Is Baptism required for Salvation?

1 Cor.12:13 "By one spirit are we baptized INTNE BODY".

The spirit mentioned above is not the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost. Paul's Phi 1:27 attests to that. Now if he said: "By the power of the Holy Spirit we are baptized into one Body", then you might have some ground to stand on.

Phi 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Rom 12:16 Be of the same mind one toward another.Mindnot high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

Rom 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Pe 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

WE ARE NOT OF ONE SPIRIT, BECAUSE WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE EXACTLY THE SAME THING ABOUT EACH AND EVERY VERSE OF THE BIBLE.

WE ARE NOT OF ONE MIND FOR THE SAME REASON.

WE DON'T SPEAK WITH ONE MOUTH FOR THE SAME REASON.


Jam 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

TO MANY OF US JUDGE ONE ANOTHER AND JUSTIFY IT BY QUOTING "Ye shall not the know the tree by its fruit"


Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

VERY FEW OF US ACTUALLY KEEP THE WHOLE LAW.


Heb 3:13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

DO YOU EXHORT THOSE DAILY THAT HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION FROM YOURS?


1Ti 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

I HAVE SEEN LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS DIRECTIVE.


1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

HOW MANY BISHOPS, PASTORS, AND DEACONS HAVE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED?

1Th 3:12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:

I SEE VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE OF THIS.


Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AT ONE TIME A ONE BODY, A ONE SPIRIT, AND A ONE FAITH. BUT NO MORE. MARTIN LUTHER SAW TO THAT.


Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

I DEFINITELY DON'T SEE THIS. NORMALLY THE ATTITUDE IS "You have burden? I hate it for you. It's not my burden. You should pray about it. Take care and hasta la vista baby!"

1Co 16:20 All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.
2Co 13:12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.

DO YOU DO THIS AT ALL? PAUL DIRECTED IT TO BE DONE IN TWO LETTERS. BUT WE DON'T DO IT.

MY GOD, HERE IT IS AGAIN! THAT MAKES A TRINITY OF THEM!
Rom 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.


1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

MARTIN LUTHER DID NOT HEED THIS.


Rom 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.


LOOK AT ALL THESE THINGS TRUE CHRISTIANS ARE CALLED TO DO. AND I HAVE NOT EVEN COVERED THE GOSPELS.


WHAT IS REALLY NECESSARY FOR SALVATION?

A LOT MORE THAN CONFESSING JESUS IS LORD.
CONFESSING JESUS IS LORD IS JUST THE BEGINING OF ONE'S NARROW PATH TO ETERNAL LIFE.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For the Teacher so loved the Student, that he gave his Student a textbook, that whosoever studieth should not fail, but have a passing grade. NOT EVERY STUDENT THAT STUDIES NECESSARILIES RECIEVES THE PASSING GRADE.

JESUS MAKES THIS EVIDENT IN THIS PASSAGE:

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

AND THIS ONE:

Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say



UH HUH, MERE BELIEF AND AN A PROFESSION IS ALL YOU NEED FOR SALVATION? NOT!

 

I don't see how Phil.1:27 proves that 1 Cor.12 is not about the Holy Spirit. The Spirit in Cor. Is an entity that does something--baptizes (immerses) us into the Body of Christ.
"Being of one spirit (and one mind)" is a state, that we hopefully are put into; not an entity that puts us into itself.
And all the stuff you mentioned is not Luther's fault; as if the RCC all those centuries was so perfect and lovong, and even perfectly united. Its false doctrine and corruption is what led to all the schism in the first place, and don't forget the split with the East, ancient old rite catholics, etc.

And comparing eternal life to passing a human school test really betrays a mindset of works righteousness. If that is really taught in the NT; why is it condemned there?

 

I pray you see it one day.

Apply that to One Body, then that is a state as well. I noticed you did not comment on One Mouth.

Luther could have forced a reformation from inside instead of from outside.

According to Martin Luther and Satan.

Yes there was corruption. It's not a church problem but a human problem. Why judge base on the actions of a few weeds? Would you like to be judged on the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker or other similar corrupt people?

My history understanding into this matter. The East and the ancient old rites still hold all Doctrines taught by the RCC. The East does not answer to the Papacy. The RCC regconizes everything about them is valid. The other rites still answer to Rome, they just follow different disciplines and Liturgical service. Not a true protestant schism persei.

