Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bill "Papa" Lee

Is Baptism a necessary part of salvation according to the Bible?

Recommended Posts

...if you had General Conference and Christ were the concluding speaker

...

How do we know that this has not already happened?

How would a modern audience know whether or not Jesus

was addressing them from the podium? Would he have a

Galilean accent? Or, would he speak in Elizabethan prose?

If what Christ says through Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, President

Kimball, or President Monson is just as much the word of Christ

as what Christ said while walking around Galilee as reported by

Matthew, Mark, or Luke, then how do we know that a Conference

speaker is not conveying the precise words of Christ today?

UD

.

Share this post


Link to post

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

Hard to believe that the words of Christ carry no more weight than his servants.

We are dependent on Christ's servants for our knowledge of all of his words. If you accept Christ's words in the Gospels, you are receiving those words through his servants Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And Christ himself said to his servants whom he sent out to speak for him, "The one who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16).

Share this post


Link to post

...If you accept Christ's words in the Gospels, you are receiving those words through his servants Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

...

And, by extension, if you accept Jesus' teachings in the

Coptic Gospel of Thomas, you are sustaining those gnostic

editors who altered Q-sayings from Luke and Matthew.

Nevertheless, avoiding the gnostic insertions, there are

whole passages of Jesus' teachings in Thomas which are

practically identical to the canonical Q-sayings.

Just because "Thomas" conveyed those Jesus teachings,

I do not suppose we need elevate Thomas to a doctrinal

voice equal to that of Jesus -- and certainly not the

gnostic insertions/overlay of this composite text.

If Thomas is thus a composite, exhibiting varying degrees

of authenticity, why should we not inspect Matthew, etc.,

with the same sort of caution we use in reading "Thomas?"

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Dale,

I really don't think this is relevant to the issue in this thread. The thread raises the question of Paul's teaching on baptism. I simply responded that I am happy to discuss the question with people who agree to accept what Paul actually teaches on baptism. If that's not you, okay.

And, by extension, if you accept Jesus' teachings in the

Coptic Gospel of Thomas, you are sustaining those gnostic

editors who altered Q-sayings from Luke and Matthew.

Nevertheless, avoiding the gnostic insertions, there are

whole passages of Jesus' teachings in Thomas which are

practically identical to the canonical Q-sayings.

Just because "Thomas" conveyed those Jesus teachings,

I do not suppose we need elevate Thomas to a doctrinal

voice equal to that of Jesus -- and certainly not the

gnostic insertions/overlay of this composite text.

If Thomas is thus a composite, exhibiting varying degrees

of authenticity, why should we not inspect Matthew, etc.,

with the same sort of caution we use in reading "Thomas?"

UD

Share this post


Link to post

zerinus,

I think you and just one other person here so far has agreed to accept what Paul says about baptism. Let me ask you this: what is the proper procedure, in your view, for correctly interpreting Paul's teachings?

Yes, provided that it is correctly understood and interpreted. Paul is notorious for saying things that are "hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest" (2 Peter 3:16). My experience is that Evangelicals are among the worst offenders of those "unlearned and unstable" folks who "wrest" the writings of Paul.

Share this post


Link to post

Dale,

I really don't think this is relevant to the issue in this thread. The thread raises the question of Paul's teaching on baptism. I simply responded that I am happy to discuss the question with people who agree to accept what Paul actually teaches on baptism. If that's not you, okay.

Yeah -- that's OK.

Thomas says nothing noteworthy about baptism,

and the topic is not at all mentioned in the Q-sayings

of Jesus, in the canonical scriptures.

That is why we move away from Jesus, to Paul, in order

to find grist for the ordinance mill.

The Mormons avoid this side-trip, by having the 3rd Nephi

Christ launch into teachings about baptism, ere his feet

are upon solid ground at the Bountiful Temple. There, in

that text, Jesus himself clearly articulates what orthodox

baptism is --- and, soon after, baptizes a disciple. The

canonical Jesus never did any such thing, of course.

As for Paul, his teachings on baptism interest me only as

a development beyond the religion as taught and lived by Jesus.

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Dale,

I really don't think this is relevant to the issue in this thread. The thread raises the question of Paul's teaching on baptism. I simply responded that I am happy to discuss the question with people who agree to accept what Paul actually teaches on baptism. If that's not you, okay.

Correction...what Paul was taught or told about Baptism. That by so would come his remission.

Share this post


Link to post

What Christ says through Moses, Isaiah, Paul, or John is just as much the word of Christ as what Christ said while walking around Galilee as reported by Matthew, Mark, or Luke.

Almost true. No matter how good they were, they still had to transmit His words, and in doing so, limitations of the non-divine come into play. God didn't turn them into drones. Also, that doesn't mean that everything said by Moses, Isaiah, Paul, or John are the words of Christ. And it certainly doesn't mean that your interpretations of their words (whether of Christ or not) are valid.

The whole Bible is the word of God.

