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

[Vance]

What God says, I assume we agree, is inerrant.

This assumes that God speaks in the human language of His audience perfectly. But what if God actually gives pure knowledge and the audience is left to put that knowledge into their own language?

Those who read or hear the report wouldn

[zerinus]

ElfLord,

Your question is not really asking for a definition of inerrant. It is a loaded-question fallacy masquerading as a serious objection to inerrancy.

Cite the specific biblical passage you have in mind, explain what you think it means and why, and we can discuss it.

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (Articles of Faith, 8 )

"Translated" here includes "transmitted". I believe scripture is "inerrant" as it was penned by the original authors, but not after changes (deliberate or unintended) may have taken place in them after many centuries of translation and/or transmission.

Also, "inerrancy" does does not mean absolutely no possibility of error at all. Anything that is transmitted through the agency of man can contain errors, however insignificant. But those would not be such as to make the scripture doctrinally unreliable. For example, Nephi says, "Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself." (1 Nephi 19:6.) Did Nephi make any mistakes in his hinspired writings? He may have, but we are not aware that he has; and his admission of that possibility does not render his book theologically unreliable. Did Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses, Abraham make any mistakes the what they taught? The possibility exists, but it would be rare, and not such as to render their teachings unreliable as a source of doctrine. Did the Apostles make such mistakes? I think Paul certainly did, when he told women not to get married, and to cover their heads, and and shut their big mouths, and keep quite and not talk in Church! We don't teach that to our women today. But that does not render the rest of his teachings as doctrinally unreliable--provided that they are understood correctly, in the light of the rest of context of what he said, and of the Bible as a whole.

[ELF1024]

It once was...

So... what happened?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Now that we agree...what is your question?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

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

Worse...

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Well, if there are errors in the Bible, and there are, then we can rule out the word for word dictation method. This then leaves the revelation of pure knowledge to the recipient and the recipient being left to

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Knock it off.

Here's a simple question for you, Vance. Would it be proper, in your view, to quote the Bible or any of the LDS scriptures and say, "God says..." to introduce what the Bible says?

In other words, you have no counter argument.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I do have a counterargument, and if you'll answer my question, I'll be able to present it to you. Do you have an answer to my question?

In other words, you have no counter argument.

[BCSpace]

I so believe, as do all LDS. But we also believe the rest of the Bible to be the word of God as well.

Okay. So do I. But there are some here who, perhaps for rhetorical purposes, have denigrated Paul or who have suggested that Paul's teachings carry less weight than those of, say, the Synoptic Gospels.

I see LDS giving equal weight to all Bible scripture. I see EV's ignoring all but a few select verses. In any case, another verse to add to the baptism required for salvation list is 1 Peter 3:21.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Knock it off.

Here's a simple question for you, Vance. Would it be proper, in your view, to quote the Bible or any of the LDS scriptures and say, "God says..." to introduce what the Bible says?

You have no counter argument, otherwise you could present it regardless of my response to your question.

I reject the premises of your question. It presupposes "inerrancy" and it presupposes that God speaks human language on the very rare occasions when He does speak, and it presupposes all of the Bible is "God breathed" (the most inerrantist friendly way to render that verse, but not the most accurate).

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

If you won't answer my question, this part of the discussion has come to an end. But it appears from your comments that your answer is No: You do not think it would be proper to say that "God says" what the Bible says. Why can't you just say so?

You have no counter argument, otherwise you could present it regardless of my response to your question.

I reject the premises of your question. It presupposes "inerrancy" and it presupposes that God speaks human language on the very rare occasions when He does speak, and it presupposes all of the Bible is "God breathed" (the most inerrantist friendly way to render that verse, but not the most accurate).

[Vance]

Vance,

If you won't answer my question, this part of the discussion has come to an end. But it appears from your comments that your answer is No: You do not think it would be proper to say that "God says" what the Bible says. Why can't you just say so?

Like I said, you don't have a counter argument.

I am very willing to accept that when the Bible says (Gen 1:6) "

[ELF1024]

Like I said, you don't have a counter argument.

I am very willing to accept that when the Bible says (Gen 1:6) "

[Hestia]

I do have a counterargument, and if you'll answer my question, I'll be able to present it to you. Do you have an answer to my question?

Don't play games. If you have an argument present it.

[ELF1024]

**Bump**

[zerinus]

Vance,

If you won't answer my question, this part of the discussion has come to an end. But it appears from your comments that your answer is No: You do not think it would be proper to say that "God says" what the Bible says. Why can't you just say so?

I accept your inerrancy premise subject to the proviso expressed in post #177 above. Scripture is inerrant as a source of Christian doctrine, subject to the conditions expressed in that post; and provided it is read and understood in the light of the Holy Spirit of God, and not by the unaided intelligence of man (see 2 Peter 1:20). What is your next move? I would like to know where you are going with this.

[BCSpace]

I do have a counterargument, and if you'll answer my question, I'll be able to present it to you. Do you have an answer to my question?

Don't play games. If you have an argument present it.

Okay RB. I'll bite. I'm too lazy to look back through the thread so i hope this is a proper example of your question:

If you won't answer my question, this part of the discussion has come to an end. But it appears from your comments that your answer is No: You do not think it would be proper to say that "God says" what the Bible says. Why can't you just say so?

I think it is proper to say such a thing provided one understands that, for example, we don't have the original manuscripts. But according to other LDS scripture, we know that what's wrong with the Bible isn't really a matter of what's there, it's a matter of what's missing so there should be no reason for any LDS person to fear any Bible verse and I've found that to be the case.

The effect of such reasoning however, negates the tendency for EVs to concentrate on certain of the words of Paul to the exclusion of all else because now one must put equal authoritative weight on all verses since they all (ostensibly) came from God. But such reasoning also shows that the LDS Church has an absolute monopoly on Biblical interpretation because it is only LDS doctrine that fits with every Bible verse without one iota of conflict or contradiction.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Vance,

You wrote:

Knock it off.

Here's a simple question for you, Vance. Would it be proper, in your view, to quote the Bible or any of the LDS scriptures and say, "God says..." to introduce what the Bible says?

If I may...I never say that God said, I list the author of the book. Unless of course it is Christ speaking. Then you can say; "God Said". You cannot disregard the author and how he understands God's will.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Vance,

I do have a counterargument, and if you'll answer my question, I'll be able to present it to you. Do you have an answer to my question?

[ELF1024]

I guess since Rob "Bowman'd" out of the discussion, it's like the number of licks to the center of a toosie pop, we'll never know...

Oh wait... an owl...

[evangelist]

The judgement seat of Christ here is called the BEMA. It is a judgement of how we lived our lives for Christ. It is a judgment of believers

Rewards will be given here. Not salvation. Salvation was already judged for believers on the Cross

Wood hay and stubble will be burned away, while gold and precious gems will be left .

Non believers will be judged at the Great White Throne . NON believers will be judged here by their works, and since works cannot save you, they are condemned

No, the bible teaches differently!

Joh:3:18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

one love

[bluebell]

No, the bible teaches differently!

Joh:3:18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

one love

oooh, let's watch the two non-mormons duke it out on this one.

[evangelist]

oooh, let's watch the two non-mormons duke it out on this one.

if we don't add the BOM in this we might get some lead way and truth, biblically!

one love

[CQUIRK]

if we don't add the BOM in this we might get some lead way and truth, biblically!

one love

EV, you also forgot about the Apocrypha and the dozens of other various books and texts that were excluded as well.

[evangelist]

EV, you also forgot about the Apocrypha and the dozens of other various books and texts that were excluded as well.

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

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!

one love