Honest question for my evangelical friends

[kantgomo]

If the scribes and Pharisees fall short, I'm sure any grace "plus" works we would do would certainly fall short as well. Matt. 5:20 "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

[bluebell]

If the scribes and Pharisees fall short, I'm sure any grace "plus" works we would do would certainly fall short as well. Matt. 5:20 "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

This is a good example of the misunderstanding that often occures when LDS talk about works being necessary for salvation. Many non-LDS Christians see that as us saying that our works save us, when LDS don't believe that at all.

It is the Atonement of Christ which saves.

Also, remember it's not grace plus works. It's faith plus works. There is a big difference between the two terms and you can't replace one with the other when talking about LDS beliefs on the subject.

[kantgomo]

This is a good example of the misunderstanding that often occures when LDS talk about works being necessary for salvation. Many non-LDS Christians see that as us saying that our works save us, when LDS don't believe that at all.

It is the Atonement of Christ which saves.

Also, remember it's not grace plus works. It's faith plus works. There is a big difference between the two terms and you can't replace one with the other when talking about LDS beliefs on the subject.

Nevertheless, it is faith plus works in Mormonism that earns a person individual salvation or exaltation. Tomatoes, toma(ah)toes.

[UpperDarby]

Here is a great article from the ensign titled Salvation: by grace or by works?

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

[ACW]

Nevertheless, it is faith plus works in Mormonism that earns a person individual salvation or exaltation. Tomatoes, toma(ah)toes.

CFR.....make that LDS references.

[bluebell]

Nevertheless, it is faith plus works in Mormonism that earns a person individual salvation or exaltation. Tomatoes, toma(ah)toes.

It's really not.

Think of it this way. For you it's your faith + the Atonement that earns you individual salvation, right? What, isn't Christ's Atonement powerful enough to save you without you having to add to it with your faith? Why do you need to add to His Atonement to be saved? Why can't you do nothing and receive eternal life?

Those questions are legitimate, but show a complete non-understanding (on my part) of your beliefs about the relationship between your faith and the Atonement of Christ in the same way that your statements show a completely non-understanding of lds beliefs about the relationship between faith, works, and salvation.

[ERayR]

Nevertheless, it is faith plus works in Mormonism that earns a person individual salvation or exaltation. Tomatoes, toma(ah)toes.

Unless you are willing to listen you are never going to learn and understand. It is fulfilling the requirements Christ has dictated to receive the full extent of his grace. He that keepeth my commandments shall have eternal life.

[canterdogs]

Paul also emphasizes the importance of doing good works. In Titus 2 he admonishes Christians to be zealous for good works. But then he quickly explains why we should be zealous for good works. He says in Titus 3:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

So it is clear that the righteous works we do have no part in our salvation - it is all by the grace of God. However, this grace moves us unto good works.

Additionally, the familiar text in Ephesians 2 is often quoted without verse 10. Here are verses 8, 9 and 10 put together:

⁸For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: ⁹Not of works, lest any man should boast.

¹⁰For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

So it is grace that saves us. 100% grace, 0% works. This is clear from verses 8 and 9. BUT a true grace should manifest in good works. When we become new creations in Christ we no longer walk in sin but are empowered unto good works. Theses good works are called fruits of the spirit elsewhere in the NT. Notice that they are called fruits of the Spirit and not fruits of ourself. When we accept Jesus we receive the Spirit and become a new creation. Our good works are the result of the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

So we not only see James telling us that faith without works is dead, but we have Paul also telling us that we must be zealous for good works.

What is also abundantly clear from the writings of Paul, however, is that even though God's people are to do good works, it is not the good works themselves that save us.

This is the context in which the doctrine of salvation is seen by Protestants. There is no contradiction with James here. Also, the original poster mentioned that the purposes of James' epistle and many of Paul's epistles were different. In James we see a letter to the Church as a whole who had become complacent and needed a good kick. He takes aim at many things in that letter, including rich people. But even in this letter James says that "Mercy triumphs over judgment". A text those espousing a works orientated gospel often neglect.

