Quote:

---

I am not assuming that baptism can't be used metaphorically. I am saying that when the Lord or the Apostles talk about baptizing people into Christ they are talking about the Holy Mystery or sacrament of Baptism.

The clearest example of your mistake is already cited here - 1 Cor 1. If teaching people the Gospel and making disciples of them is "baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" then what St Paul says doesn't make any sense:

---

Literally the words means "Immersed"

8 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing (immersing) them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

How do you immerse someone in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit? You teach them all Jesus has commanded.

I think there are 2 parts of this. There's water baptism and there's immersing them in the name. I personally think it's a both/and here vs and either or with the 2 interpretive options.

The verse you mention above. Preaching the gospel is a priority over baptizing.

Quote:

---

When St Paul talks about baptism into Moses he is linking the new with the old, the sign with the reality - in this case the imagery of going through the sea with the baptism of the Church.

---

To this point I don't think he's linking baptism of believers (Church) to Moses and the sea. I think he's simply using a common word (baptize) which means immersed in a generic sense.

For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.

Being baptized into the sea is water but distinct from being baptized into Moses, and the cloud (not water)

Quote:

---

I wrote: Quote:
To clarify my position, once a person believes in Jesus, they receive the Holy Spirit or are baptized (not by water) into Christ, His death, and resurrection, into the body of believers. One act of obedience after that point is to be baptized publicly (with water). Failure to be baptized in water doesn't mean one has not been baptized into Christ.

Quote:

---

You wrote: And yet nowhere can you point to this happening in the scripture. Belief is not baptism.
And yet nowhere can you point to this happening in the scripture. Belief is not baptism.

To be sure receiving the Holy Spirit does not have an identity relationship with baptism either. Receiving the Holy Spirit is not baptism.

Baptism is baptism. Hence the Ethiopian Eunuch asking St Philip - "Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?" St Philip didn't say "haha silly you're already baptized, the water is just a symbol.

---

---

Belief is not baptism. Belief is the moment a person is "baptized into Christ"


Matt 3:11"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Acts 19:2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

John 7:38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvationhaving also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason - because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.



//////

Away with your theological novum.

How do you immerse someone in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit? The exact same way the Church has always done it, as the apostles taught.

"Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

Pretty great podcast on baptism

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7er97JsogozBK4v2fXtcY5?si=VBgaNRuWR2qtn87i03ccpw

Grew up CoC and even the more "liberal" ones likely have a theological note on their website that says the act of baptism saves you. But if you ask most CoCers what the difference is between them and Baptists, they will say instruments.

Let's hope no one is in a car accident on the way to church and haven't taken communion yet....

aggiesherpa said:

---

Let's hope no one is in a car accident on the way to church and haven't taken communion yet....

---

That theology is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

All the great sermons in the NT by Jesus, Paul, and Peter never, ever mentioned anything like that.

And there were no altar calls after any of their sermons. Or asking anyone to recite the Sinner's Prayer.

Yes I agree. My apologies for not clearly denoting the sarcasm, as it was something I heard quite a bit growing up as CofC.

aggiesherpa said:

---

Yes I agree. My apologies for not clearly denoting the sarcasm, as it was something I heard quite a bit growing up as CofC.

---

No worries. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church which basically taught that same theology.

I always read Paul's sermon on Mars Hill and compare to hellfire and brimstone Western evangelism.

Where did we go so wrong?

powerbelly said:

---

I don't think any denominations hold that salvation is impossible without baptism.

---

The Catholic Church teaches that being infused with the grace of the holy spirit is a requisite, which is what happens through Baptism. However, there are ways to be infused with grace other than that which is called to mind when we think about baptism. There's also baptism by blood as in the case of martyrs, and baptism by desire wherein infants whose parents desire for them to be baptized are infused with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

But the Church is very humble about its understanding of what is required for sanctification. We can only go by what's been revealed to us, but God is not bound by His sacraments. The Church therefore acknowledges the possibility for the infusion of grace through other means.

dermdoc said:

---

aggiesherpa said:

---

Yes I agree. My apologies for not clearly denoting the sarcasm, as it was something I heard quite a bit growing up as CofC.

---

No worries. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church which basically taught that same theology.

I always read Paul's sermon on Mars Hill and compare to hellfire and brimstone Western evangelism.

Where did we go so wrong?

