/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship★

>>761200 (OP)

Go to the nearest Orthodox church, they will take care of the rest.

>>761203

And they won't mind if I don't come back for months or years? I could tithe easier than I could go to church.

Also, do Orthodox and Protestants hate each other like Catholics and Protestants? I'm an American, so if I get baptised by Orthodox I'd like to know how others in the USA will perceive me by association.

>>761207

Being baptised by an Orthodox church will require you to be committed to their parish over a long period of time 1-2 years minimum.

Call local pastors around your area to see if they would do a private baptism for you. After you have your own transportation I'd recommened attending one of your local apostolic Churches, be it either Catholic (my preference) or one one of the Eastern Orthodox.

>>761217

Orthodox dislike protestants more than Catholics, I don't know what you're saying.

Baptists also hate both equally.

>>761207

"Hate each other"? I don't know. But Orthodox are generally salty about Catholics for being heretics yet seen as the main form of Christianity worldwide, and Catholics generally see the Orthodox as either disobedient children who will come back home soon or as ethnonationalist LARPers.

Anyway, OP, if you want to be baptized but consistently going to a parish is not an option, call a priest/pastor of the closest church that is of the denomination you believe in, and talk to him about it.

>>761226

I'm saying Baptists hate both Orthodox and Catholics equally.

And yes we are to Love all brothers in Christ equally. But orthodox view Protestant theology as lesser than even Catholic theology.

If I understand well, it doesn't matter as long as the person baptizing you does a Baptism that respects the Trinity of God. This is true in both Protestantism and Catholicism, though Catholics recommend that you get baptized in the Catholic Church, something to consider.

>>761200 (OP)

Go to church, meet people, ask for rides from people who are already going to be there anyway.

>>761228

>But orthodox view Protestant theology as lesser than even Catholic theology.

I disagree tbh. Protestants get a lot of things about the faith that Catholics don't. Some of them don't believe in the filioque either, and agree to the 7 ecumenical councils' dogma, which automatically puts them above Catholics.

>>761230

I'll add that Orthodox believe that a baptism that was done 1) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; 2) was done with faith; and 3) was done with triple immersion unless an emergency made it otherwise (in those cases, pouring, sprinkling, using another liquid, or earth, etc. are accepted forms). So the vast majority of baptisms by pouring/sprinkling aren't recognized.

>>761211

>Being baptised by an Orthodox church will require you to be committed to their parish over a long period of time 1-2 years minimum

I thought so. I'm of course looking for a church, but I need to find one that would accept single lone men - I get the feeling that churches are 100% community driven, and I'm a complete outsider.

>Call local pastors around your area to see if they would do a private baptism for you

Which would be to alleviate the issues anyone may have with random guys walking in during services.

>After you have your own transportation I'd recommened attending one of your local apostolic Churches, be it either Catholic (my preference) or one one of the Eastern Orthodox

Something in my bones tells me to go Catholic, because my Dad was raised Catholic. But reading various websites, I get the impression that Catholics also insist on being involved with the church for a while first.

>>761217

>Not really or at least I don't see it

>Funny enough, alot of converts in the parish I go to are former Prots

I ask because I think Catholics don't acknowledge non-Catholic baptism, so I wanted to know if Protestants would acknowledge Orthodox baptism.

I understand that certain denominations outright think others are heresy, and I'm very concerned about my salvation and just want to be saved. I kind of want to go with whatever denomination is recognized by the most other denominations, in so far as baptism. I don't want anyone saying I wasn't baptised right the first time.

I wasn't formally raised Christian, but my Dad explained Catholicism and American culture taught me about Protestantism. I've done my research enough to separate Catholic and Protestant theology, and while I think Catholicism/Orthodoxy is more 'the true church,' I don't like the notion of a Pope, and think Catholicism has gotten too liberal.

Orthodoxy actually sounds like a great fit, in so far as it maintains pre-modern Christian theology, and is at least as legitimate as Catholicism if not more so.

>>761223

>call a priest/pastor of the closest church that is of the denomination you believe in, and talk to him about it

The thing is, I'm not sure which denomination to choose. I'm educated enough to know that it's not like choosing an ice cream flavor, and I'm definitely a Biblical literalist who wants to reject the entire modern world intellectually.

