What are the requirements/steps for salvation

[Rick-Parker]

The jailer of Paul (the seeker) says "I'm really confused now. I don't know what to believe. I heard the story that when Jesus was crucified there were 2 thieves next to him. One made fun of Christ, the other said that He was God. Didn't Jesus tell the 2nd thief that today he would be with Jesus in heaven? Just on his confession of faith? He wasn't baptised, was he? If I'm in my last minute of life and I acknowledge and believe that Jesus is the Son of God and accept his salvation, without receiving water baptism, how can I go to heaven if baptism is required? Is there more than one way to be saved?"

[Khristeeanos]

Check church history - you will see baptism in water for the remission of sins as a work of God all through out until Mr. Z.

This is a fallacious argument. Just because something was believed in the past, does not make it the correct belief.

Perhaps you can tell me how the original church completely abandoned the teaching that baptism is just a symbol even when the apostles were alive?

Do a search on this subject. Read this:

http://www.bible.ca/H-baptism.htm

Do you understand my question?

What I am trying to show you is that if your view of baptism is correct, why did nobody teach it in the history of the Church until 1,500 years after the Church began?

[eric]

I clicked on to your link. Never heard of the interactive bible, and there are no names to suggest who operates the web site, so I'll just stay with the KJV and the NASV.

[EricH]

Check church history - you will see baptism in water for the remission of sins as a work of God all through out until Mr. Z.

This is a fallacious argument. Just because something was believed in the past, does not make it the correct belief.

Perhaps you can tell me how the original church completely abandoned the teaching that baptism is just a symbol even when the apostles were alive?

Do a search on this subject. Read this:

http://www.bible.ca/H-baptism.htm

Do you understand my question?

What I am trying to show you is that if your view of baptism is correct, why did nobody teach it in the history of the Church until 1,500 years after the Church began?

Again, just because the early church believed something, does not mean they were correct. Many doctrines began to appear later as a fuller understanding of scripture developed. I understand your question perfectly. It is just that the question has no bearing on the doctrine and whether or not it is true. The disagreement over the nature of baptism extends to the early church.

[Khristeeanos]

Again, just because the early church believed something, does not mean they were correct. Many doctrines began to appear later as a fuller understanding of scripture developed. I understand your question perfectly. It is just that the question has no bearing on the doctrine and whether or not it is true. The disagreement over the nature of baptism extends to the early church.

What I am suggesting is that no one person for the first 1,500 years of Church history ever disconnected God's working with baptism until that Zelwegi (sp?) guy.

Not one person!

This disagreement was no where to be found in the early church as you suggest. All of them were in full agreement in their beliefs that water baptism is the work of God and when He decided to impart salvation to a penitent believer.

These are people who were much closer to the time of the apostles than you or I.

Please answer this question.

Assuming your view of baptism is true, how did it happen that the apostles teaching on the doctrine of salvation was so quickly forsaken?

Read some of the quotes!

110-165AD Martyr "there is no other way [to obtain God's promises] than this-to become acquainted with Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins, and for the remainder, to live sinless lives."

Read about Justin Martyr here = Early Church

[Khristeeanos]

I clicked on to your link. Never heard of the interactive bible, and there are no names to suggest who operates the web site, so I'll just stay with the KJV and the NASV.

It shouldn't matter who operates that particular website. The quotes are from the writings of the people who were Christians around 1,600 - 1,900 years ago.

[EricH]

These are people who were much closer to the time of the apostles than you or I.

Please answer this question.

Assuming your view of baptism is true, how did it happen that the apostles teaching on the doctrine of salvation was so quickly forsaken?

Read about Justin Martyr here = Early Church

There is a problem in your logic. It is basically that proximity to the apostles guarantees correct thinking. However, we know that is not true. Heresy had crept into the church very early on. All understanding what the church fathers believed gives us is a history of interpretation. The church fathers were not inerrant, nor did they speak the very words of God. Your logic is basically older must be true

[Guest yod]

Your logic is basically older must be true

OK so who is the oldest person here? They should be able to answer the question since they are closer to when Jesus was here, right?

I'm just jacking with ya, Popo. Please don't take offense at my jesting.

