Baptism Essential to Salvation

[posthuman]

IMO the problem with most of this whole thread,

is that we are thinking baptism = getting ritually wet.

the physical act is nothing more than a "membership card" if you will --
and should you carry a membership card? yes, by all means!
but this isn't what makes you a "member" of the Kingdom of God Club. you've got to pay the membership fee and sign the charter.

signing the charter is easy; confess that Jesus is the Son of God, come in the flesh, crucified for our sins and risen the third day.

now here's the bad news:
the membership fee on the other hand is impossible for you to pay.

now here's the extremely good news:
Jesus paid your dues.

!!!

 

[Alligator]

You cannot accept salvation by grace through faith without adding water baptism. The gospel does not add water baptism but declares that God saves by grace and that grace is received through faith.

It is wholly untrue to make water baptism necessary to be saved. I could care less if you feel boxed in or not but you must face the fact that you frustrate grace by adding anything to it. To make water baptism necessary to be saved you declare Gods grace to be insufficient to save. Not a good recipe if you study Gods word and seek sound doctrine.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You are complaining to the wrong person about adding water baptism. You should be complaining to Luke , Peter, Mark , and Paul. And Matthew..

Now, I would like to hear you explain how you can just throw out these verses. Acts 2:38; Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; and I Peter 3:21?.

 

[newbirth]

You cannot accept salvation by grace through faith without adding water baptism. The gospel does not add water baptism but declares that God saves by grace and that grace is received through faith.

Faith without works is dead.Show me your faith without works....go on ...show everyone the proof of your faith...You were baptised, were you not? that was an act of faith.When you were baptised what did you believe God did to you?

It is wholly untrue to make water baptism necessary to be saved. I could care less if you feel boxed in or not but you must face the fact that you frustrate grace by adding anything to it. To make water baptism necessary to be saved you declare Gods grace to be insufficient to save. Not a good recipe if you study Gods word and seek sound doctrine.

there is nothing wrong with God's grace , it is your faith that is lacking..

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I can show you how to receive grace and ensure that you are saved..
.Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, [SUP]3 [/SUP]According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

[SUP]6 [/SUP]And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

[SUP]11 [/SUP]For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Kerry]

It seems to me from that passage that the key is the knowledge of Jesus Christ and faith in His work. Which is the cross.

 

[newbirth]

It seems to me from that passage that the key is the knowledge of Jesus Christ and faith in His work. Which is the cross.

You my friend are obsessed with the cross. Christ is risen and we live in the power of his resurrection. You are still at the foot of the cross, he is not there.

 

[mailmandan]

which words tell you baptism does not save you?
[SUP]21 [/SUP]The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
He is saying what baptism is not...baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but (it is) the answer of a good conscience toward God.

As I already explained, right after Peter says the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, conscious that his statement is liable to be misunderstood, (as demonstrated by you), Peter explains himself: Negatively, baptism does not save because water is applied to the body: “not the removal of the filth of the flesh.” Water can only cleanse the flesh outwardly; it does not cleanse the heart from sin. Baptism follows a personal response to God as indicated by the phrase “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” It is that aspect of baptism (what is signified, “the answer of a good conscience toward God”) rather than the external rite (the sign, the application of water) that saves.

The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type.” The Greek word for "figure" is "antitupon." Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, defines the word as "a corresponding type." He says, "It is not a case of type and antitype but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type." (Vol. 2, page 96). Cremer's Lexicon says the word signifies an "image or similitude." Thayer's Lexicon defines it as "a thing resembling another." The genitive in the Greek text is correctly translated as the pledge of a good conscience, not for a good conscience. It is a pledge made from a good conscience. Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience.

My friend this is an epistle not a recording Peter would have had enough time to write 'baptism does not save you' and scratch 'baptism doth also now save us'

Again, Peter didn't simply say by grace we have been saved through baptism. Instead, Peter said, as you quoted - The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Peter was making the point that water baptism itself literally saves us, then why the words "like figure" and the further explanation? Why didn't Peter mention baptism in Acts 10:43? Why didn't Paul mention baptism in Ephesians 2:8? Why didn't Jesus mention whoever is not baptized will not be saved in Mark 16:16? *Hermeneutics.

