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

[ELF1024]

Who knew that the need for baptism was so... elusive...

It's like trying to nail jello to a wall.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

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?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to this question.

Do these verses apply to us?

#

Rom. 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

#

1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

#

2 Cor. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

#

Philip. 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Col. 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I take it that your answer is No, as it should be. You have therefore conceded my point: acknowledging that some statements in the Bible do not refer to us does not mean that the Bible's teaching in those passages does not also apply to us, even if that application is indirect rather than direct.

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to this question.

Do these verses apply to us?

#

Rom. 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

#

1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

#

2 Cor. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

#

Philip. 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Col. 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Are we going to remember the context and audience to whom he was speaking. Then we would have to establish if he wrote Hebrews as the KJV teaches (or lists)...if we can do that shoot away.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

Context and audience are key considerations in interpreting any text. Yes, those are to be taken into account.

If you want to discuss Hebrews, we can do so. I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews (neither do the vast majority of NT scholars), but it doesn't matter as far as this question is concerned, because I am just as willing to consider what Hebrews says as I am the teaching of the epistles that bear Paul's name.

Are we going to remember the context and audience to whom he was speaking. Then we would have to establish if he wrote Hebrews as the KJV teaches (or lists)...if we can do that shoot away.

[ElfLord]

Vance,

I take it that your answer is No, as it should be. You have therefore conceded my point: acknowledging that some statements in the Bible do not refer to us does not mean that the Bible's teaching in those passages does not also apply to us, even if that application is indirect rather than direct.

Who determines how direct they are?

Christ seems to blow your theory out of the water with this one.

Matthew 4:4

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

[ELF1024]

If you want to discuss Hebrews, we can do so. I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews (neither do the vast majority of NT scholars), but it doesn't matter as far as this question is concerned, because I am just as willing to consider what Hebrews says as I am the teaching of the epistles that bear Paul's name.

Oh so a pseudepigraphical book, like Herbrews, is just fine in your opinion, but the long ending is Mark is not. Glad to see there is consistancy.

Exactly what books of the Bible do you accept, and where can I purchase a copy of the "Rob Bowman Edition".

[Vance]

Now Rob is being SILLY!!!!

Vance,

I take it that your answer is No, as it should be.

Throwing large portions of the New Testament under the anti-Mormon bus.

You have therefore conceded my point:

If that is what I did, then you also conceded that most of your doctrines are without basis BECAUSE those epistles don't apply to us.

Throwing large portions under the anti-Mormon bus.

of acknowledging that some statements in the Bible do not refer to us does not mean that the Bible's teaching in those passages does not also apply to us, even if that application is indirect rather than direct.

That wasn't your point AT ALL. That was MY POINT!!!!

Your point was that we couldn't APPLY John 16:13 to us, BECAUSE Jesus wasn't talking specifically to us but to His disciples. You were saying that what Jesus said to His disciples can NOT apply to us.

Well if that is so, (thus rejecting more of the teachings of Christ found in Matt 4:4,) large portions of the NT don't apply to us.

So what we have done here, is expose another double standard used by the anti-Mormon Rob Bowman.

[ElfLord]

Hey Vance,

You know... this is going to be fun!

We can throw out the entire OT too and any portions that Paul or anyone else quotes to his gentile audience because they were addressed specifically to Israelites. Not us!

Christ of course is quoting good old Deuteronomy which Paul abolished with his grace teachings...

Deuteronomy 8:3 (King James Version)

³And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

[ELF1024]

Hey Vance,

You know... this is going to be fun!

We can throw out the entire OT too and any portions that Paul or anyone else quotes to his gentile audience because they were addressed specifically to Israelites. Not us!

Christ of course is quoting good old Deuteronomy which Paul abolished with his grace teachings...

Deuteronomy 8:3 (King James Version)

³And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

yep, the "RBE" Bible keeps getting smaller and smaller... Much easier to use than the "JST" due to it's lack of length.

[WalkerW]

Most of this thread seems to carry over the discussion regarding biblical inerrancy. I recently wrote this to my sister-in-law on her mission about those who claim baptism is necessary for salvation:

