Farmer1906 said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think that's obviously where we diverge. I believe the written Word of God has given us everything we need.

---

But even the written word tells us that what is in the text doesn't include everything He said and did. All the books of the world couldn't contain all He said and did. It also tells us to stand firm to the traditions we are taught, and those traditions are passed down through Apostolic succession.

---

Can you give some examples of traditions passed down that are needed yet not in the word?

---

Not only this but additionally was universally agreed upon by every church father as being words directly from Jesus or an Apostle that are new and different from anything in Scripture

"Needed"

These kinds of arguments really get people tripped up dogmatically, but I don't think they're of tremendous benefit.

I was raised in the west Texas Church of Christ. Extremely conservative views on everything from baptism to pianos. My father was a preacher and was fired from a couple churches for focusing his teachings on grace rather than specific works requirements.

My grandmother was convinced that the criminal on the cross was not actually saved because he hadn't been baptized, despite Jesus specifically saying that he'd be with him in paradise.

Now, if someone claims to become a Christian but REFUSES to get baptized, I think that's indicative of an issue of the heart/spirit where one could question their true conversion (like someone telling a longtime girlfriend they'll love them forever but refusing to get married).

The tradition that sacred scripture is limited to the 66 books in the protestant Bible

Or for Catholics, that sacred scripture includes at least the 73 books of the Catholic Bible

Paul Pierce Ag said:

---

The tradition that sacred scripture is limited to the 66 books in the protestant Bible

Or for Catholics, that sacred scripture includes at least the 73 books of the Catholic Bible

---

This isn't really correct.

The Lutherans and Anglicans both understood the deuterocanon to have value for teaching and for quotation in the Divine Service.

That those books are not in Protestant Bibles is not a reflection of Protestantism, but of Christian societies/book publishers who removed those books to save money/cost.

Fair enough- we can say that both Catholics and Protestants hold to the tradition that there are at least 66 books of sacred scripture (the inspired written word of God)

That tradition is not found within the Bible. Nowhere does scripture give an inspired table of contents or exact requirements that one could use to construct the specific 66 book list

If you want another extra-Biblical tradition that Catholics and Protestants believe in, how about the fact we both believe that since the death of the last apostle, public revelation has ceased?

You make my point. The Christian church has agreed on these books....

Because they are written down.

That's the entire argument. The Jews and Christians later could point to books/documents/manuscripts and say, "We know where these came from."

The primary point of this discussion is the appeal that Rome and EO make to the concept of "oral tradition," explicitly claiming that non-scriptural assertions are equal to the words in Scripture.

The Protestant ask is simple. Show where an extra-biblical claim was universally accepted as not simply a tradition, but that which was equal to Scripture itself.

But to answer the unasked question. The Reformers did not forgo tradition, even if it was not explicitly spoken of in Scripture. Instead, they confirm traditions should be upheld because there is absolutely value in them...as long as they are held in their correct place and not on par with or even contrary to Scripture. So, for example, the Reformers did not abolish the Mass. They did correct the abuses, but saw that the Mass could be rightly performed, even if not explicitly spelled out in Scripture.

Think we're talking past each other. The original question was "can you name a necessary tradition that is not found in the word (meaning found in sacred scripture)?"

All I'm saying is the tradition of believing there is a finite set of writings that constitute sacred scripture is not found in the word itself. I think all of us can agree it's a necessary belief, so that would kinda blow a hole in the common understanding if Sola Scriptura

Quote:

---

All I'm saying is the tradition of believing there is a finite set of writings that constitute sacred scripture is not found in the word itself. I think all of us can agree it's a necessary belief, so that would kinda blow a hole in the common understanding if Sola Scriptura

---

Part of Sacred Tradition is the canon of the Bible, 73 books infallibly declared by Pope St. Damasus 1 in 382 AD at the Council of Rome. No bible before Luther only had 66 books, but rather, they had all 73 books...

