Is a church membership needed for salvation?

[WCH]

Knowing the truth? Tell us which Protestant church out of thousands teaches the full deposit of faith when many cannot even agree on baptism?

You know, Catholics like you ask me questions like that, and then the Mods chew me out for getting off topic when I answer, and Catholics like you continue asking me more questions like that.

Perhaps we should back to the thread topic.

 

[WCH]

If you reject those are sacraments,then you pretty negate the Holy Spirit working through those sacraments!

Atheists reject the existence of God.

Does the atheist’s rejection of God’s existence negate the existence of God? :nope:

Don’t worry, if the Holy Spirit is indeed working through your sacraments, my rejection of them will not impede His work through them.

 

[Nicea325]

Atheists reject the existence of God. Does the atheist’s rejection of God’s existence negate the existence of God?

Exactly! Thank you… you proved my point about your REJECTION of certain sacraments.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Knowing the truth? Tell us which Protestant church out of thousands teaches the full deposit of faith when many cannot even agree on baptism?

You know, Catholics like you ask me questions like that, and then the Mods chew me out for getting off topic.

Perhaps we should back to the thread topic.

Do you have an answer?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

I guess there is a fine line between ‘diversity’ and chaos!

God bless

Indeed. Simply with one concept–baptism–there is a multitude of POVs, each claiming Scripture verses which putatively affirm their paradigm.

Some Protestants say it’s an ordinance; some say it’s a sacrament.
Some Protestants say it must be done by immersion; others say by sprinkling.
Some Protestants say it must be done using the Trinitarian formula; some say in “Jesus’ name” only.
Some Protestants say it must be done in adulthood; some say in infancy…

It truly boggles the mind.

In fact, whenever a Protestant here attempts to provide apologia for the “Protestant position” I must demur and contest–there* is* no “Protestant position.”

 

[WCH]

Exactly! Thank you… you proved my point about your REJECTION of certain sacraments.

Good. That was my intent. I don’t want to add to your worry.

Had you posted my entire post, and not edited it, others reading the thread would know that as well.

You’re welcome.

 

[WCH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Knowing the truth? Tell us which Protestant church out of thousands teaches the full deposit of faith when many cannot even agree on baptism?

Do you have an answer?

That has nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[Nicea325]

Good. That was my intent. I don’t want to add to your worry.

Had you posted my entire post, and not edited it, others reading the thread would know that as well.

You’re welcome.

Worry? Why would I be worried? No worries from me, I am not the one who rejects the sacraments. Do you think the early church was “worried” about the Arians personal feelings about rejecting Christ divinity? Their loss…take it or leave it.

 

[WCH]

Worry? Why would I be worried? No worries from me, I am not the one who rejects the sacraments. Do you think the early church was “worried” about the Arians personal feelings about rejecting Christ divinity? Their loss…take it or leave it.

Please don’t edit my posts anymore.

 

[Nicea325]

That has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Really?

Originally Posted by WCH
That doesn’t make any sense.

While there may be many views within Protestantism, I fail to see how that keeps people from knowing the truth.

Will you explain that further, please?

Precisely why I asked: Which Proestant church out of thousands contains the full deposit of faith when many cannot agree on baptism…for starters. Some do not consider baptism necessary for salvation,while others do. Others allow openly gay men/women to be priests,ministers,etc and others deem it unbiblical? So tell us what truth?

 

[jmcrae]

That doesn’t make any sense.

While there may be many views within Protestantism, I fail to see how that keeps people from knowing the truth.

How can anyone know the truth, when they are presented with a smorgasbord of personal opinions, each (or any) of which may or may not really be true?

For example, some Protestants say, Baptism is clearly a Sacrament. (Matthew 28:16ff; John 3:5; etc.)

Other Protestants say, clearly, Baptism is an ordinance. (and list whatever the supporting scripture is for that).

Still other Protestants say, Baptism is not required at all; the only thing you need is faith, and they quote half a verse here and half a verse there in support of that idea.

So, if one were Protestant, and presented with these three choices, which are all (apparently) backed up with Scripture, how does the Protestant discern which of them is actually true?

Considering that, if the first one is true, his salvation hangs in the balance if he chooses incorrectly, don’t you think he needs a better method than just, “according to my opinion, the Bible says so”?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**

Is a church membership needed for salvation?

