So in John 3:16, why did Jesus say that "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."? Why did he not say "whoever believes in Him, and is also baptized, shall not perish but have eternal life."?

 

Or John 5:11-12 '"And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." No baptism here.

 

John 14:6 "Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." No baptism here.

 

Romans 10:9-10 "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Again, no baptism.

 

John 1:11-12 "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."

 

And again the reason you cannot cherry-pick Scriptures but must look at ALL SCRIPTURES to get a full picture of His message.

 

No where in those did he say anything in what we should do afterwards. Does that mean it is irrelevant whether we follow Him or not? No! It is very relevant and is very important that we act like He wants us to act.

 

Just because everytime he spoke He didn't give a full, complete view does not mean that we can discount something where OTHER PLACES He did mention it.

 

To me, you look at ALL of the Scriptures where this is brought up and look at it in the totality and that is where you get what you need to do.

 

Believe. Follow. Baptize. Think of others first. Deny yourself and your worldly desires for the benefit of others. (that is a hard one for me cause I enjoy too much of the crap of this world.) Study. Worship. Evangelize. Make disciples. You look at it all instead of pulling out what tickles your ears.

So, no deathbed conversions are possible unless a minister is there to simultaneously baptize?

 

When scripture says that "works" are not required for salvation, that there is no act you can take that justifies your salvation, is not baptism an act?

 

Even more loaded, does this not "add to" what we have to do for salvation? What is the difference between requiring baptism for salvation, and requiring, say, taking the sacrament? Scripture can be used to support that requirement, too.

 

What is a sacrament?

So in John 3:16, why did Jesus say that "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."? Why did he not say "whoever believes in Him, and is also baptized, shall not perish but have eternal life."?

 

Or John 5:11-12 '"And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." No baptism here.

 

John 14:6 "Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." No baptism here.

 

Romans 10:9-10 "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Again, no baptism.

 

John 1:11-12 "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."

 

Read the book of Acts if you get a few hours and focus on each and every conversion story in the book.

So, no deathbed conversions are possible unless a minister is there to simultaneously baptize?

 

When scripture says that "works" are not required for salvation, that there is no act you can take that justifies your salvation, is not baptism an act?

 

Even more loaded, does this not "add to" what we have to do for salvation? What is the difference between requiring baptism for salvation, and requiring, say, taking the sacrament? Scripture can be used to support that requirement, too.

 

Did not mean to ignore this. One of those it was at the end of one page and I was sent to the 2nd page and did not know this was there until someone else had quoted it.:thumb:

 

 

You raise some interesting concerns that have been discussed in the past.

 

I do wonder if the chance to be baptized is not figured in. The thief on the cross did not have a chance and yet received salvation. Soldier in Iraq with no water around, honestly gives their life to Christ and then 5 minutes later is killed. I would like to fall on the side that they received salvation because they had no chance at baptism at that point.

 

Is not giving you life to Christ or believing in Him not an act on your part, too?

 

I don't know what 'taking the sacrament' means so I cannot comment on that.

It just seems completely arbitrary and a bit absurd that God would say "you can accept Jesus and follow his commands diligently all you want, but until someone holds your head under water during a ceremony you are out of luck."

 

You could have believed in God and generally practiced good but (if you lived back in the first part of Genesis) if you were told by Noah to get on the ark and you were to stubborn to do it would you be saved from the flood?

 

Suppose you were part of the children of Israel back in Exodus slavery and Moses or another of your leaders told you saying that God said to put blood on the door one night. Even if you believed in God but were too stubborn to do so would your first born be saved?

 

If God tells me to do something through his word why in the world would I not do it?

That's a hogwash answer used to justify cherry-picking OT verses, while ignoring others.

 

What law are we under?

And again the reason you cannot cherry-pick Scriptures but must look at ALL SCRIPTURES to get a full picture of His message.

 

Perhaps I have looked at all of the scripture and concluded that if baptism were necessary to be saved then Jesus would have explicitly demanded it, especially during His most deliberate statements on the matter.

What law are we under?

 

In this country, seems too often like the law of the liberals.:lol::jump:

Perhaps I have looked at all of the scripture and concluded that if baptism were necessary to be saved then Jesus would have explicitly demanded it, especially during His most deliberate statements on the matter.

 

He sent his disciples out to baptized people and then in Matthew 28 offered the great Commission where he said,

go out and make disciples of all nations BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them ALL that I have commanded.

 

or something to that effect.

Not sure how it is no more explicit than that.

So, no deathbed conversions are possible unless a minister is there to simultaneously baptize?

 

When scripture says that "works" are not required for salvation, that there is no act you can take that justifies your salvation, is not baptism an act?

 

Even more loaded, does this not "add to" what we have to do for salvation? What is the difference between requiring baptism for salvation, and requiring, say, taking the sacrament? Scripture can be used to support that requirement, too.

 

Romans tells us works alone will not save us. No man (save Jesus) has lived perfect under the law. James tells us that faith without works is dead.

 

How can we reconicle the two simple? Have faith in God, and do what he says. We are not saved just by doing what he says but we have the chance to be a child of God because of God's grace and mercy to send his son.

 

We must have all 3, faith, works, grace. Most "faith only" people ignore James.

In this country, seems too often like the law of the liberals.:lol::jump:

 

True!

The Great Commission

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

How do you discount this as Jesus not explicitly saying that baptism is EXTREMELY important?

 

If you discount the baptism part, than I guess it is not important to witness to others cause we can't discount one part of the sentence without discounting other parts of the sentence, can we????

 

And I guess we don't have to worry about teaching them to obey what he has commanded, because if section B is not discounting then surely we can discount section C?

Please support your claim here with Scriptural references. I am intrigued by your statement and would like to know more about how you arrived to that statement.

 

Am I and by extent my New Testament professor not correct in the fact; that the twelve disciples felt that you first had to become a Jew and follow to law to become a Christian.

 

Was it not Paul who propagated the belief that you did not have to follow the law to become a Christian.

Am I and by extent my New Testament professor not correct in the fact; that the twelve disciples felt that you first had to become a Jew and follow to law to become a Christian.

 

Was it not Paul who propagated the belief that you did not have to follow the law to become a Christian.

 

I would say that Jesus was the first.

 

On the former, I do not know.

What about all of those people who were alive after the resurrection but not alive when the letters were written or did not have access to them. Do they then all go to . . . I still can't figure out how to write that.

 

Jesus was crucified around 33 AD and many of the books were not written until several DECADES after that. what in the world did those people do???

 

 

What was meant by an addendum is that scholars believe that many of the books/letters had things added to them later to more align with church "doctrine".