[SUP]3 [/SUP]Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

[SUP]4 [/SUP]Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Is it safe to say... if we have not been planted together in the likeness of his death. we shall not be also in the likeness of his resurrection? Just asking, you seem to have all the answers, read the verses above carefully ... seems very clear to me

Again, this is picturesque language. Water baptism is the picture, not the reality. The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin, forwards to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave. There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that FAITH, not water baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:4-6; 5:1). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures.

Righteousness is "imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead," who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification” (Romans 4:24,25). Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification), and that through faith (Romans 5:1), believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by FAITH, not baptism. *Hermeneutics. Paul clearly teaches that what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ) actually occurs "through faith." Christians are "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and resurrection is brought about "through faith" - and is properly symbolized by immersing the new believer in and out of the water.

Baptism would have no meaning without Christ’s death, burial and resurrection but Christ’s death, burial and resurrection would still have meaning, even if there were no baptism. In other words, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is the substance and baptism is the shadow. Without the substance there would be no shadow. If one sets out to be buried and raised with Christ and planted in the likeness of His death and resurrection simply through the mechanical act of water baptism (the picture), without first experiencing the reality through Spirit baptism upon receiving Christ through faith, then he becomes an imposter, and is declaring, in baptism, to be what he is not.

 

[mailmandan]

So I am saying to you we are saved by grace through faith, water baptism is an act of faith.

Water baptism may be an "act of faith," but it's not faith itself. Faith "is" the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

Faith is not defined as baptism. Faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith. It's just that simple. Not hard to understand, just hard for you to ACCEPT. Faith is not defined as multiple acts of obedience. Water baptism and other acts of obedience/works which follow saving faith in Christ are the FRUIT of faith, NOT the essence of faith. Saving faith is belief, trust, reliance in Christ for salvation. Acts of obedience which follow are WORKS. We are saved THROUGH FAITH, NOT WORKS.

 

[mailmandan]

The man on the other cross when Jesus was crucified was not baptized - yet Jesus said that because he believed he would see him in Paradise after death.

Amen! One argument in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith apart from water baptism is - "we are not told whether or not the thief was baptized." So let's see, the thief may have already been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief?

In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit?

I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

Another argument used in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith apart from water baptism that is used particular by the church of Christ, is - "the thief was not subject to baptism because Christ's Law, the New Testament was not yet in effect, see Heb. 9:16-17." So let's see, under the new law (after the death of Christ), in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and under the old law (before the death of Christ), in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

I'm hearing the same message under the old law. So in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 (under the old law), was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or FOR (in reference to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. If translated "in order to obtain" the verse does not make sense. I baptize you with water FOR (in order to obtain) repentance? or I baptize you with water FOR (in reference to/on the basis of) repentance?

Whatever baptism is for in Acts 2:38, it's for in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. See how the argument that after the death of Christ, baptism is necessary for salvation but before the death of Christ, baptism is not necessary for salvation doesn't hold water? Water baptism is done in regards to/on the basis of the remission of sins that is received upon repentance/faith.

Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). *Perfect Harmony*

 

[SeaBass]

Amen! One argument in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith apart from water baptism is - "we are not told whether or not the thief was baptized." So let's see, the thief may have already been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief?

In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit?

I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

This is no proof the thief was never baptized or never had an opportunity to be baptized. For all anyone knows the thief could have been of those of Mk 1:5 that was baptized of John. No one can be so dogmatic to say Mk 1:5 included many people but not the thief. The thief could have been once a disciple but fell away as those of Jn 6:66.

Further indication the thief may have been a disciple is the knowledge he had of Christ. Luke 23:40f tells us the thief knew there is a God and God was to be feared. He knew Christ was an innocent man. He knew the cross would not be the end of Christ. He knew Christ would have a kingdom and saw his need to be in that kingdom. The thief displayed a better knowledge of Christ than some of Christ's own disciples.