…
is the topic.
Stay there.**

 

[mackbrislawn]

What is so unreasonable about “water” referring to the natural birth and “spirit” being the spiritual birth from God? Or why could it not be referring to God’s word as it is used in other scripture.
Bear

It is unreasonable because to me it doesn’t seem like a natural reading of the text. It seems rather to be something artificial read into the text because of a pre-existing notion of what baptism is.

Because, how would the original hearers of those words have understood them? I can’t imagine that they would have thought of born of water to mean the ordinary birth we all undergo. Do you have evidence that in those days that people referred to ordinary birth as being born of water? You first have to provide evidence of that in order to begin to prove your case. Being born of woman we hear of, but being born of water?

And besides, it is redundant. Because if being born of water means natural birth, it would be the same as saying, you have to be born first! You have to exist first! I mean like, duh, of course we have to exist first! We have to already have been born! So, what else is new?

That is the problem with many non-Catholic interpretations…when they are probed into more deeply, they turn into absurdities, such as the above interpretation.

 

[rinnie]

It is my opinion that it matters not to which “church” one belongs to, or any church for that matter, as to salvation, only the condition of the heart and if one has sincerely accepted Christ as their Savior. What says you and do you have scripture supporting your answer? Bear

My answer would simply be the Church is the pilar of all truth. What is the Church? Why do you go?

Can you receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist outside of his Church? If so How? How can you receive the Sacrament for the forgiveness of Sins? How do you have a child Baptised outside of the Church. Etc.

So is the Church needed for salvation. Absolutely it is. The Church is the Living Christ. I am the way the truth and the Light whoever believes in me shall not die.

The words of Christ are simply this I will be leaving you soon, but I will send to you the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth.

The advocate the Holy Spirit came to the Church at Pentecost. Yes the Church is needed.

 

[mackbrislawn]

It is my opinion that it matters not to which “church” one belongs to, or any church for that matter, as to salvation, only the condition of the heart and if one has sincerely accepted Christ as their Savior. What says you and do you have scripture supporting your answer? Bear

There is some uncertainty as to what is meant by “a” church. Do you mean belonging to a denomination, like belonging to the Methodist church, Baptist church, etc? Or do you mean being on the rolls of a local congregation such as Hillside Baptist, First Presbyterian of River City, and so on? For instance, a Catholic can be a member of the Catholic Church without actually being enrolled in a particular parish.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mackbrislawn,

The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination. Protestants have chosen to denominate from the original Church they all can be traced back to - and, that would be the Catholic Church.

So, in the sense that the farther one goes out on the limb - as we see with further diluted doctrines and outright disagreement with scripture (for example, practicing homosexual clergy, promoting and recognizing ‘gay marriage’, no sin in dismembering while alive an unborn child, etc) the farther one is distanced from the truty.

Membership in the Church Christ founded on Peter is far more important then having dollar bills actually printed by the US Treasury Department as opposed to ones you printed off of your photocopier! Having the original is important - but, with the former, we are talking nothing less than salvation for all eternity.

God bless

There is some uncertainty as to what is meant by “a” church. Do you mean belonging to a denomination, like belonging to the Methodist church, Baptist church, etc? Or do you mean being on the rolls of a local congregation such as Hillside Baptist, First Presbyterian of River City, and so on? For instance, a Catholic can be a member of the Catholic Church without actually being enrolled in a particular parish.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi, Mackbrislawn,

The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination. Protestants have chosen to denominate from the original Church they all can be traced back to - and, that would be the Catholic Church.

So, in the sense that the farther one goes out on the limb - as we see with further diluted doctrines and outright disagreement with scripture (for example, practicing homosexual clergy, promoting and recognizing ‘gay marriage’, no sin in dismembering while alive an unborn child, etc) the farther one is distanced from the truty.

Membership in the Church Christ founded on Peter is far more important then having dollar bills actually printed by the US Treasury Department as opposed to ones you printed off of your photocopier! Having the original is important - but, with the former, we are talking nothing less than salvation for all eternity.

God bless

You’re certainly right there! The Catholic Church is definitely not a denomination. Which is why I didn’t include it in the partial list of denominations.

But that might be part of the OP’s confusion. The ordinary person who doesn’t know any better looks out and sees the bewildering variety of “churches” out there, including the Catholic Church, and lump them all together and wonder if he has to belong to any of them, since they all, to him, seem to be artificial, man-made, distinctions.

