Baptism Or Works Essential Or Not For Salvation?

[Tanyan]

http://www.teachmegod.com/homme1_m.htm

Hummmmm?- http://www.teachmegod.com/homee1_m.htm

[Son]

Hummmmm?- http://www.teachmegod.com/homee1_m.htm

Respectfully, salvation and born of the Spirit are not the same thing. Born of the Spirit would be for the few that are chosen, due to them choosing to live Christ's teachings, salvation requires much less, in fact it was a free gift and nothing need be done by anyone.

Your rewards will be based on the living of the commandments, and a broken heart and contrite spirit with its foundation built on Love.

[Tanyan]

http://farms.byu.edu/questionday.php?id=22

[William the Conqueror]

The only thing that can separate us from the love of Christ is ourselves. We do it when ever we are out of step with his commandments. Death is the proof that we separated ourselves from his fulness, unless it was through obedience to sacrafice, as Christ did, JS, Stephen, Paul, etc....

In that case Paul was wrong when he said, '...neither (my) life, nor (my) death...'

[Tanyan]

http://www.angelfire.com/ga/kevgram3/standard.html

[randyc]

the way evs read this is that "born of the water" means to be born phiscally into this world,

the water of the womb?.....

of course it doesnt add up or make sense but as you can see there is a way for some to

accord that it does?.......

even though 'born of the water" how is there any other way to be born into this world?

are we to have a 'dry' birth? of course not!......

so why must god "instruct" us to be born of the water?....as allready asked..were we born dry?

Why do you assume it was a command? Your argument depends on it being a command, but it is not. It is nothing more than a description of the way things are. In fact, it doesn't make sense to assume it is talking about baptism. Could anyone at all show how the idea of baptism comes OUT of this passage rather than is simply imposed upon it by those who are predisposed to thinking about baptism?

In that case Paul was wrong when he said, '...neither (my) life, nor (my) death...'

Not if Paul's death was different (he had salvation, for instance).

[kamenraider]

First of all, John 3:5 does not say anything about baptism. When Jesus says "born of water" he is talking about... birth! If you actually look at the context, it should be obvious that Jesus is contrasting physical and spiritual birth. For example, verse 6 says "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." There is absolutely no reason to inject ideas of baptism into this passage that already has an obviuos meaning.

John 3:3-7

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his motherâ??s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

It's not obvious to me that Jesus is talking about birth here! He's talking about what a man (i.e. someone who has already been born of amniotic fluid) must do to enter the kingdom. If Jesus were teaching that being born is one of the requirements, then what does that imply regarding those who die before they're born? It's obvious to me that verse 6 is spoken in response to Nicodemus' question in verse 4. I don't know of any early Christian church leaders who thought this meant birth -- do you?

Joseph Smith has this to say about it in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?--Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This strong and positive answer of Jesus, as to water baptism, settles the question: If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever: it is no wonder he is so positive in the great declaration: He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believes not shall be damned! There was no other name given under heaven, nor no other ordinance admitted, whereby men could be saved: No wonder the Apostle said, being "buried with him in baptism," ye shall rise from the dead! No wonder Paul had to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins: No wonder the angel told good old Cornelius that he must send for Peter to learn how to be saved: Peter could baptize, and angels could not, so long as there were legal officers in the flesh holding the keys of the kingdom, or the authority of the priesthood."

--pg. 264

"It is one thing to see the kingdom of God, and another thing to enter into it. We must have a change of heart to see the kingdom of God, and subscribe the articles of adoption to enter therein."