Another argument used in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith apart from water baptism that is used particular by the church of Christ, is - "the thief was not subject to baptism because Christ's Law, the New Testament was not yet in effect, see Heb. 9:16-17." So let's see, under the new law (after the death of Christ), in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and under the old law (before the death of Christ), in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

I'm hearing the same message under the old law. So in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 (under the old law), was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or FOR (in reference to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. If translated "in order to obtain" the verse does not make sense. I baptize you with water FOR (in order to obtain) repentance? or I baptize you with water FOR (in reference to/on the basis of) repentance?

Whatever baptism is for in Acts 2:38, it's for in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. See how the argument that after the death of Christ, baptism is necessary for salvation but before the death of Christ, baptism is not necessary for salvation doesn't hold water? Water baptism is done in regards to/on the basis of the remission of sins that is received upon repentance/faith.

Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). *Perfect Harmony*

You reference Heb 9:16,17 but then completely ignore that what this context says makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the thief to be an example of NT salvation. Again, from Mk 1:5 the thief may have been baptized with John's baptism but because of what Heb 9:16,17, it was not possible for him to be baptized with Christ's baptism of the great commission of Acts 2:38.
Furthermore Mt 9:6 when Christ was ON EARTH He had been given power to forgive sins. Christ is NOT on earth today forgiving sins as He did with this thief so that makes it impossible for anyone today to claim to be saved as the thief. Who on this forum had their sins forgiven in person by Christ as this thief? Not a single person.

 

[mailmandan]

This is no proof the thief was never baptized or never had an opportunity to be baptized.

So being crucified as a thief and blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus is the fruit of repentance/faith?

For all anyone knows the thief could have been of those of Mk 1:5 that was baptized of John. No one can be so dogmatic to say Mk 1:5 included many people but not the thief. The thief could have been once a disciple but fell away as those of Jn 6:66.

All speculation. You are being dogmatic to say the thief could have been included in the group of people who were baptized in Mark 1:5. In the latter part of John chapter six, after Jesus' hard sayings about eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, some of His so called disciples complained. We are told that Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who would betray him. (v. 64). In verse 66 it says, "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more." This group had been called 'disciples', but He says they did not believe, and finally they left. From Jesus' very words, we know that they were not saved in the first place. John 8:31 - "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine." Those who don't continue are not truly disciples of His.

Further indication the thief may have been a disciple is the knowledge he had of Christ. Luke 23:40f tells us the thief knew there is a God and God was to be feared. He knew Christ was an innocent man. He knew the cross would not be the end of Christ. He knew Christ would have a kingdom and saw his need to be in that kingdom. The thief displayed a better knowledge of Christ than some of Christ's own disciples.

Simply knowing there is a God (even the demons believe that - James 2:19) and having knowledge of Christ (demons have knowledge of Christ) does not mean that the thief had already received Christ through faith and was water baptized prior to being crucified. When did the thief finally acknowledge that Christ was an innocent man, the cross would not be the end of Christ, and Christ would have a kingdom and saw his need to be in that kingdom? While he was blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus? Is that the fruit of repentance/faith? Or did he fully embrace this later, when he rebuked the other thief, acknowledged that they are getting what they deserve but Jesus has done nothing wrong, then asking Jesus to remember him when He comes into His kingdom?

You reference Heb 9:16,17 but then completely ignore that what this context says makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the thief to be an example of NT salvation.

Christ died before the thief, so was the thief removed from the cross and water baptized before he died? NO. Man is saved through believing in Him/faith in Christ before and after the death of Christ (John 3:16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc...). The plan of salvation did not change after the cross.

Again, from Mk 1:5 the thief may have been baptized with John's baptism but because of what Heb 9:16,17, it was not possible for him to be baptized with Christ's baptism of the great commission of Acts 2:38.

Where is the fruit of repentance prior to him receiving Christ through faith just before his death? What is the difference between "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) and "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). You say that water baptism is not necessary for salvation before Acts 2:38 so is this baptism (prior to Pentecost) for "in order to obtain the remission of sins" (in contradiction to your before and after argument) or for "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance? In Matthew 3:11 (prior to Pentecost) is the baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance or for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance?

Furthermore Mt 9:6 when Christ was ON EARTH He had been given power to forgive sins. Christ is NOT on earth today forgiving sins as He did with this thief so that makes it impossible for anyone today to claim to be saved as the thief. Who on this forum had their sins forgiven in person by Christ as this thief? Not a single person.

