Is a church membership needed for salvation?

[PRmerger]

There are many of you and only one of me. Unfortunately, I am sure that it is only a matter of time before I am banned from posting to this group so if you, or others, do not receive a response from me, that will be the reason, as it is my intention to respond to each post.

Bear

I agree it would be difficult for me to be the lone Catholic on an atheist forum. So kudos to you for staying and dialoguing! :aok:

However, if you are banned it is, of course, not because “there are many of” us and “only one of” you. Remain faithful to the forum rules, be charitable, and all will be well.

For a model on how to be a non-Catholic poster on a Catholic forum, see JonNC. He is one classy Lutheran! Able to post his POV and apologia with eloquence and with charity.With over 7000 posts he seems to have been able to post counter-Catholic arguments without banning (and, I might guess, without even a single moderator intervention.)

 

[guanophore]

Part 1 of 3

OK, where does it say one must be baptized, before, being saved?

Why do you suppose the DR inserted the word “again” in the verse?

The Textus Receptus does not have “again” in it, as follows.

“Jesus answered most assuredly say you unless one born of water and spirit cannot enter the kingdom God”.

Now if one wishes to insert “baptism” into the verse, that is certainly one’s privilege but then I would use the same privilege to contend that it means that man must be born of God’s word and His spirit. Perhaps like in Eph 5:26.

“so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word”

You must understand that Catholics read the Scripture from the point of view of those who wrote it. When we read “you must be born again of water and Spirit” we hear baptism because that is what was handed down to us from the Apostles. You belong to a faith tradition that has been separated from the Aposltes’ Teaching for 500 + years. In that time, many people have contributed ideas about the meaning of the passages, many of them separate from the faith of the Apostles.

If you are proposing the phrase, “born of water”, implies baptism, that is only your interpretation as the verse says nothing that would suggest that it is relative to baptism, IMO.

I believe the quote below offers a very plausible explanation for v23.

The Aposltes never separated baptism from the experience of conversion. That is why everyone converted was immediately baptized. If you check your Reformers, you will find that this was one part of Apostolic faith that was retained by Calvin and Luther. In fact, Calvanists sentenced ana baptists to death by drownding for denying the efficacy of infant baptism.

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.

The NT is the story of the birth of the Church. At the time, there were no Christians having babies yet. Infants, children, and slaves were included in the “whole households” that were baptized, but you are right, baptism is the normative means given to us by Christ of becoming members of Him. However, He is not bound by the sacrament. He can join people to Himself any way He wants, like the thief on the cross next to Him

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?

It may seem “fair” to you, but it is an inappropropriate method. The Doctrines of the faith are not extracted from Scripture, but handed down from those who were authorized to keep them. The scriptures reflect the faith of the Apostles, but they are not the Source of that faith. Jesus is the Source, and the Scriptures reflect what they believed. The faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

I have been told that “one liners” are meaningless so I would think this would address that issue so, are you interested?

I am happy to talk about verses related to baptism because there is a lot that can be learned from them. The apostles never separated baptism from conversion,and this becomes clear in Scripture.

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.

Especially if you are reading with anti-catholic lenses.

You also are taking this idea of public witness our of the Reformation, 1500 years after the fact. No such culture existed in the early church. they were hiding in catacombs, and baptizing in secret underground, in houses in hiding, or in the wilderness where they would not be found and killed. The LAST thing they wanted was publicity.

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?

Have you ever thought about reading the Catechism?

“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?

We think of salvation differently, so this question cannot be answered in the form it is posed. You are suffering from a modern meaning of “saved” that is not consistent with the Apostolic Faith.

Could John’s baptism result in salvation? There is nothing there about “believing” first, only a repentance of sin.

Again, we have a different understanding of what “salvation” means.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Jesus is not bound by the sacraments he commands to us.

Yes, adults must repents, confess, and make a statement of faith before receiving 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”.

Yes. this is a very bad way to derive doctrine.

.

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.”

Interesting you should choose this, because it is one of the major supports of parents bringing their children, and Jesus acting on the basis of “their faith” rather than the one who is brought.

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

Jesus is not bound by the sacrament.

Does v37 say anything about baptism for forgiveness?

You are making the mistake of expecting to find baptism mentioned in every verse, if what the CC says is true. This is not the way the Scripture was written. It was given to those who had already received the faith.

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

If this were true, then He would not have commissioned the Apsotles to baptize them all.

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

I notice many of your examples are about Jews who were already initiated into the Old Covenant through circumcision.

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.

Yes!

Acts 22:16
16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

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

Of course! The profession of faith is never separated from baptism

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tevans,

Does not look like many want to play your game…using your rules…can you imagine that! Now, maybe you could get others to play your game if you opened your own site as opposed to using CAF.

A while back, I gave you the ENTIRE Chapter 25 of Matthew - all of it is devoted to people having to do something to heaven besides having faith. I seem to recall James advising us that devils believ in God - but, this does not benefit them!

This issue is not “Faith or Works” but "Faith AND Works. James tells us that faith without works is DEAD. Now, this is pretty clear cut for those who read what is there and not over-write it with self-serviing interpretations that completely nullify the Word.

So, how about it, I am still interested in you addressing Matt 25… And, if you are really feeling up to it, how about James 2 to really capture the Spirit of what God is telling us.

God bless

PJM;7882580:

Have I ever said anything about God overlooking our works? Can you point out exactly where this verse, or the surrounding verses, say anything whatsoever about works being required for salvation?

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Absolutely nothing about works, baptism or belonging to the CC as a requirement for salvation, so, did Paul lie when he made this statement in v9?

