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

[ELF1024]

Elf,

You wrote:

And just what evidence do we have that you are willing even to consider something outside your own beliefs?

I find it fascinating that so many Mormons on this board, whenever they run into difficulty defending their viewpoint, try to change the subject to my motivations. That is a clear signal that you have run out of rational support for your position.

What can I say Rob, we learned well from you.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You wrote:

Really Rob, your provided evidence of Christ stating the WHOLE OT is inspired and affirmed? I must have missed that post...

No doubt.

You wrote:

All I saw you do was change the focus, just like this is another attempt to change the focus off of your unsupportable conclusion to me.

Please explain to me what sort of statement Jesus might have made that would satisfy you on this point, understanding that he would not have called the Jewish Scriptures "the Old Testament."

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

CFR.

What can I say Rob, we learned well from you.

[LeSellers]

They were not cannonlized books so I am talking about the 66 books of the bible we have now.

Please!!! The word is "canonized". It has one N between the A and the O, there is no L.

The question you folks never answer, though, is, "How did we get the Bible, why are those sixty-six specific books become the Bible and the others that could have been included were excluded?"

By whose authority do you venerate that particular selection of scripture, and reject other writings (many of which are favorably noted in the Bible as we have it)?

The fact is that those who defined the canon were not (and notably did not claim) any divine authority to make their selections, and this applies equally to the New and Old Testaments. The I Jews who chose their canon were trying to deny I Christians from using Jewish scripture to show Christianity as being a valid form of Judaism. The bishops who selected the 27 New Testamental canon did so to deny their adversaries validity from scripture. Please note, btw, that those they were attempting to block were doing what Protestants did a millennium later: rejecting the authority of the established, entrenched church(es).

The Bible is not "common ground", it is a battle ground and has been for two thousand years.

George Orwell said it well: He who controls the present (what is scripture) controls the past, and he who controls the past, controls the future.

Also remember the bible is not just a book but it is alive and God Word does return void, like other religious book even an koran!

I'd have to guess your wording is not what you meant to say. None of us Saints cares a whit about the Koran: what God may or may not have revealed to Muhammad (there is some discussion on the issue among us), it does not apply to us.

Other scripture, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, are the expanded word of God. Anyone who rejects, a priori, additional scripture had better have a very good reason for doing so. One reason it is worrisome that you (and uncounted other "Evangelicals") reject additional scripture is that the Bible, your scripture never says it is the only scripture, and, quite to the contrary, tells us that there were and will be more of God's word.

That you say the Bible is "alive" contradicts your premise. If it is alive, as you claim, then where is the evidence of this? A living thing grows, it adapts to the current situation, and it demonstrates change. All of these you deny in saying, "There is no more word of God."

Lehi

[ELF1024]

Elf,

CFR.

Do you want to make the CFR answerable by stating the question, do should I just start citing examples of you being elusive, uncooperative, or argumentative?

I'm sure I can find numberous just in this thread alone...

#65 - Insisting your position hasn't changed, even though it quite plainly has from post #37

#121 - Throwing out Mark 16:9-20 because "most bible scholar's agree"

#128 - Insisting that scripture written to groups such as the Romans have no bearing on us today because they weren't written "to us". Dispite being included in the Bible.

#137 - Instead of answering the question, you refuse to do so and change the focus back on me.

#141 - Dispite Mola's answer, you still do not answer the original inquiry.

#183 & #186 - refusal to give the counter-argument, and game playing. (see #189)

#206 - Once again changing the focus from your position to someone else's.

... and that's just THIS thread.

[ELF1024]

Elf,

You wrote:

Please explain to me what sort of statement Jesus might have made that would satisfy you on this point, understanding that he would not have called the Jewish Scriptures "the Old Testament."

Just support your position Rob. Quit trying to change the focus and put this one me. It's your position, either defend it or admit you can't.

[stemelbow]

stem,

You didn't answer my question. Can you cite even one instance of anyone in the NT disputing the truth of anything, anywhere, in the OT?

I don't see how this is relevant at all. Really...what does it matter if anyone in the NT did not think something was true in the Old? that is not at issue. I don't think, for instance, the NT was written for the purpose of exposing the untruths of the OT.

My evidence is not limited to "a couple of examples." I cited passages from at least 18 different chapters of the NT (and that wasn't even close to being exhaustive of the evidence).

Fine...a few examples. Either way, it is unreasonable to assume that some examples, however many you come up with, somehow verify that all the OT is defined by Jesus as true/factual/even inspired for that matter.

So, I have cited at least 18 different passages in the NT for my position. You have cited . . . zero.