Which is why Catholicism is spoiled for me - Vatican II ruined it, but it would have been perfect for me if it had never happened. I'm not sure how viable Sedevacantism is, and if Catholics would consider it heresy - which would remove the entire purpose I'm doing it for.

>>761230

So baptism is recognised between Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants?

>>761233

Could be an option when I find a church, but I'd have to get to know the congregation first.

>>761241

>I'll add that Orthodox believe that a baptism that was done 1) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; 2) was done with faith; and 3) was done with triple immersion unless an emergency made it otherwise (in those cases, pouring, sprinkling, using another liquid, or earth, etc. are accepted forms). So the vast majority of baptisms by pouring/sprinkling aren't recognized

Yeah, this is what I need to know - so I need to be fully submerged three times? I've read about how the different denominations do baptism differently - submersion, sprinkling, etc. I want to make sure I get it done in a way that everyone recognizes.

I guess if I'm getting a baptism of any form with the specific intention of having it count to all other Christians, I'd be good?

>>761251

>The thing is, I'm not sure which denomination to choose. I'm educated enough to know that it's not like choosing an ice cream flavor, and I'm definitely a Biblical literalist who wants to reject the entire modern world intellectually.

>Which is why Catholicism is spoiled for me - Vatican II ruined it, but it would have been perfect for me if it had never happened. I'm not sure how viable Sedevacantism is, and if Catholics would consider it heresy - which would remove the entire purpose I'm doing it for.

Did Vatican II affect anything concerning interpretation of the scriptures?

Sedevacantism is certainly a heretical position according to Roman Catholicism.

>I want to make sure I get it done in a way that everyone recognizes.

Why? It's not like your method of baptism will be relevant to any other denomination at all after you've joined your church. Unless you convert to another denomination, but that's not a light choice to make.

As far as Orthodoxy is concerned, Catholics may either be "re"baptized, receive a conditional baptism, or, by economy, be received by Chrismation.

>I guess if I'm getting a baptism of any form with the specific intention of having it count to all other Christians, I'd be good?

You know Baptism isn't everything, right? For those denominations that consider the sacraments to be "real", then you need Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, and the Eucharist, to grow as a Christian. Baptism unites you to Christ's death and resurrection, Confirmation gives you the seal of the Holy Spirit so that you can grow spiritually, and the Eucharist gives you the flesh, blood, and divinity of Christ so that you can be deified. And for those denominations that don't believe the sacraments are "real", but rather symbolic, then it really doesn't matter much.

>>761251

> I think Catholics don't acknowledge non-Catholic baptism, so I wanted to know if Protestants would acknowledge Orthodox baptism.

Catholics acknowledge all baptisms performed with the requisite form, manner, and intent. This basically means if you get anyone to baptize you with water using the trinitarian formula, you're good.

Catholics don't acknowledge some baptisms like those from mormons because, for example, mormons have a radically different understanding of the Holy Trinity, resulting in a defect of form and intent.

>>761251

>Which is why Catholicism is spoiled for me - Vatican II ruined it, but it would have been perfect for me if it had never happened. I'm not sure how viable Sedevacantism is, and if Catholics would consider it heresy - which would remove the entire purpose I'm doing it for.

General consensus among Catholics is that the councils themselves put forth no heretical ideas in and over themselves and that the Popes themselves strove to maintain orthodoxy; it was the, as always, overwhelmingly inadequate clergy that ended up taking it as an excuse to loosen their standards regarding orthodoxy in morals and doctrine. The Orthodox position on the primacy of Peter is blatantly contradicted by the writings of the Church Fathers, and a growing movement of young catholics are bucking the laxity of the older generation, as has happened time and time again.

>>761256

>Did Vatican II affect anything concerning interpretation of the scriptures?

No. The only truly controversial point was that it admitted to certain virtues of alternate religions, while simultaneously reaffirming the necessity of Christ and his Church for salvation, along with codifying a more refined view of the Jews that states that while the old covenant is obsolete and those who follow it are blind, and the Church is the new Jerusalem, God has not rescinded his promises to his people, as per Romans 9-11. One paragraph of Lumen Gentium, in particular, aroused a lot of undue ire.

> Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

The important qualifier to all of these people is that they have not yet received the gospel, and that many of them have been decieved by the Evil One, yet, as has always been christian tradition, we can hope for salvation in those who, ignorant of the Church, strive to follow the natural law to the absolute best of their ability.

Baptism is NOT part of salvation

You are saved if you believe

You can be baptised at any local Baptist Church, and being baptised is part of the conditions for membership

>>761256

>Did Vatican II affect anything concerning interpretation of the scriptures?

It denied that the Bible was literally true, from what I understand;

>http://vatican2voice.org/92symp/murray.htm

>Ch.3, ‘The Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture’, quietly lays to rest long-standing controversies over ‘inspiration’, or the relationship of the human authors of biblical books to God’s initiative, and over the ‘inerrancy’ of Scripture, or the question of how God’s truth can credibly be ascribed to the Bible.[xvii] God’s purpose in revelation is clearly his plan for salvation, not to solve scientific problems, nor need every detail in every narrative, regardless of its nature, be held to be guaranteed by God’s veracity

>The Bible contains many different literary genres, of which each has its own mode of truth. The key to interpretation is in identifying, as far as possible, the intention of each biblical writer in relation to his historical and cultural circumstances and the genre in which he was writing

I became convinced that Jesus and prior Prophets really did have magic powers, and that God really did make the Earth in 6 days, the flood was real, the world is only 6000 years old and surrounded by a dome of water, etc. I believe that God took the form of a man called YHWH and physically came and gave Moses the 10 Commandments. When we're resurrected, our corpses will first transform into the Heavenly body, then rise from the grave and serve God and Jesus for 1000 years.

>Sedevacantism is certainly a heretical position according to Roman Catholicism

I was concerned about that. Is the above interpretation compatible with Catholicism? If I can be a literalist Catholic without commiting heresy, I could go for that. But my understanding is that in Catholicism, everything I mentioned is up for the church to decide, not me, so I don't want to get involved with Catholicism only to have to give up literalism.

>Why? It's not like your method of baptism will be relevant to any other denomination at all after you've joined your church. Unless you convert to another denomination, but that's not a light choice to make

Well, I want a baptism as soon as possible to save my soul. I'm not decided about a denomination yet.

I guess what you're saying is that I need to choose the denomination before being baptised?

>You know Baptism isn't everything, right? For those denominations that consider the sacraments to be "real", then you need Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, and the Eucharist, to grow as a Christian

Yes, and as an example, my understanding is that Catholics consider it a sin to receive the Eucharist before baptism. One of my reasons for wanting a baptism as soon as possible is so I can take the Eucharist.

Speaking of which, my Catholic grandmother fed me communion wafers once when I was a kid. Did I sin when I did that?

>Confirmation gives you the seal of the Holy Spirit so that you can grow spiritually, and the Eucharist gives you the flesh, blood, and divinity of Christ so that you can be deified

Confirmation is where you affirm the church's specific interpretation, correct? My understanding is that the Holy Spirit entered people after Jesus rose from the dead, and Confirmation thus represents entry into the Christian community?

>>761257

>Catholics acknowledge all baptisms performed with the requisite form, manner, and intent. This basically means if you get anyone to baptize you with water using the trinitarian formula, you're good

Awesome. So if I got baptised by an Orthodox or Protestant church, they acknowledge it?

>>761259

>it was the, as always, overwhelmingly inadequate clergy that ended up taking it as an excuse to loosen their standards regarding orthodoxy in morals and doctrine

So I could become a Catholic and find other literalist Catholics and I don't have to worry about being a heretic?

>and a growing movement of young catholics are bucking the laxity of the older generation, as has happened time and time again

How would I go about finding such Catholics, young and old? I live in Washington state.

>>761273

Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved

Romans 10:13

Whoever believes in him shall not perish

John 3:16

>>761269

>I became convinced that Jesus and prior Prophets really did have magic powers

I… would be extremely careful with that wording. There is no such thing as "magic", except from demons. Miracles are not "magic".