I would love to engage in a discussion of chapters 2 & 3, verse by verse, which I have previously offered to do but, unfortunately, no one seems interested in doing so, at least if I request that they answer my questions and provide scripture that says what they claim that it says.

Allow me to state my views of verse 23 and perhaps ask a question or two.

I have been told that there is only one church and that is the CC. That being said, why does Jesus use the plural (churches) if there is only one? Oh, and if you say they are just different parishes but are still the CC, how then do you explain, even before the first century is over, Jesus is admonishing a number of them for their actions, doctrines and/or beliefs?

I believe six of the seven suffer admonishments by Jesus of one kind or another. How do you reconcile that with the CC having “the truth” and being infallible in their moral decisions? If, they got off course from the disciples teachings in a matter of a few decades after Jesus’ death, to say nothing about one of the disciples still being alive, what assurances do you have that it could not get even further off course after a couple of centuries?

Another point, if this is addressing the CC, what is your explanation for the phrase, “and I will strike her children dead”?

What is He going to give to them, if they belong to the CC, are they not saved?

Romans 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Apparently Paul did not consult with the first Pope before he wrote the book of Romans.

What is v17 and the surrounding verses speaking of, is it not an exhortation to Christians as how they should live? Where is there anything in this verse about salvation? Does scripture mean what it says or not? No where have I asserted, suggested, implied that a Christian should not be fruitful, to do good “works”, in gratitude and, obedience to Jesus’ teachings. My contention is that “works” is not required for salvation, according to scripture.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Do you see anything in v13 about works, baptism or membership in the CC as a prerequisite for salvation? Does it not specifically state that after listening to the gospel and having believed, they were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise"? Do you have an explanation that you can present where scripture actually says what you claim that it says?

Ephesians 1:14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

If they were not adopted into the family of the Lord, how could they possibly qualify for an inheritance? And how could they be part of the Lord’s family if they are not saved?

Who is Paul addressing in v13, are Christians under the law? Or is he speaking to the unsaved Jews, who would be under the law?

You have quoted a number of verses about “justification”, do you equate justification to salvation? If not, why do you quote verses about justification when the topic is salvation?

Good grief Pat, I get the impression from your comment that you are implying that I am quoting scripture out of context just to match my opinion, when you have just quoted four verses that does not say one word about “salvation”, the topic, and if one reads the surrounding verses, they are about as far out of context as one can get, IMO.

On the subject of context, I would be willing to go through entire chapters, verse-by-verse for the purpose of making sure that context continuity is maintained, are you willing to such a discussion? In addition, when I purport a verse states something, I will quote the verse saying exactly what I claim. Of course, I would request the same from you.

I agree with your statement so my question is, are you saying that I have been untruthful and if I have, can you provide a quote corroborating such an accusation? If I have misunderstood your purpose for the comment, I apologize, and would ask you to explain why you felt the need to make such a statement.

Bear

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Zach Dunn,

You are not playing his game by his rules … what do you think this is… so kind of open forum where people can freely dialogue.

I have found it amazing how he can take the time to re-explain his rules rather than use that same time and energy to answer you question or respond to your comment. I may be wrong on this … but, this certainly seems like evasion to me!

Best advice: do not hold your breath waiting for a meaningful response… you may go hypoxic…

God bless

How could we expect an answer when it’s so easy to pass over questions that are too difficult for him/her to answer?

And since I’m posting already, I suppose I’ll ask again:

Tevans, is it necessary to be a part of Christ’s body, as Paul describes it, to be saved?

 

[zach_dunn]

Hi Zach,

As I said in post #132,

“It is not my intention to ignore anyone’s post on this subject; I am trying to respond in order of the post.”

There are many of you and only one of me. Unfortunately, I am sure that it is only a matter of time before I am banned from posting to this group so if you, or others, do not receive a response from me, that will be the reason, as it is my intention to respond to each post.

Bear

I understand perfectly. In fact, I’ve been in this situation before on such sites as CARM and I greatly appreciate you sticking it out and answering people’s questions. As other users have stated, if you follow the forum rules and are charitable, you’ll be around here for a while. The people here at CAF actually appreciate different viewpoints and we love discussing things, we just get to a point where we’ve heard this viewpoint several times before so we all kind of jump on it.

In any case I am still a bit confused. You take a lot of time to write out long responses to other posters, yet even when you address me you cannot give me the simple yes or no answer to the most simple question you’ve been asked thus far (IMHO, anyway).

Hi, Zach Dunn,

You are not playing his game by his rules … what do you think this is… so kind of open forum where people can freely dialogue.

I have found it amazing how he can take the time to re-explain his rules rather than use that same time and energy to answer you question or respond to your comment. I may be wrong on this … but, this certainly seems like evasion to me!

Best advice: do not hold your breath waiting for a meaningful response… you may go hypoxic…

God bless

GASPS Thank you for warning me, I’ve been holding it in since my first post on this thread!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Zach Dunn,

Now, that is breath control!

God bless

I understand perfectly. In fact, I’ve been in this situation before on such sites as CARM and I greatly appreciate you sticking it out and answering people’s questions. As other users have stated, if you follow the forum rules and are charitable, you’ll be around here for a while. The people here at CAF actually appreciate different viewpoints and we love discussing things, we just get to a point where we’ve heard this viewpoint several times before so we all kind of jump on it.

In any case I am still a bit confused. You take a lot of time to write out long responses to other posters, yet even when you address me you cannot give me the simple yes or no answer to the most simple question you’ve been asked thus far (IMHO, anyway).

GASPS Thank you for warning me, I’ve been holding it in since my first post on this thread!