ABattJudd said:

---

These kinds of arguments really get people tripped up dogmatically, but I don't think they're of tremendous benefit.

---

Unfortunately, the goal of 90% of this entire board. They'd rather argue past each other about semantics than come together as one. Pretty similar to the real world.

Only slightly surprised it hasn't led to a split in the R&P board into separate denominations!

If Acts 2:38 wasn't conclusive enough about Baptismal regeneration, there is always Titus 3:5: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

Where do you worship?

http://www.ourladyoftheatonement.org

ABattJudd said:

---

These kinds of arguments really get people tripped up dogmatically, but I don't think they're of tremendous benefit.

I was raised in the west Texas Church of Christ. Extremely conservative views on everything from baptism to pianos. My father was a preacher and was fired from a couple churches for focusing his teachings on grace rather than specific works requirements.

My grandmother was convinced that the criminal on the cross was not actually saved because he hadn't been baptized, despite Jesus specifically saying that he'd be with him in paradise.

Now, if someone claims to become a Christian but REFUSES to get baptized, I think that's indicative of an issue of the heart/spirit where one could question their true conversion (like someone telling a longtime girlfriend they'll love them forever but refusing to get married).

---

Church of Christ member here as well.

I love this story from Acts

Acts 8:
[26] Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert place.
[27] And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship
[28] and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
[29] And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over and join this chariot."
[30] So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" [31] And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
[32] Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth.
[33] In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth."
[34] And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?"
[35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.
[36] And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?"
[38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
[39] And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

https://bible.com/bible/59/act.8.26-39.ESV

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Baptism saves us, according to 1 Peter 3:21. Why? Because it forgives us our sins and gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit...

---

Does it give us the gift of the Holy sprit?

In Caesarea, the gentiles believed and the Holy Spirit entered them. Afterward, Peter ordered them baptized!

Then, Simon the Sorcerer "believed" and was baptized along with others, but they did not receive the Holy Spirt until the apostles came from Jerusalem to lay hands on them for that purpose. In Simon's case, according to Peter, Simon did not have a share in the ministry and should go and pray for forgiveness. Simon therefore, is perhaps an example of one who indulged the practices of the church but received not the Holy Spirit nor forgiveness.

These are two examples in scripture that seem to indicate there is more involved than baptism of water.

I waited six years to be baptized once I gave my life over to Christ. I believe that I was hearing the Holy Spirit in a lot of place of my life during this time. Others certainly commented on the fruit of spirit that I was bearing. When it came to baptism, I was waiting for the right moment. Basically, I was disobedient and trying to do it my way. Like I do daily in my life even after being baptized. Like everyone on this thread even after being baptized.

There is absolutely nothing you can say that would convince me that I wasn't walking with the Holy Spirit during those six years.

Obviously "baptism" being required for salvation is one of the main religious disagreements and is one of several key points that separate different religions. I can see where in Acts one might come to that conclusion, but you have to take the entire New Testament to get the whole picture. In Biblical times, one being baptized meant they were sincerely converting from one false religion to becoming a believer in Christ. They were being "baptized" to show their repentance. Baptism is done out of obedience when one accepts Christ as Savior. It is not required for salvation, i.e.....the thief on the cross certainly wasn't baptized and Jesus told him that today he would be with Him in paradise. Let's say someone accepts Christ as Savior on a Friday, asking for repentance and forgiveness from their sins and truly repents and means it, and was to be baptized on the following Sunday morning, but somehow was killed in an accident before being baptized that Sunday.....I'm pretty sure they didn't need the Baptism to be "saved". The ordinance of Baptism is just a symbolic gesture out of obedience to publicly profess they want to be a Christian. (While I understand the concept of "infant baptism", it has nothing to do with one's salvation, and in reality it's just a very public bath.....If one could show me anywhere in the Bible where it refers to infant baptism I'll hang up and listen...and would be generally interested in Biblical confirmation of that concept...no disrespect intended). Throughout the New Testament, Baptism is part of the obedience to accepting Christ as Savior, but obviously meant as an outward act of obedience. There will be plenty of people that will face judgement one day saying that they were "baptized" thinking that act alone would be what was required for eternal life with the Lord, only to be told, "depart from me, I never knew you!"

Bighunter43 said:

---

Obviously "baptism" being required for salvation is one of the main religious disagreements and is one of several key points that separate different religions. I can see where in Acts one might come to that conclusion, but you have to take the entire New Testament to get the whole picture. In Biblical times, one being baptized meant they were sincerely converting from one false religion to becoming a believer in Christ. They were being "baptized" to show their repentance. Baptism is done out of obedience when one accepts Christ as Savior. It is not required for salvation, i.e.....the thief on the cross certainly wasn't baptized and Jesus told him that today he would be with Him in paradise. Let's say someone accepts Christ as Savior on a Friday, asking for repentance and forgiveness from their sins and truly repents and means it, and was to be baptized on the following Sunday morning, but somehow was killed in an accident before being baptized that Sunday.....I'm pretty sure they didn't need the Baptism to be "saved". The ordinance of Baptism is just a symbolic gesture out of obedience to publicly profess they want to be a Christian. (While I understand the concept of "infant baptism", it has nothing to do with one's salvation, and in reality it's just a very public bath.....If one could show me anywhere in the Bible where it refers to infant baptism I'll hang up and listen...and would be generally interested in Biblical confirmation of that concept...no disrespect intended). Throughout the New Testament, Baptism is part of the obedience to accepting Christ as Savior, but obviously meant as an outward act of obedience. There will be plenty of people that will face judgement one day saying that they were "baptized" thinking that act alone would be what was required for eternal life with the Lord, only to be told, "depart from me, I never knew you!"

---

Perhaps show where Jesus said it's just a symbolic gesture first? Or any of the apostles or disciples? I'll even settle for Jesus commanding us to make any empty gesture that doesn't mean anything. For all the times I've been told that, no one ever quoted a verse to me.

I think this whole approach of "what is required" is inherently minimalistic and should be jettisoned.

If you ever find yourself being crucified next the Lord of Glory, sure, you can say your case is like the thief on the cross.

For the rest of us, we are called to be faithful - which begins with humility and continues in obedience, repentance, and love.

As for baptism of children, baptism is linked to circumcision by St Paul in Colossians 2:11-12. Israelites were circumcised on the eight day, as children. The scriptures tell of whole households being baptized, which of course includes children.

The primary problem is you're presuming your approach is correct and asking for it to be disproven, when the burden of proof is actually backwards. Christian communities unanimously baptized infants from the beginning, until your modern teachers decided to do something different. The more reasonable approach is from what basis do you have the authority to change the teaching of the Apostles, passed down and practiced continually by the faithful?

AGC said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

Obviously "baptism" being required for salvation is one of the main religious disagreements and is one of several key points that separate different religions. I can see where in Acts one might come to that conclusion, but you have to take the entire New Testament to get the whole picture. In Biblical times, one being baptized meant they were sincerely converting from one false religion to becoming a believer in Christ. They were being "baptized" to show their repentance. Baptism is done out of obedience when one accepts Christ as Savior. It is not required for salvation, i.e.....the thief on the cross certainly wasn't baptized and Jesus told him that today he would be with Him in paradise. Let's say someone accepts Christ as Savior on a Friday, asking for repentance and forgiveness from their sins and truly repents and means it, and was to be baptized on the following Sunday morning, but somehow was killed in an accident before being baptized that Sunday.....I'm pretty sure they didn't need the Baptism to be "saved". The ordinance of Baptism is just a symbolic gesture out of obedience to publicly profess they want to be a Christian. (While I understand the concept of "infant baptism", it has nothing to do with one's salvation, and in reality it's just a very public bath.....If one could show me anywhere in the Bible where it refers to infant baptism I'll hang up and listen...and would be generally interested in Biblical confirmation of that concept...no disrespect intended). Throughout the New Testament, Baptism is part of the obedience to accepting Christ as Savior, but obviously meant as an outward act of obedience. There will be plenty of people that will face judgement one day saying that they were "baptized" thinking that act alone would be what was required for eternal life with the Lord, only to be told, "depart from me, I never knew you!"

---

Perhaps show where Jesus said it's just a symbolic gesture first? Or any of the apostles or disciples? I'll even settle for Jesus commanding us to make any empty gesture that doesn't mean anything. For all the times I've been told that, no one ever quoted a verse to me.

---

Acts 2:38 says REPENT and be baptized.....it doesn't say be baptized to be saved...repent comes first...which indicates THAT is the requirement, then be baptized. Mark 16:16..."whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"....again, "belief" is the requirement for salvation, then get baptized. Neither of those verses imply that "he who is NOT baptized will be condemned." I get what your are referring to....as always, it's in the interpretation. Jesus also told his disciples, "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit"......I would argue "making them disciples (believers) is the key to salvation, and baptism is an outer symbol of accepting him and a changed life.

Zobel said:

---

I think this whole approach of "what is required" is inherently minimalistic and should be jettisoned.

If you ever find yourself being crucified next the Lord of Glory, sure, you can say your case is like the thief on the cross.

For the rest of us, we are called to be faithful - which begins with humility and continues in obedience, repentance, and love.

As for baptism of children, baptism is linked to circumcision by St Paul in Colossians 2:11-12. Israelites were circumcised on the eight day, as children. The scriptures tell of whole households being baptized, which of course includes children.

The primary problem is you're presuming your approach is correct and asking for it to be disproven, when the burden of proof is actually backwards. Christian communities unanimously baptized infants from the beginning, until your modern teachers decided to do something different. The more reasonable approach is from what basis do you have the authority to change the teaching of the Apostles, passed down and practiced continually by the faithful?

---

The scriptures you are referring to by Paul in Colossians refers to baptism (after accepting Christ first) is "like" a spiritual circumcision....(in other words he was saying you don't need to be circumcised to be saved)..no where does he imply that "baptism" should be done to infants. I'd say that's quite the leap. Yes....Peter and Cornelius is the story of the entire household being baptized....however, it's obvious that Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized. Was Jesus baptized as an infant, or ever say, you need to baptize infants? Seems like the verses in the New Testament refer to "repent", "believe", etc...THEN be baptized. I understand why some denominations baptize infants.....but I've yet seen the infant who became a "believer" first, then said "hey, I want to be baptized". I cannot find basis for it in scripture!

Bighunter43 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

Obviously "baptism" being required for salvation is one of the main religious disagreements and is one of several key points that separate different religions. I can see where in Acts one might come to that conclusion, but you have to take the entire New Testament to get the whole picture. In Biblical times, one being baptized meant they were sincerely converting from one false religion to becoming a believer in Christ. They were being "baptized" to show their repentance. Baptism is done out of obedience when one accepts Christ as Savior. It is not required for salvation, i.e.....the thief on the cross certainly wasn't baptized and Jesus told him that today he would be with Him in paradise. Let's say someone accepts Christ as Savior on a Friday, asking for repentance and forgiveness from their sins and truly repents and means it, and was to be baptized on the following Sunday morning, but somehow was killed in an accident before being baptized that Sunday.....I'm pretty sure they didn't need the Baptism to be "saved". The ordinance of Baptism is just a symbolic gesture out of obedience to publicly profess they want to be a Christian. (While I understand the concept of "infant baptism", it has nothing to do with one's salvation, and in reality it's just a very public bath.....If one could show me anywhere in the Bible where it refers to infant baptism I'll hang up and listen...and would be generally interested in Biblical confirmation of that concept...no disrespect intended). Throughout the New Testament, Baptism is part of the obedience to accepting Christ as Savior, but obviously meant as an outward act of obedience. There will be plenty of people that will face judgement one day saying that they were "baptized" thinking that act alone would be what was required for eternal life with the Lord, only to be told, "depart from me, I never knew you!"

---

Perhaps show where Jesus said it's just a symbolic gesture first? Or any of the apostles or disciples? I'll even settle for Jesus commanding us to make any empty gesture that doesn't mean anything. For all the times I've been told that, no one ever quoted a verse to me.

---

Acts 2:38 says REPENT and be baptized.....it doesn't say be baptized to be saved...repent comes first...which indicates THAT is the requirement, then be baptized. Mark 16:16..."whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"....again, "belief" is the requirement for salvation, then get baptized. Neither of those verses imply that "he who is NOT baptized will be condemned." I get what your are referring to....as always, it's in the interpretation. Jesus also told his disciples, "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit"......I would argue "making them disciples (believers) is the key to salvation, and baptism is an outer symbol of accepting him and a changed life.

---

That doesn't answer the question and ignores the word "and" a whoooole lot. They go together: that's why it keeps appearing in your quotes, inconvenient as it is. Salvation is not a one time thought; it is a life lived through action. That's why Christ tells so many to depart, as you state at the end of your first post, not because they got baptized and didn't believe.

Edit: Is Jesus your Lord if you don't baptize those that believe after hearing about Him from you? How is that not direct disobedience?

Edit 2: No offense but this is super materialist / gnostic. You've made the mind the only thing that matters and the body, the physical, the real, is demeaned by your thought process (despite our Lord being incarnated and taking one on). Can your repentance and obedience can be sincere without baptism (in your Christian tradition)? It would seem flippant to separate them.

AGC said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

Obviously "baptism" being required for salvation is one of the main religious disagreements and is one of several key points that separate different religions. I can see where in Acts one might come to that conclusion, but you have to take the entire New Testament to get the whole picture. In Biblical times, one being baptized meant they were sincerely converting from one false religion to becoming a believer in Christ. They were being "baptized" to show their repentance. Baptism is done out of obedience when one accepts Christ as Savior. It is not required for salvation, i.e.....the thief on the cross certainly wasn't baptized and Jesus told him that today he would be with Him in paradise. Let's say someone accepts Christ as Savior on a Friday, asking for repentance and forgiveness from their sins and truly repents and means it, and was to be baptized on the following Sunday morning, but somehow was killed in an accident before being baptized that Sunday.....I'm pretty sure they didn't need the Baptism to be "saved". The ordinance of Baptism is just a symbolic gesture out of obedience to publicly profess they want to be a Christian. (While I understand the concept of "infant baptism", it has nothing to do with one's salvation, and in reality it's just a very public bath.....If one could show me anywhere in the Bible where it refers to infant baptism I'll hang up and listen...and would be generally interested in Biblical confirmation of that concept...no disrespect intended). Throughout the New Testament, Baptism is part of the obedience to accepting Christ as Savior, but obviously meant as an outward act of obedience. There will be plenty of people that will face judgement one day saying that they were "baptized" thinking that act alone would be what was required for eternal life with the Lord, only to be told, "depart from me, I never knew you!"

---

Perhaps show where Jesus said it's just a symbolic gesture first? Or any of the apostles or disciples? I'll even settle for Jesus commanding us to make any empty gesture that doesn't mean anything. For all the times I've been told that, no one ever quoted a verse to me.

---

Acts 2:38 says REPENT and be baptized.....it doesn't say be baptized to be saved...repent comes first...which indicates THAT is the requirement, then be baptized. Mark 16:16..."whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"....again, "belief" is the requirement for salvation, then get baptized. Neither of those verses imply that "he who is NOT baptized will be condemned." I get what your are referring to....as always, it's in the interpretation. Jesus also told his disciples, "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit"......I would argue "making them disciples (believers) is the key to salvation, and baptism is an outer symbol of accepting him and a changed life.

---

That doesn't answer the question and ignores the word "and" a whoooole lot. They go together: that's why it keeps appearing in your quotes, inconvenient as it is. Salvation is not a one time thought; it is a life lived through action. That's why Christ tells so many to depart, as you state at the end of your first post, not because they got baptized and didn't believe.

Edit: Is Jesus your Lord if you don't baptize those that believe after hearing about Him from you? How is that not direct disobedience?

---

Are you inferring that one MUST be baptized in order to be saved? Salvation,. in itself, requires a "repentance" of sins and only Jesus' sacrifice on the cross covers one's sins. It cannot be done by works. One who asks for repentance truly will live it out (Their will be fruit)...although we all constantly stumble.

Bighunter43 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

Obviously "baptism" being required for salvation is one of the main religious disagreements and is one of several key points that separate different religions. I can see where in Acts one might come to that conclusion, but you have to take the entire New Testament to get the whole picture. In Biblical times, one being baptized meant they were sincerely converting from one false religion to becoming a believer in Christ. They were being "baptized" to show their repentance. Baptism is done out of obedience when one accepts Christ as Savior. It is not required for salvation, i.e.....the thief on the cross certainly wasn't baptized and Jesus told him that today he would be with Him in paradise. Let's say someone accepts Christ as Savior on a Friday, asking for repentance and forgiveness from their sins and truly repents and means it, and was to be baptized on the following Sunday morning, but somehow was killed in an accident before being baptized that Sunday.....I'm pretty sure they didn't need the Baptism to be "saved". The ordinance of Baptism is just a symbolic gesture out of obedience to publicly profess they want to be a Christian. (While I understand the concept of "infant baptism", it has nothing to do with one's salvation, and in reality it's just a very public bath.....If one could show me anywhere in the Bible where it refers to infant baptism I'll hang up and listen...and would be generally interested in Biblical confirmation of that concept...no disrespect intended). Throughout the New Testament, Baptism is part of the obedience to accepting Christ as Savior, but obviously meant as an outward act of obedience. There will be plenty of people that will face judgement one day saying that they were "baptized" thinking that act alone would be what was required for eternal life with the Lord, only to be told, "depart from me, I never knew you!"

---

Perhaps show where Jesus said it's just a symbolic gesture first? Or any of the apostles or disciples? I'll even settle for Jesus commanding us to make any empty gesture that doesn't mean anything. For all the times I've been told that, no one ever quoted a verse to me.

---

Acts 2:38 says REPENT and be baptized.....it doesn't say be baptized to be saved...repent comes first...which indicates THAT is the requirement, then be baptized. Mark 16:16..."whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"....again, "belief" is the requirement for salvation, then get baptized. Neither of those verses imply that "he who is NOT baptized will be condemned." I get what your are referring to....as always, it's in the interpretation. Jesus also told his disciples, "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit"......I would argue "making them disciples (believers) is the key to salvation, and baptism is an outer symbol of accepting him and a changed life.

---

That doesn't answer the question and ignores the word "and" a whoooole lot. They go together: that's why it keeps appearing in your quotes, inconvenient as it is. Salvation is not a one time thought; it is a life lived through action. That's why Christ tells so many to depart, as you state at the end of your first post, not because they got baptized and didn't believe.

Edit: Is Jesus your Lord if you don't baptize those that believe after hearing about Him from you? How is that not direct disobedience?

---

Are you inferring that one MUST be baptized in order to be saved? Salvation,. in itself, requires a "repentance" of sins and only Jesus' sacrifice on the cross covers one's sins. It cannot be done by works. One who asks for repentance truly will live it out (Their will be fruit)...although we all constantly stumble.

---

It would seem disobedient not to be baptized because you think you know better. Does Christ accept disobedience? Where is the symbolic gesture passage to support this stuff?

I don't know where you're going with the works thing. The point is that both must co-exist. The mind and body are one, that's why works follow. They can't be unraveled to make the point you're running with, that thought trumps reality.

He doesn't say it is "like" a spiritual circumcision. You can't use quotes to paraphrase things. St Paul says - "In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ. having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

When you are baptized, you are circumcised by the circumcision of Christ. This has nothing whatever to do with "you don't need to be circumcised to be saved" although of course that is perfectly true.

There is no "like" there. There is no metaphor. Baptism IS a circumcision and of the heart. St Paul says - "circumcision is a matter of the heart" and in another place he denigrates those of the physical circumcision by the hands as opposed to of Christ, he says to Philippian (gentile converts) "for we are the circumcision." Nor is St Paul making this up - it is directly out of the Torah and prophets! "Circumcise your hearts" in Deuteronomy, "their uncircumcised hearts" in Leviticus. "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of your hearts" and "the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart" says Jeremiah.

Nor is this the only place, but he draws another comparison - "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." This is a direct comparison of baptism and circumcision, because this is how uncircumcised (obviously) women are made able to eat the Passover - by participating in the circumcision of their husband. Just like how we of the gentiles participate in circumcision: through the sharing of baptism with Christ Jesus, we are sanctified by His circumcision, as I said above.

When are people circumcised? When they join Israel - at whatever age that happens to be. Converts as adults, but the sons of the faithful as infants, on the eighth day. The apostles did not deviate from this: converts as adults, children as infants.

Second, baptism and the receipt of the Spirit are related but not the same. You are correct.

As for belief and then salvation. You're following a kind of translation error to make a distinction between "belief" and "faith". The scriptures can't make any distinction, because there is only one word (pistis in Greek). We just don't say "faithing" we say believing. And we don't use "faith" as an imperative verb, we tell people to believe. But that's an artifact of English. "Have faith and be baptized" or "Be faithful and be baptized" is as good a translation - and actually better - than "believe and be baptized."

Why? Because the way you translate it, you are able to make a distinction between "belief" and "baptism" when in reality they are elements of a singular ongoing faithfulness. Have faith, and be baptized. Being baptized is being obedient, being obedient is part of faithfulness. So being baptized is being faithful. You can't be faithful and refuse baptism - you might "believe" and do so, which is why your way is so confusing.

The Apostles were commanded to baptize the nations. We are commanded to be baptized as part of our faithfulness.

The whole minimalistic approach, "MUST" etc is just a poverty of faithfulness.

Can you be saved without being faithful?

Is it possible to be completely (or perfectly) faithful?

ETA....I suppose I would answer you by saying that we are justified by faith, so yes we need to be "faithful" to be saved. I think we can come up with a long list for every Christian in ways in which they are faithful and not faithful, as it relates to their obedience to Christ and his commands. Even you, Zobel. Unless you mean to tell me you are perfect

so we agree. you need to be faithful to be saved.

but i'm not sure why this turned into a list or a litmus test. nobody said anything about "perfectly" faithful. we're saved by grace, but not without our faithfulness.
"He who perseveres to the end will be saved."
"By your endurance you will gain your lives."
"Be faithful even unto death, and I will give you the crown of life."
"You have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised."
"Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him."
"if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful for he cannot deny himself."
"to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life"
"And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up."
"For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end."
"be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall."
"as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

People like to quote "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven," but they often leave off the rest - "but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.


and lol no, i am not perfect, im a sinner in need of grace and your prayers.

Well, I think the litmus test as it relates to this thread is baptism. Can you be faithful but not baptized?

I think why you haven't matters a great deal. However it's not my business to judge people.

Generally speaking, though, faithfulness begins with baptism.

If you look at the whole chapter, it talks about "what must we do to be saved? Repent and be baptized, you and your children, and as a result your sins will be forgiven, you will receive the Holy Spirit, and you will be devoted to the scriptures and Holy Communion (paraphrased).

Interesting that 3000 souls were saved through baptism at this Pentecost, the same number of souls that were lost at the Pentecost when Moses came down from the mountain.

Acts 2: 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.