Being called the word of God isn't the same as being the words of God. Like you have said EVERYTHING we have came to us through non-divine mortal men. Those non-divine mortal men were not infallible nor inerrant. Their work is very valuable to us, but their work was not perfect, infallible, nor inerrant. The teachings of Jesus, even though brought to us through men, are still preeminent to the words of men brought to us through men.

My interpretation is not more authoritative than the Bible.

Nor is it more authoritative than mine.

It is, however, more valid than the interpretations of false prophets, whoever they may be.

No, not really. Just because they may be wrong, doesn't make you right.

The wrongness of your interpretations are unaffected by the work of anyone else.

Will a Christian Scientist claim that it is my interpretation of the Bible that is wrong? Of course, but so what?

And he would be right, but possibly for the wrong reason.

The issue is whether they are right in their claim.

Whether they are right or wrong, doesn't change the wrongness of your understanding.

I know this offends you, but I have the same opinion of the alleged revelations of Joseph Smith.

Why should it offend me? What bothers me is the double standards you use. Although, that, in and of itself, is evidence of the strength of the LDS position. If you can't refute it straight up, just resort to a double standard. :P

Basically, you have totally ignored what I said about the preeminence of Christ, and without even acknowledging it, you simply act as though it doesn't exist.

All I said in my first post here was that I would be happy to discuss what Paul teaches about baptism with those who agree to accept what Paul teaches about baptism. That is an obviously reasonable position to take. Your shenanigans therefore have no bearing on the issue here.

Be glad to discuss Paul's teachings of Baptism (Baptism, not circumcision). I accept Paul as being authoritative. Not as authoritative as Jesus, but authoritative. I don't accept you as being authoritative in your interpretation and therefore reserve the right to reject it.

Oh and,

Why do you want to artificially limit the discussion to Paul's teachings? What about other Biblical characters?

Share this post


Link to post
The Mormons [sic] avoid this side-trip, by having the 3rd Nephi Christ launch into teachings about baptism, ere his feet are upon solid ground at the Bountiful Temple. There, in that text, Jesus himself clearly articulates what orthodox baptism is --- and, soon after, baptizes a disciple. The canonical Jesus never did any such thing, of course.

Since the Jesus of 3 Nephi is "the canonical Jesus", this statement is nonsensical.

You mean, of course, that the Jesus of the creeds never did such a thing or the Jesus in the restricted record of the New Testament didn't. But these are not the same thing at all.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

Is this really a serious thread?

I mean, if a movement within Christianity can't even decide if something like "Baptism" is required for Salvation... then how are they supposed to know anything about Christ.

This is rhetorical or in theory; Right?

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

You wrote:

Basically, you have totally ignored what I said about the preeminence of Christ, and without even acknowledging it, you simply act as though it doesn't exist.

Not at all. Christ is preeminent over all apostles, prophets, teachers, and anyone else. Where anyone disagrees with Christ, they are wrong and Christ is right. However, the inspired scriptures of true prophets and apostles will never disagree with Christ.

You wrote:

Be glad to discuss Paul's teachings of Baptism (Baptism, not circumcision). I accept Paul as being authoritative. Not as authoritative as Jesus, but authoritative.

I also accept Christ as more authoritative than Paul, but I deny that Paul's teachings in Scripture are less true than Christ's teachings in Scripture.

You wrote:

Why do you want to artificially limit the discussion to Paul's teachings? What about other Biblical characters?

Are you really this obtuse? I didn't bring up Paul in this thread; Pa Pa did, in his opening post.

Share this post


Link to post

Is this really a serious thread?

I mean, if a movement within Christianity can't even decide if something like "Baptism" is required for Salvation... then how are they supposed to know anything about Christ.

This is rhetorical or in theory; Right?

Either the "one true religion" is a mathematical formula of perfection,

manifested in a one-size-fits-all doctrine -- or else it is not.

I profess the second option; but this is not a useful venue in which

to conduct that discussion. The vast majority of participants in this

MB appear to have already made up their minds as to the proper answer.

UD

.

Share this post


Link to post

Christ is preeminent over all apostles, prophets, teachers, and anyone else.

Good, I am glad that you finally admit that your statement earlier was in error and that you now accept the truth.

Where anyone disagrees with Christ, they are wrong and Christ is right.

:P

However, the inspired scriptures of true prophets and apostles will never disagree with Christ.

True, but they WILL DISAGREE with your misinterpretation and false doctrine.

I also accept Christ as more authoritative than Paul, . . .

Good.

. . . but I deny that Paul's teachings in Scripture are less true than Christ's teachings in Scripture.

So God turned Paul into a drone when dictating his epistles? Funny how Paul claims full ownership of his epistles.

Are you really this obtuse? I didn't bring up Paul in this thread; Pa Pa did, in his opening post.

Are you really this obtuse? Pa Pa also quoted Mark and Peter in his opening post. His complaint was, "When I debate this issue among Evangelicals they love to quote the Apostle Paul and Romans as evidence that this is not so". And then you basically confirmed his complaint. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

You wrote:

Good, I am glad that you finally admit that your statement earlier was in error and that you now accept the truth.

My position has not changed, and I see neither has your penchant for distorting what I say.

