Does Salvation require baptistm?

Straw-man is when you misrepresent the other person's argument and then go on to argue against the misrepresentation you yourself created.

 

I would have to say, that is a blatant red herring :1_grouphug:

 

the early churches would had made sure one know what they believed in, as Jesus is Lord, and would had made sure the convert would know what water baptism symolized unto them now as a Christian!

 

the church would have indeed taught through the writings of the Apostle what baptism was a type of, pointing towards...

The teaching o fthe 12/Didache was NOT inspired as the NT books were, but were in wide spread use early on, as a formulized teaching on what water baptism entailed to the new convert and the churches! that was historically recorded as early as in the 60-70 era!

So though some here would not hold what we do as being "per the scriptures", it appears that the early local churches practiced it quite similiar to the way that we do!

 

Interesting. You say straw man but aren't you a member of a church that has for their Pastor a man who swore up and down in years past that if he was ever divorced he would step down. Then when it happened he took it all back?
And did not this pastor used to preach that a person has to repent to be saved and now preaches that repentance comes after salvation?
And did not this pastor use to teach that a person coming for salvation came receiving Jesus as Lord, but now teaches the person only needs to receive Him as Savior? Yet when someone says what the bible teaches you say straw man?
Straw man? Hmm. I wonder.
The church is never exhorted to screen people who come for Baptism and any church that does so is going beyond the call of God making themself above God. As long as the person is seeking Baptism in the name of the Lord that is all that is required.

 

I am learning more and more why you are so off base with your beliefs. Instead of just the bible you use what is equivalent to New world translations. If you stick to the bible on this issue it is clear that there is no hint that the church is to screen those who seek baptism in the name of the Lord.

 

It doesn't matter! It's not Bible!

 

There was no misrepresentation of the persons argument. Anywhere. Stop with your unfounded nonsense and stick to the facts. I simply gave Bible example, and showed that nowhere in Scripture is this teaching of his, nor of yours found. You've given no Scriptural support of your fallacious teaching because in fact there is none.

What's really going on here is you're misrepresenting someone who holds to a Biblical view. Your view being Biblical? Not so much.

 

I have been a Christian for 3 years and a member of First Baptist for about 1 year. I have to admit it was my wife who wanted to go there and it is a biblically sound church. I don't agree with everything he says, but I see nothing to deem him a heretic or even accuse him of abhorrent teaching.

The story goes Charles Stanley tried to re conciliate with his wife, but she wouldn't have it. He then asked, if they wanted him to step down. The majority said, no.

I will admit that Charles Stanley and the members imo did not practice sound biblical wisdom, but they voted and he stayed. It's one of those shades of gray area where I leave it up to the Holy Spirit to convict those individuals.

If they don't feel convicted, then who am I to convict.

 

My friend. I don't want to fight. That was my observation and nothing will change that.

 

Know that the Christian fellowship on my campus had the newly saved were done as a group baptism, in that they would wait until converts were instructed in the faith, and did them one at a time in the water...

I was saved by the Lord in middle of Winter, was water baptised in the Sping time, as were the rest of those saved at the time by God...

 

So you're admitting to a track record of following unbiblical teachings. I see. After doing this, it must become easier to buy into yet another unbiblical practice.

 

I think FAL has a problem here, based on his own statements below:

1. Regarding those who refuse baptism based on their belief that their infant baptism was valid:

2. Regarding a church who delay baptism based on their belief that IMMEDIATE baptism is not explicitly commanded in scripture:

Why is it that a Presbyterian, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures...is NOT IN SIN?

But...a Baptist pastor who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures...IS IN SIN?

What is the difference in their sincere attempt to faithfully apply their understanding of scriptures? (I am not arguing for relativism here, but should not the paedobaptists be considered at least the same as those "baptism delayers"?). I suppose a related question is how do we determine when someone's misunderstanding of scripture constitutes sin, and when it is simply a misunderstanding of scripture that does not constitute sin?

 

again, since the early Church saw fit to do things more in line with how my church does the practice of water baptism, and since they would have had the Apostles themselves to instruct and correct them in that....

Since they say fit to do it similiar way... were they unbiblical also?

 

You're basing your belief here upon extra-biblical revelation.

 

What verse outside of Acts stressses that ome must be saved, and proceed directly to get water batised? Where is it stressed as such in NT?

 

I know the story well, and nothing I mentioned was a grey area. It is his words and all of them he has went back on. Dr. Stanley in years past taught straight from the word of God and I for one in my early years learned and grew by what he taught, but in his latter years he has turned from what he used to teach. My point was if you call something from the bible a straw mans argument then what are you setting under when a man changes his direction and no longer teaches what the bible says or stands on what he promised in the past is certainly a straw man understanding.

In the regards to this debate as it is far off track, but when a church refuses to baptize someone who seeks baptism in the name of the Lord even to test them then that church stands against God Himself and the sufferings of Christ. I can tell why you are confused. It is because you have been taught in error about what Baptism is. It is not for the purpose of joining the local church. Baptism is the outward symbol of joining the body of Christ and any time any church baptizes a person to join the church they make a mockery of the ordinance.

 

Actually, the person at moment of their salvation has been "baptized" by the HS into the Body of Christ, into the Church...

the ordinance of baptism indeeds is the entry way into local church membership, publically declaring that they gave already been saved by what the act represents! Outward sign of an inward act that was already done to them!

 

You are wrong. What church was the Eunuch in acts a member of? Or haow about Paul and his baptism? Water baptism is an out work showing the entrance into the body of Christ. Not a local church.

 

we are placed into the spiritual Body of Christ right at rebirth by the HS, and we are part of His Church, Church at large...

water baptism is the entry way to become members of a local church, we are already menbers of the "church of Christ" at large by our born again!