But I have little-to-no respect for the "church fathers". They were mostly anti-semitic goyim who were rewriting what had been given to them from the jews to fit their own worldview.

The Didache was a gnostic handbook and yet much of the doctrines of the RCC sprang from that genesis.

Here is the only rule we should have:

If it's in the bible, we believe it.

If it's not in the bible, it is subject to the bible.

If it contradicts the bible, then it's wrong

A lot of the "church fathers" writings could not stand up to such simple scrutiny. Most european doctrines and theological writings from 150 AD through to today would not stand either.

the greek spirit took control of the church very early...in the second century. By the 4th century this greek spirit held political and legal power over all things "christian".

It was not until the printing press (16th century) allowed the average saint access to the Word of God that reformation could begin and it has been a slow process.

[Rick-Parker]

Your logic is basically older must be true

OK so who is the oldest person here? They should be able to answer the question since they are closer to when Jesus was here, right?

I'm just jacking with ya, Popo. Please don't take offense at my jesting.

But I have little-to-no respect for the "church fathers". They were mostly anti-semitic goyim who were rewriting what had been given to them from the jews to fit their own worldview.

The Didache was a gnostic handbook and yet much of the doctrines of the RCC sprang from that genesis.

Here is the only rule we should have:

If it's in the bible, we believe it.

If it's not in the bible, it is subject to the bible.

If it contradicts the bible, then it's wrong

A lot of the "church fathers" writings could not stand up to such simple scrutiny. Most european doctrines and theological writings from 150 AD through to today would not stand either.

the greek spirit took control of the church very early...in the second century. By the 4th century this greek spirit held political and legal power over all things "christian".

It was not until the printing press (16th century) allowed the average saint access to the Word of God that reformation could begin and it has been a slow process.

I didn't make those comments about the old church. I'm not thin skinned, either. Let me say this one more time, folks. I believe that you are not saved if you do not repent of your sins and "sin no more." Except in special circumstances such as a dying declaration of faith. It anybody wants to argue with me about that, just keep it because what I believe is no different than what you believe and by no means will cause a new believer to fall. Other than that, I'm cool wi't it.

[Guest shiloh357]

I would think after reading here how much faith people are professing, how much they love God, and how that Jesus is their savior that anybody could pick and choose not to obey certain verses of the bible while using excuses such as no water in desert, thief on the cross, Oreo cookies, deathbed, etc.

the problem is that no one is claiming that we dont NEED to be baptised or that baptism is not required. It is required. The disagreement lies in what baptism is required for.

When we stand before God on judgment day and he asks us why we didn't get baptized are we going to say that the thief on the cross wasn't so I didn't, or the guy in the desert didn't so I didn't, or I didn't want to be an Oreo cookie, etc.?

You completely miss the point because you are incorrectly framing our position.

If baptism was as Shiloh professes it then we would not have been told to be baptized as it would have been an automatic thing through God and the scriptures would tell us that when we asked Jesus to become our savior that we are automatically baptized into Jesus. There also would be no water baptism examples.

I did not offer a definition of baptism. You need to read what I posted. I said that not EVERY reference to baptism is speaking of immersion in water. I said that the word "baptism" simply means to immerse and thus from a pure defintion of the word, it refers to the act of immersion. It does not indicate either the object being immersed, nor the material into which the object is immersed. Baptism, in the Greek, is not a theological word. Unfortunately, it is has been limited superficially to a singular meaning (water immersion) in a manner that is inconsistent with how it is used in Scripture.

If baptism was not part of God's plan of salvation for mankind then it would not have been included in the scriptures.

We can't pick and choose what we think is required for salvation like the scriptures are a menu to pick from.

The problem is that you have not demonstrated that it is required. All you can do is cherry pick a few verses and string them togther and anyone can do that make the bible say anyhting they want it to say. Your method of handling the bible is purely subjective and is wholly unreliable as a means of establishing doctrine. I can pick a few verses and prove that Jesus is not the Messiah so long as I ignore the rest the Bible, and that is what you are doing in this particular case.

Jesus is the way the truth and the life. With this he commissioned that this was something required for man to do as part of the salvation of our souls.

At worst, you are teaching an unChristian, fleshly and works-based, false gospel. At best, you are confusing what the Bible says about works in relation to our rewards in heaven.