---

Although I generally agree with you position, Jesus did use hellfire and brimstone arguments. Although the OT says nothing about hell, and the NT very little, almost everything said about hell in the NT came directly from Jesus.

Jabin said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

aggiesherpa said:

---

Yes I agree. My apologies for not clearly denoting the sarcasm, as it was something I heard quite a bit growing up as CofC.

---

No worries. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church which basically taught that same theology.

I always read Paul's sermon on Mars Hill and compare to hellfire and brimstone Western evangelism.

Where did we go so wrong?

---

Although I generally agree with you position, Jesus did use hellfire and brimstone arguments. Although the OT says nothing about hell, and the NT very little, almost everything said about hell in the NT came directly from Jesus.

---

Jesus used the word Gehenna. Gehenna was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem and is thought to be the place where Jews sacrificed their kids to Molech. They were very heavily influenced by the writings of Dante and Milton. And kings, emperors, and the church had also pushed "hell" as a means of controlling and scaring the people.

The word hell was I believe invented by the King James (which is a very inaccurate translation) translators.

It is fascinating they translated the exact same word, Sheol, in the OT half the time as "hell" and half the time correctly as the grave or place of the dead.

The Jews Jesus was preaching too would have no concept of classical "hell" as they did not believe in it.

However, they would know exactly what Gehenna was. And bodies were burned there and eaten by worms after the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And if you do believe in classical hell, don't you find it interesting that Paul, the greatest missionary evangelist in history never used the word? If he believed it existed, surely he would warn of it to non believers?

Read the sermon on Mars Hill and compare it to "turn or burn" Western evangelism.

It is like a totally different Gospel.

On Sale at Tan books for $5 bucks this month


Final Edit couldn't get the image of the cover to load
The Dogma of Hell by Fr. F. X. Schouppe, SJ

Christ did use the word Gehenna, but I'm not sure that gets you to where you want to be. Not all of his descriptions of hell included the word Gehenna, and Gehenna was not a garbage dump (that is a myth started by a medieval rabbi - more on that later):

• "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather HIs wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" - Matt. 3:12
• it is where God destroys both soul and body - Matt 10:28
• at the end of the age, people will be burned "just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire" - Matt. 11:23
• people will be thrown "into the furnace of fire" - Matt. 13:42
• The famous statement about cutting off your own hands or feet as being better than being "cast into the fiery hell"
• A place of "outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" - Matt 22:13, 24:51, 25:30
• It is a place to which people will be sentenced - Matt. 23:33
• He will send people to a place of "eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" - Matt. 25:41
• And many, many more

So trying to minimize Christ's teachings by saying he used the word Gehenna doesn't at all address his descriptions of hell/Gehenna/whatever.

Gehenna is a valley just outside Jerusalem. There is no evidence that it was used as a place to burn garbage. It may have been a location of alters to false idols, which may have included fire. Whatever it's literal meaning, it obviously had a metaphorical meaning to Christ's audience. He clearly wasn't saying "shape up, or God will throw you into that valley outside Jerusalem".

I'm not at all sure exactly Christ meant by Gehenna/hell. It probably wasn't what the hellfire and brimstone folks made up out of whole cloth. But on the other hand, it surely wasn't universal salvation and Club Med for all.

Do you agree the Jews he was talking to had no idea of "hell"?

The Scriptures you posted seem to all support annihilationism not ECT hell in my opinion.

My point is that the classic view of "hell" as taught in the Western church, in my opinion, has very little if any Scriptural support.

I think it was heavily influenced by Greek and Roman mythology and Dante and other writers.

https://rethinkinghell.com/2018/01/23/gehenna-the-history-development-and-usage-of-a-common-image-for-hell/

Quote:

---

Do you agree the Jews he was talking to had no idea of "hell"?

---

I'm not sure what you mean by that question.

If you mean did they have any idea of a place of judgment that included fire and torment, I have no idea because I've not studied Jewish writings or traditions from that time.

The mere fact that Jesus used the word "Gehenna" does not necessarily mean that it has been improperly translated as "hell". That may or may not be the closest English word to the idea expressed. The Jews also did not use the word god, but used "El" or "Yahweh" instead.

Quote:

---

The Scriptures you posted seem to all support annihilationism not ECT hell in my opinion.

---

Except Christ used the word "fire", specifically, and other words and phrases communicating torment. Nothing in the words he chose to use imply annihilation.