On the other hand, Paul epistles are a often a first principles defense of Christian doctrine. Think of Romans. This epistle covers the a - z of Christian doctrine. This is quite a different context than James. We also have to remember that Paul's letters dominate James' letter in terms of content and volume. More of Paul's letters were canonized. James' letter was a brief but powerful pastoral epistle. Paul's epistles are heavy in doctrine. This also must be taken into consideration. Because when you take James and try to use one passage to override the literally dozens of passages from Paul, I think you have a problem. But, alas, a careful study of the NT shows that Paul and James are not in contradiction.

In 2 Peter we have Peter testifying that Paul's epistles are indeed scripture. James says that "untaught" people would "wrest" Paul's writings as they do with the "other scriptures". Paul's writings are indeed hard to understand to begin with. That is why we must take time to study the scriptures. When we do this, we find that there is a simple theme Paul's epistles: Faith in Jesus Christ is what saves us - not after all we can do, but despite our sinfulness he saved us. Our response to this is to present ourselves as "living sacrifices" as Paul so eloquently puts in Romans 12. The lie of legalism says that we must come out of our sins before Christ can save us - mirroring that text in 2 Nephi which states that Christ can only save us after all we can do. This text presents its own problems. How do we know when we've done enough? The truth is we can never know. That is why grace is so powerful. While we were enemies of God, Christ saved us. That is the Protestant understanding of grace.

Getting back to the statement made by Peter in 2 Peter concerning Paul's writings. He said that "untaught" men would "wrest" or "twist" (in the NKJV) Paul's writings to their own destruction. With all due honor I see this in the LDS. They seem to pick at Paul's writings like a smorgasbord, taking the things they want and leaving out the bits they don't. They twist Romans 8 into a belief that men will attain godhood and become equal with the Father and Jesus. They twist his writings about another group of Christians practicing baptism for the dead and turn this into a requirement for salvation. And they have scorn for the clear writings of Paul concerning grace. They take the more ambiguous texts and turn them into something that is totally full-proof and they take the plain teachings of Paul and scorn at these. I once heard an LDS man call Paul's writings "ramblings" after being confronted with the mountain of evidence contained in them concerning grace and not works.

[canterdogs]

Btw, I must also take aim at evangelicals - usually in the US - who take the opposite view to legalism. They espouse a "cheap grace" that seems to allow them to keep on living sinful lives. If the lie of legalism is that Christ doesn't save you in your sins, then the lie of cheap grace is that Christ doesn't save you from your sins. The truth is that Christ saves you in your sins. But He doesn't leave you there. He pulls you out of your sins and into a new life. That is what we see in the gospels. Consider the woman caught in adultery. Christ pardons her, BUT admonishes her to sin no more. She was saved in her sins, but was also commanded to cease from her sin.

So the cheap grace view that seems to have, unfortunately, taken hold amongst US evangelicals is just as bad as the legalism seen in LDS and other groups. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

[Heartleap]

Btw, I must also take aim at evangelicals - usually in the US - who take the opposite view to legalism. They espouse a "cheap grace" that seems to allow them to keep on living sinful lives. If the lie of legalism is that Christ doesn't save you in your sins, then the lie of cheap grace is that Christ doesn't save you from your sins. The truth is that Christ saves you in your sins. But He doesn't leave you there. He pulls you out of your sins and into a new life. That is what we see in the gospels. Consider the woman caught in adultery. Christ pardons her, BUT admonishes her to sin no more. She was saved in her sins, but was also commanded to cease from her sin.

So the cheap grace view that seems to have, unfortunately, taken hold amongst US evangelicals is just as bad as the legalism seen in LDS and other groups. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

Our heart is made new when we are born again. We no longer desire to sin, but Satan is at war for our soul, so our old mind battles against our new heart. It is not that we have cheap grace, but that as the mind and heart come together for God, we are for given in the process.

Heartleap...

[bluebell]

So it is grace that saves us. 100% grace, 0% works.

LDS agree. We just believe that Christ has asked us to do certain works in order to access His saving grace.

It's very similar to the way that you believe Christ has asked you to have faith before He will apply His saving grace in your life. I'm sure that doesn't mean that you believe your faith has any saving power. I assume that even though you believe that you have been asked to exercise faith in Christ (and repent?), that you still believe the equation for what saves you is 100% grace, 0% faith (and 0% repentance, if you do in fact believe that repentance is necessary. I don't know if you do or not).

