How can baptism be required for salvation?

[Albion]

Are you saying Jesus was not Baptized or just not with water?

Neither, although it's wrong to equate Christian baptism with John's Baptism. No less than the New Testament makes that clear.

 

[Albion]

Your rebuttal doesn't address the theology it nit pics the translation.

"Nit picks?" Is that what you think using a turn of phrase in order to make something important be seen as something else entirely amounts to? Whew.

 

[Eloy Craft]

If you think they are made equal you're not understanding the theology. There is a vast structure that it's a part of that you ignore.@Albion

 

[Albion]

If you think they are made equal you're not understanding the theology. There is a vast structure that it's a part of that you ignore.@Albion

Could be. I tend to avoid the theological extremes on either side as well as the many eccentric religious theories that have garnered a handful of devotees but only a handful.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Nit picks?" Is that what you think using a turn of phrase in order to make something important be seen as something else entirely amounts to? Whew.

The doctrine isn't built on a turn of phrase. It isn't an intellect concoction but I understand that many think that's how divine revelation is received.

 

[Eloy Craft]

John's baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan is not described in Scripture as having been done by submerging Christ under the waters, but some churches insist that it was done that way.

The doctrine about Baptism I've posted doesn't hinge on immersion or dunking. In the very beginning running or living water was used. Not everyone has a river nearby. Then standing water was ok. Well converts in deserts wanted baptized too but couldn't live and be baptized in a pool of water needed to sustain life. They sprinkled water three times. The rite must accurately signify what the Sacrament does. Water is necessary but The rite isn't so ridgid it can't accommodate the conditions Christians find themselves in.

And then to add to that speculation made into a doctrine they sometimes do what you did here and use a word that doesn't appear at all in that Bible passage, then treat it in a non-literal sense to produce support for their doctrin

Believe me the doctrine isn't a concoction built on wordplay.

 

[SamInNi]

So important that it's a question you didn't address.

Ah, I see, you would rather turn it into a rant.

Seriously? Well actually, it IS a question I concisely and substantively addressed in the CF blog page link I originally provided above. You have already commented on that page but so far failed to "address" many, or indeed any, of the specific points raised.

A lot more could be said on this subject apart from baptism, which is one reason why I've said it's such an important question. It puts the focus squarely on the flawed nature of church traditions.

No one would argue that Infallible Tradition in Roman Catholicism teaches God's way of salvation cannot be found in Scripture alone. In other words, the dogma of the Roman Catholic Magisterium* must be used to define all "truths" in Scripture.

But in actual practice the teaching and dogma of Roman Catholicism supercedes Bible authority and even contradicts it in many places, offering instead a system of works-based solutions that merit (earn) God's grace towards salvation.

In defiance of this, there is found in Scripture a complete message of Salvation. There is found in Scripture a complete canon of teaching that fully covers the individual's life of faith in Christ, and every facet of order and practice in each local church that acknowledges the final authority of Scripture.

Scripture offers a completeness that makes infallible, extra-biblical Roman Catholic Tradition redundant. Truth in Scripture isn't defined by any church or religious system, but every true church is defined by the Truth of Scripture.


* "...the Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion" (catholicessentials.net).

CF Blog: Baptism: Tradition Or Scripture?

 

[SamInNi]

That is certainly questionable, considering that there are almost NO churches that teach that baptism is required for salvation.

Well, that's also true of churches which only accept people into membership upon their testimony about having "genuinely placed their faith in Christ."

In other words, there's no "unbridgeable gulf" between the churches on either of these points.

My first point had in mind the powerful influence of church Tradition, which is one of my main points in the page I linked to. The number of churches that teach baptismal generation is a moot point... although the number of RC and Anglican churches can't be overlooked! (A different emphasis is placed on the effect of water baptism, but I've addressed Anglican teaching.)

Would you seriously conflate church membership through baptism (usually as an infant) with confessions of faith in local churches that acknowledge the final authority of Scripture? Really?

There are undoubtedly those who profess falsely, a situation addressed in Scripture. But in a true local church these issues will ultimately be dealt with. So, yes, I'd suggest the gulf between this unfortunate context and salvation through a rite is indeed unbridgeable.

 

[Eloy Craft]

The Scriptures are from the Church. The Church is not from Scriptures. That fundamental difference places an insurmountable gulf between us. It makes what's abhorrent to you a great comfort to me. I have no questions for you but I would answer any you might want to ask.@SaminNi

 

[SamInNi]

The Scriptures are from the Church. The Church is not from Scriptures. That fundamental difference places an insurmountable gulf between us. It makes what's abhorrent to you a great comfort to me. I have no questions for you but I would answer any you might want to ask.@SaminNi

The issue is not where the Scriptures came from. The issue is authority.

So the issue you have so far failed to address is this:

Scripture is subservient to infallible Tradition (Magisterium dogma), and the two are incompatible.

You place the authority of the Church with its Tradition over the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. So, yes, unfortunately there is a gulf indeed...

 

[Eloy Craft]

Scripture is subservient to infallible Tradition (Magisterium dogma), and the two are incompatible.

