Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is my personal belief that baptism is not always necessary for one to be forgiven of sins and saved. A case in point would be those who are dying and make a deathbed confession or ask God for salvation. I do believe many soldiers on the battlefields have done this as well as many others. Perhaps even the thief on the cross? We have no indication the thief ever actually confessed his sins or was ever baptised.
Your 2 examples are why I stated the four points as to how scriptures teach which is why I purposefully left out baptism in the first point.
repents and makes confession of faith
repents, makes confession of faith and is baptized
is baptized
knows the scriptures from infancy
As far as the thief on the cross, he did make a confession of his sin when he said:
Luke 23:41-42 " We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong. Then he said, 'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom' "
A person who doesn't reconize their sin does what the other criminal didn't do ... look to Jesus in acknowledgement of who Jesus is compared to what they are.
As it has already been states in the thread Jesus said it himself, why it was necessary to be baptized by John. "To fullfill all righteousness". The question is however, What righteousness was Jesus referring to?
Jesus fills three offices, Prophet, Priest and King. All Jewish priests attained that office in their 30th year. Part of the rituals that pertained to that ordination was the ritual cleansing in water or baptism. Jesus needed to be baptized in his 30th year to fullfill all righteousness according to the Law regarding His ordination as the Priest of His people.
This was necessary even though Jesus was not a priest in the order of Levi. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah and therefore could not fill a Levitical office. As we are taught in the bible Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek. This order is superior to the Levitical order as it was a universal preisthood and not just for the children of Israel.
I find it interesting how the 'King of righteousness' was a guy of no lineage and no progeny; and it is from His order of priesthood that Jesus was ordained to be a priest.
I find it interesting how the 'King of righteousness' was a guy of no lineage and no progeny; and it is from His order of priesthood that Jesus was ordained to be a priest.
Read the seventh chapter of of Hebrews along with a good commentary on it and most of the questions regarding why Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizeck and not a Levitical priest will be answered. It's actually very interesting and as most things are in Theology it makes perfect sence.
john did not found a church, we did that.
john was a prophet and seer. jesus' entire mission was to make sure prophesy was fulfilled, having john do the job fulfilled the scipture.
baptism is a ritual cleansing, nothing more.
Read the seventh chapter of of Hebrews along with a good commentary on it and most of the questions regarding why Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizeck and not a Levitical priest will be answered. It's actually very interesting and as most things are in Theology it makes perfect sence.
Yes.
However what God wrote in Hebrews does not change Melchizedek from being the 'King of righteousness'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.