I have yet to see cite one passage that supports your position of the whole OT being true/factual/inspired and quotable as God's word. You have cited examples that show that jesus, and paul see at least some of the OT as factual/inpired/true quotable as God's word. that's all.

It's true that the NT does not quote Song of Solomon. However, it does quote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zechariah, and Malachi. Its quotations from these books often are introduced with dogmatic citation formulae such as "it is written." Do you concede that the NT writers viewed these books as Scripture? What about the ten or so books besides Song of Solomon that the NT does not explicitly quote: do you question their inclusion in the OT as well? If not, the lack of explicit quotations from Song of Solomon is not really decisive, is it?

My example is merely explaining that to quote some of the OT is not to assume the whole holds to the same level of truth. I can quote Ghandi, for instance, as speaking truth, but that does not mean I think everything he said is true.

Jesus accepted the same body of Scriptures as the Pharisees and most other first-century Jews (with the glaring exception of the Sadducees). We see this, for example, in Luke 24:44, where Jesus refers to "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms." This statement reflects the same threefold division of the Jewish Scriptures that was current in his day and that Jews still accept today, as is expressed in the traditional Jewish name for the OT, the TaNaK (Torah, Law; Nevi'im, Prophets; Ketuvim, Writings). The Gospels don't report any disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees about what writings were Scripture, and the positive evidence that we do have supports the conclusion that Jesus accepted the same books that they did. We could haggle over Song of Solomon and perhaps Esther, but that would really be a waste of time. The issue I am pressing is that the books that Jesus and his contemporaries clearly did consider Scripture, both he and they assumed were the word of God. They quoted those books without any qualifications or cautions or hesitations as divine truth. Again, I have cited just a small fraction of the evidence, but that small fraction looms large compared to the absolute zero evidence you have from the NT to the contrary.

I am also aware that many scholars espouse that what Jesus was familiar with regarding what was scripture to Him is itself contested. that in itself does not necessarily mean too much. What it does suggest is that your attempt to conclude that the OT as a whole is inspired and therefore can be quoted as being God's word because Jesus quoted some very small parts of it and also suggested some very small parts of it contained God's word is in the very least inconclusive...and more likely unsustainable.

love,

stem

[ElfLord]

My example is merely explaining that to quote some of the OT is not to assume the whole holds to the same level of truth. I can quote Ghandi, for instance, as speaking truth, but that does not mean I think everything he said is true.

Case in point...

Acts 17:28, where Aratus, Phaenomena 5, is paraphrased.

Acts 26:14. The phrase "it hurts you to kick against the goad" is a Greek

proverb (see Euripides, Bacchae, 794-795).

1 Corinthians 15:33, where Paul quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.

Titus 1:12, where Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon is quoted.

Conclusion:

(1) An Apostle of Christ was well read in non-Christian literature.

(2) At least four times, an Apostle of Christ included quotes from pagan writers in the

New Testament

(3) Paul seemed to have no theological problem with quoting pagans, and the Holy Spirit

must have concurred.

(4) We conclude then, that sometimes a pagan will say or write something that is

useful, if not true, and that reading widely will not only not destroy your faith, but

could enhance it.

Rowland Croucher

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

What is your problem?

Me not you.

[Vance]

Fine...a few examples. Either way, it is unreasonable to assume that some examples, however many you come up with, somehow verify that all the OT is defined by Jesus as true/factual/even inspired for that matter.

Very good point, although you would think this would be OBVIOUS.

Still, I am glad you pointed it out.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You're just trying to waste my time. Here are some very quick replies:

#65 - Insisting your position hasn't changed, even though it quite plainly has from post #37

If you sincerely think my position changed, then you don't understand my position. Jesus can be personally preeminent over his own apostles without their words in Scripture being less true than his words in Scripture. If you really don't understand how both of those things can be true, I probably can't help you.

#121 - Throwing out Mark 16:9-20 because "most bible scholar's agree"

The fact that most Bible scholars agree is not the reason I reject those verses, although it is a fact that most Bible scholars agree on this point. No, there are substantive external and internal evidences that are the reasons why textual critics come to this conclusion. If you wish to remain ignorant on this subject, again, I can't help you.

#128 - Insisting that scripture written to groups such as the Romans have no bearing on us today because they weren't written "to us". Dispite being included in the Bible.

I insisted on no such thing. That is simply false. It was Vance that brought up Romans, not me, and he did so as a way of avoiding addressing the issue pertaining specifically to John 16:13.

#137 - Instead of answering the question, you refuse to do so and change the focus back on me.