Quote:

---

My point is that the classic view of "hell" as taught in the Western church, in my opinion, has very little if any Scriptural support.

I think it was heavily influenced by Greek and Roman mythology and Dante and other writers.

---

That may be correct. However, I was never subjected to the "classic view of 'hell"" that you apparently were. I'm not even sure that there is a "classic view". Very few of the evangelical scholars with which I'm familiar have spent any significant amount of time on the doctrine of "hell", to my knowledge. Nor do I have any knowledge of the idea of hell from Greek or Roman mythology, or that expressed by Dante (except in the most broad terms) or other writers.

I agree that Protestant Christianity has seemed to have built an entire theological doctrine of hell on relatively slim pickings. On the other hand, Christ's words are what they are and I have to accept them, perhaps without full understanding, even if they seem "wrong" to me. There are a bunch of things in the Scriptures I don't fully understand, but I have enough understanding to believe and to accept on faith that when those confusing matters are explained to me, I will see how God is completely wise and full of grace and mercy.

From reading the Scriptures you posted, the word destroy appears quite a few times.

If you are destroyed, how can one be tormented? Maybe the most famous verse ever, John 3:16, uses the word "perish" not be tormented eternally.

I agree with you that I know God is just, merciful, and extends grace and have complete faith in His divine plan.

True re the use of the word "destroy". But he also uses the word "fire" and "eternal fire". And suffering clearly seems to be involved because of the "gnashing of teeth".

I don't know what that all means, but I'm reluctant to say that hell doesn't involve fire and torment since Christ clearly says that it does.

I personally really like CS Lewis's description of hell in The Great Divorce. But despite its appeal to me, I have to admit that it doesn't really correspond to Christ's teachings.

The Bible's teachings on hell are certainly not clear. But if the old-time fire and brimstone preachers went too far in adding doctrine to what the Bible says, we ought to be real careful in removing concepts that Christ himself taught.

ETA: I'm not uncomfortable at all with uncertainty and ambiguity in Biblical teachings. In fact, one of my pet peeves is when folks, especially academics, try to impose certainty on doctrinal matters on which the Bible is far from clear.

May I ask in what Christian tradition you were raised?

Thanks.

Jabin said:

---

True re the use of the word "destroy". But he also uses the word "fire" and "eternal fire". And suffering clearly seems to be involved because of the "gnashing of teeth".

I don't know what that all means, but I'm reluctant to say that hell doesn't involve fire and torment since Christ clearly says that it does.

I personally really like CS Lewis's description of hell in The Great Divorce. But despite its appeal to me, I have to admit that it doesn't really correspond to Christ's teachings.

The Bible's teachings on hell are certainly not clear. But if the old-time fire and brimstone preachers went too far in adding doctrine to what the Bible says, we ought to be real careful in removing concepts that Christ himself taught.

ETA: I'm not uncomfortable at all with uncertainty and ambiguity in Biblical teachings. In fact, one of my pet peeves is when folks, especially academics, try to impose certainty on doctrinal matters on which the Bible is far from clear.

---

And agree completely with your last paragraph. I am quickly repelled when some "scholar" purports to know exactly what Christ meant by his teachings on a lot of things. Including Heaven and hell.

And anyone who claims to know exactly what Revelation means in exact, tangible terms really makes me run away.

I firmly believe we do not know a lot and fool ourselves if we think we do.

And like you, I am okay with that.

dermdoc said:

---

May I ask in what Christian tradition you were raised?

Thanks.

---

Evangelical.

dermdoc said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

I don't think any denominations hold that salvation is impossible without baptism.

---

I believe the Church of Christ believes baptism is necessary for salvation.

---

This is not really true. The CofC view is more nuanced and less universal than that.

It is fair to say that the CofC takes a sacramental view of baptism and finds it odd that anyone would say "Jesus is Lord" with one breath and then, with the next, refuse a simple instruction to be baptized.

94chem said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Grew up CoC and even the more "liberal" ones likely have a theological note on their website that says the act of baptism saves you. But if you ask most CoCers what the difference is between them and Baptists, they will say instruments.

---

Well, lack of instruments of course, but also being able to lose your salvation every other week.

---

There is a pretty gross mischaracterization of the CofC in this thread.

fat girlfriend said:

---

94chem said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Grew up CoC and even the more "liberal" ones likely have a theological note on their website that says the act of baptism saves you. But if you ask most CoCers what the difference is between them and Baptists, they will say instruments.