However, all these “churches” or denominations are non-scriptural. Scripture knows nothing about this later, man-made, convention of denominations, so simply doesn’t address it as such. Scripture only knows about one church, the one in which if you believe and are baptized, you automatically become a member of. By baptism’s very nature, you are baptized into Christ and into the Church. It is via baptism you clothe yourself with Christ and are saved.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mackbrislawn,

There are two things that I wish you would kindly explain …

You included the Catholic Church in this group of confusing, man-made churches. If this was your intention, then please explain this.

Secondly, while Baptism is essential for salvation, there is more that is required. We are requied to follow the commands of Christ - Matt 25 gives a petty graphic description of people who thought they had enough to enter the Kingdom - but, found out, to their horror, that they were on the wrong side of the door when it was closed.

I enlagred the sections of your text that had me confused.

God bless

You’re certainly right there! The Catholic Church is definitely not a denomination. Which is why I didn’t include it in the partial list of denominations.

But that might be part of the OP’s confusion. The ordinary person who doesn’t know any better looks out and sees the bewildering variety of “churches” out there, including the Catholic Church, and lump them all together and wonder if he has to belong to any of them, since they all, to him, seem to be artificial, man-made, distinctions.

However, all these “churches” or denominations are non-scriptural. Scripture knows nothing about this later, man-made, convention of denominations, so simply doesn’t address it as such. Scripture only knows about one church, the one in which if you believe and are baptized, you automatically become a member of. By baptism’s very nature, you are baptized into Christ and into the Church. It is via baptism you clothe yourself with Christ and are saved.

 

[tevans9129]

=tevans9129;Using the NKJV, I find 42 verses dealing with salvation, not one of them mentions baptism as a requirement.

 

[tevans9129]

=tevans9129;

Part 2 of 3

Yep, “believes” always comes first, then baptism, a public decoration of one’s faith and obedience to Jesus’ commandment. Please notice the last part of the verse, “he who does not believe will be condemned”. Notice the absence of baptism, it does not say, he who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.

How about a challenge Pat, you quote every scripture where baptism appears when the subject is salvation and I will quote every scripture where it does not. Then you can give an explanation as to why “baptism” does not appear in the verses I quote and I will give an explanation as to why baptism appears in the verses you quote, would that be fair? I have been told that “one liners” are meaningless so I would think this would address that issue so, are you interested?

It’s not “either or,” Its BOTH

I do not argue that baptism is not something that Jesus commanded us to do, only that I do not believe scripture supports it being a prerequisite for one to be saved.

Allow me to ask you this question, if, someone has been thinking about Jesus and about being a part of His kingdom, then while driving down the highway he pulls his car off the rode and confesses that he is a sinner in need of a Saviour, ask Jesus for forgiveness of those sins and for Him to be his Lord and Saviour but unfortunately, he is killed in an automobile accident before he can be baptized, is it your contention that he will be condemned to hell because he was not baptized?

You ARE confused. Mark.1: 4 "John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

“Preaching a baptism of (not for) repentance”, what is the definition of repentance in the Biblical sense? Would you say this would be an accurate description, “a change of mind, not about individual plans, intentions, or beliefs, but rather a change in one’s attitude about God”? Would you agree that one must have a change of attitude before one could be saved?

Could John’s baptism result in salvation? There is nothing there about “believing” first, only a repentance of sin. Would his baptism not be a public statement of those having a change of attitude about God? Would you agree that one must have an attitude change before even asking for forgiveness? Is there any scripture that suggests if one asks Jesus for forgiveness of their sins, that Jesus tells them to go and be baptized and their sins will be washed away? How many sins did Jesus forgive with no mention of baptism?

Since I have been accused of one liners and needing to consider the who Bible, I will over indulge here and provide more than “one liners”.

Matthew 9:2 Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.”

Jesus says his sins were forgiven although, He never mentioned baptism, were they forgiven or not?

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Does v37 say anything about baptism for forgiveness?

Luke 7:47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”

Why do you suppose that Jesus did not feel it necessary to baptism the women?

Luke 7:48 Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

Which is it, was she forgiven or not? There is nothing there about baptism. Does the church override Jesus?

Acts 5:31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

It clearly states that the Savior gives repentance and forgiveness of sins; do you see any ifs’, ands’, buts’, or exceptions to v31? I see nothing about baptism.

Acts 13:38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins;

Through this Man, the forgiveness of sins, why did it not say through baptism is forgiveness of sins? IMO, it is because baptism never has been the appliance for forgiving sins, only a public statement that through the blood of Jesus, our sins have been forgiven.

Acts 13:39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Does it say “everyone who believes”, unless you have not been baptized? No, but scripture consistently emphasizes “belief”.

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’

To be continued.