[cdowis]

Paul also emphasizes the importance of doing good works. In Titus 2 he admonishes Christians to be zealous for good works. But then he quickly explains why we should be zealous for good works. He says in Titus 3:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

So it is clear that the righteous works we do have no part in our salvation - it is all by the grace of God. However, this grace moves us unto good works.

Is baptism a requirement for salvation?

[canterdogs]

LDS agree. We just believe that Christ has asked us to do certain works in order to access His saving grace.

so it really isn't 100% grace in LDS...

[Heartleap]

Is baptism a requirement for salvation?

The bible tells us to be baptized, so we should. Is it a requirement? don't think so, it is a demonstration of our love towards God. Love does not require a payment to exist, but what is done in love is deeply felt and has more meaning. Will God turn on us if we don't get baptized? I think he will examine our hearts for him more. Most people I know who come to love the Lord want to be baptized unless they have some fear of water or crowds.

Heartleap...

[canterdogs]

Is baptism a requirement for salvation?

Jesus commands that we be baptised. I believe in baptism by immersion. Baptism is the public declaration of one's faith - it is evidence of one's salvation. But would I call it a requirement? Well we see the thief on the cross whom Jesus saved. Was he baptised? No definitely not. So whilst I believe that baptism is very important, as all Jesus' commands are, we see that in certain instances baptism is not possible.

LDS must remember what baptism is. Is there something special about the water that makes us clean? Or is baptism a symbol that we have accepted Jesus Christ? I believe that it is the latter. Baptism is a testimony of our faith in Christ. I like to use the analogy of circumcision with Jews. Was Abraham justified before he was circumcised or after? The scriptures tell us that he was justified by faith before he was circumcised. But nevertheless, God commanded His people to be circumcised as a covenant between Him as Israel. But it was not the circumcision that justified them. Its the same with baptism. God justifies us when we trust in Jesus' atoning sacrifice - which happens the moment we accept Jesus. Baptism is our public declaration of our faith in Jesus and stands as a testimony our this faith.

So i don;t think it's right to think of baptism as a kind of item on a checklist.

[canterdogs]

Our heart is made new when we are born again. We no longer desire to sin, but Satan is at war for our soul, so our old mind battles against our new heart. It is not that we have cheap grace, but that as the mind and heart come together for God, we are for given in the process.

Heartleap...

Heartleap I agree with you. One only needs to read Romans 7 to know that there is a battle raging between the sinful flesh and the spirit. And like Paul, we are going to fall on occasions and this is why God's grace is so good.

But we must remember God's commands are there for a reason. We are not justified by keeping the law, but nevertheless we must uphold it. Pauls says in Romans that grace does not nullify the law. He says in Romans 7 that because we recognize how bad we are, we agree with the holy law of God. It is when we look to the law and it is this that shows our need for a savior.

And when we recognize Jesus as our Savior, we are called to holiness. Romans 12 makes this notion clear. It's not that we are justified by our holiness. The God of the Bible is too holy to accept the sinful works of men. But our changed lives is evidence of our salvation. We live to please our God and our Savior. The prophet Jeremiah says that in the new covenant, God's laws are to put in our minds and written on our hearts.

[LeSellers]

Jesus commands that we be baptised. I believe in baptism by immersion. Baptism is the public declaration of one's faith - it is evidence of one's salvation. But would I call it a requirement? Well we see the thief on the cross whom Jesus saved. Was he baptised? No definitely not.

CFR that the thief on the cross was not baptized. The scriptures do not say one or the other, so you cannot say he was not.

Further CFR that the thief was "saved", because the scriptures do not say he was, either. It says he would be with Christ in "Paradise", but that's not the same thing at all.

So whilst I believe that baptism is very important, as all Jesus' commands are, we see that in certain instances baptism is not possible.

It's a "command", but one can ignore it? Sorry, that one does not wash.

But then, that's what happens when you reject Paul's baptism for the dead. Everyone will have an equal opportunity to be baptized, and every one will have an equal opportunity to accept Jesus Christ.

LDS must remember what baptism is.

We know.

Is there something special about the water that makes us clean?