Baptism is one that I don't even bother much with anymore. Christ Himself was baptized as attested in all the Gospels. He oversaw baptisms (and possibly performed them) according to John 3:22 and 4:1-2. He mentions that birth by water is necessary to enter the kingdom of God in John 3:3-5. He states faith and baptism are necessary for salvation in Mark 16:16. Paul speaks of it in Romans 6 and Galatians 3 as the method by which you "enter into" or "put on" Christ. Peter states that baptism "saves us" in 1 Peter 3:21 and is the most explicit in Acts 2:38. Conversions are always accompanied by water baptisms in the New Testament, particularly in Acts. The Didache, an early Christian treatise written around the same time as some of the New Testament books (and considered scripture by many of the early Christians), gives brief details on how one is supposed to be baptized. The Sherpherd of Hermas, a 2nd century Christian text (also considerd scripture by some at that time), identifies the seal of the Son of God as the waters of baptism. It is likely that this is part of the sealing spoken of in Revelation 7 (especially when one realizes that anointing of the forehead and the dressing in white garments was historically part of the baptismal ritual). The early Church Fathers of the first few centuries understood water baptism to be salvific, from Justin Martyr to Irenaeus to Clement of Alexandria to Tertullian. The list goes on.

I'm going to be sending her more information regarding each one since she expressed interest in it.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You wrote:

Oh so a pseudepigraphical book, like Herbrews, is just fine in your opinion, but the long ending is Mark is not. Glad to see there is consistancy.

Elf, you are once again throwing around words you don't understand. The word pseudepigraphical means a book that states (within the book itself) that it was written by a particular named individual, when in fact that individual did not write it. You know, like the Book of Abraham.

Hebrews does not name an author; therefore, by definition it cannot be pseudepigraphical.

You wrote:

Exactly what books of the Bible do you accept, and where can I purchase a copy of the "Rob Bowman Edition".

You first. Is there any book of the Bible that you do not accept in its entirety? I will let you stipulate any version you like.

[ELF1024]

Elf,

You wrote:

Elf, you are once again throwing around words you don't understand. The word pseudepigraphical means a book that states (within the book itself) that it was written by a particular named individual, when in fact that individual did not write it. You know, like the Book of Abraham.

Hebrews does not name an author; therefore, by definition it cannot be pseudepigraphical.

Funny Rob, I've always heard that Hebrews is short for...

"The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews" or at least that is how it shows up in my KJV.

So seems my word was used correctly.

You first. Is there any book of the Bible that you do not accept in its entirety? I will let you stipulate any version you like.

Since I'm not the one who keeps throwing out texts based on whatever happens to turn your crank at the time, I'll allow you to go first. No really, I insist.

If we are going to continue to attempt to discuss, it would be nice to know what your "playbook" consists of, other than throwing stuff out when it suits your arguement.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You first. Is there any book of the Bible that you do not accept in its entirety? I will let you stipulate any version you like.

Songs of Solomon.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance, ElfLord, and ELF,

You guys can't be serious. At least, I can't take you seriously.

Is any of you prepared to say the following about yourselves?

• that you are not presently, but at some point will become, outcasts from the synagogue (John 16:2)
• that Jesus was with you at the beginning of his earthly ministry (John 16:4)
• that sorrow has filled your heart (John 16:6)
• that Jesus has many things to say to you, but you can't bear to hear them now (John 16:12)
• that you will see Jesus again (not for the first time) in a little while (John 16:16)

If you are not able to say all of these things about yourself, then you are admitting that not everything in the passage refers to you directly. This doesn't mean it isn't the word of God; it doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means that what Jesus said to his disciples then is relevant to Christian readers today in some way other than a direct description of those readers' specific situations and experiences.

It may be hopeless, but I am requesting a serious response this time.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote, in response to my question for Elf of a book of the Bible that he does not accept:

Songs of Solomon.

Ah, an informed participant in the discussion.

Mola, isn't it a bit odd that the LDS Church teaches that the problem with the Bible is that it is missing a bunch of books, but instead of finding and adding some of those supposedly lost books back to the Bible, they actually have taken one out?

[ELF1024]

Vance, ElfLord, and ELF,

You guys can't be serious. At least, I can't take you seriously.

that what Jesus said to his disciples then is relevant to Christian readers today in some way other than a direct description of those readers' specific situations and experiences.

It may be hopeless, but I am requesting a serious response this time.

Frankly Rob, I can't take you serious either. The way you play three card monte with scripture and throw things out based on your whims at the moment. Your complete inconsistancy, and your evasiveness. I have to say that I consider you the least serious person on the board.

You requesting a serious response is like Bozo the Clown getting another pie in the face, totally predicitable, and giving you one is just as totally pointless.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

I have some homework for you. Look up the following verses:

Romans 1:1

1 Corinthians 1:1

2 Corinthians 1:1

Galatians 1:1

Ephesians 1:1

Colossians 1:1

Philippians 1:1

1 Thessalonians 1:1

2 Thessalonians 1:1

1 Timothy 1:1

2 Timothy 1:1

Titus 1:1

Philemon 1:1

Hebrews 1:1

Notice anything different about Hebrews 1:1?

