Baptism: is it required to be baptized in water?

[2tellthetruth]

Before Jesus Christ died on the cross, water baptism was NOT essential to salvation. From the time that John the Baptist came, until the ascension of Jesus, the only thing required for salvation was repentance. That is what John preached: the baptism of repentance (Luke 3:3) He certainly did baptize people but he baptized them UNTO REPENTANCE (See Acts 19:1-4) This is the reason the thief on the cross was saved even though he did not get baptized.

But after Jesus ascended, the New Covenant went into effect. And since that time, baptism has been a requirement for salvation. How do we know that?

• John 3:5
• Mark 16:16
• Matthew 28:19
• Acts 2:38
• Romans 6:4
• Colossians 2:12
• 1 Peter 3:20-21

We know that Jesus was not baptized for the same reason we are baptized. Nothing that Jesus did was for the same reason we do it. He is our EXAMPLE! He had no sin so he did not need remission of sins. Yet he said he was being baptized to "fulfill all righteousness." He was saying that being baptized was "the right thing to do."

John also tells us the reason he was baptizing people in water:

John 1:
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

God told John to look for Messiah and he told him how he would know when he found him. The Messiah was to be revealed to John WHILE he was being baptized. So John's purpose for baptizing people was not the same as why we are baptized now. So you cannot compare people's baptisms before the cross to people's baptisms after the cross. They had two different purposes. Again, this is illustrated in Acts 19. If baptism was not essential (and doing it the right way i might add) why were these disciples baptized again?

 

[DJ2]

Before Jesus Christ died on the cross, water baptism was NOT essential to salvation. From the time that John the Baptist came, until the ascension of Jesus, the only thing required for salvation was repentance. That is what John preached: the baptism of repentance (Luke 3:3) He certainly did baptize people but he baptized them UNTO REPENTANCE (See Acts 19:1-4) This is the reason the thief on the cross was saved even though he did not get baptized.

But after Jesus ascended, the New Covenant went into effect. And since that time, baptism has been a requirement for salvation. How do we know that?

• John 3:5
• Mark 16:16
• Matthew 28:19
• Acts 2:38
• Romans 6:4
• Colossians 2:12
• 1 Peter 3:20-21

We know that Jesus was not baptized for the same reason we are baptized. Nothing that Jesus did was for the same reason we do it. He is our EXAMPLE! He had no sin so he did not need remission of sins. Yet he said he was being baptized to "fulfill all righteousness." He was saying that being baptized was "the right thing to do."

John also tells us the reason he was baptizing people in water:

John 1:
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

God told John to look for Messiah and he told him how he would know when he found him. The Messiah was to be revealed to John WHILE he was being baptized. So John's purpose for baptizing people was not the same as why we are baptized now. So you cannot compare people's baptisms before the cross to people's baptisms after the cross. They had two different purposes. Again, this is illustrated in Acts 19. If baptism was not essential (and doing it the right way i might add) why were these disciples baptized again?

This is the reason the thief on the cross was saved even though he did not get baptized

Is this an assumption or a provable fact?

 

[preston39]

Yet you wish to claim that, water baptism, is mandated.....

Not me you are disagreeing with .....it's G-d's word you are arguing with..... with nonsense I might add.

 

[DJ2]

LOL

I've never heard a woman say oh dear I've just broken my amniotic fluid. Oh dear. Way to go Captain Obvious.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I never heard anyone describe natural birth as "born of water". "Hey my child was just born of water". Born of woman yes, but never born of water. Way to go Walter Mitty.

 

[2tellthetruth]

Is this an assumption or a provable fact?

The proof is in the pudding! (Actually, it's in the bible!)

I'm not sure which part you are asking proof for: Proof that he was saved or proof that the thief hadn't been baptized?
Please clarify for me.

 

[DJ2]

The proof is in the pudding! (Actually, it's in the bible!)

I'm not sure which part you are asking proof for: Proof that he was saved or proof that the thief hadn't been baptized?
Please clarify for me.

Proof that he was not baptized.

 

[preston39]

I never heard anyone describe natural birth as "born of water". "Hey my child was just born of water". Born of woman yes, but never born of water. Way to go Walter Mitty.

The new age religion folks are starting a program to produce a humor bible......me thinks.... LOL..

."Lo unto those who are deceived".....

 

[2tellthetruth]

Proof that he was not baptized.

Gotcha.

Yes i must say that it is an assumption that he was not baptized. That assumption is based on scripture though. The narrative of the text lends to the assumption that this is the first time this man even repented. Secondly, God does not require something from everyone, and then make an exception for one individual.

But you are right, since the text does not say, we are assuming one way or the other.

 

[preston39]

Proof that he was not baptized.

There is no roof of that...not biblical........

 

[preston39]

Before Jesus Christ died on the cross, water baptism was NOT essential to salvation. From the time that John the Baptist came, until the ascension of Jesus, the only thing required for salvation was repentance. That is what John preached: the baptism of repentance (Luke 3:3) He certainly did baptize people but he baptized them UNTO REPENTANCE (See Acts 19:1-4) This is the reason the thief on the cross was saved even though he did not get baptized.

But after Jesus ascended, the New Covenant went into effect. And since that time, baptism has been a requirement for salvation. How do we know that?

• John 3:5
• Mark 16:16
• Matthew 28:19
• Acts 2:38
• Romans 6:4
• Colossians 2:12
• 1 Peter 3:20-21

We know that Jesus was not baptized for the same reason we are baptized. Nothing that Jesus did was for the same reason we do it. He is our EXAMPLE! He had no sin so he did not need remission of sins. Yet he said he was being baptized to "fulfill all righteousness." He was saying that being baptized was "the right thing to do."