Good question and one that may never get answered on this earth. But to speculate I would surmise that Paul was actually talking about "SELF RIGHTEOUS" works. James clarifies the picture. I imagine James wrote his stuff in response to heresies about justification by faith alone. People were reading Pauls stuff and coming to the same conclusions you did. And Peter even gives a warning that Pauls stuff is hard to understand. What I do know that there are scriptures in the Gospels that state otherwise against your interpretation. And I gave that scripture. But here it is again.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

Holy Ghost Baptism to the inward man

Water Baptism to the outward man

One Lord and one Faith and One Baptism

Inward man is the one "born again", so that is the one its talking about "that which is born of God cannot sin". Outward man can sin. peace

 

More on Martin Luther

The greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther:laugh: . He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered one of the highest authorities:laugh: on the Bible; he devoted a large portion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for his people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German literature. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority. And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible.

Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: "I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist." In his "Bondage of the Will,"

He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: "The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible." (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).

He rejected Hebrews: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle." (Standing Preface to Luther’s New Testament).

He rejected the Epistle of James: "St. James' Epistle is truly an epistle of straw." (Preface to Edition of 1524).

He rejected Jude. “The Epistle of Jude,” he says, “allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture." (Standing Preface).

He rejected Revelation. He says: "I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit." (Preface to Edition of 1622).

As said earlier imagine how things would be different if he had succeeded in having these books removed from the Bible as he did the Apocrpha! If had succeeded, us Catholics would not now have a ground to stand on for some issues. But thru the intervention of God thru his councelors whom persuaded him not to remove at least these six books,

I would hazard a guess that his thesis was based on the future removal of these books.

HERETIC, HERETIC, HERETIC.

It's a frightening thought that all of our numerous denominations are derived from a Heretic that wanted to remove at least six books from the Bible.

 

paraphrase:

I am such an enemy to the book that was Breathed By God.

THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE!.
APPLY SOME LOGIC AND REASONING.

 

if you want to get technical, Born of Spirit, literally means those that God created in heaven, All his angels and other things he created up there.

 

Think about what?

 

Look at the passage. BY one Spirit are we baptized INTO one Body. It is not BY one body are we baptized, or BY one mouth anything is done to us. Those are states, the Spirit acts (baptizes) and the RCC is not one mouth either, with all the controversy and confusion within.

That's what he tried to do, but then the Church put him out.

According to the Bible, read in its own right, and not filteres through the RCC.

Now you make excuses. The fact is, you and other catholists DO judge us based on the errors of those men; and it all gets back to "if you had stayed in the mother church, none of this would have happened". Yeah, right, when you do admit there was corruption after all. Our problems prove we are all wrong and the RCC all right; yet it's problems are just "a human problem". But that's just what people like Bakker and Swaggart said when they got caught! Difference is, we have no central organization that should correct all that stuff; you do, and it is that central body itself that is corrupt.

And the additional post about Luther means nothing because most of us do not follow him, nor agree with all he did. It's just that you can't blame him for all the schism. The cracks were there, and it was destined to fall apart sometime.

Regardless, it's still not "one mouth" and "one mind" as you have defined it. The east broke off, for among other things, the RCC's continued addition of doctrines, where they wanted to say as they were in the 11th century.

And self-righteousness is precisely what comes from thinking you are justified by works. All of our best works are as filthy rags. So anything we do, even if God commanded it, that we think is justifying ourselves, is self righteousness, because we ignore that we don't even do it perfectly.

James, if you read the CONTEXT is actually responding to people who, not misunderstanding justification by faith, but quite the opposite; who were trying to justify themselves by the law, and then thinking faith "saved" them when they "slipped" or missed an area, such as mistreating the poor (once again, the context). This is precisely the "salvation" pitched today by not only the Jews, but also the Catholics, Church of Christ, and others. You insist salvation is by works, and you admit that your works are not perfect, and only then does "faith" fill in and save you. But if it is by works, then faith does not save at all.
Yes, people misunderstand Paul's writings, but then you use them as prooftexts as well. Perhaps you are the one misunderstanding them.

That doesn't say they "had faith", or even "believed", and in the context, these people he "never knew", meaning they had no relationship with Him. They just used His name when convenient, in their own scheme. We must not forget the context of all those people then who looked to Him as a political savior, and rejected what He really stood for.

 

Darron,

bmerr here. Believe me, it's pretty disappointing to the posting members of the church of Christ, too.