You are ignoring the fact that your question was posed with sarcasm and disrespect. Furthermore, you should already have known the answer, because you know I am an evangelical Protestant, and you know which books we accept as Scripture.

#141 - Dispite Mola's answer, you still do not answer the original inquiry.

There was no need, because you should already have known the answer, and you did not ask in a way that merited a response. But again, I accept the same 66 books of the Bible that all evangelical Protestants accept.

#183 & #186 - refusal to give the counter-argument, and game playing. (see #189)

Come on. I have asked you and others here numerous direct questions that you and they refuse to answer. And I did present my argument (#203). No one has offered anything like a serious, respectful reply to it.

#206 - Once again changing the focus from your position to someone else's.

Not at all. Stem brought up the Song of Solomon, so I asked him a question about the significance of that issue. Just normal discussion.

[ELF1024]

Your the one who asked for the CFR...

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that it hasn't been answered.

Elf,

You're just trying to waste my time. Here are some very quick replies:

#65 - Insisting your position hasn't changed, even though it quite plainly has from post #37

If you sincerely think my position changed, then you don't understand my position. Jesus can be personally preeminent over his own apostles without their words in Scripture being less true than his words in Scripture. If you really don't understand how both of those things can be true, I probably can't help you.

#121 - Throwing out Mark 16:9-20 because "most bible scholar's agree"

The fact that most Bible scholars agree is not the reason I reject those verses, although it is a fact that most Bible scholars agree on this point. No, there are substantive external and internal evidences that are the reasons why textual critics come to this conclusion. If you wish to remain ignorant on this subject, again, I can't help you.

#128 - Insisting that scripture written to groups such as the Romans have no bearing on us today because they weren't written "to us". Dispite being included in the Bible.

I insisted on no such thing. That is simply false. It was Vance that brought up Romans, not me, and he did so as a way of avoiding addressing the issue pertaining specifically to John 16:13.

#137 - Instead of answering the question, you refuse to do so and change the focus back on me.

You are ignoring the fact that your question was posed with sarcasm and disrespect. Furthermore, you should already have known the answer, because you know I am an evangelical Protestant, and you know which books we accept as Scripture.

#141 - Dispite Mola's answer, you still do not answer the original inquiry.

There was no need, because you should already have known the answer, and you did not ask in a way that merited a response. But again, I accept the same 66 books of the Bible that all evangelical Protestants accept.

#183 & #186 - refusal to give the counter-argument, and game playing. (see #189)

Come on. I have asked you and others here numerous direct questions that you and they refuse to answer. And I did present my argument (#203). No one has offered anything like a serious, respectful reply to it.

Actually in reference to #203, It has been answered several tiems by Stem. (#204, #210, #232)

#206 - Once again changing the focus from your position to someone else's.

Not at all. Stem brought up the Song of Solomon, so I asked him a question about the significance of that issue. Just normal discussion.

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

You're a nice person -- unlike some others here -- so please don't be offended when I point out that you still have not answered my question. I have answered yours: I pointed out that Jesus referred to the whole OT as true in such passages as Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 24:44. If you are demanding that the NT quote the entire OT and preface each quotation with "The following statement is true, inspired, and inerrant scripture," obviously I won't be able to present such evidence. But that would be an absurd level of proof to demand. You wouldn't be able to find that level of proof in my own writings, which, to be consistent, would require you to conclude that I don't believe the whole OT to be true Scripture!

So, I have presented some evidence for my view. You still have not presented any for yours. Would you care to do so, or do you agree that there is no such evidence anywhere in the NT?

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

The right thing for you to do would be either to admit that your criticisms were false or show good reasons for thinking that they were true. You don't seem prepared to do either.

[ELF1024]

stem,

You're a nice person -- unlike some others here -- so please don't be offended when I point out that you still have not answered my question. I have answered yours: I pointed out that Jesus referred to the whole OT as true in such passages as Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 24:44. If you are demanding that the NT quote the entire OT and preface each quotation with "The following statement is true, inspired, and inerrant scripture," obviously I won't be able to present such evidence. But that would be an absurd level of proof to demand. You wouldn't be able to find that level of proof in my own writings, which, to be consistent, would require you to conclude that I don't believe the whole OT to be true Scripture!

So, I have presented some evidence for my view. You still have not presented any for yours. Would you care to do so, or do you agree that there is no such evidence anywhere in the NT?

Matthew 5:17-18

17

[ELF1024]

Elf,

The right thing for you to do would be either to admit that your criticisms were false or show good reasons for thinking that they were true. You don't seem prepared to do either.

As I said Rob, your dislike of the answer, changes nothing.

