Water baptism is necessary to be in the first resurrection

If you're unwilling or unable to back up your claims using scripture or some sound reasoning then you don't need to continue deflecting and attempting to change the subject. Just say you don't know or give up already.

I'll ask you one more time:

You said:

"Water baptism is necessary to be in the first resurrection"
No it isn't!"

How so?

I was baptized in Jesus' Name. How about you? Or were you baptized wrong? Are you saved being baptized wrong?

Acts 19:4-5 (KJV)
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Your attempts to refute baptism being necessary for the first resurrection have failed miserably and pathetically. You don't have a case or you would have spelled it out already. You're just here to argue apparently.

I ask simple questions that you avoid like PLAGUE! Were you baptized in Jesus' Name or were you baptized wrong? Are you LOST because you were baptize wrong?

Acts 19:4-5 (KJV)
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

We'll stay on topic so quit trying to change the subject. When you are ready to back up your claims that baptism is not necessary to be in the first resurrection then I'm here. Otherwise, I'm not interested in being lead into a different conversation with you.

The topic is about water baptism. lol

You didn't know the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized?

Luke 23:43 (NKJV)
43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

I was water-baptised and I highly recommend Christians do so.
Having said that, I don't think water baptism is a ticket to a resurrection event that excludes believers who haven't done so.

Believers will be resurrected because Christ is in us.

27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery,
which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
- Colossians 1

Resurrection was anticipated by ancient believers.

25
I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26
And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;

~Job 19

Ressurection is the completion of our salvation

27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time,
not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

~ Hebrews 9

100% of these theological arguments are over interpretation. Everyone must understand that we all are looking at the same scriptures and the same Bible.

So within interpretation it could be poor translation, bad hermeneutics, out of context or inadequately using the laws of logic.

I've never stated that water baptism is required prior to one being able to receive the Holy Ghost. Both are necessary. The order in which they occur differs as confirmed in the word. In the Cornelius account, the group obeyed the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus after receiving the Holy Ghost.

Water baptism was consistently administered in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Peter would not have demanded the group be water baptized if receiving the Holy Spirit was all that was necessary for salvation.

Precious friend, Amen! Now this discussion is getting somewhere. i.e.:
First test Scripture:


Poor translation? If not, then:

Bad hermeneutics? If not, then:

Out of context? If not, then:

Inadequately using the laws of logic?
-----------------
Please advise...

There are no verses that show that salvation or justification requires water baptism.

Showing that water baptism WAS NOT NECESSARY for salvation.

In fact, this is fully supported by what Peter quoted Cornelius as telling him:

Acts 11-
13 He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter.
14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’

Once again we see clearly that is the message that is to be believed that "will save".

Rom 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Where do you find any mention of water baptism in v.16?

yes, that was the command for how to baptize. Doesn't support your claim about being necessary for salvation.

Since Acts 11:14 proves that salvation is by believing the gospel message, water baptism isn't necessary for salvation at all.

Couldn't agree more. Though many people seem incapable of turning a critical eye upon themselves. I'm sure everyone in this thread thinks they are 100% accurate and everyone else needs to get in line behind them.

Let's do a test about the laws of logic then. Nicodemus thought being born again meant that a man could enter his mother a second time. A question so absurd that a man of his stature should not be asking, but he asked anyway. Was Nicodemus a simpleton or being sarcastic?

Is being born of "water and Spirit" about live birth or water baptism?

John 1:12,13
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:5
5Jesus 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.

As you can see, being a human being who was born from a mother like all other people, in order to enter the Kingdom of God, is not even a doctrine anywhere in the Bible nor is it ever discussed. Actually, the Bible says the exact opposite. Being born of blood, the will of flesh, or the will of man are not helpful to enter the kingdom of God. However water baptism is discussed over and over and over and it's a prerequisite.

Yeah when simplified like this we can see where the disagreement are.

If unbaptized believers will miss the resurrection, why doesn't the Bible explain what happens to them?? Wouldn't that be something to know?

You haven't answer my questions about that. It's because the Bible says nothing about believers who miss the resurrection, that's why.

Both. Easily determined from the context. Jesus spoke of both the natural and spiritual.

This is NOT in context with John 3. Jesus was teaching that being born again isn't man's choice. It is God's choice. Man is faced with the choice of whether to believe the gospel message or not. Then God regenerates the believer.

The context speaks of the physical or natural with the spiritual. And Nic DID bring up physical birth.

This is irrelevant. Nic brought up his thought about being born again physically. So Jesus explained one physical birth and one spiritual birth to enter the kingdom of God. Real simple.

No it's not. You are just misunderstanding the verses.

Believing and being baptized is the great commission. it's about salvation of the soul and the first resurrection.

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized in water. Jesus CLEARLY said the thief was saved.