Is Baptism Essential for Salvation into Heaven?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

My point is that god is all-knowing; he knows the condition of our soul, what's in our heart and mind, whether we've been naughty or nice, etc. So why do we need to go bobbing for apples to prove it to him?

We don't. We need to obey His commandments, even though we may not always understand His reasons for them.

And to toss otherwise good, honest, honorable and wholesome people into hell to burn forever and ever? Come on now.

You're asking me this? When have I ever implied that good, honest, honorable and wholesome people are going to burn in hell forever and ever? I don't even believe that bad, dishonest, dishonorable and unwholesome people are going to burn in hell forever and ever! There's heaven and there's hell. They are not the same size. Heaven is big enough to accomodate everyone who wants to be there. It's big enough for Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, fundy Christians (I say with some regret), Buddhists, Hindus and... atheists. Hell is a tiny, forgotten hole in a distant corner of the universe. Salvation means more to me than merely avoiding hell. I believe in an almost universal salvation, provided the word "salvation" is used to mean "entrance to Heaven." I believe in a more restricted salvation when I use the word to mean "exaltation." Baptism, among a multitude of other things, is required for exaltation. Why? I don't know, other than that it is one of God's commandments and He's the boss.

[Jeremy Mason]

[/quote]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

My point is that god is all-knowing; he knows the condition of our soul, what's in our heart and mind, whether we've been naughty or nice, etc. So why do we need to go bobbing for apples to prove it to him?

Why do we sign contracts? I'm sure the people doing so understand the conditions of their agreement. The reason why we sign contracts is because there needs to be a witness to the agreement. When I was baptized there were witnesses. If God wants us to seal the deal, he can do so as he likes, even if His means of doing so are odd to some.

And to toss otherwise good, honest, honorable and wholesome people into hell to burn forever and ever? Come on now.

It's not that God wants to through otherwise good, honest, honorable and wholesome people into hell to burn forever and ever. Those are the people that he seeks. He also wants people to know exactly what his Son did for us, is that too much ask? Wouldn't a honorable person be thankful? I'm not saying you're not.

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

My point is that god is all-knowing; he knows the condition of our soul, what's in our heart and mind, whether we've been naughty or nice, etc. So why do we need to go bobbing for apples to prove it to him? And to toss otherwise good, honest, honorable and wholesome people into hell to burn forever and ever? Come on now.

We're not proving anything to God. As you said, he already knows. We're proving everything to ourselves.
In response to your last question about honorable people, when you get an answer, please let us know. We've been wondering that for years!

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Okay, but it appears that without both belief and baptism, a person will not be saved, doesn't it? I'm not saying baptism alone that saves, but this verse certainly does imply that it's a requirement.

I would say belief and repentance. There is nothing that can be added to repentence to improve upon it. A person either repents or they do not.

Baptism is usually a person's first act of obedience (if they know that they are commanded to be baptized). It is like the question of faith and works that James talks about ie. that faith without works is dead. A person who asks Jesus to be Lord and then refuses to obey has not really made Jesus Lord. A person who has repented sin and then willfully sins puts a lie to their repentance whether they were baptized or not.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, rocka. I believe we must be born of water and of the Spirit. And no, I don't believe being born of water means experiencing physical birth. I believe that is being "born of the flesh." So, as far as I'm concerned, we are born of the flesh, then born of water, and finally born of the Spirit. You clearly disagree. So be it.

I think the phrase "born again" implies one more time, but when I count, I get three births in your list. If, when speaking to someone born only of the flesh, Paul wanted to express that a person should also be born of water, and then be born of spirit, wouldn't he have written something like "you must be born again... and one more time after that"?

And why don't you believe that being "born of water" means physical birth? It seems plausible enough to me.

Also, what do you make of Paul's statement that he did not come to baptize?

Originally Posted by Scott1

Well, we don't believe Scripture can contradict itself.... and Acts 10 (which comes later than Acts 2 by the way) shows the normative baptism.

Amen.... I agree.... just don't know what caused all the "NO WATER NO WATER NO WATER" stuff when it seems not to be a big deal... oh well... peace be with you.

I see a problem with theological consistency, the same one I see with Catholic sacraments (or other rituals in other denominations that tie God's grace to human action in a similar way). If you claim that water is necessary for baptism and that baptism is necessary for salvation, then you're effectively doing two things, IMO:

- declaring a restriction on the powers of God, since the implication is that He is not be free to baptize in the Holy Spirit without water if He wills so or save people some other way, and is not free to not save a baptized person who He does not want to.

- declaring human power over God, since the dispensation of His grace would be contingent on the water-pouring ritual, which, as an action performed by humans with free will, could either happen or not depending on the choices of the people involved.

IMO, there are theological implications for both of these that don't easily fit into most Christian denominations.

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by logician

Because people who seek power seek ways of gaining power, and one way in the religious world is to invent new "requirements" for entry into a supposed heaven.

There is an element of truth to your statement. Sometimes people are baptized into a church and people are told that if they aren't baptized into that church they aren't saved. No church is my savior Jesus is and He wasn't there to physically baptise me.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I think the phrase "born again" implies one more time, but when I count, I get three births in your list. If, when speaking to someone born only of the flesh, Paul wanted to express that a person should also be born of water, and then be born of spirit, wouldn't he have written something like "you must be born again... and one more time after that"?

I believe that being "born of water" means to be baptized. I don't see how something so obvious to me could be so vague to other people, but I guess we're al dense in one respect or another. When Jesus said that we must be born of water and of the Spirit, I believe He was talking about being baptized in water, as He was, and then being given the gift of the Holy Ghost. Jesus was adamant about being baptized Himself, and He commanded His Apostles to baptize others. If that had not been what He was referring to as being "born of water," I don't know what he could possibly have meant. He would not have told His followers that they needed to be born of water if all He meant was that they needed to be born into this world; they'd already done that and it wasn't their choice.

And why don't you believe that being "born of water" means physical birth? It seems plausible enough to me.

If physical birth is being "born of water," then what is baptism? And why was Jesus so insistent that we must both believe and be baptized in order to be saved?

Also, what do you make of Paul's statement that he did not come to baptize?

Give me the context and I'll be glad to comment. My first thought is that Paul held a higher priesthood than was needed to baptize. His calling was that of an Apostle, which is a special witness to Jesus Christ. Others could have baptized, but others could not have filled his shoes.

I see a problem with theological consistency, the same one I see with Catholic sacraments (or other rituals in other denominations that tie God's grace to human action in a similar way). If you claim that water is necessary for baptism and that baptism is necessary for salvation, then you're effectively doing two things, IMO:

- declaring a restriction on the powers of God, since the implication is that He is not be free to baptize in the Holy Spirit without water if He wills so or save people some other way, and is not free to not save a baptized person who He does not want to.

Human beings can't restrict God, but there is an order to God's work. It goes like this: Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentence, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. That's how God said it was supposed to work. It's not a restriction; it was how He wanted it.

- declaring human power over God, since the dispensation of His grace would be contingent on the water-pouring ritual, which, as an action performed by humans with free will, could either happen or not depending on the choices of the people involved.

Again, humans have no power over God. If proxy baptism were not part of the picture, you would be right. Since it is, you're wrong.

IMO, there are theological implications for both of these that don't easily fit into most Christian denominations.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't "most Christian denominations."

God tells us what to do. He provides a means by which we can do as He asks. This is not rocket science.