Re-Baptism, Knowledge of Remission of Sins Necessary?, Etc.

[yogi bear]

That may be so but it gives me something to try to figure out now.

[jessbuds]

I don't buy the entirety of God sees all of history and the future as though it's on video tape that He can look forward and back on whenever He cares to. I have Open Theology leanings and therefore believe that God gets to make stuff up as He goes along.

But do you believe that God knew beforehand that you would wrote that kind of line here?

Remember that God is out of time; video tape viewing and rewinding requires time.
In God; all those whom he redeemed are already in His presence but still future to us and if we are indeed one of those then our future are already in God.

The thing is; we view and understand God in our limited understanding as human being.  

[HRoberson]

That may be so but it gives me something to try to figure out now.

Okie dokie.

[HRoberson]

I don't buy the entirety of God sees all of history and the future as though it's on video tape that He can look forward and back on whenever He cares to. I have Open Theology leanings and therefore believe that God gets to make stuff up as He goes along.

But do you believe that God knew beforehand that you would wrote that kind of line here?

I do not.

Remember that God is out of time; video tape viewing and rewinding requires time.
In God; all those whom he redeemed are already in His presence but still future to us and if we are indeed one of those then our future are already in God.

No, we are not in God's presence. We are here, on this planet.

That is why Paul urges us to hold fast to our faith. Because there is the possibility that we will lose it.

The thing is; we view and understand God in our limited understanding as human being.  

I can agree with that.

[Bocephus]

Back to topic please.

Is believing baptism is the point at which sins is remitted necessary or not for salvation?

[DCR]

That be God's call, not mine.

God shows mercy on whom He shows mercy.  The command to be baptized is a constraint on us, not God.  Jesus and the Apostles showed us what to do in order to be followers of Christ.  And, all we can do is have faith that we'll be saved if we have faith in Christ, being and doing whatever is expected of us as disciples, to the best of our ability, knowing that His grace covers our sins and shortcomings.

But, God will save anyone He very well pleases, thank you very much, regardless of what we know or what we think we know.

[CDHealy]

It seems to me that the term "re-baptism" itself is self-contradictory.

Either the baptism performed on one the first time was Christian baptism or it was not.  There is no precedent whatsoever in the NT for someone being "re-baptized" in Christian baptism (whether due to increased faith, knowledge, devotion, or what have you).  We have those baptized for the first time in Christian baptism who had previously received the baptism of John the Baptist, but the two baptisms are not identical, so the Ephesians believers were not "re-baptized" but simply baptized.

So "re-baptism" is an oxymoron.

Now, notice I have not defined what is Christian baptism, and that quite intentionally.  It's not pertinent to whether or not re-baptism (so-called) is real.  However you define baptism, either one received it or one did not.  If one did not (it was incomplete, false, invalid, whatever), then when one is baptized later, it is not a re-baptism, but simply a baptism.

In the RM churches in which I grew up, sometimes children who were baptized quite young (four or five years of age) would ask for and be allowed a later baptism.  And such allowance was usually predicated on the question of faith (actually, on knowledge and understanding, but RM Christians think faith and knowledge are identical), and if somehow they came to a conclusion that the person's faith was in some way deficient, they'd "re-baptize."  But in reality, if the faith was deficient, then the "first" baptism wasn't a baptism.  They just got wet.  The "second" baptism was the "real" one.  On the other hand, if it is taken for granted that the first one was fine, then the second one, however well-intentioned, is pretty much a mockery (we just want to make sure that we've dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, Lord!).

[Mere Nick]

RM Christians think faith and knowledge are identical

That's a bit broad.  Some do, some don't.

[CDHealy]

MN:

That's fair.  I should have some most do--I have met precious few who don't.

[DCR]

RM Christians think faith and knowledge are identical

I don't agree with that perception.  I believe RM Christians generally know the difference between faith and knowledge, and most would find your statement to be a very strange and inaccurate characterization.  However, we might say that faith is dependent on a certain amount of knowledge.

It seems that it is not possible to have faith in something or someone without having some knowledge of that something.  That's the "faith comes by hearing" principle.  "And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14, 17).

I don't know how it is possible to have faith in anything without being aware of it or else having some knowledge of its existence at some level.  That's not only common sense, it's also Biblical per Romans 10:14.  We have to "learn" of something before we can have faith in it.

