Does water baptism save us

[Kerry]

You people are going to say that you are saved by water baptism. Let me get my baseball bat. You don't think that God who became a man could become the King of the Earth if He wanted too. He told Peter If I want to I could call ten thousand angels. If you recall one angel killed 180,000 Syrians. Yet he chose to be spit upon and beaten to till His bones showed and thorns mashed into his head and then beaten more as He carried His own cross to Golgotha and when He got there They drove spikes threw His hands and Feet and then He said it is finished. You want to say that water baptism saves you then maybe you will drink the koolaid and catch the Hale Bob comet that's how stupid it is.

 

[Alligator]

James does not teach that we are saved "by" works

READ the verse.

mailmandan;1521442]Adding works as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save us is an insult as well! Like it or not, Jesus never said whoever is not water baptized will be condemned, but He clearly said whoever does not believe is condemned already. Salvation is signified, yet not procured by water baptism. You confuse the symbol with the reality.

.

I have added nothing and you know it. You just want to misrepresent what I believe so you can have an argument and THATS the reality.

 

[Elizabeth619]

READ the verse.

.

I have added nothing and you know it. You just want to misrepresent what I believe so you can have an argument and THATS the reality.

Several people here have misconstrued the act of baptism. All many want to do is argue and completely refuse to understand what baptism is. This argument has gone on for pages. I know it's hard to do, but maybe we just need to walk away from this. If they refuse to be respectful and understand what is being said then it is their problem.
Titus 3:10

 

[MidniteWelder]

It's mystery is only exceeded by it's power.

I believe we can agree on that much

 

[Kerry]

Then walk away, my head dunking is no where near the work of the cross and you smudge at it, no wonder it the doctrine of demons, you have no idea what Christ went through and your so smug in your rug. Let's just walk away I wish I could But I can't, when I think of what He did for me How can i be so smug as to walk away. You have shown your self righteousness and have fun with that.

 

[Kerry]

that shows just how demonic this teaching is. I need to say nothing more

 

[questioner1]

Should a person who have never done it think that their unfounded opinion has merit?

I think that GOD taught to VERIFY things.

 

[saved1975]

No, in Acts 19, what this proves is baptism in water is more than getting wet or a symbol, it is done after one hears the Gospel (these men didn't) if they didn't hear the Gospel they could not believe, they could not confess Christ because they were not yet taught Christ, once Paul taught them Christ Jesus (the Gospel) proving they were not saved until they were baptized for the right reasons. (and it does not say anything different in the Greek than it does in the English)



No, He was not saved until he was Baptized, you cannot show me where he was saved on the road, this is a conclusion drawn in your own mind with no scriptural authority to back it up (and the Greek says the same thing as the English)



Acts 10 and 11 prove water baptism is the saving baptism of Eph 4:5, Peter being an apostle, having divine revelation and the Holy Spirit guidance would not have had these people be baptized twice unless the second baptism was THE saving baptism, you cannot prove that Holy Spirit baptism is salvific, in fact these passages prove exactly the opposite, that the Holy Spirit baptism does NOT save, but was used twice, once here and once to the Apostles (Jew and Gentile, proving God is not a respecter of person) fulfilling the prophecy of Joel, and never done again after Acts 10.



I proved this wrong already in this post, see the start of it.



Paul did not say he did not baptize, he addressed division by those that claimed their baptism was better than another by who they were baptized by, all those in the Corinthian Church were water baptized or they would not be "in the body" or "In Christ", water baptism is how we get "In Christ".



Just as I thought, you cannot give me the Greek passages you claim make a person saved before baptism, you make false claims, portray as though you know Greek, but you're really going off some other mans false teaching on some website who as most do when they appeal to the Greek, don't use the Greek as it should be to better understand the English but to try and fool the English readers into believing their twisted English interpretation.

The Gentiles were saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they weren't baptised in water, Proving that water baptism doesn't save.
Here is more proof that water baptism doesn't save, Purify or cleanse.
Acts 15: 7--9.
V7, The Gentiles heard the gospel, And believed it.
V8, God gave them the Holy Ghost, See Acts 10: 44.
V9They were purified by faith.

Please note, No mention of water baptism.
Please note, This was all done before they were baptised in water.

The Bible rests it's case.

 

[saved1975]

??????????

One cannot believe in what they have not heard. One cannot preach what he has not heard.

So preaching saves, Rom 10:13-15; 1 Cor 1:21

The Gentiles heard and believed the word.
The Gentiles were saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they weren't baptised in water, Proving that water baptism doesn't save.

Here is more proof that water baptism doesn't save, Purify or cleanse.
Acts 15: 7--9.
V7, The Gentiles heard the gospel, And believed it.
V8, God gave them the Holy Ghost, See Acts 10: 44.
V9They were purified by faith.

