I have become convinced it is a journey and not a binary event where you are "saved" and that is it. And journeys are better with others than by yourself. Also removes a large portion of the fear factor.

So many evangelical churches seem to put so much emphasis on "saving" people that they neglect the journey after justification. I am now secure in my faith but need to continue the journey.

---

A lot of times the hardest part of that journey is after someone is saved....Temptation, guilt, worry etc..all seem to become worse because now we are "knowledgeable" and "should know better "...Maybe it's part of being "tested"?? I honestly don't know....

I personally think it is Satan. He wants what he can't have.

I believe that I haven't done enough. And I'm good with that.


That's the point in who is doing the work in salvation.

Agree. Notice I said continue the journey. We all have our role to play and I think we do it best when we are in step with the Holy Spirit. Almost sounds like theosis.

And edited to add that since I am OCD and struggle with scrupulosity it is harder for me to determine "how much" I am supposed to do.

Great thread, Swim.

Ok, born and raised Campbell style CoC here, so we were the poster child of baptism being required for salvation.

I no longer hold this view. I am pretty open / unorthodox here.

I can see both sides of this conversation. I really like the description above as Paedo = opt out; Credo = opt in.

I still lean towards the Credo view. I think that baptism is a beautiful confession of faith and symbol of what salvation means in Christ. A child cannot confess faith. One other point is that Jesus was baptized as an adult, and John the Baptist proclaimed that he should be baptized by Jesus. So, even if Paedo is practiced, why not Credo as well?

However, I am very sympathetic with K2's view of salvation happening as a family unit. Dedicating your child to a lifetime relationship with God at birth is also a beautiful thing. Dedicating a family unit to God can be powerful for everyone involved. I don't see why baptism would be inappropriate for this type of commitment.

Also, baptism wasn't really a new invention brought to us by John. The Jewish tradition is to have a place for ritual purification through water. Leviticus requires ritual purification, as does the oral jewish tradition. The place for ritual cleansing through immersion for Jews was the mikvehs, which were often built before even the synagogues were when Jews migrated to a new place. We witness miracles in these pools during Jesus ministry. The OT traditions of circumcision and animal sacrifice fell away, but baptism persisted, even though it took on a new, more important meaning. John taught a baptism of repentance for remission of sins, but, in my mind, it is hard to separate the context of Jewish immersion for ritual cleansing during Jesus ministry when looking at the importance of baptism today.

I guess where I come out on this is probably more in line with churches in the great awakening period. I wouldn't mind seeing lines of believers headed back down the river (think Oh Brother Whereart Thou) periodically to confess your faith again, and remind eachother of the state of salvation that we are in, especially in situations where you have people returning to the church after a period of struggle. Of course, the largest argument against this is the discussion in Acts 19, where there was some consideration whether or not the men in Ephasis needed to be baptized again. It is clear that they needed to be baptized into the name of Jesus, even though they had received John's baptism. One might infer that this means that only one baptism is ever really helpful, and should only happen once, but I'm not sure that might be reading too much into the text.

Net, net, I'm not sure it matters all that much when, but it is very, very important, clearly commanded, and can be a very beautiful and powerful symbol for all that participate and witness.

Black flagged on the last lap.

Sorry, you prefer antitype? Probably the best word there, just an awkward one to type at 11:00pm.

Agree. We are born again as the Holy Spirit enters us.

That is one aspect where I think Buddhism is superior. It is a journey and a slow ascension to enlightenment.

With Christianity, if there really is a hell then simply being saved from it is at the utmost important priority. So you don't advance much beyond that? Who cares? That would be like saying, after a world famous heart surgeon saved your life from a situation where you had 1% chance to live, the stitching could have been a little more straight...

Quote:

---

Asking the question "Do I have to be baptized to be saved" is a little like someone saying "Do I have to kiss my wife when I am married? Just asking the question indicates that something is a little off. The repeated pattern of the New Testament is believe and be baptized.

I do not see baptism as necessary for salvation, any more than I see consistent Bible reading, praying, or sharing one's faith necessary for salvation. However, those are things we do because we are saved, not to create salvation.

My advice for new believers is to be baptized as soon as possible. I was baptized in obedience to Christ.

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

That is one aspect where I think Buddhism is superior. It is a journey and a slow ascension to enlightenment.

With Christianity, if there really is a hell then simply being saved from it is at the utmost important priority. So you don't advance much beyond that? Who cares? That would be like saying, after a world famous heart surgeon saved your life from a situation where you had 1% chance to live, the stitching could have been a little more straight...