That is a strange argument! So Christ has no power to forgive sins unless He is physically on earth? Before the death of Christ and after the death of Christ, man is saved through believing in Him/faith in Christ (John 3:16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc...). The plan did not change.

 

[SeaBass]

So being crucified as a thief and blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus is the fruit of repentance/faith?

It is not proof the thief had never been baptized. There is just as much evidence the thief was once a disciple who turned from Christ to a life of crime then found himself being crucified with his one time Master and so he repented.

All speculation. You are being dogmatic to say the thief could have been included in the group of people who were baptized in Mark 1:5. In the latter part of John chapter six, after Jesus' hard sayings about eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, some of His so called disciples complained. We are told that Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who would betray him. (v. 64). In verse 66 it says, "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more." This group had been called 'disciples', but He says they did not believe, and finally they left. From Jesus' very words, we know that they were not saved in the first place. John 8:31 - "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine." Those who don't continue are not truly disciples of His.



Simply knowing there is a God (even the demons believe that - James 2:19) and having knowledge of Christ (demons have knowledge of Christ) does not mean that the thief had already received Christ through faith and was water baptized prior to being crucified. When did the thief finally acknowledge that Christ was an innocent man, the cross would not be the end of Christ, and Christ would have a kingdom and saw his need to be in that kingdom? While he was blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus? Is that the fruit of repentance/faith? Or did he fully embrace this later, when he rebuked the other thief, acknowledged that they are getting what they deserve but Jesus has done nothing wrong, then asking Jesus to remember him when He comes into His kingdom?

Of course what I posted was speculation, just as all you posted was speculation too. It's ALL speculation for the bible never tells us with certainty whether the thief was or was not baptized. I am not being dogmatic about the thief for I am not the one using the thief to try and prove the necessity of baptism. But those that ARE trying to use the thief as 'proof' baptism is not necessary then they have the onus to prove he was never baptized, something that can not be proven since the bible does not say..so it is ALL speculation.

If the thief were never a baptized disciple, how did he know all the information Luke reveals to us? How did the thief know Christ was innocent? How did he know Christ dying would not be the end of Christ? How did he know Christ would have a kingdom?

Evidently he must have been taught about Christ by someone, maybe evening becoming a disciple himself. The thief could not just blindly be guessing about those things, things he ALREADY knew about Christ. This possible one time disciple mocked and blasphemed Christ but later repented. Yet Peter, an apostle, denied Christ but later repented. Since Peter denied Christ are we to ASSUME Peter must never have been a disciple?

Christ died before the thief, so was the thief removed from the cross and water baptized before he died? NO. Man is saved through believing in Him/faith in Christ before and after the death of Christ (John 3:16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc...). The plan of salvation did not change after the cross.

It does not matter that Christ died before the thief. Christ promised the thief paradise while BOTH were alive and under the OT law.
Besides, the NT did not come into effect at the very second Christ died. Testaments/wills go through probation periods before coming into effect. Note how Lk 24:47 records Luke's account of the great commission which is part of Christ's NT, but this did not come into effect for a few weeks/months after Christ's death at Pentecost in Acts 2.

Where is the fruit of repentance prior to him receiving Christ through faith just before his death? What is the difference between "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) and "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). You say that water baptism is not necessary for salvation before Acts 2:38 so is this baptism (prior to Pentecost) for "in order to obtain the remission of sins" (in contradiction to your before and after argument) or for "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance? In Matthew 3:11 (prior to Pentecost) is the baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance or for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance?

Mk 1:4 was John's baptism that ended at Acts 2:38 where it was replaced by Christ's baptism of the great commission.
How can you prove the thief was not of those of Mk 1:5 that was baptized with John's baptism?

That is a strange argument! So Christ has no power to forgive sins unless He is physically on earth? Before the death of Christ and after the death of Christ, man is saved through believing in Him/faith in Christ (John 3:16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc...). The plan did not change.

Is Christ ON EARTH today personally forgiving the sins of those whom He thinks are deserving? No. So how can anyone claim they are saved just like the thief when they are not? When Christ left earth He left behind His last will and testament, the gospel, as His authority on earth and that gospel says for one to be saved now is by believing repenting confessing and being baptized.