[stemelbow]

stem,

You're a nice person -- unlike some others here -- so please don't be offended when I point out that you still have not answered my question. I have answered yours: I pointed out that Jesus referred to the whole OT as true in such passages as Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 24:44. If you are demanding that the NT quote the entire OT and preface each quotation with "The following statement is true, inspired, and inerrant scripture," obviously I won't be able to present such evidence. But that would be an absurd level of proof to demand. You wouldn't be able to find that level of proof in my own writings, which, to be consistent, would require you to conclude that I don't believe the whole OT to be true Scripture!

So, I have presented some evidence for my view. You still have not presented any for yours. Would you care to do so, or do you agree that there is no such evidence anywhere in the NT?

Rob,

I have yet to make a claim. I was challenging yours, in ths thread. If you take those two passages to confirm that the entire OT is true/inspired/and whathaveyou, then so be it. Neither of the two speak about the OT, nor define the OT as that which is considered the law according to jews in Jesus' time. I did note that you did say you believe the Jews in jesus' time did consider the whole of the OT be considered the law, but I simply don't buy it, and I made note of that when I suggested there are plenty who dispute whether we know what all was considered scripture in Jesus' time, according to the jews.

Be that as it may, I simply don't see why you are asking me that question. I did not claim anything otherwise. I have not taken the position that the NT writers, any of them, have said that the OT, or that which we consider the OT has some parts that aren't true. That was my answer to your question.

love,

stem

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

I believe the appropriate response would be that your dislike of my answer doesn't change anything.

Neither of these verses have anything to do with what your talking about.

The Bible or the OT, or the NT is NOT "The Law". What the Lord has revealed to man, be it written, oral, lost or known is "the law". It doesn't have to be written down, it can be lost. All will still be fufilled. You can't just wipe out something by not having it in the Bible.

[ELF1024]

Elf,

I believe the appropriate response would be that your dislike of my answer doesn't change anything.

Are you saying that only those things written in the Bible will come to pass? That God will not honor those things that have been forgotten or left out? Does God forget his promises?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

Huh? Are you seriously disputing that the apostles in the NT were quoting the OT? Are you denying that Paul was quoting Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 (note his reference to "the Law of Moses")??? And when Jesus said, "It is written...," was he not quoting Scripture???

Do you think Christ quoted the OT? Or speaking for Himself? They learned from him, as well by oral tradition. Think about it for a moment before you reply.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

Obviously, God does not forget his promises. But we have no way of knowing about promises of God that are not revealed to us. In order for God to make promises to us, he must reveal them to us.

Are you saying that only those things written in the Bible will come to pass? That God will not honor those things that have been forgotten or left out? Does God forget his promises?

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

Yes, Christ quoted the OT. Do you seriously disagree with this?

Do you think Christ quoted the OT? Or speaking for Himself? They learned from him, as well by oral tradition. Think about it for a moment before you reply.

[Rob Bowman]

You wrote:

If you take those two passages to confirm that the entire OT is true/inspired/and whathaveyou, then so be it. Neither of the two speak about the OT, nor define the OT as that which is considered the law according to jews in Jesus' time. I did note that you did say you believe the Jews in jesus' time did consider the whole of the OT be considered the law, but I simply don't buy it, and I made note of that when I suggested there are plenty who dispute whether we know what all was considered scripture in Jesus' time, according to the jews.

You have just made a claim: that there are plenty (of whom, you don't say: scholars? Mormons? skeptics?) who dispute whether we know what books the Jews considered Scripture in Jesus' time. Please provide a reference for this claim.

Josephus, the Jewish historian who was born about AD 37 and lived throughout the entire apostolic era, stated in his book Against Apion that the Jews recognized 22 books. The number 22 sounds way off from 39, but that is because the ancient Jews regarded as single books what we divide into separate books. Josephus recognized the 5 books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy), 13 books of the Prophets (probably Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, The Twelve [minor prophets], Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Job, Daniel), and four poetic books (probably Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes). See Sid Z. Leiman, "Josephus and the Canon of the Bible," in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 53-54. Many other such studies could be cited.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

Yes, Christ quoted the OT. Do you seriously disagree with this?

Again

[ELF1024]

Elf,

Obviously, God does not forget his promises. But we have no way of knowing about promises of God that are not revealed to us. In order for God to make promises to us, he must reveal them to us.

Then why do you limit yourself to " I accept the same 66 books of the Bible that all evangelical Protestants accept.". Why not accept the Catholic additions. Or the additional Gnostic Books, or the additional books from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If God's promises are still kept, then why do you limit what God has said to just the 66 books?

And if "God must reveal them to us"; then why would he not reveal himself to the people in the Americas?