I'll briefly explain the traditional view of the Word of God on earth relative to authority from God.
Jesus confirmed His Word as taught by Moses and those he appointed and his tradition preserved in writing. Authority from God to Moses to generations of religious leaders. The authority of Moses was expressed as a seat. The Chair of Moses. Jesus was obedient to Moses and taught His disciples to do the same.
Mathew 23
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you,

You notice Divine authority demands obedience even if it's in the hands of wicked men.
The Word spoken by Moses continued orally in the mouths of men. Then that tradition is preserved in writing for the teaching authority to use. Those who sit in Moses seat.
Jesus would never disrespect Moses authority. He and Moses had met. Moses seat was Magisterial and the oral transmission of of the Word spoken by Moses continued to the time of Christ. That is the Oral and Magisterial authority that Jesus taught obedience to.
Jesus confirmed His Word as passed down from Moses expressed orally by the Magisterium. Notice Jesus doesn't teach anyone to decide for themselves what scriptures mean. That's a modern notion.
The Word of God is expressed in the same in the same manner by the Church.
A Magisterium with Christ's authority to teach orally the Word of God. The Word is expressed orally by a Magisterium established by God.
Divine authority is exercised by men appointed by Jesus and passed down the generations to this day.
Then at an arbitrary point in time men rejected the authority established by God and claimed it was not placed in any man but exists where it never did before. Where it can't be exercised. By what authority did they decide this? Remember Jesus' condemnation of the very men He taught His disciples to obey? Did Jesus teach them to reject their authority? No. Did He say it was no longer exercised by men? Nope. The seat of authority established by God was never abolished. Moses' yielded to divine authority his seat to men appointed by God the Son.

I really don't understand how authority can exist where it can't be exercised and especially where men not God say it is.

 

[Albion]

The doctrine isn't built on a turn of phrase.

That's right, but the doctrines which some well-intentioned believers have fashioned for themselves are built on such a foundation, however.

 

[Albion]

The doctrine about Baptism I've posted doesn't hinge on immersion or dunking. In the very beginning running or living water was used. Not everyone has a river nearby.

Didn't you make "immersion" the key to understanding the different kinds of baptisms referred to in Scripture?

 

[Albion]

My first point had in mind the powerful influence of church Tradition, which is one of my main points in the page I linked to. The number of churches that teach baptismal generation is a moot point... although the number of RC and Anglican churches can't be overlooked! (A different emphasis is placed on the effect of water baptism, but I've addressed Anglican teaching.)

Just so long as we understand that nobody is teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Would you seriously conflate church membership through baptism (usually as an infant) with confessions of faith in local churches that acknowledge the final authority of Scripture? Really?

Absolutely. They are baptized using sponsors who make the vows on behalf of their children.

those who profess falsely, a situation addressed in Scripture. But in a true local church these issues will ultimately be dealt with. So, yes, I'd suggest the gulf between this unfortunate context and salvation through a rite is indeed unbridgeable.

Hmmm. I see that you've returned to claiming that baptism is what saves a person. I thought we'd gotten past that.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Didn't you make "immersion" the key to understanding the different kinds of baptisms referred to in Scripture?

That is a good word to describe the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Baptized. The sign ( the rite ) is a tradition meant to assist the faithful in receiving the Sacrament. The rite is a visible sign of what it does. It is tradition with a small t. Immersion describes what the Sacrament does. It can be described as entering into. We enter into Christ's death and resurrection.

 

[Eloy Craft]

That's right, but the doctrines which some well-intentioned believers have fashioned for themselves are built on such a foundation, however.

Thank you. I didn't take that into consideration.

 

[Albion]

That is a good word to describe the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Baptized. The sign ( the rite ) is a tradition meant to assist the faithful in receiving the Sacrament. The rite is a visible sign of what it does. It is tradition with a small t. Immersion describes what the Sacrament does. It can be described as entering into. We enter into Christ's death and resurrection.

Okay. You're using your own language now and, while you're entitled to do so and it's worthwhile for other people to hear it, there isn't much to discuss.

 

[GodLovesCats]

This doesn't even make sense, all the theology aside.

Standing in front of a congregation and having water poured on your head sure as anything does amount to a "public display," every bit as much as having a minister baptize you in your backyard swimming pool!

It is only a display of one parent holding her baby while someone else gets that baby's hair wet Show me how babies are able to believe Jesus is God in the flesh and saved us almost 2,000 years ago and decide to love him for doing that despite lacking any language vocabulary. Then I will reconsider the tradition of baptizing babies.

I am sure you know John baptized the Israelites in rivers, not by pouring water on their heads.

 

[Jamdoc]

The thief on the cross died under the old covenant.

what an absurd rationale. If you hold that salvation was under "dispensations" (which I hold is absurd in itself, Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 show that it was always by grace through faith), then the old covenant was supposed to be salvation by keeping the law.
which #1, is absurd because nobody could keep the law, that's why we need Jesus.
and #2, this guy was dying as a condemned criminal, under the "old covenant" "dispensation" he would be going to hell.
Jesus promised him that he'd go to paradise instead... why?
Because Jesus knew that he believed He was the son of God, and he called out to Him, and called Him Lord.

 

[Eloy Craft]

John the Baptist seemed to receive faith when his mother heard Mary's greeting.@ChristianForCats