I offer that the message of Jesus was transformed for institutional survival, Christians picking up management skills from the Romans. Jesus has nothing to say about baptism. He clearly says, multiple times, if you want forgiveness, you have to forgive others. The Christian church claimed the power to forgive sins, institutionalized telling your sins to a priest to be forgiven. Repeat after me the Our Father. . . forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. people carry this seed from Jesus, but it does not speak to an institution with a baptismal fount, a clergy, a cereOmony. sort of made it up. does not come from Jesus.
it is as if people say their prayers but don’t listen to what they are saying. lot of theology, mumbo jumbo, hocus pocus.
the point is original sin fits a nice story, goes with the Adam story, supports infant baptism, and the whole systematic church registration system. but what has that to do with the followers of Jesus?
What about the Great Commission?
so you did go back and read it. that is great. for that one line at the end, there are ten passages telling us that " if you want mercy from God, you have to give mercy, or forgiveness." That last line at the end . . . seems suspect, it is so different from the other things Jesus said. It seems to define an institutional church . . . which was not his style. so i put it up for your honest inspection. count the times Jesus calls us to forgive each other, to measure generously, to release people from debt. Count the times you say the “Our Father”. then you see that apostolic commissioning to spread the good news. and what is the good news?
that we have the rite of baptism that gets you into heaven, fail safe, works all the time, especially good for children? Baptism fixes the evil of Adam and Eve? well, it doesn’t. Even if you are baptised you are going to die. Women have the same pain in child birth whether they are baptised or not. (i cannot prove that, but do you want to argue the point?). so the passion and death of Jesus did not reverse God’s punishment for Adam’s sin? frankly i don’t like the story line. i would rather disbelieve in Adam than believe in a god of infinite vengance. The curse set on Adam applies to all peoples for all time and is not reversed by Jesus’s death? I rather believe Adam was a story, not factual description of a god whose vengence endures forever.
no, the good news is that we can be forgiven if we can forgive. no need to sacrifice lambs or virgins or what have you. sacrifice the anger that you carry around. You will find in God/ end of life, the generosity, the mercy that you shared here on earth with those …whatever… bums, pick your low life of choice. That is where you find redemption. that is the good news.
Baptism is part of Christianity, plain and simple. Jesus requested baptism over the objections of John the Baptist.
I don’t understand your position on anything. Are you part of a church or group?
This sure sounds like salvation is based on our works and not God’s grace.
the Catholic church was selling indulgences to pay for the paintings of the Cistine chapel. Martin Luther called them out- like you can buy your way into heaven, and poor people have no chance. Clearly the intent of Jesus was that everyone has opportunity to “get to heaven”. and the battle raged for centuries.
I suppose it is god’s grace that allows us to forgive injuries. `doesn;t cost money.
but looks like you are dodging the sense of the Our Father: forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. is that a controversial statement? raising the argument of faith vs good works? i don’t see it.
Further there are letters from Paul and James that muddle the question`: show me your works and i will see your faith. . . that is off topic.
back to Baptism.
The baptism of John , was sort of adopted by Jesus with the line " you have to be born again" and how can you go back into your mother’s womb? well Baptism is like being born again, taking on a new life, living the example and words of Jesus . the creed says " we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
okay, none of that is about infant baptism.
the child makes no choice to do any thing. it smacks of initiation in a club, of vacination against small pox.
and the justification for infant baptism is original sin. which requires Adam and Eve to fail at the rigged test.
the point is evolution, which destroys the adam and eve story, does not challenge the baptism of Jesus, being born again. it does disqualify infant baptism from any real meaning.
part of a g roup? yes. i have seen too many infant baptisms and it got me thinking.
When an infant is baptized, the parents promise to raise the child in the Christian faith; It is expected that the child will one day be confirmed in the faith. It’s not without precedent; babies have always been included in the faith. Infant baptism is analogous to the Jewish rite of circumcision (the brith). As pious Jews, Mary and Joseph had Jesus circumcised when he was 8 days old. To this day, a male Jewish baby will be circumcised at 8 days old and be included in the family of faith. When the baby becomes a young teen he will celebrate his bar mitzvah.
But believers’ baptism, as practiced by the Anabaptists, is fine also. Frankly, I don’t see a problem.
It’s only a problem if a denomination insists that babies have original sin… but don’t provide for a limbo or some other “metaphysical compromise” for the infant’s soul - - with or without baptism.
It gets even messier if a denomination insists that baptism doesn’t do any good until you attain some moral age (either technically or in the spirit of the rules), and you don’t allow for limbo or some other “metaphysics”.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.