Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

[DHK]

Oh dear. That would be the Pauline churches out, then. Excuse me a moment whilst I go and rip out all his letters from my Bible, as we clearly don't need those any more. Sorry, rness and Jim1999, we can't quote from II Timothy as that comes from a 'divided church'.

Matt,
You need not to do that as the Catholic Church and most of those that have broken off from it (Anglican and Orthodox) have already done it for you. They no longer follow the Scriptures, but Tradition. Scriptures are seemingly meaningless as they have put Tradition more important than the Scripture itself. Growing up a Catholic, the Scriptures held little importance in the liturgy of the Mass. By the time I was 20, I knew nothing of the Bible--for all intents and purpose, was Biblically illiterate. But I knew plenty about Catholic Tradition.
Yes, the Catholics had already "ripped the Bible out of their churches," far worse then you have suggested.
Of course in the middle ages they just went and burned the Bibles wholesale, buying as many as they could, keeping them from the people, and burning them. See the history of William Tyndale.

The key verse of the First Epistle to the Corinthians is in chapter seven, verse one:

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

It is in the first part of the verse. The church had wrote to Paul a letter concerning the problems in the church. Paul writes back and addresses each problem one by one. One of the problems was division.

1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

There were divisions in the church at Corinth. And Paul addresses them. If he didn't not only would he not be correcting the problems in this church, but he would be leaving out very important instruction for all churches throughout the ages to come that would have the same problems. God has his methods of teaching his people.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The reference is not as clear as you think. Why don't you go back to Acts chapter nine, and read the original account? Why do you keep avoiding the question as to the time of Saul's salvation? When was Saul saved? Please answer that question!
In Acts 22 Paul is nearing the end of his life. The Lord gives him a promise that he will go to Rome. He spends two more years in prison by the hand of Felix, and then Paul finally appeals to Caesar. He goes to Rome. He spends two years there. And then soon after that is beheaded for his faith. Prior to this time in Acts 22 Paul has given up his Jewish faith. He has completed three missionary journeys, and started over 100 churches. At the Council in Jerusalem Paul spoke against putting any such Jewish burdens on the Gentiles. Mikvah was out of the question. All such Jewish ceremonies had been nailed to the cross. They were to be celebrated no more. If a Muslim becomes a Christian he doesn't hold on to his Islamic feasts. The same is true for a Jew, or a Buddhist, or of any other religion. They forsake their religion and become a Christian. One cannot serve two masters.
Christ's command was to follow him; not to follow the Jewish religion.
No it doesn't. That is ridiculous. John practiced no such thing. If John practiced "Mikvah" then so do the Hindus today. It has about the same value. It is a different religion. John preached a baptism unto repentance--that is after you have repented then you may be baptized as a sign that you have repented.
Yes, but it is not butchered in the NT. It is revealed to us through Jesus Christ. Read Hebrews 1:1,2. You can't read into Scripture things that are not there.

Paul was justified when he believed. But you and I define salvation differently. I see it as everything from God choosing us to justification to sanctification to receiving the reward of heaven. You see just as justification. As TC Greek put it aptly how Judaism and Christianity work together. Paul did not become a Gentile but fulfilled Jew. Thats how he saw it. He didn't abandon his Jewishness but lived it how God wanted him to . A muslim is cannot even be seen in the same light as Judaism at the time of Jesus. Its funny I show verses and you say it can't possibly mean that because it doesn't fit my theology. Well, thats a double edge sword.

 

[DHK]

Paul was justified when he believed. But you and I define salvation differently. I see it as everything from God choosing us to justification to sanctification to receiving the reward of heaven. You see just as justification. As TC Greek put it aptly how Judaism and Christianity work together. Paul did not become a Gentile but fulfilled Jew. Thats how he saw it. He didn't abandon his Jewishness but lived it how God wanted him to . A muslim is cannot even be seen in the same light as Judaism at the time of Jesus. Its funny I show verses and you say it can't possibly mean that because it doesn't fit my theology. Well, thats a double edge sword.

Just answer the question. Read over the account in Acts 9, and then tell me: At what point was Paul saved?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The "Undivided Church"? Well, that would then be the church at Jerusalem during the early part of Acts. Later New Testament documents indicated problems with division even back then.

Although there were problems with division, this was largely to due to heresies (granted, in the church of Corinth there also seemed to be a 'cult-of-personalities" of sorts). The earliest Church (even in the ante-Nicene period) had a strong sense of unity based on a shared apostolic foundation of faith and order, which was why schism was considered to be a grave sin.

So, I want the traditions of the New Testament-era church of Jerusalem, who “devoted themselves to the apostles’ |doctrine” (ESV|KJV, NKJV) per Acts 2:42.