We dont' claim it's the water, per se, that makes us clean. It's the baptism (not the baptismal waters) that makes us clean. And, according to Peter, baptism not only makes us clean, it saves us. John the Baptist, among others, claimed it washes away our sins. Without baptism, then, one cannot have his sins remitted.

Or is baptism a symbol that we have accepted Jesus Christ?

Nope.

But in any case, you have created a false dichotomy, and have excluded the middle.

Baptism is for the remission of sins. How it works is a mystery, tied up inextricably with the Atonement of Jesus Christ, but you cannot have your sins forgiven without it.

Baptism is a testimony of our faith in Christ.

Please show this from scripture.

I like to use the analogy of circumcision with Jews.

You can use any analogy you like, but that does not make it so.

Was Abraham justified before he was circumcised or after? The scriptures tell us that he was justified by faith before he was circumcised.

So? Your analogy is flawed, fatally. Baptism and circumcision are not the same thing, and the token of their covenant is not the token of ours. (BTW, have you made any covenants?)

But nevertheless, God commanded His people to be circumcised as a covenant between Him as Israel.

There was no "Israel" when Abraham made his covenant with God. So it was not a covenant between God and Israel, but a covenant between God and Abraham (meant to represent the entirety of his posterity).

The Law of Circumcision was renewed/restored at Sinai, this time with Israel. But they still baptized in addition to their male children being circumcised, else what were the giant basins of water for, and why did the Jews not laugh John to scorn when he proposed baptism as the means of entering the Kingdom of God?

But it was not the circumcision that justified them.

You are conflating "justification" and "salvation". These two are different, too.

No one is saying either circumcision or baptism justifies us or ever did. We agree that faith is absolutely requisite for salvation. We just accept Christ's words that baptism is also a requirement.

We know why non-Catholics and other non-LDS Christians must reject baptism: it's because they have no priesthood. Without it, any ordinance is vacuous, so all ordinances become optional, outward signs, rather than symbols. Catholics, even though they have not had the Priesthood of God for 1900 years, at least recognize the fact that ordinances ("sacraments" in their parlance) are necessary to salvation, as much as is faith.

Its the same with baptism. God justifies us when we trust in Jesus' atoning sacrifice - which happens the moment we accept Jesus.

Show this from the scriptures. Ananias and Sapphira accepted Jesus (and were doubtless baptized, too), but they were both killed by God when they failed to obey His prophet, Peter.

Baptism is our public declaration of our faith in Jesus and stands as a testimony our this faith.

No, it is not. It is a mandatory ordinance, required for salvation. Jesus tells us that he who believes and is baptized will be saved but that he who doesn't even believe will be damned. Many Evangelicals claim that the lack of the parallel "and is not baptized" in this means that baptism is not required. ONe even went so far as to say that the same thing cold be said like this: He who gets on board the bus and sits down will get to Phoenix, but he does not get on board will stay in Fresno." That's ridiculous because the law requires that he sit down, and that, if he does not, he will be kicked off the bus.

This is the same as with baptism. If you don't follow the law, you will not be saved, and baptism is part of the law.

So i don;t think it's right to think of baptism as a kind of item on a checklist.

Then don't bother getting on board the bus, because, without sitting down, you will still not get to Phoenix.

Lehi

[bluebell]

so it really isn't 100% grace in LDS...

Yes. It is.

[cdowis]

Jesus commands that we be baptised. I believe in baptism by immersion. Baptism is the public declaration of one's faith - it is evidence of one's salvation. But would I call it a requirement? Well we see the thief on the cross whom Jesus saved. Was he baptised? No definitely not.

CFR, please. I would like to see your reference where he was "definitely not" baptized.

Christ's declaration indicated that he was indeed baptized, probably by John the Baptist, or by one of Christ's disciples. As a disciple of John, he had fallen from grace.

In any case, we agree that something is indeed required. While we are not saved by our works, Christ made it clear that works are a requisite for Him to bring us to the presence of the Father.

I think our belief in respect to faith and works are very similar, with some difference on how we express that belief.

[blooit]

Matthew 19

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy cneighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Why is Christ giving directions to this young man to follow the commandment to gain access to have eternal life?

[cdowis]

Why is Christ giving directions to this young man to follow the commandment to gain access to have eternal life?