John also tells us the reason he was baptizing people in water:

John 1:
31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

God told John to look for Messiah and he told him how he would know when he found him. The Messiah was to be revealed to John WHILE he was being baptized. So John's purpose for baptizing people was not the same as why we are baptized now. So you cannot compare people's baptisms before the cross to people's baptisms after the cross. They had two different purposes. Again, this is illustrated in Acts 19. If baptism was not essential (and doing it the right way i might add) why were these disciples baptized again?

2...,
You don't know that and the Bible is silent on that point. He could have been a backslider...and I believe the bible makes that as a point. Otherwise why mention him at all? Christ was the focus.
See Rev 22...we must not add, subtract, distract, or otherwise attempt to change. modify, amend or redact G-d's word.He could very well have been repented, baptized and had fallen away.

Be reminded of Rev. 22...et al., we may not add, subtract, amend,modify,change or redact G-d's word...in any fashion. ..or we will loose our repented status...no longer eligible for eternal salvation.

Lo unto those who try.

 

[2tellthetruth]

There is no roof of that...not biblical........

Neither is their proof that he was baptized.

 

[Donmech]

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? (Nicodemus is talking about natural birth)
(vs 5) 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. (Jesus shows Nicodemus that there would be two kinds of birth, a natural birth which was what Nicodemus was referring too and also a spiritual birth which is what is required to enter the kingdom.) So I do believe the born of water phrase does refer back to the natural birth in keeping with the context of the conversation.

 

[preston39]

Proof that he was not baptized.

There is none. Pure conjecture on one's part.

 

[preston39]

Neither is their proof that he was baptized.

Geessch.

Don't you understand that G-d may extend special dispensation ......as He chooses? That act does not change The Bible requirements under normal circumstances.

 

[mailmandan]

The actual taking of the medication is tacit, "whoever believes and is baptized" is properly expressed. Terrible analogy.

Not a terrible analogy at all and "whoever takes his medication and washes it down with water" is properly expressed, yet it's still the medication that makes you well and not the water. It's the same with "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved but he who does not believe will be condemned." As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches through careful consideration of the language and context of the verse. We also filter it through what we know the Bible teaches elsewhere on the subject.

*NOWHERE does the Bible say "faith alone and saved." Period.

I other words, you have no answer.

The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

You don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus works? NO. So then it's faith (rightly understood) IN CHRIST ALONE. Period. That is my answer and your faulty human logic is not the answer. You need to trade in your shoe horn and accept the truth.

 

[mailmandan]

Being baptized so that your sins are forgiven (Acts 2:38) is included in the gospel which saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1st Peter 3:21).

FALSE. In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

The only logical conclusion *when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture* is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). *NO MENTION OF BAPTISM. In Acts 15:7, Peter said ..hear the word of the gospel and BELIEVE. *Not hear and get baptized. Water baptism is not included in the gospel. You need to put down your shoe horn and BELIEVE. 1 Corinthians 1:21 - For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who BELIEVE. When will you BELIEVE?

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

To BELIEVE the gospel is to obey the gospel.

We obey the gospel by choosing to BELIEVE the gospel. Romans 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So refusing to believe the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8) is refusing to obey the gospel.

The gospel is a message of grace to be received through faith. The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws or statutes to be obeyed or a check list of good works (including water baptism) to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation.

The gospel simply sets forth Christ crucified, buried and risen (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). We obey the gospel by choosing to believe/trust in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.

 

[mailmandan]

Your theology is most certainly backed into a corner. All favors of faith alone regeneration theology will end up in a logic corner.

Only in your delusional world of UNBELIEF. Man is saved through faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone (Romans 3:22-28; 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..). Period.

Works-salvationists cannot grasp the truth.

The question is are you intellectually honest enough to face it?

The question is are you humble enough to face your error then repent and believe the gospel?

 

[preston39]

While studying this thread a little bible knowledge tells the reviewer that several should better understand what saved, repentance, faith, obedience and salvation means.

Proper understanding is mandated.

 

[Jabberjaw]

Only in your delusional world of UNBELIEF. Man is saved through faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone (Romans 3:22-28; 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..). Period.

Works-salvationists cannot grasp the truth.

The question is are you humble enough to face your error then repent and believe the gospel?

The only place in the bible "faith only" is taught! :

James 2:24 NKJV
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Works-salvationists cannot grasp the truth.

The problem with the people who claim to represent the faith alone saves camp is that
they are lying.

They are part of the Free Grace theology, which holds a flash in the pan saves you to
a zombie heaven against your will.

I believe faith alone in Christ saves us. But this belief in Jesus leads us to follow Him
in a walk of discipleship which if we abandon we leave the faith and salvation.
This is the gospel, and has always been so since the time of Jesus.

A cornerstone of their theology is past, present and future sin is forgiven at the point
of faith. The problem is Peter did not believe this.

For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
2 Peter 1:8-9

If Peter believed all future sins, which a believer is not actually commiting,
are forgiven in the gospel, he would have mentioned it.

It is security which these believers hang on to, because knowing God and
trusting Him because of the cross is too difficult for them, it is just this flash
in the pan that matters.

And in their lives as they wander away from Christ, they imagine they are safe
because of their previous statement of faith. The fact they hate Jesus and
His ways and anyone who talks about walking in them in truth, seems to pass
them by that actually they do not know Jesus, and are not actually interested
in truly following Him or even listening to His words and purifying their hearts.

Jesus called such people as this as white washed tombs, with only dead bones
in their hearts, no love and truth flowing from them, only this continuous lying.

Now the pharisees killed Jesus, so expect nothing less from the likes of these.
They get angry enough to do crazy things, so be careful, they do not know what
they are doing.