>Is the above interpretation compatible with Catholicism?

There is no doctrinal statement on any of the things you've listed, except that Catholics 1) state that we will be resurrected with spiritual, transfigured bodies; and 2) absolutely rejects the idea of a literal period of 1000 years where Jesus reigns. This is a heresy called "chiliasm". The Catholic doctrine is that the 1000 years in Revelation are symbolic and the rule of Jesus after the resurrection will be eternal, full stop.

>I was concerned about that. Is the above interpretation compatible with Catholicism? If I can be a literalist Catholic without commiting heresy, I could go for that. But my understanding is that in Catholicism, everything I mentioned is up for the church to decide, not me, so I don't want to get involved with Catholicism only to have to give up literalism.

You know, shopping for a church that specifically agrees with everything you believe right now is not a good idea. Actually investigate the various denominations and see who appears to have the true faith (in doctrine and in practice), and let it transform you after that (no one who joins the Church is expected to remain as they are).

>I guess what you're saying is that I need to choose the denomination before being baptised?

Right. At least learn about the faith before you can be able to claim that you have faith.

>One of my reasons for wanting a baptism as soon as possible is so I can take the Eucharist.

A Catholic can only receive the Eucharist if they're baptized, believe the Catholic doctrines, and are prepared spiritually (by having fasted, prayed, given alms, done penance…) Being baptized won't be sufficient to be able to receive communion at a Catholic church.

>Speaking of which, my Catholic grandmother fed me communion wafers once when I was a kid. Did I sin when I did that?

I would rather say that she did, by taking on the mission to raise you in the faith so that your faith will be in accord with your taking of the Eucharist, and yet you ended up falling away from Catholicism. But I'm not going to judge, here. Just answering your question…

>Confirmation is where you affirm the church's specific interpretation, correct?

Confirmation is the baptism in the Holy Spirit. We Orthodox give it right after Baptism. Catholics give it at a later age for reasons I'm not sure to understand, but you can receive communion without being confirmed in Catholicism so I assume they have a coherent theology behind that.

But yes, Confirmation is the continuation of Pentecost, where the disciples first receive the Holy Spirit.

>>761275

>Awesome. So if I got baptised by an Orthodox or Protestant church, they acknowledge it?

Yes. If you cannot give proof of your baptism (like a baptism certificate, normally given by the pastor who baptized you) they may give you a conditional baptism, just to be safe.

>>761285

Slight correction. The 1000 years symbolically refer to the time between Christ's resurrection and Christ's second coming. The first resurrection is our Baptism, where we are united to Christ's own resurrection, and the second resurrection is at the final judgement, where afterward Christ will reign for eternity.

>>761275

>How would I go about finding such Catholics, young and old? I live in Washington state.

Couldn't tell you, I mostly run with them online. I recommend that you look up a parish that still holds the tridentine mass, that tends to be the symbol of their spirit, as opposed to the vernacular Novos Ordo mass, and a treasure that they flock to.

>>761292

Exactly the opposite of what I've said

>>761296

Well, what do you mean with >>761282 then?

>>761275

>So if I got baptised by an Orthodox or Protestant church, they acknowledge it?

You could literally tell one of your friends to:

>Do this with the intention of doing as Christians do.

>Grab a water bottle.

>Say "I baptise you in the name of the Father"

>Squirt water on your head.

>Say "In the name of the Son."

>Squirt water on your head again.

>Say "And in the name of the Holy Ghost."

>Squirt water on your head one more time.

>Say "Amen"

Now to be clear you just stand there as your friend does all this.You should probably get it on video. You should probably also recite the Apostles Creed before you're baptized.

I do not recommend doing this, except if you REALLY need to. But you could. And it would be valid.

>>761285

>I… would be extremely careful with that wording. There is no such thing as "magic", except from demons. Miracles are not "magic"

I appriciate that. Thank you for helping me refine my terminology.

>except that Catholics 1) state that we will be resurrected with spiritual, transfigured bodies

Cortinthians 15 is my favorite part of the Bible. It was in fact what converted me - I was a transhumanist, and suddenly I saw that the Bible promised the same thing.