Of course that's a good place to look as long as one knows how to properly interpret the apostles' doctrine.

Where can I find that? The Bible. After all, no genuine divinely-instituted tradition would discord with the written Word of God.

This is true as far as it goes, assuming the written Word of God is properly interpreted....and one knows what actually constitutes the the written word of God (Bible).

One apostle said at Acts 10:43 “everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV). That is what is true.

That's true as far as it goes, but this same apostle (Peter) said (recorded in Acts 2:38): "Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I guess by your logic we could conclude, just looking at verse 2:38 by itself, that "belief" is not needed for "the remission of sins", since it's not mentioned here--only repentence and baptism. I suppose Peter must have changed his mind during his sermon to the household of Cornelius (recorded in Acts 10) and decided that baptism and repentence are no longer needed for the remission of sins (since neither is specifically mentioned in that sermon), only belief in Jesus.

Of course, the word "only" does not appear in Acts 10:43, and it just may be that the most reasonable conclusion, when taking both of Peter's statements into consideration (along with the statements of the other early Christians*), is that faith, repentance, and baptism are all generally necessary of the remission of sins, and that for the Apostles true faith in Christ involved repentence of sin and being buried with Christ in baptism (ie Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12). In fact this conclusion happens to be shared by the consensus of the early undivided Church.

(* "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" Mark 16:16, for example)

If any later "Tradition" claims `everyone that believeth on him, except those who remain unbaptized, receives remission of sins,' it means `not everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins.' That would be a direct contradiction to the "apostles' doctrine."

It certainly wouldn't contradict Peter himself who said "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"

I will go with the "apostles' doctrine" which had “everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV) per Acts 10:43.

In other words, you'll proof text the apostles doctrine and then ignore other things they said on the same subject that would contradict your interpretation of the given proof text.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just answer the question. Read over the account in Acts 9, and then tell me: At what point was Paul saved?

He was saved here:

15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

He was saved here:

Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized

He was confused here:

4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

 

[DHK]

Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

There was no confusion here.
And there was no confusion when Paul wrote

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Paul could not have said what he had said if he was not saved. How could he address Christ as Lord if he was not saved? How could he ask the Lord what God's direction in his life should be now, that he was saved, if he were not saved? It was at this time that he was saved. Your conclusions are ridiculous.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

There was no confusion here.
And there was no confusion when Paul wrote

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Paul could not have said what he had said if he was not saved. How could he address Christ as Lord if he was not saved? How could he ask the Lord what God's direction in his life should be now, that he was saved, if he were not saved? It was at this time that he was saved. Your conclusions are ridiculous.

Sorry DHK those verses aren't about each other. Did you notice in the verse you quote Jesus didn't tell him to accept him as his personal savior. There is no indication Paul was saved once and for all at that point you mentioned. He obeyed God who led him to Aninias. Paul was unsure of things until he spent time with Aninias. So you have accused me of reading into scripture but that is exactly what you have done in this case. Pole sana bwana.

 

[DHK]

Sorry DHK those verses aren't about each other. Did you notice in the verse you quote Jesus didn't tell him to accept him as his personal savior. There is no indication Paul was saved once and for all at that point you mentioned. He obeyed God who led him to Aninias. Paul was unsure of things until he spent time with Aninias. So you have accused me of reading into scripture but that is exactly what you have done in this case. Pole sana bwana.

Your logic is weak. If Jesus didn't tell him to trust him as Saviour then He didn't tell you either. Read the Gospel of John: John 3:3, 16, 18, 36; 5:24. Did not Jesus say these words? Do they not apply to Paul as well? Do you have proof that Paul was not around when these words were said. Furthermore, Paul stood and heard the entire sermon of Stephen and then consented to his stoning. He was the one in charge. He was the one holding Stephen's clothing. Was the gospel there? Of course it was!
Listen to the rebuke of Jesus:

Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
--Jesus refers to the conviction of the Holy Spirit that Paul was facing.
In the very next verse Paul submits to Christ as Lord.

Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

This is no different than the response of the Philippian Jailor:
Acts 16:29-31 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
--Both trembled with conviction. Both believed. Both called on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Both were saved at the same hour. There was no baptism at the time of their salvation. Your problem is with your interpretation of Scripture.

Furthermore, in reference to Paul's calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul also says this:

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
--Are you saying that Paul was calling Jesus Lord by a demonic spirit? That is quite the accusation, you know!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE,

What is a ritual?

GE:
Water-baptism is a ritual - all of man's doing and in its case, of man's willing.
Baptism in the Name is no ritual because it is God's own doing and without exception without man's willing.