[ELF1024]

Mola,

You wrote, in response to my question for Elf of a book of the Bible that he does not accept:

Ah, an informed participant in the discussion.

Mola, isn't it a bit odd that the LDS Church teaches that the problem with the Bible is that it is missing a bunch of books, but instead of finding and adding some of those supposedly lost books back to the Bible, they actually have taken one out?

Just as I suspected, it wasn't an honest inquiry it was just another laying of a trap.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You wrote:

Frankly Rob, I can't take you serious either. The way you play three card monte with scripture and throw things out based on your whims at the moment. Your complete inconsistancy, and your evasiveness. I have to say that I consider you the least serious person on the board.

You requesting a serious response is like Bozo the Clown getting another pie in the face, totally predicitable, and give one is just as totally pointless.

Fortunately, not all of the Mormons here agree with you. If they did, posting here would be a waste of my time.

[Vance]

Rob has been reduced to silliness.

If you are not able to say all of these things about yourself, then you are admitting that not everything in the passage refers to you directly.

And yet John 16:13 still can and does APPLY to us.

This doesn't mean it isn't the word of God; it doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means that what Jesus said to his disciples then is relevant to Christian readers today in some way other than a direct description of those readers' specific situations and experiences.

Right!

When Jesus told His disciples that (John 16:13) "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth", it applies to us.

Thanks for finally conceding this point.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Rob has been reduced to silliness.

You need to put away the mirror and put on some glasses, bud.

You wrote:

And yet John 16:13 still can and does APPLY to us....

Right!

When Jesus told His disciples that (John 16:13) "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth", it applies to us.

Thanks for finally conceding this point.

I never denied that John 16:13 applies to us in the sense that it is relevant to us. I simply maintain that its relevance to us is in what it tells us about the revelations that the Holy Spirit gave to his apostles.

Look, you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Joseph to translate the gold plates. Statements about this in LDS scriptures are relevant to you because they teach you to regard the Book of Mormon as an inspired translation. This doesn't mean that God promises that you will be inspired by the Holy Spirit to translate gold plates. Analogously, John 16:13 is relevant to me because it teaches me to regard the teachings of the first-century apostles as inspired revelations of God. So far from denying that John 16:13 teaches me something, I maintain that it teaches me something of great importance.

Get it?

[Vance]

I never denied that John 16:13 applies to us in the sense that it is relevant to us.

You are just artificially limiting the ability of God to reveal truth to us. (As if you can command God.)

I simply maintain that its relevance to us is in what it tells us about the revelations that the Holy Spirit gave to his apostles DISCIPLES.

First, He was talking to His disciples! Why are you artificially limiting the audience?

Second, This is STRICTLY your sloppy attempt to limit the scope of God capability to reveal truth. And you are simply doing so to further your anti-Mormon agenda.

Third, Understanding that the Spirit reveals truth is consistent with other scripture. Even this one found in the Bible. 1 Cor. 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Paul wasn't in the audience. Yet here he is teaching the Corinthians that the Spirit reveals knowledge of God (or truth).

Your problem Rob, is you are driven by your anti-Mormon agenda, rather than by the clear and plain teachings of the scriptures.

Look, you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Joseph to translate the gold plates. Statements about this in LDS scriptures are relevant to you because they teach you to regard the Book of Mormon as an inspired translation. This doesn't mean that God promises that you will be inspired by the Holy Spirit to translate gold plates.

Totally irrelevant. They have already been translated to Gods satisfaction. There is no need to do it again.

Analogously,

NOT even in the least.

John 16:13 is relevant to me because it teaches me to regard the teachings of the first-century apostles disciples as inspired revelations of God.

AND that you too can receive truth from the Holy Ghost.

So far from denying that John 16:13 teaches me something, I maintain that it teaches me something of great importance.

You are ARTIFICIALLY limiting the applicability of it to us. And ONLY doing so because you are anti-Mormon agenda driven.

Get it?

Yeah, I get that you are denying the applicability of the scriptures to us. You are denying the power of the Holy Ghost to reveal truth to individuals.

Sadly, it is you that is hurt the most by such artificial limits.

[evangelist]

So what are the other 98 reasons?

they are here!

http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/101-reasons-baptism-not-necessary-for-salvation

one love

[ElfLord]

they are here!

http://www.faithfact...y-for-salvation

one love

That sounds more like 101 reasons why the Bible is not inerrant.

The volume of scripture that seem to promote one idea don't out weigh the other scriptures which seem to promote another.

Thats robbing Peter to feed Paul.

If the Bible were inerrant we would have ALL already come to a unity in the Faith along time ago. (But thats a subject of another thread)