I'd become convinced that you could build a super-human, immortal body from graphene. But I wasn't sure if I personally would ever get one. The verses about quickening clued me in;

>https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-15/

>36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

>37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

>38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

>43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

>44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body

>45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit

Graphene can be made by burning lignin - in other words, 'quickening' the lignin. Wheat, and all grains contain lignin. Thus, by collecting together Earthly matter, the body is sown - but God alone quickens the wheat into graphene.

Many other amazing things, such as epigenetic transfer of memory, makes me believe.

>; and 2) absolutely rejects the idea of a literal period of 1000 years where Jesus reigns. This is a heresy called "chiliasm". The Catholic doctrine is that the 1000 years in Revelation are symbolic and the rule of Jesus after the resurrection will be eternal, full stop

I see. Below you say;

>You know, shopping for a church that specifically agrees with everything you believe right now is not a good idea

I'm not shopping in terms of doctrine - I want the original, real church. My criteria is how other Christians see a particular denomination, and how true to the Bible a given denomination is.

Like I said, I think Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true church, but I don't want a watered down, liberal Christianity. I don't hate gays or anything and treat everyone with respect, but the Pope has condoned some crazy stuff.

>Actually investigate the various denominations and see who appears to have the true faith (in doctrine and in practice), and let it transform you after that (no one who joins the Church is expected to remain as they are)

My understanding of Catholic doctrine is that it's a sin to interpret the Bible myself. So, for instance, I expect to be wrong on many theological matters regardless of which denomination I choose - like how you corrected me above. Being humble in the face of correction seems to be a very Christian stance to take.

>A Catholic can only receive the Eucharist if they're baptized, believe the Catholic doctrines, and are prepared spiritually (by having fasted, prayed, given alms, done penance…) Being baptized won't be sufficient to be able to receive communion at a Catholic church

Yeah, I've read about it, and it seems quite involved. I don't have transportation, so unless I could find someone who could take me for all that I could never complete the process.

Maybe I should find a local Catholic who can drive me to introduce me to their church?

>I would rather say that she did, by taking on the mission to raise you in the faith so that your faith will be in accord with your taking of the Eucharist, and yet you ended up falling away from Catholicism. But I'm not going to judge, here. Just answering your question…

My Dad says he was confirmed, and after that he never went back to church. He's always condemned religion, and says he's an Atheist and a Communist. He never took me to church or taught me anything about Catholicism.

My Mom is also an Atheist, but she read a childrens' Bible to me that my Christian half brother sent (I'm a bastard.)

So it kind of feels like I'm one generation removed from Catholicism, and like the bed had been made for me to come back to it. I'm not shopping around in terms of doctrine, but in terms of my connection to the denomination and it's closeness to the original church.

>Yes. If you cannot give proof of your baptism (like a baptism certificate, normally given by the pastor who baptized you) they may give you a conditional baptism, just to be safe

I'll get baptised by anyone I can, as soon as I can, than. Thanks for the info.

>>761287

I remember something like that. Thanks for clarifying.

>>761288

>I recommend that you look up a parish that still holds the tridentine mass

Thanks.

>>761304

Does the person baptising me have to have been baptised? My Dad has joked about baptising me, but he never said any words other than 'I baptise you' and he didn't throw water on me.

>>761313

>Does the person baptising me have to have been baptised?

In a emergency, the person baptizing could be a atheist.

>but he never said any words other than 'I baptise you' and he didn't throw water on me.

Sounds like he was still joking.

>>761200 (OP)

Before you do anything, call a pastor of your nearest catholic, protestant or orthodox church (which ever one you're inclined to be most authentic) and tell them about your difficult situation, from Cathodox point of view the priest is the normal administer of baptism.

>>761297

You only need faith to reach salvation. You are also instructed to be baptised afterwards.

>>761261

>>761401

OP, here. So if I've accepted Jesus, I'm already saved even if I haven't been baptised - as long as I intend to be baptised at some point in the future?

So maybe I should focus on becoming productive on Earth, then find a church when I can go regularly?

>>761544

You're saved if you believe, and salvation is unrelated.

Baptism is the first instruction to follow post-salvation, as a symbolic declaration that you are now saved.