Please note, No mention of water baptism.
Please note, This was all done before they were baptised in water.

The Bible rests it's case.

 

[saved1975]

You've said this multiple time and have yet to make the first effort to prove it. I don't think you understand Greek. How about giving some evidence for your claim.

[

Did you read what I said? I said, I take the word of Ignatius over your word. You say you believe the Bible and the Biblical texts, but in reality it's your interpretation of them that you really believe. So, show me where the Greek says what you claim.

Ignatius was alluding to Paul, So if you reject his statement you reject the apostle's words also.

Ignatius,

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1
Chap. II.—Be Subject to the Bishop, Etc.
Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for “he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.” (Heb. 13:17) Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things ye do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be ye subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall be found in Him. It behoves you also, in every way, to please the deacons, who are [ministers] of the mysteries of Christ Jesus; for they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would a burning fire. Let them, then, prove themselves to be such.

Apostle Paul,
[SUP]
3[/SUP] are ye ignorant that we, as many as were baptized to Christ Jesus, to his death were baptized?[SUP]4[/SUP] we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.
[SUP]5[/SUP] For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, so also we shall be of the rising again;
(Rom 6:3-5 YLT)


So, if you believe the Bible why are you arguing against baptism?

To take Ignatius's word above mine, Is to take his word above the Bible, Because I give what the Bible and the Bible Greek texts says.
The Gentiles were saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they weren't baptised in water, Proving that water baptism doesn't save.

Here is more proof that water baptism doesn't save, Purify or cleanse.
Acts 15: 7--9.
V7, The Gentiles heard the gospel, And believed it.
V8, God gave them the Holy Ghost, See Acts 10: 44.
V9They were purified by faith.

Please note, No mention of water baptism.
Please note, This was all done before they were baptised in water.

The Bible rests it's case.

 

[SarahM777]

To take Ignatius's word above mine, Is to take his word above the Bible, Because I give what the Bible and the Bible Greek texts says.
The Gentiles were saved, baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, But they weren't baptised in water, Proving that water baptism doesn't save.

Here is more proof that water baptism doesn't save, Purify or cleanse.
Acts 15: 7--9.
V7, The Gentiles heard the gospel, And believed it.
V8, God gave them the Holy Ghost, See Acts 10: 44.
V9They were purified by faith.

Please note, No mention of water baptism.
Please note, This was all done before they were baptised in water.

The Bible rests it's case.

First you are trying to use Acts 10 to say they weren't baptized,yet if you read further it DOES say thy were baptized in water.

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[b] and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Two you are trying to use Acts 15 for a purpose that CAN NOT be taken from the CONTEXT of what Acts 15 was written about. Acts 15 was written about this

Acts 15

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

The whole CONTEXT of Act 15 is that people were trying to put the believers UNDER the Mosaic law.

 

[Jackson123]

Salvation prove by the fruit. What kind of tree determent by it fruit.

I life in the border, there are a lot of drug traffic in my town. I know drug dealer. Drug dealer is multi racial. some of them is mexican Catholic, some of them is white protestant, or Black protestant.

Catholic, and some protestant believe in baby baptism, so some of these drug dealer are water baptized.

If water baptism save than why these people bear the fruit of wickedness.

remember Salvation prove by it fruit.

 

[Alligator]

Several people here have misconstrued the act of baptism. All many want to do is argue and completely refuse to understand what baptism is. This argument has gone on for pages. I know it's hard to do, but maybe we just need to walk away from this. If they refuse to be respectful and understand what is being said then it is their problem.
Titus 3:10

I agree . I'm tired of it also

 

[mailmandan]

It's not I who has it backwards. Works cannot be the fruit of faith because the works have to exist in order for faith to be alive and produce anything.

Works are certainly the fruit of faith. Why do you think that Jesus said - every good tree bears/produces good fruit, but a bad tree bears/produces bad fruit (Matthew 7:17). Not the other way around. A bad tree does not produce good fruit in order to become a good tree, but because it's a good tree.

Jesus also said - Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. (Matthew 12:33). Not the other way around. The fruit is not the tree itself and the tree produces the fruit.

Matthew 13:23 - But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. Fruit does not produce the seed on good ground, the seed on good ground produces the fruit.

Romans 7:4 - Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear/bring forth fruit to God. Fruit does bring forth brethren, who have become dead to the law through the body of Christ but brethren, who have become dead to the law through the body of Christ bear/bring forth fruit. Are you getting the picture yet?

Works are a part of faith. If red and yellow make orange you can't have orange without either one of them.

If by part of faith you mean the essence of faith, then that is false. Works are not faith itself. Faith is faith and works are works. Good works are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of genuine faith, but they are not the essence of faith and they are not the means of our salvation.

Good works that believers produce are a manifestation of their faith, but not the origin of it. If someone died the same day that they genuinely placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (like the thief on the cross) but were unable to accomplish multiple good works, they still had faith. You couldn't say, they did not accomplish these multiple good works and faith is these multiple good works so they did not have faith.

I believe you're creating a false dichotomy.

I believe that you are making no distinction whatsoever between faith (the root of salvation) and works (the fruit of salvation).

John said,

[SUP]30[/SUP] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
[SUP]31[/SUP] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

(Joh 20:30-31 KJV)

John said that believing that through believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, one might have life through His name.

[SUP]41[/SUP] And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ. {to speak...: or, to say that they knew him to be Christ}

(Luk 4:41 KJV)

Why are these demons not saved?

Are you trying to imply that the demons have the exact same faith as Christians do and it's only because of their lack of works that they are not saved? The demons are bad trees that can only produce bad fruit.

Their belief will not save them, for it is not a belief of the heart, but a fact of the mind. Many people have a belief like this. Do the demons believe in their heart (or simply in their head) that God raised Jesus from the dead? (Romans 10:9,10). The word "believe" can describe mere mental assent belief, as in (James 2:19), or also include "trust and reliance" in Christ for salvation (Acts 16:31). In James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons also believe "mental assent" that there is "one God" but they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works.

It sounds like you are in the same camp with those who think that ALL belief/faith is the same "except for the lack of works" and cannot grasp a DEEPER faith which "trusts exclusively in Christ for salvation."

The "whole picture", rests on cause and effect. Do we do good works TO QUALIFY for God's grace? Or is God's grace a completely free offer which then consequently leads TO good works? Do we do something because of faith, or is our faith caused by something we do? Which is cause and which is effect?

 

[mailmandan]

Well Dan, "these people" think you're full of baloney.

Of course they do and as long as "these people" remain spiritually discerned and the gospel remains hid to them, they will continue to think that. People who are not spiritually discerned and truly believe the gospel think otherwise.

 

[SeaBass]

Brother, you have to distinguish between water baptism and baptism in the name of Father Son and Holy spirit.


Before water baptism person must accept Jesus first. And accept Jesus mean invite Jesus into person heart mean Holy spirit Immerse in this person and immersion mean baptism.

Then he bear the fruit, and go to water baptism.

Water baptism is just testimony and it is one of the fruit of immersion or baptize with Holy spirit.

water baptism if genuine is fruit of the baptism /immersion in Holy spirit.

It not save person, it product of the salvation.

You always confuse between baptism with Holy spirit and water baptism.

Let me repeat one more time.

Accept Jesus mean Invite Jesus mean immerse in Jesus mean baptize in Father Son and Holy spirit.

Then this person bear fruit and have love, go to water baptism (testimony) etc.

There is one baptism in effect, Eph 4:5 which is human administered water baptism of the great commission that is in the name of the Lord, Acts 10:47,48. There is o Holy Spirit baptism today.

If water baptism is necessary to produce fruits then it is necessary for salvation for the fruitless will not be saved but cut off and cast into the fire. Water baptism is necessary to salvation for it has been commanded, it is how disciples are made, it remits sins, Mt 28:19,20; Acts 2:38.

 

[SeaBass]

it's what is preached that is the good word unto salvation, not the act of preaching that saves.

again, Stephen preached to the Sanhedrin and was martyred. did hearing Stephen justify, save and redeem the Sanhedrin?
you are fond of mocking John Calvin, who famously preached​ many sermons - did John Calvin save anyone? or does Christ alone receive that honor and glory?

there may be many things God uses to bring you to a knowledge of the Truth.
if you receive that Truth, then whatever the tool that was used to break up your ground, plant a seed in you, prune you or pull weeds from around your feet, it is GOD alone that saves you, not a rake, a hoe or a shovel.

The gospel is 'what' is preached and the gospel is 'what' saves, but how can one know what the gospel is unless it is preached? God saves, but does He saves those who never heard the gospel? No, 2 Thess 1:8.


John Calvin preached a false teaching, not the gospel that saves therefore his preaching can save no one.

 

[SeaBass]

i rode in a 12 passenger van to a camp where i heard the gospel preached, and believed, and was saved.

do 12 passenger vans "save" ?

What if you rode in a van, NEVER heard the gospel, how would you then believe the gospel?

Do 12 passenger vans preach the gospel?

 

[SeaBass]

i know a man who was huffing gas one day and had a vision from God, and that moment believed, and repented, and was saved from death and brought into the light.

does huffing gas "save" ?

God only speaks to men today through His word the bible, not visions. No one will ever know of the gospel by 'huffing gas'.

 

[SeaBass]

i know also a woman who was flipping through radio stations when the one she was listening to went out of range, and heard the gospel preached, and believed, and repented, and was saved.

does poor radio reception "save" ?

Preaching over the radio can save for one then is able to hear the gospel and obey it.