This is an edit:
Noticed above, "....no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost"?
Well, this is Christian baptism - the baptism without which no one shall be saved. "One baptism": this is Scripture - Paul; as well as 'Tradition', because no one in Old Testament times saved, got saved without this baptism. You nowhere hear of water-baptism made an institution or 'ritual' unto salvation. Therefore Baptism in the Name of God is Divine Tradition-- the "one baptism" that always has been, and since of old has saved.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sorry DHK those verses aren't about each other. Did you notice in the verse you quote Jesus didn't tell him to accept him as his personal savior. There is no indication Paul was saved once and for all at that point you mentioned. He obeyed God who led him to Aninias. Paul was unsure of things until he spent time with Aninias. So you have accused me of reading into scripture but that is exactly what you have done in this case. Pole sana bwana.

GE:
And you call this stuff thinking stuff, Thinkingstuff!?

Listen to DHK, he made legitimate and neccessary correlation between those texts, right from the essence of it!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thinkingstuf:
"Paul was unsure of things until he spent time with Aninias. "

GE:
So our salvation depends on how sure we are of it?
O my! No you have pulled from under my feet all my consolation and all my confidence!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuf:
"Paul was unsure of things until he spent time with Aninias. "

GE:
So our salvation depends on how sure we are of it?
O my! No you have pulled from under my feet all my consolation and all my confidence!

Sorry GE didn't mean to.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sorry guys. My past two replies were quickly considered and quickly answered. I should have spent more consideration, however, DHK are you saying that all you have to do is Call on the Lord? People do that everyday and their not spirit filled. Also the Act of Calling on the Lord is more than Faith alone it is action. Belief then call. Why then is baptism an essential teaching of the NT church? If its a just a symbol I don't think the NT would emphasize it so much. And I still think Salvation is more than Justification. Define words. Salvation doesn't just = Justification. Justification is one aspect of salvation.

 

[DHK]

Sorry guys. My past two replies were quickly considered and quickly answered. I should have spent more consideration, however, DHK are you saying that all you have to do is Call on the Lord? People do that everyday and their not spirit filled. Also the Act of Calling on the Lord is more than Faith alone it is action. Belief then call. Why then is baptism an essential teaching of the NT church? If its a just a symbol I don't think the NT would emphasize it so much. And I still think Salvation is more than Justification. Define words. Salvation doesn't just = Justification. Justification is one aspect of salvation.

Salvation is by faith and faith alone. This is the teaching of the Bible, and it is taught over and over again. The only requirement for salvation is faith or belief, which are one and the same thing:
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.

We do not have a works salvation. If baptism were included in salvation it would be a works salvation just like any other religion. But salvation is provided for us by Christ. That is grace. And that is what is meant when Paul says:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

It is God's grace by which we are saved. Christ died on the cross for our sins, when He didn't have to. He could have left us condemned to an eternity to Hell. We don't deserve the gift of eternal life, but God provided a way that we could obtain it. That is grace.
To obtain it all that one has to do is accept it by faith. It is a gift. Receive it by faith. By grace are ye saved through faith. Not baptism, just faith.

The same thing with justification; another aspect of salvation:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

We are justified by faith and faith alone. Justification, simply put is "just as if I never sinned." It is the legal transaction of God whereby he declares the guilty sinner just and righteous because of his acceptance (by faith) of the gift of God (eternal life) through the blood of Christ, that penalty that was paid for his sin.
--That is what happens at salvation. We are justified. God looks down upon the believer and sees a robe of righteous (the righteousness of Christ). He no longer sees my sinfulness, but the righteousness of Christ. I am declared righteous in his sight.

Baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation. It is never a part of salvation. It always comes after salvation. It came after the salvation of the Philippian jailor; after the salvation of the Ethiopian Eunuch, after the salvation of the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost, and after the salvation of Saul. All the time it is after salvation; never before.
The Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20) stipulates that it follows salvation. They must be saved, discipled, and then baptized.
Read Romans 6:3,4. It is simply a symbolic obedient submission to a command that Jesus gave that shows our death to a sinful life, and our resurrection to a new life in Christ. It is obedience to a command of Christ given to believers. It does nothing for a person but get him wet.

There are many important commands that Christ gave: witness, pray, study the Word, forsake all and follow him, etc. Baptism is only one of those many commands.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Matt Black,

"OK, let's take your post item by item:

"I note that you ignore II Tim 3:14 in the passage from which you quoted. If you read the whole of the passage, you will see that both Scripture and Tradition are referenced there."

No, it doesnt.

2nd Tim 3: 14...