Many Bible critics hold the same view, and cite the same evidence. I think an undisputed part of Mark's gospel account not only supports 16:9-20, but actually demands it.

To my knowledge, the authenticity of Mark 1:1 has never been called into question. If I'm wrong, it won't be the first time, so I'm willing to be corrected.

The text here reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (All I have is a NKJV tonight.)

Now "gospel" means "good news", or so I've been told. Let's keep in mind the fact that Mark was writing an account that would be "good news" to his readers, and see which ending best fits the idea of "good news".

Darron and others contend the "good news" of Mark ends like this:

Mark 16:8 - So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

The way Mark's "good news" ends in the Bible I have tonight is like this:

Mark 16:20 - And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through accompanying signs. Amen.

Which one of these sounds more like "good news" to you?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

That's usually because of the Churches and their initiation processes, and even the other CoC'ers here eventually admitted they would make the person wait until they were sure they knew the truth. That is a dangerous game to play with their souls if they are saved only at baptism.

 

I noticed that you waited until July 24 to address something written on July 20, and from post #46 at post #90 where this statement of mine would have been buried.

I was responding to a mean-spirited flame directed at Church of Christ people in general. I was bothered by the fact that he threw those flames at all of us; I was disappointed at these considering that I had been posting in agreement with some Baptist doctrines at variance with doctrines common in the Churches of Christ. Perhaps you were hoping the context would be buried so you could misrepresent the post?

I am certainly NOT bothered by those doctrines I hold in common with Baptists that Scripture teaches -- even if they are at variance with common Church of Christ teachings. I put the Bible first.

Regarding the forgery of Mark after 16:8:

I go with the ancient evidence and relevant medieval evidence on this forged addition, not on my subjective feelings about what Scripture should have or should not.

You actually provided an excellent motive for the forgery.

 

"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God."" Romans 14:1-11, NKJV.


There's really nothing I can add to that.

 

Darron,

bmerr here. Nothing so sinister, sir. I'd just been away for a few days.

I'm not bothered by believing some of the same things that Baptists believe, either. They do teach some truth. All denominations do.

From what I've read of your posts, you seem to be bent on explaining away what is written. Maybe you should try your hand on the "Fun with Baptism" thread.

If Mark 16:9-20 is a forgery, does it not seem strange that it agrees with the doctrines taught by the other gospel writers? If Mark were inspired with the same Spirit as the rest of them were, why would someone need to forge an ending that simply fits with the others?

Not everything is a conspiracy.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

I just want to lay it out here for ya GWiT...

you got some wack beliefs...
---

in the music forum you say that because instruments are not mentioned along with singing - that only singing should be for worship..

but here you use verses that do not say that baptism is needed for baptism... and yet you claim that it is needed.
---

what am i missing here GWiT? c'mon - explain yourself. you playin the devils advocate or somethin?

i see a banner displayed all over your posts that say "eisegesis"
---

how do you explain your reasoning between this forum and the music forum?
---

i chuckled later that night...

 

matthew 28 says nothing about "disciple"
---

mark 16 - you take it out of context and didn't read the following verses.

"but he that beliveth not shall be damned And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;..."

now i wonder why that does not say something like "but he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned."

i wonder... hmm... because baptizm is not neccessary for salvation.
---

i dont want to go further with the verses you mentioned:

i will quote this though:

there is only "one baptism" as ephesians says. what baptism is that?

the baptism by Christ Jesus - where we are baptized spiritually. not physically.

we are saved by spiritual baptism - not physical.

because physical baptism is a work.

spiritual baptism is the work of Jesus. not of us.

and if physical baptism was part of being saved - then ephesians is incorrect in saying that our salvation does not include works.
---

(quotes taken from: blueletterbible.org concordance)

 

"Explain away what is written?" Actually, I go with what is written. I consider the maximum amount of Scripture passages and try to get a comprehensive understanding from all of them -- rather than simply go with favorites and quote them against everyone else in a `my verses are more important than your verses' manner.

As I consider multiple passages that are hard to reconcile, I go and look at where the common English translations may not be accurate enough or precise enough. I also go look at what the passage would have communicated to ancient peoples rather than modern Americanized understandings -- which may or may not be right. When I do, most Scriptures just seem to clarify each other.

I am interested in putting out the correct meanings of what is written. I put first the Bible as God gave and communicated it up just under 2000 years ago in languages other than English and to peoples other than modern Americans. I put everything else -- English translation, most natural interpretation to modern people, church teaching, or anything else -- below that.