LittleToe,
Protestant churches accept baptisms by RC? That is disturbing, somehow.
Do you have to get baptized to be saved?
by JH 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
blondie
The Witnesses say that you have to get baptized to be saved, but what will happen to JW children that aren't baptized or JW teens that didn't get baptized yet?
BTW, JWs teach that children come under the doctine of "family merit." That if one parent is a baptized JW in good standing (judged worthy of survival), that their minor children will survive too. The problem is that the WTS does not give an age at which children start being personally responsible before God; JW children have been baptized as young as 6. I hope this explains why many JW parents are eager to have their child baptized.
Blondie
-
stevenyc
Was Lazarus baptized before he was saved? Or the many that were raised from the dead?
steve -
JH
BTW, JWs teach that children come under the doctine of "family merit." That if one parent is a baptized JW in good standing (judged worthy of survival), that their minor children will survive too.
How about for aging parents who like children, can't live by themselves.
If a JW in good standings (judged worthy of survival) cares for and lives under the same roof as a parent, will the parent also survive.
-
blondie
JH, the WTS considers adults who never had the mental capabilities of making an adult choice exempt (developmentally disabled, mentally ill, people born in a coma, or similar situations). If aging parents were capable mentally and passed up the opportunity, the WTS strongly surmises they will not survive. Aging parents are responsible for themselves (unless they fall in the above category) per the WTS. The WTS evens says that non-JW mates are not included in the "family merit" arrangement but are responsible to make a personal decision. It doesn't matter whether the parent lives under the same roof as the (parent) or minor child. For example, what if the parents are divorced and the minor child lives with the non-JW (or ex-JW) parent? The child is still considered under the "family merit" of the JW parent even if they don't live under the same roof.
Are you thinking of your own parents, JH?
-
JH
Are you thinking of your own parents, JH?
Yes Blondie if I was in good standings.... I was just comparing a child and an old parent with diminished mental and physical capacities, in the Watchtower's eyes. This isn't my case but it could be any witnesses case with aging non JW parents.
If a brother in good standing would take care of his old mother, would she fall under "family merit".
You answered that question above...Thanks
-
Qcmbr
We'll do you when your dead anyway if as LT said it doesn't matter who baptises you then no christians should mind if we cover their butts (just in case Jesus was actually meaning water baptism and then being born of the spirit as the only way to inherit the kingdom of God.) We are the christian world's insurance policy on this matter:P
-
AuldSoul
qcmbr,
When you say "we" I'll just go ahead and assume you mean Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ("the Mormons" per the TV ad). I won't mind at all if you guys baptize me after I'm dead. I'm sure you've already re-baptized lots of people who were already baptized.
I could remotely understand baptizing those we know who have died, but I am in serious quandary when I try to grasp the actual (Scriptural) merit of baptizing those of whom we have no personal knowledge. Baptizing the dead seems utterly meaningless since those who are dead have no sin any longer—their accounts sheet is perfectly balanced, their life has paid their sins.
In any case, Cornelius and his whole household were gifted just as the 120 at Pentecost. (Acts 10, 11) Without water baptism. Without laying on of hands. Without ceremony of any kind. Most religions I have looked into (including LDS) say that what happened to Cornelius and his family can't happen. But there sits Cornelius and his family—between the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 8, 9) and the meeting at Jerusalem (Acts 15)—as a Biblical proof otherwise.
Some have offered that this was an exception to the rule as a means of showing that God now accepted Gentiles also. Others (including two LDS missionaries) have told me that Christ laid hands on Cornelius and his family. Either explanation might account for the anomaly, but either would equally force an admission that no such exceptions can be doctrinally excluded on Scriptural grounds.
It also proves the point rather nicely (in my opinion) that just as God is no respecter of persons God is also no respecter of dogma. (Acts 10:34, 35) "...In every nation he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." If this is true in every nation how could it be reasonably less true in every religion? This working of righteousness is interesting in light of another passage, as well. (1 John 2:26-29) "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him."
Cornelius was a Gentile, he and his household worshipped Gentile Gods and Goddesses, he gave offerings at the temples of these deities. His heartfelt devotion, his tendency toward righteousness, and his earnest seeking to please God won God's favor. He didn't have to find the right religion to work righteousness or win God's favor, nor did he have to undergo water baptism, nor did he have to take these steps in order to be born of Christ.
Water baptism is not a requirement for salvation. Water baptism is an outward symbol of an inward state of righteousness that already exists—and is already saving its owner.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
Qcmbr
(New Testament | Acts 10:47 - 48)
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. -
AuldSoul
qcmbr,
How does snippet of verses mitigate the fact that no one is recorded as having laid hands on them and they had not been baptized with water prior to receiving the baptism of spirit?
At Acts 11:15, 16, Peter recounts, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."
Peter's later description of the events does not include any laying on of the hands and stipulates that the baptism they received was baptism of the Holy Ghost. Afterward, as the verses you cited demonstrate, they were baptized with water. Baptism with water was not essential for salvation, unless it is your position that one baptized with the Holy Ghost is not saved. Is that your position, qcmbr?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul