Seabass continues to pettifog. The thread question is what happens to an unbaptized believer, believer in the sense of trusting Christ as Savior, not "believe that some facts are so."
They are not. Give one verse that says devils trust Christ as Savior or "believe in Christ." Believing facts is not the issue.
The devils are the perfect example of belief only for they do believe in the facts but will not obediently act upon them.
Atwood said:
Seabass: Jn 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him;...."
So what? You have no proof that these were not baptized, neither does your verse indicate what happened to them.
Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea: Do you have some proof of their destiny?
Can you prove that one? What does that have to do with the question of the thread?
What happens to unbaptized believers, those who trust Christ as Savior, but do not get baptized?
With belief only there is
NO confession and No baptism. So can one with belief only be saved while in a state of denying Christ? No.
So the belief only person is lost without confession as he is without baptism.
One either confesses Christ or he does not. Not confessing Christ is denying Christ:
Mt 10:32,33 "32 -
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33-But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven"
Confessing Christ in v32 is contrasted to denying Christ in v33. So not confessing = denying Christ. Those that will not confess Christ, Christ will deny them.
Atwood said:
False. The text nowhere says that Agrippa believed in Jesus, trusted Him as Savior. Neither does it say that he was baptized or not.
Acts 26, Paul sermon to Agrippa included preaching Jesus Christ, verse 15-20. Agrippa response to Paul's sermon was "
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Agrippa could not almost be a Christian without a knowledge of, belief in Jesus Christ. So Agrippa's 'belief only" in Christ left him to fall short of being a Christian....no repentance/no confession/no baptism = almost a Christian.
Atwood said:
The text does not tell What happens to unbaptized believers, those who trust Christ as Savior, but do not get baptized. The text does not speak about unbaptized believers at all.
And as to your your "AND" claim:
So what. Again the fallacy:
A = believe, B = is baptized.
Given: If A & B, then C (salvation).
Given: If not A, then not C (no salvation).
Fallacious deduction: If not B, then not C (no salvation).
That is an elementary Logical Fallacy.
Mk 16:16 does not allow salvation for an unbaptized believer.
Jesus made
BOTH conditions of belief and baptism necessary to be saved. Jesus did
not say he that believeth only is saved and baptism is optional.
It's not a claim but grammatical fact that the conjunction "and" is a connective conjunction:
"
A conjunction is a word that joins two or more words, phrase or clauses. Think of them as gluing words. They glue words, phrases and clauses together."
What is a Conjunction?
Man-man belief only theology cannot undo the glue, cannot undo the connective power of the conjunction.
The "deduction" you gave contains the fallacy, not Mk 16:16.
If 1(belief)+2(baptism)=3(saved)
then
1(belief) cannot = 3(saved)
Atwood said:
It is no proof at all. But if it is, then you must say (by your own illogic) that demons who believe were baptized, Agrippa, was baptized, the rulers were baptized. Then you have no data on unbaptized believers.
If all of a group of persons do 2 things, that does not indicate that #1 includes #2.
If all of a group ride bicycles and get bit by mosquitos, that does not prove that riding bikes means getting bit by mosquitos.
Acts 2:41,44 says nothing about unbaptized believers.
The text does not tell What happens to unbaptized believers, those who trust Christ as Savior, but do not get baptized. The text does not speak about unbaptized believers at all.
Again, from the context of Acts 2:41-44, who were the ones that are said to have "believed" in verse 44?
1) the ones that accepted Peters words and were baptized?
2) the ones that rejected Peter's words and were not baptized?
You will not answer #1 for it is the obvious answer that proves that "believed" of v44
INCLUDES being baptized. You have yet to prove otherwise. You only have left to argue that those that rejected Peter's words and rejected baptism are the ones that believed which is truly fallacious. Or are you willing to argue those that rejected baptism accepted His words when his words COMMANDED baptism? If they rejected his words that commanded baptism then they obviously rejected baptism along with rejecting his words.
Atwood said:
No it does not. Any such a statement is absent from the text. Where does the word IS appear?
Acts 2:41 is irrelevant because the text does not tell What happens to unbaptized believers, those who trust Christ as Savior, but do not get baptized. The text does not speak about unbaptized believers at all.
Again, then you must argue either:
1) those that "believed" in v44 are the ones that rejected Peter's word and rejected baptism. (not possible)
or
2) try and argue that those that "believed" in v44 accepted Peter's words but rejected baptism ( which is not possible for Peter's words COMMANDED baptism so they could not accept his words while rejecting baptism.)
Atwood said:
Your tortured argument is irrelevant, for your text does not tell What happens to unbaptized believers, those who trust Christ as Savior, but do not get baptized. The text does not speak about unbaptized believers at all.
You run on, but Acts 2:41 says nothing about any unbaptized believers, nor what happens to them.
It's relevant for it again, it puts you in the position to argue from either or both of two impossible points:
1) those that "believed" in v44 are the ones that rejected Peter's word and rejected baptism. (not possible)
or
2) try and argue that those that "believed" in v44 accepted Peter's words but rejected baptism ( which is not possible for Peter's words COMMANDED baptism so they could not accept his words while rejecting baptism.)
Since #1 and #2 are impossible, then the only biblical explanation is
rejecting baptism is rejecting the gospel word.
Atwood said:
I thought you argued that believe included baptism. Now you seem to contradict yourself.
Believe only does not exclude those things, as repent is a change of mind from unbelief to belief, confess is understood as agree with God on the definition of the Savior, Spirit baptism is a given, something done by God, not by man.
But at any rate your tortured arguments are irrelevant. The issue is what happens to unbaptized believers, and your Acts passage says nothing about unbaptized believers.
As seen from Acts 2:41,44 saving belief includes baptism. Since the bible also teaches repentance and confession saves, Acts 2:38; Rom 10:9,10 then a saving belief would also include repentance and confession.
It is
BELIEF ONLY that
EXCLUDES repentance, confession and baptism so the onus is upon you to try and explain the impossible, that being, the impossibility in getting an impenitent, denier of Christ in his unremitted/unforgiven sins saved by belief only.
Atwood said:
Where does scripture say that the person who trusts Christ as Savior, but is not baptized is lost in his sins? Your saying it proves nothing. You need scripture.
Mark 16:16. Jesus put
BOTH belief
AND baptism
BEFORE salvation. So belief without baptism falls short of "saved"
Atwood said:
The thread has no argument. It asks the question,
What happens to unbaptized believers, those who trust Christ as Savior, but do not get baptized?
If you have proof of what happens to them, give it. Don't quote verses which say nothing about unbaptized believers.
Where does scripture say that believing in Christ falls short of anything? Retract, or quote a verse that says
Believing in Christ falls short.
That's what you say. But scripture says:
Sirs, what MUST I DO to be saved?
Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you SHALL BE saved.
The unbaptized believer is lost.
Just as:
The unrepentant believer is lost.
The non-confessing believer is lost.
Was the jailer in Acts 16 baptized?