That doesn't say that faith and knowledge are identical, however.

[CDHealy]

And yet, DCR, if I expressed faith that somehow I would experience God's grace in some way and somehow vaguely have a notion that it's related in some way to baptism, is there an RM church that would allow me to go forward for baptism?

What if I just said, I want to be baptized?  Would that suffice?  If someone asked me why, what is necessary to demonstrate my "faith"?  In any RM church it would be knowledge.

Or, even worse, what if I said I wanted to be baptized, and my only reason was that because Jesus said to.  What if someone asked me my beliefs about baptism and I denied Acts 2:38, I denied that in baptism I received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit?  What if I said simply, I only want to be baptized because I want to follow Jesus and Jesus said to do it.  I don't think it does anything at all except get me wet, but I trust Jesus and Jesus said do it, so I want to do it.  Would any RM church baptize me?

Some RM Christians might make a nominal distinction (in name only) between faith and knowledge, but in terms of actual operation, it's knowledge of baptism that counts.

[apokalupsis]

Back to topic please.

Is believing baptism is the point at which sins is remitted necessary or not for salvation?

I would hesitate to say so.  At least that specifically.  I'm not sure the Ethiopian eunuch recognized baptism with such theological precision, and I would think if we had to be that precise, the Bible would have spelled it out as carefully as it did the construction of the temple.  And we would see scenes of Paul explaining baptism to the Gentiles in full detail.

I would think what is necessary for baptism is that the individual has come to the Lord in repentance and belief, recognizing they are a sinner.  If they are baptized as part of this decision, I believe it's enough.  I sincerely hope my salvation doesn't depend very much on the depth of my understanding of doctrine at the time.

[apokalupsis]

I'm in a RM church, (although my views on salvation are not completely in line with the traditional RM stances) and I believe the requirement for baptism is an understanding of our sinfulness before God and the ability to put your faith in Christ as the sacrifice for those sins.

In other words, the same requirements necessary for praying the 150 year old sinner's prayer are the requirements I believe apply to the 2000 year old Christian baptism.

[DCR]

And yet, DCR, if I expressed faith that somehow I would experience God's grace in some way and somehow vaguely have a notion that it's related in some way to baptism, is there an RM church that would allow me to go forward for baptism?

I suspect so.  Mileage varies.

What if I just said, I want to be baptized?  Would that suffice?  If someone asked me why, what is necessary to demonstrate my "faith"?  In any RM church it would be knowledge.

Or, even worse, what if I said I wanted to be baptized, and my only reason was that because Jesus said to.  What if someone asked me my beliefs about baptism and I denied Acts 2:38, I denied that in baptism I received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit?  What if I said simply, I only want to be baptized because I want to follow Jesus and Jesus said to do it.  I don't think it does anything at all except get me wet, but I trust Jesus and Jesus said do it, so I want to do it.  Would any RM church baptize me?

Again, I suspect some would.  If there were some disagreement on the purpose and concept of baptism per Acts 2:38 or other scriptures, a certain amount of discussion would take place... and, yes, many would likely not be comfortable going through with the baptism if the one requesting baptism disagreed with the ones to whom the request was made on the purpose or reason for baptism.  But, that wasn't really my point to argue on that anyway.  My response was directed to your statement on faith and knowledge.

Are faith and knowledge identical?  No.
Is knowledge a factor in faith?  Yes, of course.

But, we may be discussing two different issues here anyway.  There's faith in Christ on the one hand and then there's understanding and views on the particulars on the other hand.  

Is faith alone the only requirement for baptism, or is a certain understanding/view of baptism also a requirement for baptism?  I think that's the crux of the discussion in this thread.

So, for many RM churches, both faith and a specific opinion/point of view/understanding concerning baptism are required for baptism.  I'll grant you that.

Whether that's right or wrong was not my point in this case.  I simply wanted to speak to the alleged concept of faith and knowledge being identical in the minds of RM'ers.

[Jimmy]

Some RM Christians might make a nominal distinction (in name only) between faith and knowledge, but in terms of actual operation, it's knowledge of baptism that counts.

That is not true at all.  That is one of those generalizations that have no basis in fact.  It may be true of one or more individuals, but certainly not true as you have stated it.