Also Luke 10:

[25] And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

[26] He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

[27] And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

[28] And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

[canterdogs]

A couple of quick responses:

1. It is truly amazing that LDS can make the argument that it is not certain whether the thief was baptized or not. Seriously, the guy was in the process of being crucified. It is really reasonable to expect him to have been baptized? (perhaps you are referring to a posthumous LDS baptism?) And when Jesus says that he will be with Him in paradise it means that this sinner was saved. Remember the thief asked Christ to remember him in the Kingdom. Jesus obliged and promised him paradise.

2. I've been asked to show scriptures showing that faith in Jesus is our justification. Again this is a truly amazing request. Please read Paul's epistles to the Romans and the Galatians for starts. On a technical point - no where in scripture is Peter referred to as a prophet. He is an apostle. These terms are different. On Ananias and Sapphira I agree, if one willfully disobeys God and does not repent, then you bring judgment upon yourself.

3. On baptism for the dead - this is not Paul teaching. Here is the relevant passage (my emphasis added):

²⁹Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

³⁰And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

Paul makes a clear distinction between them and us. He was rebuking those in the church who were doubting the doctrine of the resurrection. In doing so he was pointing to a group that were baptizing for the dead. You see, even those other people believe in the resurrection, how much more should the true church believe in it? That was his point. He wasn't teaching them to be baptized for the dead. It's a clear case of taking scripture out of context and twisting it.

4. Show in me scripture where it says baptism is part of the law. The law refers to either the OT ceremonial law that was done away with on the Cross or the moral law (the ten commandments) handed down to Moses by God Himself on Mt. Sinai.

5. I never said that baptism should be ignored. I encourage all believers in Christ to be baptized. What I don't do, and neither did the early apostles, is made baptism a requirement for salvation. When the NT talks of salvation, it talks of God's grace - not of baptism. Here's one of several statements Paul makes on salvation:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Why would we add to this?

6. Finally, on the rich young ruler: Notice the irony. Christ told him to keep the commandments. BUT he still LACKED. Commandment keeping didn't save this young man. By his own admission he had kept them all. But he still lacked. You can think of this young man as a good LDS or Baptist man who appears righteous. He attends church and pays tithe etc. But this passage shows us that all his righteous acts weren't good enough for salvation. Why did this young man feel he lacked even tho he was keeping the law by the book? What was it he lacked? I'll let you guys figure it out. I suggest you read Romans where it discusses law and grace to find out.

[blooit]

6. Finally, on the rich young ruler: Notice the irony. Christ told him to keep the commandments. BUT he still LACKED. Commandment keeping didn't save this young man. By his own admission he had kept them all. But he still lacked. You can think of this young man as a good LDS or Baptist man who appears righteous. He attends church and pays tithe etc. But this passage shows us that all his righteous acts weren't good enough for salvation. Why did this young man feel he lacked even tho he was keeping the law by the book? What was it he lacked? I'll let you guys figure it out. I suggest you read Romans where it discusses law and grace to find out.

So Christ was lying to him? I'm not trying to demonize what you are saying, but the Savior only answered honestly, to do otherwise would make him less than perfect. While he demonstrated that the TEN commandments were insufficient, he then gave additional commandments. To LDS this is what the fulfillment of the Law of Moses was all about, that we then needed to live a higher law, largely illustrated by the Sermon on the Mount.

This is really my initial point. (And btw canterdogs and hearleap - thanks for honestly helping me understand where you guys stand better) - I just struggle to understand why my friends focus so much on Romans and the "Grace chapters" while explaining away so many works passages. Clearly they both play a role, and a plain reading of the NT seems to indicate more than just a "works result from faith" argument. Clearly they play a role in salvation - or the Savior is merely playing games with this young man. Personally I think he told him exactly what to do, and then commanded him to live the law of consecration, but he was unable to do that.

[canterdogs]

@ LeSellers: "Jesus tells us that he who believes and is baptized will be saved but that he who doesn't even believe will be damned."

Notice it doesn't say that he who doesn't believe and is not baptized will be damned.

Also since LDS are baptizing on behalf everyone who is dead, does this mean that all those who died without knowledge of the LDS gospel will be saved?