---

I don't agree with your view on atonement / sanctification in Christianity, but it is an old conversation that is not worth digging back up.

Also, I don't even view Buddhism as a religion, but a philosophy. Basically, Buddhism teaches you that if you don't really have strong feelings about anything or anyone, you won't ever feel a sense of loss. In the best case, you trade a life that is a combination of joy, passion and mourning for a life of constant contentment.

Not my cup of tea.

It's more about being in control of your feelings.

I don't subscribe to Buddhism, but I appreciate a religious point of view that looks towards continual growth without any threat of "getting it wrong" and being eternally punished.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Not a symbol, it's a mystery, a means by which we partake of grace and the divine nature. It actually does something. Symbols don't do anything, they just represent things.

---

I get your point. I also agree that it is a mystery.

I'm not sure that your definition of symbol, or symbolic, in this case, I agree with, but we are just getting into semantics.

My marriage to my wife is symbolic of Christ's relationship to the church, but it is more than just a symbol. The problem is people get hung up on the word symbol, because so many people teach that baptism is "just a symbol".

It obviously is not. You participate in Christ's burial and resurrection in baptism. It's tough to understand what that really means. I agree with that.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

It's more about being in control of your feelings.

---

There are lots of different sects of Buddhism, so it is tough to generalize, but the teaching of avoiding attachment is pretty universal. If you don't get attached to something, you won't mourn when it is gone.

I'm sorry, but I'm plainly happy with feelings of attachment to my loved ones, and mourning when they are eventually gone is a positive part of life, and a superior life view, in my opinion.

Siddartha was looking for a state of existence that he was in as a young boy, when his father shut him inside of the walls of the castle and hid from him the word and didn't expose him to the cruelties of life.

His answer to that journey was to just put up walls around your heart, so that the cruelties of life don't hurt so much.

Hard pass.

Agree. That is not really living IMHO.

BusterAg said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

It's more about being in control of your feelings.

---

There are lots of different sects of Buddhism, so it is tough to generalize, but the teaching of avoiding attachment is pretty universal. If you don't get attached to something, you won't mourn when it is gone.

I'm sorry, but I'm plainly happy with feelings of attachment to my loved ones, and mourning when they are eventually gone is a positive part of life, and a superior life view, in my opinion.

Siddartha was looking for a state of existence that he was in as a young boy, when his father shut him inside of the walls of the castle and hid from him the word and didn't expose him to the cruelties of life.

His answer to that journey was to just put up walls around your heart, so that the cruelties of life don't hurt so much.

Hard pass.

---

Isn't the point of Buddhism to take the "middle path" between extreme worldliness and extreme asceticism? Siddharta (at least in the Herman Hesse version ) doesn't know how to deal with the reality of suffering, so he attempts to live at the extremes but then finally settles in the middle.

So I think a Buddhist would say that the point is not to avoid emotions or scrub them from your life, but to understand and be mindful of emotions and avoid becoming 'attached' to emotions, which will invariably ebb and flow.

Even Buddhists laugh and weep at weddings, funerals, and other life events, and have special celebrations for those events.

As far as a path of spiritual development which 79 references, there are definitely some contact points between Buddhism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but ultimately I believe in God and I believe that I have a self , so I'm not Buddhist.

This is not at all how I understand Buddhism and it certainly doesn't match with the empirical evidence on meditation and the mystical experiences they produce. Enlightenment is far from a state of contentment. Meditation produces the most intense experiences of joy one can possibly imagine. I would argue that one actually can't imagine what they are like.

If you have read the fathers on the passions and how we must free ourselves of them that is how I understand attachment and craving from Buddhism.

This question about growth is why I became Orthodox. Orthodoxy has a specific, taught answer for what we're supposed to do once we enter the Church and it is essentially about our path of "growth."

This is more musing than discussion and it's not disagreement.

I'm not sure a mystery is something thats hard to understand. I mean the word means "secret." I think they are in some sense inexplicable but not because what they say is non-sense but because its so far beyond what we see or expect from day to day experience. But these secrets were revealed to us.

So when we participate or share in (lit. have communion with) Christ's burial and resurrection that this should be done is both counter to normal sense, that it even can be done is even more difficult. And that by dying He and we live is simply paradox. it is not hard to understand in a formulaic way, but it is hard to accept.

https://t.co/pWPDkzfhdj

Really really good