>So maybe I should focus on becoming productive on Earth, then find a church when I can go regularly?

No. The Bible tells us to "not forsake the assembling of yourselves together". All Christians need a local church

>>761544

>So if I've accepted Jesus, I'm already saved even if I haven't been baptised - as long as I intend to be baptised at some point in the future?

The answer to this question depends on who you ask. Catholics would say no; Baptists would say yes.

Some scripture in favor of Catholic view:

Mark 16:16

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

John 3:5

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38

And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:21

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Romans 6:3-4

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried[a] therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Some scripture in favor of Baptist view:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 10:13

For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Acts 16:31

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

>>761549

>>761544

Neither side can permit a contradiction in the scripture. Here's a short Baptist response to these alleged couple pedobaptist proof-texts:

>Mark 16:16

>He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

Being baptized is a given if you believe, but salvation isn't contingent on baptism according to this verse. Notice the absence of mentioning baptism in the second phrase "he who does not believe will be condemned".

Salvation comes by belief.

>John 3:5

>Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The water birth is the physical birth, and the spirit birth is the "born again", salvation. This makes a parallelism with the following verse:

<John 3:6 NASB --- “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Water birth -> flesh

Spirit birth -> spirit

>Acts 2:38

>And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

Again the baptism is closely tied to the point of belief, but this doesn't contradict what we know about salvation coming from the belief given the absence of baptism from other statements of the gospel (like John 3:16)

>1 Peter 3:21

>Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

This one clear as day teaches that the work of baptism doesn't save. It's not the removal of dirt (the physical act), but the appeal to God.

>Romans 6:3-4

>Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried[a] therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

This is explaining the symbolism of baptism. If this was used to teach you must be baptised to be saved, shouldn't it also teach you must be buried?

>>761553

> these alleged couple pedobaptist proof-text

Who said anything about pedobaptism? No need for derision.

>Being baptized is a given if you believe,

No it is not. OP believes but is not baptized.

>salvation isn't contingent on baptism according to this verse

The word Jesus used is "AND". According to the verse: Belief + baptism = salvation.

>The water birth is the physical birth

Nonsense. Physical birth is physical birth.

Jesus says what is "born of the flesh is flesh" NOT what is "born of water is flesh".

water =/= flesh

>Again the baptism is closely tied to the point of belief,

the verse says nothing about belief. It says "be baptized . . . and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. What is the gift of the Holy Spirit? Salvation, among other things.

>the work of baptism doesn't save

The text say says "Baptism . . . now saves you . . . as an appeal to God."

It does not say "baptism does not save you, but your belief in Jesus." Baptism is your appeal to God for salvation.

>shouldn't it also teach you must be buried?

No, because as the text says: "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death" Baptism is equated with burial.

>>761557

Pedobaptism is the term for the Catholic practice of baptizing babies to save them, not using a derisive title.

Those are fine disagreements, not looking to debate them all here. What do you say about the absence of baptism from other gospel declarations? What I did was offer an explanation that these verses with "baptism and belief" don't contradict sola fide. Can you do the opposite with John 3:16, Romans 10:13, Acts 16:31?

>>761561

I mean I'm just going to do the same argument I always do.

>God asks you to be baptized

>God asks you to love

>God asks you to believe

>All in different verses

>You can now pick the favorite verse and ignore the other orders

>>761315

To be honest, baptism should be concecrated by an ordinated priest, but I think God will forgive you if there is no priest nearby and your intentions are clean. Get baptized and pray to God, read the Bible and follow Jesus' example. Amen Brother, welcome to the Holy Church.

Oh wait this is the same thread as usual.

I think I left my argument here.

>>761401

This is a non-response and you basically avoided replying to the verses I posted:

>>761273

And because of that, my argument on >>761292 remains.

Are you trying to mental gymnastics your way out of those or something?

>>761564

Not denying the instruction to be baptised. If I only read John 3:16, I wouldn't know that I needed to be baptised to be saved. I would come away thinking "if I believe, I am saved". Is that verse just wrong?

>>761566

Are you illiterate?

You accused me of ignoring baptism

>>let me just ignore that part he said about being baptized

But I am a BAPTIST

I referred you back to the post instructing baptism

Where are we miscommunicating?