--pg. 328

[randyc]

No Touch,

Thanks for your thoughts, but you seem to me misunderstanding my points to some degree. First of all, the thing about being smarter was a joke. My point was that I am not a Christian. I do not believe the Bible to be one consistent text. For that reason I feel no need to interpret 1 John so that it makes sense combined with Hebrews. I, then, will come to a different conclusion than Christians from the last few thousand years. You see, it's not that I don't think that baptism is important to Christians or that a unified view of the Bible would not lead to a view that baptism is essential to salvation (if a unified view of the Bible is even possible); I simply disagree with you and say that 1 John DOES exclude other factors as being necessary by saying "If A, then B". Such a statement does necessarily exclude the notion that any state other than "A" is necessary for "B". It, of course, does not imply that "A" is necessary either, only sufficient. I do not believe that this is just a vague phrase that only emphasizes faith. However, this does not mean that I do not believe that there are other passages in the Bible that say that baptism is necessary. It's just that I don't feel a need to reconcile the two by ignoring one.

[randyc]

It's not obvious to me that Jesus is talking about birth here! He's talking about what a man (i.e. someone who has already been born of amniotic fluid) must do to enter the kingdom. If Jesus were teaching that being born is one of the requirements, then what does that imply regarding those who die before they're born? It's obvious to me that verse 6 is spoken in response to Nicodemus' question in verse 4. I don't know of any early Christian church leaders who thought this meant birth -- do you?

Well, it would imply that those who die before being born will not enter the kingdom, obviously. Or maybe Jesus did not consider them people. On the other hand, it could imply that Jesus was not omnipotent and didn't think about that issue. Or maybe he was omnipotent, and just chose to ignore that in order to make his main point using the concepts at hand (i.e. Nicodemus' concerns about those who have already been born being born again). Unborn fetuses weren't really the topic of the conversation, so it could have easily been simplified in this case by simply ignoring them.

[randyc]

Welcome Oregonian brother. Do you feel the area in which you live has contributed to your atheism. Your neighborhood seems to be an agnostic/athiest majority, or do you live there for that mindset?

peace,

son

Well, I don't know really. The primary cause of my atheism was my intense Christian beliefs. If I had lived a more mediocre Christian life, afraid to rely on God's promises and such, and not been so obsessed with spreading "the gospel", I would probably still be that kind of Christian today. Anyway, the town I lived in when I became an atheist (the one I live in now) is much more religious than the one I grew up in.

[No Touch]

Romans 8: '...nothing can separate us from the love of God....neither life....nor death....nor anything in all creation...'

If I could lose my salvation or give it up, then death would separate me from His love would it not? Of course if you believe people have a 2nd chance in Hades....well that seems to contradict what Dives said to Abraham in Luke 16...of course you could argue that was before Jesus allegedly visited the lost in Hades to give them a 2nd chance, however I interpret I Peter 3 to mean the Spirit of Christ was preached through Noah for one hundred and twenty years...' the spirits NOW in prison...' of course you could argue that as Barth said some in Hades will still reject the 2nd chance, however it does say spirits NOW in prison and doesn't mention that any made it out of Hades! I Peter 4 is not the same context as '...those judged in the flesh as men might live in the spirit as God....' The Gospel was preached to those before they were dead... check out the Greek. In summary: ' It is appointed for men to die ONCE and THEN the judgement...'

Hebrews 9:27. As Jesus commanded, '...Judge rightly and not by appearance...'

Love ≠ Salvation

Love ≠ Exaltation

God loves us all, even the sinners and the damned. We are all his children, even when he is angry with us.

[Son]

In that case Paul was wrong when he said, '...neither (my) life, nor (my) death...'

Paul was wrong? or our understanding of what was written? I'd say our understading.

[flavo]

A thought: in "the Great Commision" Jesus tells his disciples to baptize "them in the name of the Father," etc. Although prepositions are always a pain to translate, this one in particular may have been done poorly. There is every indication that the word should be "into" instead of "in". This would, of course, imply a quite central role for baptism. However, I do not labor under the need to believe that the Bible is consistent.

Anyway, no one addressed the 1 John passage I put up in the second post.

James 2: 19

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

So the devils will be saved.

Matthew 19

16

[FormerLDS]

Hello friends,

According to the Bible, Baptism is a requirement of salvation; however, it is not a baptism by immersion in water, but another baptism - a baptism of the Spirit - which occurs the moment one is born again.