Rom 10:9,10 the NT requires one to believe that Christ hath been (past tense) raised from the dead. The thief could not have this type of belief the NT requires for when he was promised paradise Christ had not yet died much less been resurrected.

 

[newbirth]

The man on the other cross when Jesus was crucified was not baptized - yet Jesus said that because he believed he would see him in Paradise after death. Baptism is just an outward form of an inner surrender to die to self and live for Jesus. In working with the dying there are times when you use water lightly sprinkled on them to be a form of their total surrender...after all, they can't be immersed. I'm sure Jesus honors that. It is a matter of the heart - not the letter of the law.

where is your proof the man was not baptised...?

 

[DiscipleDave]

This is one topic I haven't seen on this forum:

Is water baptism essential to salvation?

Does it matter how you are baptized? (Sprinkled or fully immersed)

Does it matter what is said when they baptize you? (Father, Son, Holy, In Jesus name, name of the Lord Jesus?)

Scriptures are CLEAR, there are more than one type of baptism. We know there are at least two different kinds of Baptisms and a reference to even a third. There is water baptism (symbolic) then there is Holy Ghost baptism (heart changes). Water baptism is what every Christian should do to publicly witness that they are choosing to be a Christian. NOT required for one to be Saved though. Holy Ghost baptism is what happens to a person when they realize they are lost and need to be Saved, and their hearts change to live a life after the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. REQUIRED for one to be SAVED. Many can be water baptized yet will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, because they were never Holy Ghost baptized.

Water Baptism

^i^

 

[newbirth]

Water baptism may be an "act of faith," but it's not faith itself. Faith "is" the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

Faith is not defined as baptism. Faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith. It's just that simple. Not hard to understand, just hard for you to ACCEPT. Faith is not defined as multiple acts of obedience. Water baptism and other acts of obedience/works which follow saving faith in Christ are the FRUIT of faith, NOT the essence of faith. Saving faith is belief, trust, reliance in Christ for salvation. Acts of obedience which follow are WORKS. We are saved THROUGH FAITH, NOT WORKS

The scripture does not say we are saved by saving faith followed by the works of obedience...We are saved by grace through faith...And as you say...if Water baptism and other acts of obedience/works which follow saving faith in Christ are the FRUIT of faith,then they are still essential because...Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

.

let me put you in this verse to see how it works out...then I will put myself and see how it works out....
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

By faith mailmandan, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared not (no act of faith) an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and did not(because of no act of faith) became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

By faith newbirth, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house(act of faith); by the which he condemned the world, and became heir (because of act of faith) of the righteousness which is by faith.
Your faith my friend has no works God gave you faith and you refuse to live by faith

 

[SeaBass]

Scriptures are CLEAR, there are more than one type of baptism. We know there are at least two different kinds of Baptisms and a reference to even a third. There is water baptism (symbolic) then there is Holy Ghost baptism (heart changes). Water baptism is what every Christian should do to publicly witness that they are choosing to be a Christian. NOT required for one to be Saved though. Holy Ghost baptism is what happens to a person when they realize they are lost and need to be Saved, and their hearts change to live a life after the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. REQUIRED for one to be SAVED. Many can be water baptized yet will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, because they were never Holy Ghost baptized.

Water Baptism

^i^

The NT speaks of 6 or 7 baptisms. The issue is which ONE of those baptism is in effect today per Eph 4:5 that says "One Lord, one faith, one baptism".

 

[Alligator]

[/qUOTE=mailmandan;1628312]again, this is picturesque language. Water baptism is the picture, not the reality.[/QUOTE]

Oh now it's picturesque language. It's simply amazing what you will stoop to to twist the scriptures to fit your doctrine.

You flunked this just like you did the thief on the cross argunent.

 

[newbirth]

Another argument used in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith apart from water baptism that is used particular by the church of Christ, is - "the thief was not subject to baptism because Christ's Law, the New Testament was not yet in effect, see Heb. 9:16-17." So let's see, under the new law (after the death of Christ), in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and under the old law (before the death of Christ), in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Is John baptism from God or not? Was it a lie, was there no remission of sins at baptism? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
-------------------------
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
If this does not speak of a new birth by water baptism ,then what is it speaking about?