>>761582

These are judaizing arguments, you're making keeping ALL commandments the terms for salvation

>>761583

>you're making keeping ALL commandments the terms for salvation

No, just the ones Jesus says are necessary. I would again refer to Mark 16:16. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

I would never argue, for example, that we must keep kosher, because Mark 7:18-19: And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

>>761584

So your discussion on John 3:16 wasn't arguing that baptism was necessary for salvation?

>>761584

Wait which instructions "Jesus says are necessary" are you identifying to receive salvation?

>>761568

>If I only read John 3:16

Then you'd be a bad Christian since you should know you are to read the entire bible and that the bible is a whole, and not separated parts.

>Where are we miscommunicating?

It seems so.

By "let me just ignore that part he said about being baptized", I mean that you're ignoring the verses where he talks about Baptism being necessary for salvation, which is what I mean by quoting those verses.

>>761601

Ok, I mistook you since you were accusing me of disregarding scripture, but I guess you were just using bants and what you meant was you think I'm inconsistent

>Then you'd be a bad Christian since you should know you are to read the entire bible and that the bible is a whole, and not separated parts.

Agreed, read the Bible cover to cover.

Is John 3:16 a full message of the gospel? Can someone be saved if I tell them John 3:16?

>>761612

>Is John 3:16 a full message of the gospel?

John 3:16 is a message of the gospel. Not full.

>Can someone be saved if I tell them John 3:16?

It certainly can help them but this sort of "just give them a verse" stuff is cheap and not recommended anywhere in the bible, I think you've watched too many videos of Pastor Anderson soul winning.

I'm pretty sure that if someone passed by a village, passed those verses around, and left, God would still treat their salvation as one of the "Virtuous Pagan" or someone who hasn't heard the Gospel.

>>761547

>You're saved if you believe, and salvation is unrelated.

>Baptism is the first instruction to follow post-salvation, as a symbolic declaration that you are now saved

It seems that not all Christians agree, based on the Anon below you. I'm not trying to argue with anyone - I'm just trying to cover all my bases and make sure I do everything I need to do to get to Heaven.

Earlier, someone told me that Orthodox insist on complete submersion three times, for instance. I'm not shopping for denominations - I want the denomination whose practices and doctrines are acknowledged as true by the most Christians.

>No. The Bible tells us to "not forsake the assembling of yourselves together". All Christians need a local church

My understanding is that the church is the light of God on Earth, and so I would be outside of it by not being a part of a church. I can feel how these people are saved, and I'm not.

I'm an outsider - I don't actually know anyone locally who could help me. I would be a stranger in any local church. In >>761211, I was told that I'd have to have a presence among Orthodox for years before they would even baptise me. I just couldn't get involved that much - I don't have a car.

>>761549

>Mark 16:16

>He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

>John 3:5

>Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

To me, these two verses highly imply that baptism is required. My entire life, as a non-Christian, I heard about how important baptism was - so there's a Christian tradition of it, affirming these verses.

>>761565

>but I think God will forgive you if there is no priest nearby and your intentions are clean

If I can't get a baptism elsewhere, I might be able to convince my Dad or brother to do it. You're saying that would be valid in my extreme case?

>Get baptized and pray to God, read the Bible and follow Jesus' example. Amen Brother, welcome to the Holy Church

Thank you so much! I've done a lot of confessions on *chans, so I don't feel the need to repeat it here. I've gotten over my sins, and have allowed myself to be forgiven.

I just want to make my internal feelings reality. I want to confess to a real person, and finally be pure - another sacrement I can't enjoy before baptism.

>>761631

>I want the denomination whose practices and doctrines are acknowledged as true by the most Christians.

Good luck. In a broad sense, anything Trinitarian is mostly accepted.

Going into specifics, Catholic theology has problems with Orthodox theology and flat out disagrees with most protestant theology. Orthodox theology disagrees with Catholicism and strongly disagrees with Protestantism. Protestantism think Catholic and Orthodox's claim to authority are false or corrupted.

>If I can't get a baptism elsewhere, I might be able to convince my Dad or brother to do it. You're saying that would be valid in my extreme case?