---

Well, lack of instruments of course, but also being able to lose your salvation every other week.

---

There is a pretty gross mischaracterization of the CofC in this thread.

---

Not really. Spent 20 years in CoC. Grandfather was a CoC pastor. I have family that attended Harding and ACU.

Some congregations are more liberal than others but most believe in their theology that the act of baptism saves you.

Jabin said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

May I ask in what Christian tradition you were raised?

Thanks.

---

Evangelical.

---

Thanks.

And fwiw, I probably would tend to anninilationism at this point. But with the hope of Universal reconciliation which means rehabilitation not eternal torment.

I am confident in God's grace, mercy, and justice.

Just think how different the world would be if people realized the truth that they are going to have to stand before Almighty God after they die.

The fear of the Lord is truly the beginning of wisdom.

Quote:

---

The fear of the Lord is truly the beginning of wisdom.

---

Very true. My guess is that modern Christianity has deemphasized fear of the lord almost to the point of complete disappearance. I am not exactly sure what it means, but it certainly means something and it is repeated over and over and over again in the Bible.

I am firmly convinced that if you do not fear the Lord then it is hard to fear anyone. Leads to lack of respect of parents, teachers, coaches, police, elected officials, etc.

My patients and I talk about that all the time. And you would be shocked at how often we pray with them. And once we do, they always request it on return appointments.

Hypotheticals are not effective means of discussing theology.
Baptist focus on methods drawn from selective reading of the narratives. Apostolic traditions focus on the meaning of the sacrament. But if you like hypotheticals would you rather bury a baptized child or unbaptized? Households are baptized in the bible the command is not given with restrictions. Your hypothetical friend has the conflict I trust God but not His instruction that is not faith.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

94chem said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Grew up CoC and even the more "liberal" ones likely have a theological note on their website that says the act of baptism saves you. But if you ask most CoCers what the difference is between them and Baptists, they will say instruments.

---

Well, lack of instruments of course, but also being able to lose your salvation every other week.

---

There is a pretty gross mischaracterization of the CofC in this thread.

---

Not really. Spent 20 years in CoC. Grandfather was a CoC pastor. I have family that attended Harding and ACU.

Some congregations are more liberal than others but most believe in their theology that the act of baptism saves you.

---

I promise you that I have my CofC bonafides, and they believe Jesus saves you. I have been at maybe a million CofC's in my life, and I have never heard anyone claim that baptism (rather than Jesus) saves.

fat girlfriend said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

94chem said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Grew up CoC and even the more "liberal" ones likely have a theological note on their website that says the act of baptism saves you. But if you ask most CoCers what the difference is between them and Baptists, they will say instruments.

---

Well, lack of instruments of course, but also being able to lose your salvation every other week.

---

There is a pretty gross mischaracterization of the CofC in this thread.

---

Not really. Spent 20 years in CoC. Grandfather was a CoC pastor. I have family that attended Harding and ACU.

Some congregations are more liberal than others but most believe in their theology that the act of baptism saves you.

---

I promise you that I have my CofC bonafides, and they believe Jesus saves you. I have been at maybe a million CofC's in my life, and I have never heard anyone claim that baptism (rather than Jesus) saves.

---

Jesus saves through the act of baptism is the belief.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

94chem said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Grew up CoC and even the more "liberal" ones likely have a theological note on their website that says the act of baptism saves you. But if you ask most CoCers what the difference is between them and Baptists, they will say instruments.

---

Well, lack of instruments of course, but also being able to lose your salvation every other week.

---

There is a pretty gross mischaracterization of the CofC in this thread.

---

Not really. Spent 20 years in CoC. Grandfather was a CoC pastor. I have family that attended Harding and ACU.

Some congregations are more liberal than others but most believe in their theology that the act of baptism saves you.

---

I promise you that I have my CofC bonafides, and they believe Jesus saves you. I have been at maybe a million CofC's in my life, and I have never heard anyone claim that baptism (rather than Jesus) saves.

---

Jesus saves through the act of baptism is the belief.

---

No, the belief is that Jesus saves through his death and resurrection.

Some of them think that anyone who refuses to follow the command of Jesus to be baptized has demonstrated to a certainty that they have NOT made Jesus their Lord. (For why would anyone claim that Jesus is their Lord and NOT follow this instruction?) Some of them don't think we can speak with authority on such a topic.