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
this speaks of spiritual birth... born of the water ,born of the spirit ...born again*Perfect Harmony*

I'm hearing the same message under the old law. So in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 (under the old law), was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or FOR (in reference to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. If translated "in order to obtain" the verse does not make sense. I baptize you with water FOR (in order to obtain) repentance? or I baptize you with water FOR (in reference to/on the basis of) repentance?

Whatever baptism is for in Acts 2:38, it's for in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. See how the argument that after the death of Christ, baptism is necessary for salvation but before the death of Christ, baptism is not necessary for salvation doesn't hold water? Water baptism is done in regards to/on the basis of the remission of sins that is received upon repentance/faith.

Faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31). *Perfect Harmony*

It is sad to see men so much at war with the word of God, to the point that they even boldly deny the power of God just so their doctrine of man stand.

 

[Ukorin]

Well, can we all just agree that Believers should get baptized in water out of obedience, and just leave it there.
We all agree on that, and neither side has budged an inch, and some in both positions have taken steps sideways, stumbling into error trying to prove their point.

Christ saves.
Out of love for our Savior we strive to be obedient.

 

[newbirth]

As I already explained, right after Peter says the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, conscious that his statement is liable to be misunderstood, (as demonstrated by you), Peter explains himself: Negatively, baptism does not save because water is applied to the body: “not the removal of the filth of the flesh.” Water can only cleanse the flesh outwardly; it does not cleanse the heart from sin. Baptism follows a personal response to God as indicated by the phrase “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” It is that aspect of baptism (what is signified, “the answer of a good conscience toward God”) rather than the external rite (the sign, the application of water) that saves.

A man is writing and does want to be misunderstood will erase or tear up and start over. If he says baptism doth also now save us, he means that. It is not the cleaning of the filth of the flesh. Look at your deception in green the scripture never say that. Red says what it means baptism is not the removal of filth of the body. and you conclude blue. So why did Ananias tell Paul ...And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Was he lying to Paul?

The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type.” The Greek word for "figure" is "antitupon." Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, defines the word as "a corresponding type." He says, "It is not a case of type and antitype but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type." (Vol. 2, page 96). Cremer's Lexicon says the word signifies an "image or similitude." Thayer's Lexicon defines it as "a thing resembling another." The genitive in the Greek text is correctly translated as the pledge of a good conscience, not for a good conscience. It is a pledge made from a good conscience. Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience.



Again, Peter didn't simply say by grace we have been saved through baptism. Instead, Peter said, as you quoted - The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Peter was making the point that water baptism itself literally saves us, then why the words "like figure" and the further explanation? Why didn't Peter mention baptism in Acts 10:43? Why didn't Paul mention baptism in Ephesians 2:8? Why didn't Jesus mention whoever is not baptized will not be saved in Mark 16:16? *Hermeneutics.



Again, this is picturesque language. Water baptism is the picture, not the reality. The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin, forwards to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave. There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that FAITH, not water baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:4-6; 5:1). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures.

Righteousness is "imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead," who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification” (Romans 4:24,25). Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification), and that through faith (Romans 5:1), believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by FAITH, not baptism. *Hermeneutics. Paul clearly teaches that what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ) actually occurs "through faith." Christians are "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and resurrection is brought about "through faith" - and is properly symbolized by immersing the new believer in and out of the water.

Baptism would have no meaning without Christ’s death, burial and resurrection but Christ’s death, burial and resurrection would still have meaning, even if there were no baptism. In other words, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is the substance and baptism is the shadow. Without the substance there would be no shadow. If one sets out to be buried and raised with Christ and planted in the likeness of His death and resurrection simply through the mechanical act of water baptism (the picture), without first experiencing the reality through Spirit baptism upon receiving Christ through faith, then he becomes an imposter, and is declaring, in baptism, to be what he is not

.

You are making up your own gospel a gospel of delusions void of grace and faith without works

 

[Kerry]

What does baptism have to do with the cross? many people that are taught this junk think that all they have to do is get baptized and their good to go.