Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 101 Reasons Why Water Baptism is Not Necessary to be Savedone loveSo what are the other 98 reasons?
Rob Bowman Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 zerinus,Disagreement over the meaning of a text is not necessarily evidence of hypocrisy. It might simply be evidence of a different perspective.Mola is right about Mark 16:16. The two halves of the statement do not have parity. If you take the two halves at face value, the verse only considers two situations: (1) someone believes and is baptized; (2) someone does not believe. The text simply does not address the third situation, (3) someone believes but is not baptized. Your bracketed words "and consequently not baptized" is an unwarranted interpolation.And here's a bomb for you: I don't accept the Long Ending of Mark (16:9-20) as part of the inspired, original text of the Gospel of Mark. Most NT scholars agree on this point. It is as hazardous to base a doctrinal claim on verse 16 as it is to base one on verse 18, if you get my drift.The "EV position" is a hypocritical one. The scripture says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not [and consequently not baptized] shall be damned". It is as plain as daylight. Two things are required for salvation: faith and baptism. Both are equally required. One without the other will not save anyone. How anybody can turn a blind eye to that, and still walk with a straight face, is beyond me.
Anakin7 Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - http://www.angelfire...Ibebaptized.htm Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person
ElfLord Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 ElfLord,Deuteronomy 24:16 is a legal text specifying what the civil government in Israel could not do: It could not punish children for the sins of their fathers. This doesn't mean that God could not choose to have a child die as a consequence of the parent's behavior. 2 Samuel 12:13-14 does not explain exactly the connection between David's sin and his child's death. It may have been a natural occurrence that God allowed to take place.Your argument now has unraveled somewhat. Your claim was that Deuteronomy contradicts itself. Now you are pitting 2 Samuel against Deuteronomy. But what 2 Samuel says fits comfortably within the divine judgment language of Deuteronomy 5:9 which, as you can see, does not really contradict Deuteronomy 24:16.Your argument would make sense if Ezekiel hadn't linked the two together...Ezekiel 1820
zerinus Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 zerinus,Disagreement over the meaning of a text is not necessarily evidence of hypocrisy. It might simply be evidence of a different perspective.I am sure some people are so duped by the Evangelical creed that to them believing that line of absurdity may not be a sign of hypocrisy; but for others who would know better it is.Mola is right about Mark 16:16. The two halves of the statement do not have parity.I think it is pretty obvious that they do.If you take the two halves at face value, the verse only considers two situations: (1) someone believes and is baptized; (2) someone does not believe. The text simply does not address the third situation, (3) someone believes but is not baptized.The first half of the statement addresses precisely that. It says,
Vance Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 The two halves of the statement do not have parity.They don't need "parity" to be the discription of a true dichotomy. If you take the two halves at face value, the verse only considers two situations: (1) someone believes and is baptized; (2) someone does not believe. The text simply does not address the third situation, (3) someone believes but is not baptized.That is because the author OBVIOUSLY didn't consider that a valid option. And the reason is the author understood perfectly clear that baptism was necessary for (EV style) salvation. Only someone with a predetermined agenda would not see it that way. Your bracketed words "and consequently not baptized" is an unwarranted interpolation.Not at all, unless you are able to show that it is a common practice for unbelievers to accept baptism.I won't hold my breath. And here's a bomb for you: I don't accept the Long Ending of Mark (16:9-20) as part of the inspired, original text of the Gospel of Mark. Most NT scholars agree on this point. It is as hazardous to base a doctrinal claim on verse 16 as it is to base one on verse 18, if you get my drift.Woops there goes inerrancy under the anti-Mormon bus again. Another reason real scholars reject inerrancy.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 17, 2010 Author Posted December 17, 2010 I hate to take up the EV position but they are right on this one. This verse never once says that if you are not baptised that you will not go to heaven. Notice that it says "He that believeth not shall be damned". It does not say "He that believeth not and is not baptised shall be damned".It boils down to an interpretation.With that one quoted alone...but in the OP; Paul had to be baptized to have his sins remitted.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 17, 2010 Author Posted December 17, 2010 From my LDS JEDI Archive on Baptism - http://www.angelfire.com/az2/biblesonnyb/Tracts/MustIbebaptized.htm In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHTWho sponsors this site? Or the link you posted?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 17, 2010 Author Posted December 17, 2010 Pa Pa,I will be happy to discuss this question with anyone who agrees that Paul's teaching in the NT epistles that bear his name is authoritative and binding on Christians today.Could you expand on that statement a bit more? So I know what you are looking for in my response.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 With that one quoted alone...but in the OP; Paul had to be baptized to have his sins remitted.Keep in mind that I am not arguing for the EV side of things. Only that the bible never clearly states "You must be baptised to be saved". I believe the bible strongly infers it though.