"14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,"

Nothing about tradition, and the sentance does not end with a period, but rather a comma, meaning it flows right into vs 15...

"...and that from childhood you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation, through faith which is in Christ."

And of course, the following follows that...

"16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Notice again the bolded parts, Matt.

How could we "complete" with the scriptures alone, as God instructs, if we supposedly needed the scriptures plus tradition? God would be lying to us here.

And how could we be "thoroughly" equipped with the scriptures, as God instructs, if we needed the scriptures plus tradition? God would be lying to us here as well.

"The 'one individual' to whom you refer was in fact a Bishop of the Church, and one of St Paul's successors, not just any old Joe."

Completely irrelavent regarding who he was.

No Bishop, so called "priest" no "Pope" or minister or apostle or "High and Magnificent one" or Pastor or Evangelist or anyone else on this earth is any more connected to God or capable of recieving truth from God than you or I am. We are all equal, and we are all expected to turn to the scriptures alone as our authoritative truth standard.

"What you have in practice with the sola Scriptura approach you are advocating (which in any event was alien to Christianity prior to the 16th century)..."

Nonsense.

Gods people have been trusting in, and learning from, Gods scriptures alone from the time of the apostles continuously right up until today. Sometimes its been more difficult, (scripture burnings, torture, being martyred, etc) but we have always managed.

"...is the assumption that proof-texting+the Holy Spirit+human reason=Truth, ie: you rely on a mixture of the Holy Spirit (Who is within all Christians) plus human fallibility to come up with the correct interpretation, which is a very 'dangerous falsehood' to adopt."

Nonsense. It is the safest, best, and only God ordained way for us to come to understand truth.

"Your quoting of Jesus' condemnation of 'the commandments of men' would be relevant if that is what we were talking about here. It isn't...."

Yes it is. Its not scripture...so it is the traditions of men.

This is not rocker science, Matt.

"We are talking here about the commandments of God, as mediated by Scripture and Tradition."

Who's "tradition", Matt?

The Catholics tradition? The Eastern Orthodox's tradition? The Jehovahs Wittneses tradition? The Lutherans Tradition? The Mormons tradition? The Episcopals tradition? Jim Jones tradition? Mary Baker Eddy's tradition?

The truth is that God has ordained the "Scripture" part of your quote. He has condemned the "tradition" part. Why dont you join us on the "truth" side of this?

You'll be joining up with God as well regarding this issue.

Scriptures alone, Matt. Its simply the truth. I cant make you, nor am I obligated to make you, believe it.

All I can do is present it clearly to you.


:godisgood:

 

[Matt Black]

Matt Black,

Quote:
"OK, let's take your post item by item:

"I note that you ignore II Tim 3:14 in the passage from which you quoted. If you read the whole of the passage, you will see that both Scripture and Tradition are referenced there."

No, it doesnt.

2nd Tim 3: 14...

Quote:
"14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,"

Nothing about tradition, and the sentance does not end with a period, but rather a comma, meaning it flows right into vs 15...

Quote:
"...and that from childhood you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation, through faith which is in Christ."

And of course, the following follows that...

Quote:
"16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Notice again the bolded parts, Matt.

How could we "complete" with the scriptures alone, as God instructs, if we supposedly needed the scriptures plus tradition? God would be lying to us here.

The key word which you are failing to embolden in the above lies in v14: "from whom you have learned them. Not "from what" ie:Scripture, but "from whom". Verbal communication, spoken and heard, not written and read. Paul orally instructs Timothy. Timothy also reads the (OT) Scriptures. Both are plain as day in this passage.

Quote:
"What you have in practice with the sola Scriptura approach you are advocating (which in any event was alien to Christianity prior to the 16th century)..."

Nonsense.

Gods people have been trusting in, and learning from, Gods scriptures alone from the time of the apostles continuously right up until today. Sometimes its been more difficult, (scripture burnings, torture, being martyred, etc) but we have always managed.

Which ones? Hint: the ahistoricity of Carroll's Trail of Blood or Broadbent's Pilgrim Church won't do here; to claim, for example, that the Cathars were some kind of proto-evangelicals is absurd. The Catholics and Orthodox were, with the exception of the Waldensians, Lollards and Hussites, the only Christian show in town prior to 1517.

Quote:
"...is the assumption that proof-texting+the Holy Spirit+human reason=Truth, ie: you rely on a mixture of the Holy Spirit (Who is within all Christians) plus human fallibility to come up with the correct interpretation, which is a very 'dangerous falsehood' to adopt."

Nonsense. It is the safest, best, and only God ordained way for us to come to understand truth.

Explain how one deals with the human error inherent in such a process, with particular attention to the 'human reason' part in the above, which you have just endorsed.