Yes.

Since you want majority representation:

In Protestantism, anyone can baptize.

In Catholicism and I think Orthodoxy, anyone can baptize, but they prefer priests to do it. Prefer. But they demand that a person be baptized somehow.

Also, Baptism forgives sin. Just like confession. Only baptize yourself once, though.

>>761631

>Orthodox insist on complete submersion three times, for instance.

I can't speak for whether the Orthodox insist on triple immersion, but ALL Christians accept full immersion baptism, only some reject anything less than full immersion.

>>761634

>Good luck. In a broad sense, anything Trinitarian is mostly accepted.

>Going into specifics, Catholic theology has problems with Orthodox theology and flat out disagrees with most protestant theology.

>Orthodox theology disagrees with Catholicism and strongly disagrees with Protestantism. Protestantism think Catholic and Orthodox's claim to authority are false or corrupted.

It sounds like Protestantism recognises Catholicism and Orthodoxy as valid but arrogant, while Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't acknowledge each other or Protestantism.

>In Protestantism, anyone can baptize.

>In Catholicism and I think Orthodoxy, anyone can baptize, but they prefer priests to do it. Prefer. But they demand that a person be baptized somehow

So, I could get any Catholic to baptise me? And it would be valid in my extreme situation?

In this thread, people have suggested recording the event - these days, couldn't I upload it to youtube as proof?

>>761645

>>761241 said it;

>I'll add that Orthodox believe that a baptism that was done 1) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; 2) was done with faith; and 3) was done with triple immersion unless an emergency made it otherwise (in those cases, pouring, sprinkling, using another liquid, or earth, etc. are accepted forms). So the vast majority of baptisms by pouring/sprinkling aren't recognized

So I think I'd want to be submersed three times, to make sure I did it right.

>>761668

>So I think I'd want to be submersed three times, to make sure I did it right.

Why? From an Orthodox perspective, it doesn't matter if you did it right or not, because if you're not Orthodox you won't grow in Christ anyway. Why do you want to please that specific aspect of Orthodoxy but not the rest?

>>761673

>Why? From an Orthodox perspective, it doesn't matter if you did it right or not, because if you're not Orthodox you won't grow in Christ anyway. Why do you want to please that specific aspect of Orthodoxy but not the rest?

So, Orthodox don't even think Catholics and Protestants have been baptised correctly? Meaning they don't think other Christians have been saved?

>So, Orthodox don't even think Catholics and Protestants have been baptised correctly? Meaning they don't think other Christians have been saved?

Most Catholics aren't baptized correctly, some Protestants are and some aren't. Either way it doesn't matter, because as I said earlier, Baptism is not sufficient for salvation. One must also be Chrismated (Confirmed), receive the Eucharist, and do all this with true faith. To Baptize someone who does not have true faith, or who will not grow into the true faith (if they were baptized as a baby), is to spiritually abort them, so to speak. If someone is Baptized and Confirmed but does not receive the Eucharist, they are given the proper preparation for growing in Christ but they are not actually given to grow in Christ. If someone receives the Eucharist without being Baptized and Confirmed, they are being thrown into divine fire unprepared, so to speak. And even if someone is Baptized, Confirmed, and receives the Eucharist, but does so without having faith, then they desecrate the sacraments and rather than receiving salvation they receive condemnation.

>>761683

>>761677

>>761683

>One must also be Chrismated (Confirmed)

Is this correct;

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation#Roman_Catholic_Church

>According to the ancient practice maintained in the Roman liturgy, an adult is not to be baptized unless he receives Confirmation immediately afterward, provided no serious obstacles exist

So, actually, I would get baptised and confirmed at the same time?

>>761711

>So, actually, I would get baptised and confirmed at the same time?

As an Adult convert, yes. You would be baptized, confirmed, and receive your first holy communion within minutes of each other at the Easter Vigil.

>>761668

>So, I could get any Catholic to baptise me? And it would be valid in my extreme situation?

Yes.

THAT BEING SAID

DON'T

Don't receive your first holy communion if you're baptizing at home

Only a Priest can consecrate a Eucharist.