ElfLord Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 Keep in mind that I am not arguing for the EV side of things. Only that the bible never clearly states "You must be baptised to be saved". I believe the bible strongly infers it though.Can you be saved without putting on the whole armor of Christ?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 Can you be saved without putting on the whole armor of Christ?You cannot be saved with out grace. There are conditions to Grace. I really can't say that one must put on the whole armor of Christ to be saved.One thing the LDS do believe is that one cannot be exalted with out baptism.
ElfLord Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 You cannot be saved with out grace. There are conditions to Grace. I really can't say that one must put on the whole armor of Christ to be saved.One thing the LDS do believe is that one cannot be exalted with out baptism.Let me rephrase. Can you be saved without being in Christ?
Vance Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 Pa Pa,I will be happy to discuss this question with anyone who agrees that Paul's teaching in the NT epistles that bear his name is authoritative and binding on Christians today.Why would Paul's epistles to specific groups be "authoritative and binding on Christians today" when, according to you, Jesus' teachings (specifically John 16:13) only apply to the "apostles"? (Especially considering that nearly all of the apostles were already dead when John recorded those teachings).
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 Let me rephrase. Can you be saved without being in Christ?You cannot be saved by not doing all you can first.
ElfLord Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 You cannot be saved by not doing all you can first.This isn't a trick question Mola. According to Paul you haven't put on Christ (ie you aren't cloaked / washed in his blood) until... _____?Romans 6:33 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.WHAT IN THE WORLD?! Paul of ALL people teaching Baptism! Who would have thunk it!Notice the allusion to "Planting" in verse 5.How was Christ Planted (ie graphted into the tree of life)?Through his baptism. And when he was raised out of the water the Holy Ghost decended upon him. And gave him a New Spirit a New life.Intresting that Paul makes ellusion to this here too..1 Corinthians 3:6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.Paul "planted" them how?Apollos "Watered" them How?Hint: Check the book of Acts 19.Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost is what plants / Graftes people into the tree of life.
Vance Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 Well, for what it is worth.1 Pet. 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:Oh well, what did Peter know about it anyway.
ELF1024 Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 This isn't a trick question Mola. According to Paul you haven't put on Christ (ie you aren't cloaked / washed in his blood) until... _____?WHAT IN THE WORLD?! Paul of ALL people teaching Baptism! Who would have thunk it!Notice the allusion to "Planting" in verse 5.How was Christ Planted (ie graphted into the tree of life)?Through his baptism. And when he was raised out of the water the Holy Ghost decended upon him. And gave him a New Spirit a New life.Intresting that Paul makes ellusion to this here too..1 Corinthians 3:6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.Paul "planted" them how?Apollos "Watered" them How?Hint: Check the book of Acts 19.Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost is what plants / Graftes people into the tree of life.If it was required of Christ to be baptized by Water, then why not us, who are so much more in need of a remission of sins than Christ.Matthew 313
BookofMormonLuvr Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 The BOC criticism of the emphasis placed on baptism by "Mormons" is in reality as case of "clean your own house first." There are plenty of Bible-Only Christian churches that believe in the essential nature of baptism as it relates to salvation. So after BOC "Mormon" critics convince their own of its unimportance, THEN they should come and try to convince us of how wrong we are (I am including myself because of my belief in the Book of Mormon and its teachings on baptism).
Rob Bowman Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 zerinus,You wrote:I am sure some people are so duped by the Evangelical creed that to them believing that line of absurdity may not be a sign of hypocrisy; but for others who would know better it is.You are entitled to express your opinion. I am entitled to say that I regard your opinion as offensive and unwarranted.I see no point in continuing the discussion of the exegesis of Mark 16:16. We have both stated our views. Regarding my statement that most NT scholars do not view Mark 16:9-20 as part of the original Gospel of Mark, you wrote:1. Would you care to provide documenatary evidence from those
Anakin7 Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 Who sponsors this site? Or the link you posted? All I have is the address, perhaps a search of the site will tell. More from my LDS JEDI Archive - http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-13-baptism-essential.htm In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Rob Bowman Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 Vance,You wrote:Why would Paul's epistles to specific groups be "authoritative and binding on Christians today" when, according to you, Jesus' teachings (specifically John 16:13) only apply to the "apostles"? (Especially considering that nearly all of the apostles were already dead when John recorded those teachings).Does John 16:6 refer to you? How about John 16:12, the verse immediately preceding the one you mentioned? How about John 16:16?
Rob Bowman Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 Pa Pa,I wanted to know if you (or whoever replied) would agree that if we find that Paul says something in his epistles, we will accept it as true. This precludes saying (a) Paul made a mistake, (b) what Paul said about salvation was true then but it isn't true now, and (c ) Paul didn't really say what we find in the Greek text of his epistles, because someone altered all of the copies of those epistles to teach something different after Paul died.Could you expand on that statement a bit more? So I know what you are looking for in my response.
Anakin7 Posted December 17, 2010 Posted December 17, 2010 JEDI ARCHIVE - http://www.bible.ca/...-forgivness.htm Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.