Quote:
"Your quoting of Jesus' condemnation of 'the commandments of men' would be relevant if that is what we were talking about here. It isn't...."

Yes it is. Its not scripture...so it is the traditions of men.

Show me in what way that is a logical statement.

Quote:
"We are talking here about the commandments of God, as mediated by Scripture and Tradition."

Who's "tradition", Matt?

The Catholics tradition? The Eastern Orthodox's tradition? The Jehovahs Wittneses tradition? The Lutherans Tradition? The Mormons tradition? The Episcopals tradition? Jim Jones tradition? Mary Baker Eddy's tradition?

Already answered that a few pages back but, to reiterate: the Tradition of the Undivided Church.

The truth is that God has ordained the "Scripture" part of your quote. He has condemned the "tradition" part. Why dont you join us on the "truth" side of this?

If I was convinced that that is what God wants, then I would. I used to think as you do but the fact of the matter is that, as I demonstrated above, God has endorsed rather than condemned the Tradition part in II Tim 3:14-17

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

As a young person I used to belong to a church that made me believe justification is just the prelude to sanctification, and that just to have received forgiveness for one's sin, does not make you 'fit for heaven'. How I loath that kind of cheap talk now that grace did find me, and I am no longer the one that must find grace. The parlance of that church included phrases like, 'Baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation.' No! Faith - believing - is the first step of obedience after grace has found a lost soul and had saved him.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As a young person I used to belong to a church that made me believe justification is just the prelude to sanctification, and that just to have received forgiveness for one's sin, does not make you 'fit for heaven'. How I loath that kind of cheap talk now that grace did find me, and I am no longer the one that must find grace. The parlance of that church included phrases like, 'Baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation.' No! Faith - believing - is the first step of obedience after grace has found a lost soul and had saved him.

My views are actually closer to this. (Which in some respects is calvanistic) Salvation begins with God and his will. Which causes him to choose me (or any believer). God works through out your life and your experience to draw you to him (kind of like irrestible grace but not really) You can either choose to accept the faith he freely offers or not. Though not to accept that grace is like the choice of an insane person. The only reasonable responce is to accept. Once accepted you are a new creature (new Nature). Nature acts in accordance with itself it can't do otherwise. Therefore works are the natural outcome of that nature. You are living that salvation. Not to do works is contrary to the new nature and it can only be surmised that salvation is not at work in you. So works are the key indicator (according to James) of that salvation. But there is participation in that you are working with respect to the new nature and battle against the old. You continue to live out that salvation. Then when all is said and judged you continue to live salvation in the heavenly reward. All of it is salvation. So when are you saved? when God's grace was given. when God chose me. when I accepted his gift. When I live in that grace. When I enjoy the reward of heaven.
So in the respect that there are not works the person is not living according to a new nature which can only mean it doesn't exist in that person. A thing acts according to its nature it is impossible to do otherwise. Christians have two natures at war but the New Nature is the greater and ultimately victorious. A flower blooms in spring why? Because it is its nature to do so. A dead fower doesn't bloom because its in its nature. So it is with the Christian. In the end my works are that of a son who loves his father (in otherwords not coerced from me in fear of damnation). It is just the nature of the thing.

 

[TCGreek]

GE:
Water-baptism is a ritual - all of man's doing and in its case, of man's willing.
Baptism in the Name is no ritual because it is God's own doing and without exception without man's willing.

This is an edit:
Noticed above, "....no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost"?
Well, this is Christian baptism - the baptism without which no one shall be saved. "One baptism": this is Scripture - Paul; as well as 'Tradition', because no one in Old Testament times saved, got saved without this baptism. You nowhere hear of water-baptism made an institution or 'ritual' unto salvation. Therefore Baptism in the Name of God is Divine Tradition-- the "one baptism" that always has been, and since of old has saved.

Then a ritual it is.

And as a ritual its only significance is in what it symbolizes.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Matt,

You said...

"We are talking here about the commandments of God, as mediated by Scripture and Tradition.""

And I responded...

"Who's "tradition", Matt?

The Catholics tradition? The Eastern Orthodox's tradition? The Jehovahs Wittneses tradition? The Lutherans Tradition? The Mormons tradition? The Episcopals tradition? Jim Jones tradition? Mary Baker Eddy's tradition?"

To wich you responded...

"Already answered that a few pages back but, to reiterate: the Tradition of the Undivided Church."

And that falls squarely and completely under the category that Christ called the "Traditions of men", when He condemned the idea of considering those traditions to be authoritative over, or along with, the sciptures.

Sorry. I am but the messenger.


:godisgood: