Is Baptism a Requirement for Salvation?

[arrow1]

daniel 1212

Moreover, if Jesus is speaking about baptism here, then there could be no new birth prior to it, but which the Holy Spirit makes clear did, and thus can be realized prior to baptism, but not by a faith that is not confessional in nature.

Are you saying that people were born again prior to John 3:5?

Born again is clearly referring to receiving the HS, which clearly was not poured out until Pentecost. John 7:39

I hope you were not trying to say people were born again prior to John 3:5

[daniel1212]

reply to daniel 1212:

I do not believe in the idea of imputed guilt.

And thus a complicated theory how they are not guilty of sin, but possess original sin, which can only be inner corruption, which i hold them to have, but as an effect of original sin, while baptism does not remove it, nor can regeneration occur apart from apart from personal faith, nor is justification by infused righteousness.

I am going to recite a story and as you read it the inherent contradiction of that view should be clear

Rather than actually engage the refutations of your doctrine, or answer remaining questions, you again simply present another argument based upon a false premise. Faithful evangelicals do tell children that Jesus loves them, but unlike your paedobaptists, they cannot tell them they are saved until they truly confess the Lord Jesus, which they seek their even very young to do, as the age of accountability is typically very low. Nor do they suppose that being raised in a Christian home makes one a Christian any more than living in a garage makes one a car. And the idea that they are Christin due to beg raised that way is one that manifestly plagues Christiandom and which evangelicalism historically countered, with revival results. Thus your charge of us thrusting them out of the Kingdom at age 10 or so and saying to them they now they are lost is fallacious, and your charge of contradiction along with it.

The contradiction resides in imposing a practice that is intended for adults who are "outside of the church"; the command to repent and believe; upon a child who already indentifies with Christ having been raised "in" the Church

And where do you find this clause, except in a Santa who gives Christian children who have no need to personally decide for Christ? Children should be the easiest to convert, before they go against conscience and learn to rationale it away, but they must choose Christ for themselves to save them from their sins, and they go astray from the womb.

Likewise, there is no specific example of children of Christian parents growing up and converting to Christianity.

So they are just Christians by nature, and have no "day of salvation"? That would be a false gospel. Thank God for parents like Timothy's gma and mother who raised him to believe the faith, but consistent with what i have said, they must have a day when they decide fort Christ, as God has no grandchildren.

A reading of the text says:
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures"

The word your translation renders as "teem" can denote bring forth, as in, Gen. 9:7, Exo. 8:3, Psa. 105:30. However, while the water-birth correlation is not strong, for baptism or otherwise, versus water-cleansing, in the immediate context of Jn. 3:4-6 that born of water relates to the flesh is much warranted, bolstered by the fact that one can indeed be born of the Spirit before water baptism.

Also, you implied that people pray to saints. That is incorrect. We ask the saints to pray on our behalf. Just as you would ask your pastor to pray for a sick relative

Semantics, based upon modern language. Saying novenas and rosaries is a form of "praying" and petitioning, and which assumes a power of deity by the departed to hear endless multitudes, but nowhere will you find any believer in the Bible praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord. Nor in all the instruction on prayer is this supported, including in Jesus example of how to pray ("say our Father," not "our mother.") Nor is there any need, as only the Savior was tested in all points like as we were but without sin, (Heb. 4:15) and it is He that ever liveth to make intercession for believers. (Heb. 7:25) The only ones in the Bible who sought help from the departed were pagans, or a sinful king before his suicide, with a witch being the medium!

Your only recourse is to attempt to support such by analogy, but which fails (as do other arguments), as other things in physical relationships, such as sex and feeding, etc, fail to have a corresponding equivalent, and while you physically speak on earth, a form of ESP or witchcraft would be involved in communicating with the departed, and in the Bible communication btwn angels and believers required a personal visit.

Believers simply have no need of petitioning the departed rather than the Lord directly, or warrant for it, but can come boldly into the throne of grace, which is the Lord's.

Now i think some clarification would be helpful.

Thus far you have argued against baptism being a symbol, or that it represents or signifies or demonstrates something, though it is and does (though this does not marginalize it), and restricted "not of works" to only being the law, which is false, and argued that baptism was a passive act for the baptizee, which it is not, and that the apostles laying on of hands being a work or not was not the point, though it was in defining work, yet you somewhat conceded that Michael B was right on faith alone, but commended baeder's contention that baptism is faith, and baptism is a requirement for salvation, and attempted to disallow as salvific the Spirit baptism of Cornelius and household, while later allowing regeneration prior to baptism as a exception.

You also stated that you were Orthodox, after having pasted (unattributed as i suspected), a 2,600+ word essay by specious RC apologist Robert Sungenis, justifying the RC "salvation by grace through merit" gospel, in which justification is given people who have actually become righteous in nature by baptism (thus a manifest moral difference should be evident among Catholic children apart from environmental aspects, compared with others), and do works meritorious for salvation. But you have not clearly answered my question as to whether man may be accounted to have merited eternal life by the works which he did by the grace of God.

For my part i do not deny that confessing the Lord Jesus by mouth or by baptism are commanded works, but that it is not on the basis of any merit of man's works-response that he is justifed by, but it is God-given faith which is imputed for righteousness. Those who respond to God's grace are those who will be saved, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13) and the "these things" of the assurance verse of 1Jn. 5:13 is preceded by 4 chapters describing what manner of faith is salvific. And thus it can be said that faith and works are required for salvation, but it is really a faith that will work that is, for most precisely it is not the response of man by grace that justifies him, but the faith which brings about this confession, which expresses faith.

The best i see it is that when God quickens a soul to this faith, the repentance of faith occurs, with washing of the heart, sanctification, and justification, all of which are inseparable (1Cor. 6:11) and result in outward confession, which also may occur at the moment of regeneration. (Acts 10:44046; 15:8,9)

Those who do believe are also kept by the power of God through faith (1Pet. 1:5) - faith again being key - while being warned against casting off this faith, (Gal. 5:1-14) and forfeiting what the gift of faith by grace resulted in. While it is God who makes unwilling men willing to receive the Lord Jesus, He apparently also allows for the possibility of those who have tasted of the living water returning to Egypt, while strongly warning them of the consequences, and chastising them that they repent, lest they be condemned with the rest of the world. (1Cor. 11:32)

[arrow1]

The subject of faith and works gets into a whole nother debate, eternal security, once saved always saved, etc., etc.
That is why I conceded with MichaelB, just so we could get off the subject and back to baptism.

you stated:
You have not clearly answered my question as to whether man may be accounted to have merited eternal life by the works which he did by the grace of God.

If by merited you mean earned, than I would say no.
If in a mans' life he bears much fruit, will he be rewarded with eternal life, than yes. Matthew 25:31-46

So in your view, a man has an internal response of faith and thus is saved. Now once saved, what are the consequences of performing bad works? or are there consequences at all? are all of your future sins covered, no matter how grave, even if you don't repent, because you were saved back at the initial (asuming it was genuine) conversion experience? Is there anything you could do to get unsaved? What if you do not follow Matt 25 or Romans 2:6, are there consequences to not being obedient just because you are lazy or forgetful?

probably could have been worded better, but I am just curious as to your response.


As to the story of the child raised in a Christian home you missed the point.
Of course you are not a Christian simple by having Christian parents. It was the fact of being baptized, raised in a Christian home, and then your repentance confirms your being part of the Covenant.

In your world, a child is born innocent, so if he died he is saved, then somehwere as he gets older he goes from being saved to being lost. Now if he dies he goes to hell. So he gets (born again) and now he is back to being saved again. Does that really make sense. Or put another way, is that in the Bible?

Again, probably could have worded it better, but just curious as to the anwser.

[arrow1]

I said,
Likewise, there is no specific example of children of Christian parents growing up and converting to Christianity.

daniel 1212 responded:
So they are just Christians by nature, and have no "day of salvation"? That would be a false gospel. Thank God for parents like Timothy's gma and mother who raised him to believe the faith, but consistent with what i have said, they must have a day when they decide fort Christ, as God has no grandchildren.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I meant there is no specific example of a second generation Christian, and how they specifically converted to the faith, compared to Acts which has many examples of original conversions. Thus the Bible leaves no example of an age of accountability.

[daniel1212]

The subject of faith and works gets into a whole nother debate, eternal security, once saved always saved, etc., etc.

That is why I conceded with MichaelB, just so we could get off the subject and back to baptism

Now once saved, what are the consequences of performing bad works? or are there consequences at all? are all of your future sins covered, no matter how grave, even if you don't repent, because you were saved back at the initial (asuming it was genuine) conversion experience? Is there anything you could do to get unsaved? What if you do not follow Matt 25 or Romans 2:6, are there consequences to not being obedient just because you are lazy or forgetful?

Here you reject OSAS as relevant, only to go on and essentially make the subject relevant, which it is, but in so doing you (as in other issues) seem to ignore what i said on the subject.

What i said was that, "Those who do believe are also kept by the power of God through faith (1Pet. 1:5) - faith again being key - while being warned against casting off this faith, (Gal. 5:1-14) and forfeiting what the gift of faith by grace resulted in. While it is God who makes unwilling men willing to receive the Lord Jesus, He apparently also allows for the possibility of those who have tasted of the living water returning to Egypt, while strongly warning them of the consequences, and chastising them that they repent, lest they be condemned with the rest of the world. (1Cor. 11:32)"

There is no contradiction here with salvation by faith. Like a true Christian, Israel did not choose God, but He chose them, (Dt. 7) yet He warned them that they would be forsaken if they forsook Him. (Dt. 4:6; 1Sam. 28:9; 2Chrn. 15:2) But not utterly the people as a whole, (Neh. 9:31; Ps. 89:33) but (relatively) a remnant shall be saved. (Rm. 11) And unless Gal. 5:1-5 and Heb. 10:19-39 are theoretical, that reality is what i see Christians being warned of, as well as assured of God's faithfulness to finish what He began among believers. Those who have valid faith but relied upon carnal means to build God's church will suffer loss of rewards, which is not purgatory, but will be saved. (1Cor. 3:8-15) Those who defile it by unrepentant fornication, etc. face a more severe loss. (1Cor. 3:17; 6:9,10)

you stated:
You have not clearly answered my question as to whether man may be accounted to have merited eternal life by the works which he did by the grace of God.

If by merited you mean earned, than I would say no. If in a mans' life he bears much fruit, will he be rewarded with eternal life, than yes. Matthew 25:31-46 ...probably could have been worded better.[/quote]

It better be better worded (rewarded), for if eternal life is a reward for works, then that is a false gospel, even if you hold that God does not have to give eternal life on that account. You cannot have it both ways. And in predestination, “if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6)

The RC doctrine that man is justified an inner righteousness resulting from (usually infant) regeneration, and who then does works which merit eternal life, even though this held to be a reward by God's grace, is partly a result of basing soteriology on descriptive gospel accounts rather than purely doctrinal teaching, which is a hermeneutical tendency in Catholicism.

Jesus, John, Paul, etc. did teach that those who do right are those who gain eternal life, and the Lord also taught that the meek will inherit the earth, while in John the "work" is believing, as illustrated in the blind man professing faith in Jesus and thus worshiping Him. (Jn. 9:35-39) But in dealing precisely with what actually justifies, it is declared that salvation is "not of works," but by grace through which God gives faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and imputes righteousness to such. (Rm. 4) But as it is a certain manner of faith which saves, then it is the doers of the law that shall be justified. (Rm. 2:13) Thus the old Protestant maxim, "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith which is alone." Which does not translate into salvation being a reward, but God will reward Christians for their valid faith-service, by His grace, (cf. 1Cor. 3:8; 4:5) in addition to giving them the gift of eternal life. (Rm. 6:23, which contrasts wages vs. gift). And as works testify to what manner of faith one has, both the saved and the lost will be judged in accordance with them, which is where texts such as Rm. 2:6 comes in. (cf. Rev. 20:12)

As to the story of the child raised in a Christian home you missed the point.

One point was that you mischaracterized evangelical soteriology into a one befitting your polemic.

There is no specific example of a second generation Christian, and how they specifically converted to the faith, compared to Acts which has many examples of original conversions. Thus the Bible leaves no example of an age of accountability.

Your conclusion is not warranted from such an argument from silence, while an age of accountability is inferred in Is. 7:16. And if you reject that there is, then you either have morally cognizant children or children who are saved by proxy faith and or a baptism that is effective just by being performed, a question you have yet failed to clearly answer.

As for not example of how church kids converted to the faith, it would either be by infant baptism or by volitional faith, and Timothy's status as a Christian was not based on his (unmentioned) baptism, but that Paul was persuaded, convinced, that his parents faith was in him also, and this was later on in life. (2Tim. 1:5)

In addition, the gospel call is to all who have sinned, and thus applies to sinners of all people groups and ages. But while you find such insufficient and demand an explicit account, where is the except clause that states children who know how to make moral choices need not to be converted, or where are accounts of infant baptism making so, distinguishing such from those who had to repent and believe? Or of children of Christian parents who were considered Christian due to paedobaptism???

Of course you are not a Christian simple by having Christian parents. It was the fact of being baptized, raised in a Christian home, and then your repentance confirms your being part of the Covenant.

So you become a Christian by being sprinkled with water or dipped as a baby? Or you later must truly be converted?

Moreover, for your objection against later conversions of church kids to be valid, you must hold that circumcision made one a child of God, which is not the case. (Rm. 2:28,29) Thus your "confirmation" of faith must be in fact a conversion.
[quote]In your world, a child is born innocent, so if he died he is saved, then somehwere as he gets older he goes from being saved to being lost. Now if he dies he goes to hell. So he gets (born again) and now he is back to being saved again. Does that really make sense. Or put another way, is that in the Bible?

Yes, like in the Garden, and based upon the call to personal conversion, which preaching their gospel to all entails, and requires personal repentance and faith, while utterly missing is any account of children being considered Christian by baptism.

Innocence is not righteousness, (1Sam. 18:25ff) but would prevent the innocent from being worthy of eternal punishment, as not accountable by lack of moral discernment. Yet, assuming they do not fall under the realm of the accountable, and thus the required redemption, and are not somehow tested, missing would be the rewards given them who resisted sin in loyalty to the Lord Jesus.

However, if Calvinism is correct, then infants have imputed guilt, and are essentially condemned because of Adam, which i find contrary to God's declared justice, as before described.

[arrow1]

Assuming we are confronted with an Adult person who has never been presented with the Gospel. And we just get down to where the rubber meets the road.

Would it be fair to say the only difference between those pro or con as to baptismal regeneration is this:

One camp is claiming we are saved by the sinners prayer.

The other camp is saying water baptism is the sinners prayer.

Does that sound like a fair assesment?

[daniel1212]

Assuming we are confronted with an Adult person who has never been presented with the Gospel. And we just get down to where the rubber meets the road.

What would be "fair" would be for you to acknowledge the problems with your arguments which refutations have manifested. Besides indicating that eternal life is a reward for good works, as regards your first sentence here, you dispute an age of accountability, which the Bible indicates is real, and is problematic if rejected, and wrongly characterized evangelicals as considering children to be saved until the late age 10 or so, and contrasted their child evangelism with baptizing the very young into Christ, based upon its corollary with circumcision, yet you were shown that the latter did not make you a child of Abraham, (Rm. 2:28,29) meaning you also must seek the salvation of baptized infants.

Your response that this would only be the case "when confronted with an adult person who has never been presented with the Gospel" is false, for reasons stated, and even if baptism did save infants, if they later fell away, you would be doing the same thing (in again seeking their salvation) you criticize evangelicals for doing. Your response does seem to confirm (finally) that you hold that baptism works ex opere operato or by proxy faith, but (again) that is contrary to the commanded requirements for baptism, and ignores the fact that circumcision avails nothing, apart from Abrahamic type faith in the gospel.

Would it be fair to say the only difference between those pro or con as to baptismal regeneration is this:

One camp is claiming we are saved by the sinners prayer.
The other camp is saying water baptism is the sinners prayer.
Does that sound like a fair assesment?

After all that i have said on the subject, it should be clear that in the Biblical evangelical gospel, one is not saved due to any merit of his response, but by faith, given by grace, by which He repents and professes the Lord Jesus by the Holy Spirit. God opens the heart, places faith (by the word of God) therein, and profession in word and deed comes out. (Acts 16:14-16; Rm. 10:17; 2Cor. 4:5,13) Expressions of faith, such as baptism can easily be counterfeited, but God-given faith/belief in the heart is something purely Divine, which man could never contrive, and when Abraham believed, it was only by grace, but a faith manifested in his obedience.

As for saying that baptism is the sinner's prayer, this can be, in body language, and Biblically typically was, but to preclude regeneration prior to that is false teaching, just as requiring speaking in tongues, is, or excluding mutes who cannot find water, etc. would be.

What i have emphasized is that God-given faith is what is counted for righteousness, but which must be a faith that is "confessional" in nature, thus we are assured that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rm. 10:13) Those who believe in the heart are justifed, and if so, confession is made confirming salvation. (Rm. 10:9,10) One can hardly be justifed and not saved at that moment, but if it will not confess Christ in obedience to the gospel, which begins with the mouth and baptism, then it is a denial of the faith that justifies, and is an incomplete, invalid faith, that cannot save.