[Stargazer]

A couple of quick responses:

1. It is truly amazing that LDS can make the argument that it is not certain whether the thief was baptized or not. Seriously, the guy was in the process of being crucified. It is really reasonable to expect him to have been baptized? (perhaps you are referring to a posthumous LDS baptism?) And when Jesus says that he will be with Him in paradise it means that this sinner was saved. Remember the thief asked Christ to remember him in the Kingdom. Jesus obliged and promised him paradise.

Two points here.

You reject the possibility that that thief might have been baptized completely out of hand, when nothing in scripture says it one way or another? The fact is, John the Baptist apparently baptized thousands of Jews before Jesus showed up, and continued his ministry for possibly a year longer after that, probably baptizing hundreds more. There is no way you can prove that the thief had not been baptized, and there is a distinct possibility (by sheer working of chance) that he had in fact been to John's baptism, and another possibility that he had been baptized by one of Jesus's disciples, because Jesus had sent them out all over Israel, and they baptized whoever would come to them, too. Why is this so hard to accept as a possibility? And what does being crucified have to do with whether he had been baptized? A person who has been baptised cannot screw up and get executed for wrongdoing? It's actually a new idea to me that the thief could have been baptized already -- until today it had never occurred to me -- but I see there's some chance of it. The question of reasonableness is an interesting one -- but reasoning alone does not necessarily know facts. We simply have no way to know, but it is clear that there's at least a chance that it was the case.

The other thing is, I found it a little hard to understand what it was about being in paradise that equated to being saved, until I remembered that aside from the black/whiteness of Trinitarian=Christian and Non-Trinitarian=Pagan, there's also the black/whiteness of heaven/hell. With paradise as a synonym for heaven, i.e. saved. I see where you're coming from here. To avoid our talking past each other on this, I should explain how LDS doctrine differs from yours in this particular. To wit:

LDS doctrine holds that there isn't just some black/white heaven/hell thing going on. We actually hold to something the Bible says on the subject, that "many mansions" thing. So there's not only not just one place of heavenly reward, there's also a place that consitutes a "holding area" if you will, where those who did not have a chance to hear about the Gospel (i.e. the vast majority of all humans), get that chance before they get assigned to their eternal reward.

Jesus in fact did not promise the thief that he was suddenly "going to heaven". He said "Today thou shalt be with me in paradise," which isn't the same thing. And how do I know that Jesus wasn't telling him that at all? Because Jesus told the thief that the thief was going where He Himself was going. And He didn't go to heaven. He went to paradise. In fact, you'll recognize that Jesus didn't go to heaven because after he was resurrected the first person he spoke to was Mary Magdelene, to whom he said, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (New Testament | John 20:17)" Unless you want to claim that where the Father is is not heaven. Good luck with that, if so.

In other words, Jesus hadn't yet gone to heaven, and the thief was with Him, somewhere else. And where was Jesus?

8 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight

souls were saved by water. (New Testament | 1 Peter 3:18 - 20)

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in

the spirit. (New Testament | 1 Peter 4:6)

That is where the thief was, hearing the Gospel afresh from the lips of the Son of God before He was resurrected. In a place of waiting, a "spirit prison". Now don't get confused about the days of Noah. Unless you want to claim that maybe God let those who died in the Noachian Flood get to hear the Gospel, but all the rest didn't. And in respect of your assertion that it isn't the water of baptism that saves you, I suggest you re-read verse 20 where it says that "eight souls were saved by water." Not, note carefully, saved by the Ark, but by water.

Now as to why Jesus would call it Paradise, when Peter calls it Spirit Prison, maybe there's two divisions -- one for those who were fairly righteous and one for those who weren't (for where the heck was the OTHER, unrepentant, thief going?).

3. On baptism for the dead - this is not Paul teaching. Here is the relevant passage (my emphasis added):

²⁹Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

³⁰And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

Paul makes a clear distinction between them and us. He was rebuking those in the church who were doubting the doctrine of the resurrection. In doing so he was pointing to a group that were baptizing for the dead. You see, even those other people believe in the resurrection, how much more should the true church believe in it? That was his point. He wasn't teaching them to be baptized for the dead. It's a clear case of taking scripture out of context and twisting it.