Share this post


Link to post

zerinus,

I think you and just one other person here so far has agreed to accept what Paul says about baptism. Let me ask you this: what is the proper procedure, in your view, for correctly interpreting Paul's teachings?

The proper procedure is acquiring an in depth knowledge of the scriptures, not taking the words of Paul in isolation or out of context, but understanding it in conjunction with other things that he said, and with the broader context of the whole of the Bible. And of course, having the help of the Holy Ghost, as Peter taught:

2 Peter 1
:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The implication is that the same Holy Ghost is needed to interpret them correctly.

Share this post


Link to post

All of the Bible is equally God's word.

Thats news to Paul!

1 Cor. 7: 25

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

So are the words and councils that follows "God's word" or "Paul's judgment"?

Share this post


Link to post

...

So are the words and councils that follows "God's word" or "Paul's judgment"?

If Paul held the keys to the Sixth Dispensation, then he could

speak to the whole Church as its prophet.

If Paul was only an apostle, then Peter held those keys and

Paul could speak with Divine authority only unto those over

which he held apostolic charge.

If one of the modern apostles was given charge over China, and

went there and issued a revelation unto the Church in China,

that utterance would not be elevated to a revelation unto the

whole Church, unless the Living Prophet so decreed.

When did Peter give such authority unto Paul?

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Rob,

First you said this,

All of the Bible is equally God's word.

And then you said this,

Christ is preeminent over all apostles, prophets, teachers, and anyone else. Where anyone disagrees with Christ, they are wrong and Christ is right.

Do you not see the conflict between those two statements?

So either you have changed or you are trying to be on both sides of the issue at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post

Can't speak for the Evangelicals -- they are a mixed bunch when it

comes to baptismal doctrine.

Some biblical scholars would argue that the Book of Acts is among the

least historically reliable texts in the Bible -- that it was essentially

the early church's book, promoted to enhance the traditions and practices

of the post-apostolic era.

Whether or not the Book of Acts is reliable history, the story of Paul's

conversion has two (and perhaps three) versions, which are not identical,

and which raise the possibility that the story was not reported exactly

as it happened, with perfect quotations of all that was said and done.

Given that situation, I suppose that there are some Christians who would

argue that Paul's conversion is not a hard-and-fast doctrinal basis for

congregational practice and ordinances.

In the first chapter of Mark, the gospel writer tells us that the baptism

given by John the Baptist was for repentance and the remission of sins. I

suppose that Jesus' baptism (or that conducted by his disciples) was for

a similar purpose, but with the added element of conveying church membership

in its confirmation (the baptism of fire).

So far as I know, the vast majority of Christians adhere to those principles.

Some, like the Quakers, believe that baptism is only for new converts, and

that the children of righteous families need not be baptized. Some, like

the Methodists, promote baptism but do not teach that it must be entered into

for the granting of eternal life.

Does water (properly administered) "wash away sins," or (as in the JS story)

can sin be forgiven directly by God? Does the blood of Christ "wash away sins,"

or is it a medium by which sinners can come unto God and receive remission?

It is a great, knotty controversy among the Christians, and you'll get many

different answers from the various sects.

As for the Reorganized LDS, their teaching is that, where baptism is possible,

it is to be administered, by adult believer immersion, to new converts -- the

exceptions being a convert on his death bed, and similar unusual situations.

God is all-powerful, and God will exercise that power unto salvation -- even if

human beings do not always properly understand the details of the ordinances.

Uncle Dale

Luke.7;28-30 refusing baptism is rejecting the counsel of God.

Mark.16;15-16 He that beleiveth and is baptised shall be saved.

Galations 3;27 Baptism the appointed way to put on Christ.

Titus 3;5 Saved by washing of regeneration {baptism} "and" Holy ghost

Hebrew 6;1-2 Baptisms of water and spirit fundemental.

1 Peter 3;21 Even baptism doth also now save us.

So much for evangelical disbeleief in "Acts" and quakers beleife that its only for new converts... :P

Share this post


Link to post

Thats news to Paul!

1 Cor. 7: 25

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

So are the words and councils that follows "God's word" or "Paul's judgment"?

Since Paul is the most oft quoted to support

Share this post


Link to post

I once saw baptism administered to a dying man. He was put into a wheel-chair

and his body washed with water, to the same effect as total immersion. His

confirmation was scheduled for a later time. If I recall correctly, he did

not survive long enough to be confirmed.

No problem... take his name to the Temple and they will confirm him. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I've always wondered why a group like "The Baptists" wouldn't make a bigger deal out of Baptism. If your going to call yourself "Baptists" wouldn't you think that "Baptism" would be a focus of the religion.

I'm prolly just out of my gourd, as usual.

Share this post


Link to post

I've always wondered why a group like "The Baptists" wouldn't make a bigger deal out of Baptism. If your going to call yourself "Baptists" wouldn't you think that "Baptism" would be a focus of the religion.

I'm prolly just out of my gourd, as usual.

I think originally they rejected the requirement for infant baptisms, thus their name. But now they reject the requirement for baptism, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×