Moreover, according to the principal that "to him that has, more shall be given," (Mk. 4:23) more light as well as the power of the Holy Spirit is given the more one seeks and obeys Christ, and consecration must keep pace with revelation. (Lk. 11:13; Jn. 8:31,32; 14:23) This growth does not increase their justifed state before God, as per R. Catholicism, but it moves one toward a maturity of pursuit which prevents his falling. (2Pet. 1:3-11; cf. Phil. 3:7-15) Not that i am even close to there, but must pursue it better.

The problem then is not an emphasis upon baptism, but that one cannot be save prior to it, nor does baptism work ex opere operato or by proxy faith. And with a typically concomitant issue being that of treating accountable souls as if they were saved due to their paedobaptism, or mere assent to a baptismal formula, rather than the confession of conviction which results from the manner of preaching which convicts souls of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, as in Acts 2, etc., to flee from the wrath to come into the safe refuge Jesus Christ the righteous. And the transformed lives that result, as well as other supernatural aspects, is what manifests His resurrection, to the glory of God. May i be a much better testimony to that.

[37818]

Assuming we are confronted with an Adult person who has never been presented with the Gospel. And we just get down to where the rubber meets the road.

Would it be fair to say the only difference between those pro or con as to baptismal regeneration is this:

One camp is claiming we are saved by the sinners prayer.

The other camp is saying water baptism is the sinners prayer.

Does that sound like a fair assesment?

No.

One is not saved by prayer regeneration nor baptismal regerneration nor confessional regerneration nor any other action of man in the name of faith. God alone does the saving by [unmerited] grace using the [unmerited] vehicle of faith. (John 1:13, Ephesians 2:8, 9.)

[Richard Rogers]

I am curious as to why folks start with the modern period and work from there? Obviously words about baptism were understandable in the 1st century . So what did the folks understand from this, and what informed their understanding? Jesus (why must we constantly misspell this, since we all know better?) invariably recalled Torah and its commentators when asked to explain himself. So why don't we discuss this while being informed by the same source he expected his audience to be informed by? Further, since Paul is such a "talmudi" of Jesus, and since Paul declares himself informed by Torah and the Prophets, why isn't our conversation informed by those same sources. In so doing, we find ourselves face to face with the purification of Aaron and the tribe of Levi. Now what shall we say about these things!?

[daniel1212]

I think if you read the thread you would see that it is not a superficial discussion of what baptism represents, and while baptism find its origins in the principle of purification by ceremonial washing such as is seen in Ex. 29:4; Lev. 3:6; 14:8; 16:3-4,23-24; 20:18-21; Dt. 23:11, yet one of the issues debated was whether baptism is absolutely necessary to be washed from one's sins, and whether it works "ex opere operato," or, like circumcision which it is likened to, it is symbolic of a spiritual reality which is realized by the faith which baptism requires and manifests. Though it is symbolic, yet like the Lord's supper, it is commanded and represents a reality, and to take part in it hypocritically would be deceptive, and ineffectual in obtaining the blessing of God which obedience realizes, and makes one liable to just the opposite.

[Wolfgang]

Yes, baptism is currently a requirementr for salvation, although a number of people mentioned in the Old Testament that will be saved did not undergo actual water baptism, so it is conceivable that under extremely unusual circumstances one might be able to be saved without total immersion in water. Now that you identified yourself as a Pentecostal, I have a question. How in the world can you justify observing Sundays as the day of rest when Biblical verses clearly point to a Saturday before sunset resurrection for Jesus Christ? I encourage you to visit my website, TithingHelps.com and read the page SATURDAY RESURRECTION. Once you realize that Jesus must have been resurrected on a Saturday, !! ALL SUPPORT FOR RESTING ON SUNDAYS INSTANTLY COLLAPSES !!

[37818]

Yes, baptism is currently a requirement for salvation, . . .

It has been shown here that baptism is NOT a requirment fof salvation. There is NOT a single holy scripture which teaches baptism to be a requirement of salvation. Not one verse or context. As a matter pf fact. while baptism a command which accompanies the gospel, it is NOT a part of the gospel, As Paul wrote, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. . . ." (1 Corinthians 1:17.) Which would be an absurd statement if baptism was part of the gospel of grace.