I've heard this explanation before. That Paul is using the supposedly apostate practice of some disapproved group as a teaching point as to why one should believe in the resurrection. Sorry, doesn't wash. Paul was not known for his liberal ways when it came to false doctrine. Or was he? I forget.

They vs We? This is Paul using two different examples as to the futility of our practices if the dead don't rise. What's the point of baptism for the dead if the dead don't rise? And if the dead don't rise, why would we stand in jeopardy every hour, risking our lives!? Dead without resurrection! Yikes! Several verses before we arrive to this point in 1 Cor15 Paul goes on at length about how our faith is in vain if there's no resurrection, and why do you think he would suddenly whip out a false doctrine to hammer the Corinthians with, when he was going to great pains to draw them out of false doctrine?

That makes no sense whatsoever. You're trying to explain away the clear description of a scriptural doctrine. Adding to or taking away? I'll let you answer that one.

4. Show in me scripture where it says baptism is part of the law. The law refers to either the OT ceremonial law that was done away with on the Cross or the moral law (the ten commandments) handed down to Moses by God Himself on Mt. Sinai.

Wikipedia on baptism ("Mikveh") in Jewish law and tradition.

Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water. Some, such as a Zav, however require "living water," such as springs or groundwater wells. Living water has the further advantage of being able to purify even while flowing as opposed to rainwater which must be stationary in order to purify. The mikveh is designed to simplify this requirement, by providing a bathing facility that remains in ritual contact with a natural source of water.

Why would John the Baptist be sent to "prepare the way" for the Messiah using the Mikveh, or baptism, and Jesus submit to the ordinance "to fulfill all righteousness", if it was to be dropped like a hot potato afterwards? Yes, yes, I know that you like to say that Christians should be baptized, but why be baptized if it is not required? To show off?

5. I never said that baptism should be ignored. I encourage all believers in Christ to be baptized. What I don't do, and neither did the early apostles, is made baptism a requirement for salvation. When the NT talks of salvation, it talks of God's grace - not of baptism. Here's one of several statements Paul makes on salvation:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Why would we add to this?

Who's adding to it? You are, effectively, by using Paul's words to deny Christ's.

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 mother'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.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

(New Testament | John 3:3 - 10)

Jesus did not say to Nicodemus that one had to be baptized by water and by spirit, "until I am resurrected, then it will be optional," he said that those who weren't baptized "cannot enter into the kingdom of God." That has the stamp of doctrinal finality, and for all time.

Actually, it's a fairly recent innovation that baptism isn't a required ordinance. I understand that it was the Protestant reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who introduced the notion in the 16th century. Isn't it sad that it took 1600 years before somebody finally realized that Jesus was actually kidding when he told Nicodemus he had to be baptized? Think of all the water that has been wasted.

6. Finally, on the rich young ruler: Notice the irony. Christ told him to keep the commandments. BUT he still LACKED. Commandment keeping didn't save this young man. By his own admission he had kept them all. But he still lacked. You can think of this young man as a good LDS or Baptist man who appears righteous. He attends church and pays tithe etc. But this passage shows us that all his righteous acts weren't good enough for salvation. Why did this young man feel he lacked even tho he was keeping the law by the book? What was it he lacked? I'll let you guys figure it out. I suggest you read Romans where it discusses law and grace to find out.

Better read James on the subject as well.

The point is, the Rich Young Man still LACKED, because even though keeping the commandments is required, keeping the commandments is not sufficient. We have to turn backwards somersaults for all time because the Catholic church was at one time trying to raise money by charging people for the forgiveness of sins (sorry, Ceeboo and Saemo, but "Simony" along with indulgences are apostate), and because Martin Luther was disgusted by this (and he was right to be), doctrine was taken completely from one logical extreme to another with the notion that it is Grace Alone that saves you -- throwing works out completely. Paul's "lest some should boast" pins the tail on the donkey, but the Grace-Alone extremists took it to an entirely new level, where suddenly it's Cheap Grace. Nothing is required. No baptism, no charity, nothing. It makes the incomprehensible formulations that constitute the doctrine of the Trinity into seeming comprehensibility in comparison to Grace with No Works.

As some have said, it may be incomprehensible, but that's the beauty of it.