Consider those who received the gift of the Holy Ghost in Acts chapter 10:

"44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 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."

They were saved because they had received the Gift of the Holy Ghost - then they were baptized in water.

This matches the words of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

Water baptism is contrasted with Holy Ghost Baptism; according to the Bible, they are not the same baptism.

[BCSpace]

They were saved because they had received the Gift of the Holy Ghost

Where does it say that?

Water baptism is contrasted with Holy Ghost Baptism; according to the Bible, they are not the same baptism.

Indeed. But how does that invalidate the verses requiring water baptism for salvation?

[No Touch]

They were saved because they had received the Gift of the Holy Ghost - then they were baptized in water.

This matches the words of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

Water baptism is contrasted with Holy Ghost Baptism; according to the Bible, they are not the same baptism.

So then what was the purpose of being baptized by immersion/water in the first place? Why did they start? If it in no way affected their salvation, why take up such a ritual?

[Tanyan]

There are 41 reasons to be Baptized in Water [besides being Baptized with The Holy Ghost]. In His Debt Grace, Tanyan-LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Neighbor]

Being in Jesus Christ and His being in you is what saves if we carry out the doctrine of Jesus Christ. That the Spirit is gifted AT baptism to those who believe what Peter and the apostles preached - the true gospel of Jesus Christ - is Biblical fact isn't it?

I wonder why people stumble at the matter. Why would this be an offense among those alive today? I really don't think it has reason except among those who wish to twist the gospel message into their own doctrines.

The issue I rarely hear discussed is what about those countless millions who died before the cross and were not of the nation of Israel - or even those of the nation of Israel.

That again can squarely take us back to the teachings of Jesus on the topic to where He said we will be judged by our works.

Did Jesus ever teach judgment over issues of doctrine or did He teach judgment based on works and that works are integral to ones faith?

The concluding passages from Job come to mind. The passages about what God requires come to mind....

realize we are not God, but mere men, love God, love mercy, do justly and walk humbly with thy God. God has made manifest His nature in what He has created for our provision. God has made manifest what is good in that we all are born with a nature that doesn't like it when we are lied to, or our mate sleeps with another, or someone steals something we value.... we know by nature - which is proof we are made in the image of God.

Aside from that one thing is bugging me today - if Jesus taught not to be angry without cause, why do 'Christians' today teach not to be angry when we do have cause? Are they in denial?????

[Tanyan]

Being in Jesus Christ and His being in you is what saves if we carry out the doctrine of Jesus Christ. That the Spirit is gifted AT baptism to those who believe what Peter and the apostles preached - the true gospel of Jesus Christ - is Biblical fact isn't it?

I wonder why people stumble at the matter. Why would this be an offense among those alive today? I really don't think it has reason except among those who wish to twist the gospel message into their own doctrines.

The issue I rarely hear discussed is what about those countless millions who died before the cross and were not of the nation of Israel - or even those of the nation of Israel.

That again can squarely take us back to the teachings of Jesus on the topic to where He said we will be judged by our works.

Did Jesus ever teach judgment over issues of doctrine or did He teach judgment based on works and that works are integral to ones faith?

The concluding passages from Job come to mind. The passages about what God requires come to mind....

realize we are not God, but mere men, love God, love mercy, do justly and walk humbly with thy God. God has made manifest His nature in what He has created for our provision. God has made manifest what is good in that we all are born with a nature that doesn't like it when we are lied to, or our mate sleeps with another, or someone steals something we value.... we know by nature - which is proof we are made in the image of God.

Aside from that one thing is bugging me today - if Jesus taught not to be angry without cause, why do 'Christians' today teach not to be angry when we do have cause? Are they in denial?????

Thanks for sharing that.

[Tanyan]

Resurrected !.

[flavo]

Anyway, no one addressed the 1 John passage I put up in the second post.

Was my reply sufficient???