<snip> . . . I have a question. How in the world can you justify observing Sundays as the day of rest when Biblical verses clearly point to a Saturday before sunset resurrection for Jesus Christ? I encourage you to visit my website, TithingHelps.com and read the page SATURDAY RESURRECTION. Once you realize that Jesus must have been resurrected on a Saturday, !! ALL SUPPORT FOR RESTING ON SUNDAYS INSTANTLY COLLAPSES !!

No, Christ rose on the first of the week in all three views. Friday to Sunday, Wednesday to Saturday, and Thrusday to Sunday. The Wednesday to Saturday, the resurrection takes place after the Sabbath, after sun set Saturday evening. I know all three views quite well. thank you.

[daniel1212]

The faith that baptism both requires and expresses is what is necessary for salvation, out of a poor and contrite heart, which is what both the souls at Pentecost manifested as well as Cornelius and household. And thus such a faith overall continues.

As for what day to observe, it is why and how one does that matters, while the New Covenant does not mandate Jewish keeping liturgical days, though one may.

[Wolfgang]

Well, if you're a member of a mainstream Christian church, I can understand your reasoning. Salvation or immortality, though, is such a precious, priceless gift that one needs to make sure he understands all of the Bible and not totally ignore many important verses. Can you explain the word "anomia" to me in all of its ramifications? The website TithingHelps.com, to my knowledge "spells out" more than any other site the very ominous definition of that word. Was Isaiah in Isaiah 66:17-23 a total liar and was Jesus Himself a total liar in Matthew 24:20 when both of Them prophesied and/or warned about the critically important need to not work on Saturdays, the Sabbath, the day of rest still in force? Also, how can you just walk away from Biblical verses (original Greek) stating that Jesus would be in the tomb exactly 3 days and 3 nights, no more and no less, that two (2) Sabbaths occurred between the burial and resurrection of Jesus, and eleven (11) other different verses saying that Jesus would rise on the third day? He must have been resurrected on a Saturday before sunset, not any time on Sunday morning. That means that Sunday rest has no valid support. When you research Matthew 7:21-23 thoroughly you learn that little things to us are very big things to God. Why take a chance on missing out on salvation by completely ignoring the above and many other verses related to anomia? It is better to err on the side of caution to make double sure one doesn't blow eternity. The New Testament tragedy of Ananias and Sapphira should help drive home into your mind the potentially merciless punishment awaiting sinners. TithingHelps.com is an excellent introduction to a handful of the safest churches in the world. Most and hopefully all the members of those chuches will not be condemned for committing anomia. Also, it is not really that important that I succeed in convincing you of the truthfulness of what I have said because the Bible's second resurrection, if you wind up there, will provide even more convincing material.

[Wolfgang]

Well, if you're a member of a mainstream Christian church, I can understand your reasoning. Salvation or immortality, though, is such a precious, priceless gift that one needs to make sure he understands all of the Bible and not totally ignore many important verses. Can you explain the word "anomia" to me in all of its ramifications? The website TithingHelps.com, to my knowledge "spells out" more than any other site the very ominous definition of that word. Was Isaiah in Isaiah 66:17-23 a total liar and was Jesus Himself a total liar in Matthew 24:20 when both of Them prophesied and/or warned about the critically important need to not work on Saturdays, the Sabbath, the day of rest still in force? Also, how can you just walk away from Biblical verses (original Greek) stating that Jesus would be in the tomb exactly 3 days and 3 nights, no more and no less, that two (2) Sabbaths occurred between the burial and resurrection of Jesus, and eleven (11) other different verses saying that Jesus would rise on the third day? He must have been resurrected on a Saturday before sunset, not any time on Sunday morning. That means that Sunday rest has no valid support. When you research Matthew 7:21-23 thoroughly you learn that little things to us are very big things to God. Why take a chance on missing out on salvation by completely ignoring the above and many other verses related to anomia? It is better to err on the side of caution to make double sure one doesn't blow eternity. The New Testament tragedy of Ananias and Sapphira should help drive home into your mind the potentially merciless punishment awaiting sinners. TithingHelps.com is an excellent introduction to a handful of the safest churches in the world. Most and hopefully all the members of those chuches will not be condemned for committing anomia. Also, it is not really that important that I succeed in convincing you of the truthfulness of what I have said because the Bible's second resurrection, if you wind up there, will provide even more convincing material.