What constitutes matters of Brotherhood and Fellowship?

Depends on what the gift of God is. If it's salvation, then yes, you can receive the gift of God without being baptized.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Explain what? Salvation by grace alone?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I don't know what conditions are necessary for salvation other than believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord. No, that would be a matter of obedience not salvation. Baptism is a matter of obedience, good works are a matter of obedience. Neither of the two have anything to do with salvation. The repentent thief on the cross did nothing (no good works, no baptism, nothing) except accepting Jesus as is Lord and Savior. Jesus said "Today you will be in heaven." I agree but you are talking about two different things. The "fruit of the spirit" (evidence of salvation) is doing good works, but it;s not the same as salvation

I take it you're Catholic judging by your response. Just answer two questions:

How was the thief on the cross able to go in to heaven without having been baptized?

​

If you accept Jesus, and on the way to your baptism you get crushed by a 4-ton truck, are you saved or will you burn for eternity?

​

But of course you just contradicted yourself. For if baptism is a matter of obedience, then so is BELIEVING

​

Believing and works are two entirely different things, no? For as a pagan I can feed ten times the amount of the poor than you, but you've been saved regardless of whether or not you lift a finger.

​

Obedience is better than having to be forgiven... But you can still be forgiven for your transgressions. So how is that a contradiction?

​

Again baptism is simply an act of faith, like BELIEVING

​

Baptism is nothing more than a public declaration of your belief and that's all it is. Could the Holy Spirit baptize me or do I need a minister, a pastor, a priest, or a Rabbi to intercede on my behalf? If I need someone else's help then that is not salvation by grace through faith alone... That's salvation plus something else.

​

Sure salvation is a free gift but we must obey Gods wishes to obtain the gift.

​

No, we don't. All we have to do is surrender. Shit, the entire need of Jesus is because we couldn't be obedient to God's law!

​

Jesus said he that believe AND IS baptized SHALL be saved

​

So then infant baptism doesn't save the souls of little babies because they haven't the capacity to love or reject. But I'm curious. If a baby doesn't go through some sort of infant baptism, will they burn in hell?

​

Lets say God said, he that believeth and walks around the city walls of the city you live in 7 times, while blowing the trumpets, will be saved

​

Now is this a work of man (something from his own mind) or is it faith in action through obedience, to obtain a free gift of God

​

That's a work. People who clothe the poor are being obedient to Christ, but it doesn't equal salvation and never has. Works for God is supposed to be the outward evidence of an inward bond with Christ. We are called to take the gospel to the furthest reaches of the earth, but if you didn't go on a mission, is your soul therefore in jeopardy? Think about it. Those are works, and while works are great they don't save anything.

​

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

You haven't addressed any of my points.If baptism is necessary for salvation then how did the repentent thief on the cross get in to heaven?If baptism and faith are necessary for salvation as you allege, then infant baptisms are useless other than for ceremonial purposes because it isn't saving anything.Likewise, if baptism were necessary for salvation, someone could accept Jesus in their heart and on their way to go get baptized, get killed in an auto accident. If what you allege is true then that individual is not saved.This sounds no different than circumcision, only you have substituted circumcision for baptism from a legalistic point of view, rather than understanding the intended spiritual point of view.

quote:

---

"In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." -- Collossians 2:11-12

---

Through baptism you [symbolically] crucify the flesh, but by faith you are raised. That's the illustration.According to the scriptures, Christ has become the one who circumcises the heart. Baptism is done in the heart. The outward act is merely that... an act... a work... needing to be done by someone else. Does that sound consistent with the premise of being justified by faith?You making it a prerequisite therefore makes baptism a law. Think about it. But the ONLY thing that guarantees damnation is rejection of the Holy Spirit (dying without surrendering to Christ).

quote:

---

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. -- Galatians 2:21

---

It would be like saying Communion saves you, when really it is just a matter of symbolism. Baptism is symbolic of what has already happened in the heart.You might want to rethink your position instead of relying on centuries of false dogma.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Simple question to end this debate once and for all:If baptism were necessary for salvation, a point he seems adamant on, then how was the repentant thief on the cross able to enter in to heaven?This throws aside all the dogma and allows Jesus to answer the question for him... Not Paul... Not Peter.... Not the Pope nor his entourage of pederasts.... But Jesus alone.EMA, without even realizing it, has made baptism a Law requiring conditions to "achieve" salvation. Last time I checked my bible though, Jesus died to end the law. Just as circumcision in the flesh is no longer necessary, circumcision therefore takes place in the heart of the believer. The outward manifestation is then merely symbolic of something that has already taken place internally in the heart of the believer; no different than communion or circumcision, baptism is merely an outward act which publically declares obedience to Christ henceforth -- a symbolic gesture of washing away sin, lest ordinary water has the power to save people's souls.Anything less than salvation by grace through faith alone makes baptism a law. If it is a law then it completely invalidates the entire premise of the cross and it makes it necessary for a 3rd party to save you! If baptism were necessary for salvation then you need a minister, priest, pastor, rabbi, etc to assist in saving you. In other words, complete nonsense.Checkmate EMA.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Excuse EMA but I've sent three messages to you, this being the only time you've responded, and at no point have you answered a single question I posed to you. I'm not ICANT. ICANT can deal with his own arguments. What different covenant might that be? No one can offer salvation but God, right? Would you agree? That being the case then neither were baptised, both were saved simply by grace.And yet we see another biblical contradiction, because make no mistake what you and ICANT are arguing about is biblical contradictions. Jesus offers salvation before he ever said "It is finished" and atoned for the sins of all. If he offers salvation beforehand, then what is the purpose of his crucifixion? So let me get this straight. The Apostles now save souls? Because how could it be any other way if what you say is true? You are making baptism a law, a requirement for salvation, an act, a good work, the necessity of 3rd parties in order to achieve salvation.You have made baptism the new circumcision. That's either a false doctrine or it's a biblical contradiction. Take your pick.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I'm not an atheist so, no. You do understand that I was a professing Christian for many years and even attended bible college. I've been around the block a few times. I have no way of verifying or falsifying that, which is why I'm an agnostic. If you responded to me, you did not do so directly. You have to hit the reply button on one of my posts. That alerts me that I have messages waiting for me. It's unreasonable to assume that I would follow every post in this thread, especially if it were not directed to me. Oh, yes, I'm sure you meant it as living, Christian admonishment. EMA, do me a favor and don't condescend to me. I seem to recall on several occasions where I posed biblical questions to you that rendered incapacitated and unable to answer genuinely. Now seems to be no exception. You've even commented on my ability to know the scriptures, so you must be resorting to ad hominem because you have no real argument.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal