Does Water Baptism Save You? Is it Required?

[DeaconDean]

Eph 2:8-----faith>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21---baptism>>>>>>>>>>saves

Since there is but only one way to be saved, no alternatives, and the bible does not contradict itself, then a saving faith must include baptism.

So then, that individual whom repents and believes but is killed in a car accident coming from church before they are baptized is not really saved then.

Because they don't have "saving faith must include baptism".

That is, according to what you are saying.

Now I know.

Whatever happened to Jesus plus nothing?

Now I see belief plus baptism equals salvation.

We are not saved by Christ alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, no, now it takes baptism.

Sola Fide plus Sola Christa plus Sola Gratia plus baptism equals salvation.

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hentenza]

Eph 2:8-----faith>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21---baptism>>>>>>>>>>saves

Since there is but only one way to be saved, no alternatives, and the bible does not contradict itself, then a saving faith must include baptism.

1 Peter 3:21 does not teach that Baptism saves. The NIV translation leaves a lot to be desired. Here is the verse as depicted in the NASB.

20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

What saved the eight was the ark not the water. The ark is not a type of baptism but a type of faith in the redeemer.

21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Bold mine.

See the bold part. Only through faith in the work and person of Jesus Christ can a person repent (appeal to God for a good conscience).

Salvation is by the grace of God through faith alone. Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

 

[nobdysfool]

Baptism is commanded, this reason alone would make it essential for not obeying the Lord's commands is disobedience/sin and no verse says one is saved while in disobedience. The Lord saves those that obey, Heb 5:9.

But along with being a command, baptism is for the remission of sins, it is where one puts on Christ, walks in newness of life.
God determines what is necessary to be saved, not man's unusual circumstances or creeds.

and you say that Calvinists serve a cruel and severe God.....

 

[DeaconDean]

and you say that Calvinists serve a cruel and severe God.....

We should rewrite Eph 2: 8 to read:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith and baptism" {emphasis mine}

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hentenza]

Absolute truth= Faith in God saves. This is the same for everyone, everywhere, and any time.
Subjective truth= Anything added as a requirement for salvation beyond faith. Not the same for everyone, everywhere, or any time.

I'll go with objective truth.

 

[bling]

We agree that adult emersion is a wonderful way to add to the experience of conversion and add to the memory for person being baptized: a putting off of the old life going down under, a washing away of your sins, humbly putting of your life into the hands of another, the rising from the grave to a new life, and the walking out of the water to a new family.
Accepting God’s Love in the form of accepting God’s forgiveness is accepting Charity (which is a huge problem for people). Accepting charity is humiliating, but the results are wonderful: “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Baptism is an outward humbling act, that shows we have taken on humility and witnesses to others at the same time. Baptism is no more a “work” than confessing or repenting, since it is done “to us” and not “by us”, we allow ourselves to be baptized.

Baptism is something the believer gets to do to help the believer. We can draw analogies between baptism and circumcision, but analogies can just go so far and it does not mean the new replaces the old.

Water baptism is not a work any more then confessing or repenting are works. It is a humbling act of allowing someone to put you under and bring you out of the watery grave. You are born again. It is a physical symbolic humbling act, of what should be happening spiritually (burying the old life, washing your sins away, trusting another [the baptizer], being raised from the grave to a new life). It adds to our memory and provides a witness to those that day. Why would a Christian not want that experience?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

So could a Jew have been saved if he wasn't circumcised? Is that not what Paul says in Romans 2?

No.

Rom 2:26 So if the [uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

and

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

You are stuck on a law of the flesh.

 

[jmacvols]

So then, that individual whom repents and believes but is killed in a car accident coming from church before they are baptized is not really saved then.

Because they don't have "saving faith must include baptism".

That is, according to what you are saying.

Now I know.

Whatever happened to Jesus plus nothing?

Now I see belief plus baptism equals salvation.

We are not saved by Christ alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, no, now it takes baptism.

Sola Fide plus Sola Christa plus Sola Gratia plus baptism equals salvation.

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

According to the bible, this individual in the car accident would not be saved. Baptism is where sins are remitted, not in belief only. Nor does the bible teach death-bed salvation. We are told "today if you will not harden your heart', we are not promised tomorrow, so one must obey today. Those that wait too late will be lost. These circumstances do not change what God has said. If they did change what God has said, then we can throw our bibles away and let these unusual, 'hard case' circumstances determine what truth is instead of God's word.

An atheist is on an airplane that is about to crash into the ground. In his last moments, he begins to think there is a "higher power" and there is life after death. Yet he dies in the crash without knowing whom or what to believe it though he desired to believe. So if you think you can bypass baptism in your 'hard case' then I can bypass belief in my 'hard case' so this atheist would be saved. As a matter of fact, I think we can come up with all kinds of 'hard cases' to bypass everything God has said in the bible and we can let these 'hard cases' be our guide instead of God's word.

 

[jmacvols]

1 Peter 3:21 does not teach that Baptism saves. The NIV translation leaves a lot to be desired. Here is the verse as depicted in the NASB.



What saved the eight was the ark not the water. The ark is not a type of baptism but a type of faith in the redeemer.

Bold mine.

See the bold part. Only through faith in the work and person of Jesus Christ can a person repent (appeal to God for a good conscience).

Salvation is by the grace of God through faith alone. Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

1 Pet 3:21 plainly says baptism doth also now save us. KJV
Regardless of what one thinks the surrounding context says, that context does not change the fact that baptism now saves us.
Not a single verse teaches we are saved by faith alone.

 

[jmacvols]

and you say that Calvinists serve a cruel and severe God.....

I don't get what you're saying????
Is it cruel of God to punish those that choose to disobey Him and save those that choose to obey Him?

 

[jmacvols]

Absolute truth= Faith in God saves. This is the same for everyone, everywhere, and any time.
Subjective truth= Anything added as a requirement for salvation beyond faith. Not the same for everyone, everywhere, or any time.

I'll go with objective truth.

Adding to God's word is wrong, but it must be understood that a faith that saves is one that includes obedience. Faith without obedience (works) is dead and cannot save.

 

[Hentenza]

1 Pet 3:21 plainly says baptism doth also now save us. KJV
Regardless of what one thinks the surrounding context says, that context does not change the fact that baptism now saves us.

Context does not support your position.

Not a single verse teaches we are saved by faith alone.

You are right. Not a single verse teaches that. Many do.

Tell me, why was Paul not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel? Why do sooooo many verses like John 3:16, Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 3:24-26, etc. etc. not include baptism or anything else as a requirement for salvation?

 

[Hentenza]

Adding to God's word is wrong, but it must be understood that a faith that saves is one that includes obedience. Faith without obedience (works) is dead and cannot save.

Is saving faith attained by works?

 

[jmacvols]

Rom 2:26 So if the [uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

and

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

You are stuck on a law of the flesh.

Paul is in no way saying one can be disobedient to God yet maintain his righteousness. Disobedience is sin, it is unrighteousness.

At the beginning of Romans, Paul condemns the Gentiles and he condemns the Jews, then he condemns all, for all (Jew and Gentile) have sinned.

Rom 2:24 - "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."

The Jews were given the law, yet their disobedience to that law gave occasion for the Gentiles to blaspheme God. It was the Jews disobedience/sin that was the underlying cause of the blaspheming.

Rom 2:25 "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. "

Circumcision did profit the Jew.....IF HE KEPT THE LAW. The problem was that these circumcised Jews were NOT keeping the law, hence their circumcision did not profit them anything. Their disobedience made them appear to God's eyes as the uncircumcised Gentile, that is, their "circumcision is made uncircumcision".

The Jews in their minds thought that the single act of circumcision guaranteed their salvation. Even through all their disobedience to God, they thought that single act of circumcision would secure them eternal life. Paul refutes this idea by showing that single act of circumcision does not represent the whole law. For one to be justified under the law, he was a 'debtor to the whole law'. Paul shows that not even circumcision can justify if one does not keep the whole law and circumcision alone will not stop God's judgment upon them.

Rom 2:26 "Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?"

Here Paul is talking about the uncircumcision, the Gentiles. Paul is not saying the Jews could refuse circumcision and still maintain righteousness, but is saying God did not require circumcision for the Gentiles and even though the Gentiles lack circumcision this did not make void their claim to righteousness. For the Gentiles to be saved, they still had to obey Christ.
"The uncircumcised kept the righteousness of the law." The uncircumcised is obviously the Gentiles and the law they kept was Christ's NT law, they obeyed the gospel and became Christians. Even though they became Christians they were still uncircumcised, but their lack of circumcision did not stop them from becoming "circumcised", that is, it did not stop them from becoming a "spiritual Jew" and part of "spiritual Israel"....."But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Hence, as Paul said, the Gentiles "uncircumcision be counted for circumcision", so uncircumcision could not make void the righteousness of the Gentiles for their uncircumcision was counted as spiritual circumcision by their obedience to Christ.

 

[Hentenza]

Paul is in no way saying one can be disobedient to God yet maintain his righteousness. Disobedience is sin, it is unrighteousness.

At the beginning of Romans, Paul condemns the Gentiles and he condemns the Jews, then he condemns all, for all (Jew and Gentile) have sinned.

Rom 2:24 - "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."

The Jews were given the law, yet their disobedience to that law gave occasion for the Gentiles to blaspheme God. It was the Jews disobedience/sin that was the underlying cause of the blaspheming.

Rom 2:25 "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. "

Circumcision did profit the Jew.....IF HE KEPT THE LAW. The problem was that these circumcised Jews were NOT keeping the law, hence their circumcision did not profit them anything. Their disobedience made them appear to God's eyes as the uncircumcised Gentile, that is, their "circumcision is made uncircumcision".

The Jews in their minds thought that the single act of circumcision guaranteed their salvation. Even through all their disobedience to God that single act of circumcision would secure them eternal life. Paul refutes this idea by showing that single act of circumcision does not represent the whole law. For one to be justified under the law, he was a 'debtor to the whole law'. Paul shows that not even circumcision can justify if one does not keep the whole law and circumcision alone will not stop God's judgment upon them.

Rom 2:26 "Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?"

Here Paul is talking about the uncircumcision, the Gentiles. Paul is not saying the Jews could refuse circumcision and still maintain righteousness, but is saying God did not require circumcision for the Gentiles and even though the Gentiles lack circumcision this did not make void their claim to righteousness. For the Gentiles to be saved, they still had to obey Christ.
"The uncircumcised kept the righteousness of the law." The uncircumcised is obviously the Gentiles and the law they kept was Christ's NT law, they obeyed the gospel and became Christians. Even though they became Christians they were still uncircumcised, but their lack of circumcision did not stop them from becoming "circumcised", that is, it did not stop them from becoming a "spiritual Jew" and part of "spiritual Israel"....."But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Hence, as Paul said, the Gentiles "uncircumcision be counted for circumcision", so uncircumcision could not make void the righteousness of the Gentiles for their uncircumcision was counted as spiritual circumcision.

Why is context important here but not important elsewhere?

 

[BrotherBob]

Ephesians 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
John 1:31-33 - And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might
be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.
And John bore witness saying, "I have beheld the Spirit
descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained
upon Him.
And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to
baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see
the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is
the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.
Baptism(water) is the visible testimony to one's salvation, but not a
condition for it.

 

[jmacvols]

Context does not support your position.

Context does not change what Peter said. Many twist the context and then have Peter go from saying "baptism doth now save us" to "baptism doth also noT save us". Context matters, but it does not change Peter's words.

You are right. Not a single verse teaches that. Many do.

Faith only does not justify. The only way to get faith only to justify is by perverting verses and adding the word "alone" to it as Luther did.

Tell me, why was Paul not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel? Why do sooooo many verses like John 3:16, Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 3:24-26, etc. etc. not include baptism or anything else as a requirement for salvation?

Actually Paul did baptized, vs 14,16. 1 Cor 1:17 is sadly taken out of context and twisted. Paul was baptized himself to wash his sins away, he baptized others and preached the necessity of baptism, Rom 6; Col 2 etc. Paul was consistent in his practice and what he preached.

In the context of 1 Cor 1:17, Paul is dealing with division at the church at Corinth. Some of those Corinthians were following the one that baptized them instead of following Christ. The reason Paul said "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius" was not because baptism is unnecessary but "lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." Baptism was not the problem, the problem was the division the Corinthians created among themselves.

In v12 some of the Corinthians were of Apollos and some of Paul and some of Cephas and some of Christ.

V13 "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? "

Paul asks the questions in the negative. This verse in the positive would say "Christ is not divided! Christ was crucified for you, you were baptized in the name of Christ!"

Paul proves at least two points here: 1) that the Corinthians had been baptized in the name of Christ 2) that to be "of" someone, that someone has to be crucified for you and you have to be baptized in that some one's name. Apollos, Paul nor Cephas had not been crucified for anyone nor is anyone baptized in their name. These two things are only true of Christ. Therefore, if you are to be of Christ, then Christ must be crucified for you and you must be baptized in the name of Christ. Thus Paul settles the division by aligning the Corinthians behind Christ.


"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:"

This is a not-but elliptical statement where emphasis is put on preaching over baptism but not to the complete exclusion of baptism.

Compare 1 Cor 1:17 to 1 Pet 3:3,4

-not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:
-not outward adorning, but inward adorning (hidden man)

Peter is not saying the wives should not put on apparel, but he is emphasizing the inward adorning but not to the exclusion of the outward adorning. If one thinks Paul is saying not to baptized or baptism is not important, then to be consistent, one must think Peter is telling the wives to go naked.

 

[jmacvols]

Ephesians 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

In Mk 16:16 we are told by the one Lord that one belief and one baptism saves.

John 1:31-33 - And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might
be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.
And John bore witness saying, "I have beheld the Spirit
descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained
upon Him.
And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to
baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see
the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is
the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.
Baptism(water) is the visible testimony to one's salvation, but not a
condition for it.

The purpose of Jesus being baptized was to "fulfill all righteousness". He had no sins to be remitted.

Baptism is for the remission of sins, not because of it. The order of Acts 2:38 and Mk 16:16 put baptism BEFORE salvation, not after.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Here Paul is talking about the uncircumcision, the Gentiles. Paul is not saying the Jews could refuse circumcision and still maintain righteousness, but is saying God did not require circumcision for the Gentiles and even though the Gentiles lack circumcision this did not make void their claim to righteousness. For the Gentiles to be saved, they still had to obey Christ.

Two problems here. 1) Abraham is given as an example of justification while being uncircumcised (4:10), and yet he was the father of the Jews. 2) 2:29 clearly defines a Jew as someone who is one inwardly, not outwardly. Someone can be a true Jew without the physical sign of circumcision; circumcision of the heart is what defines one as a true Jew. As an exact parallel, outward baptism is not what defines the Christian. Inward baptism by the Spirit is what defines a Christian. One does not need outward baptism to be a Christian. It is commanded and ought to be done, but it is not a requirement, much like physical circumcision.

 

[Hentenza]

Context does not change what Peter said.

Again, context matters. Including that the phrase "now saves you" is taken out of context. For one thing, the persons being baptized are no more saved by water baptism than Noah was through the flood. Salvation is by God through faith. Heb. 11:7 tells us:

7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Noah acted on his faith in obedience to God, but his salvation (righteousness) came through faith, not as a result on his obedience in building the ark,

In addition, the salvation spoken here is not from the penalty of sin (justification) but from a soiled conscience (ie, sanctification). Being obedient to God in baptism will save them from the knowledge of wrong in their conscience. Peter is not talking here about saving souls from everlasting torment.

Many twist the context and then have Peter go from saying "baptism doth now save us" to "baptism doth also noT save us". Context matters, but it does not change Peter's words.

Nope. Baptism is a result of saving faith not a requirement for saving faith. We get baptized in obedience to Christ because we are saved not for salvation.

Faith only does not justify. The only way to get faith only to justify is by perverting verses and adding the word "alone" to it as Luther did.

If that's the case then we are in control of our salvation and Jesus dies for nothing. Paul tells us in Romans 5:1,

1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

I guess Paul must be teaching heresy, huh? Do you think that James and Paul are teaching in contradiction?

Actually Paul did baptized, vs 14,16. 1 Cor 1:17 is sadly taken out of context and twisted. Paul was baptized himself to wash his sins away, he baptized others and preached the necessity of baptism, Rom 6; Col 2 etc. Paul was consistent in his practice and what he preached.

In the context of 1 Cor 1:17, Paul is dealing with division at the church at Corinth. Some of those Corinthians were following the one that baptized them instead of following Christ. The reason Paul said "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius" was not because baptism is unnecessary but "lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." Baptism was not the problem, the problem was the division the Corinthians created among themselves.

In v12 some of the Corinthians were of Apollos and some of Paul and some of Cephas and some of Christ.

V13 "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? "

Paul asks the questions in the negative. This verse in the positive would say "Christ is not divided! Christ was crucified for you, you were baptized in the name of Christ!"

Paul proves at least two points here: 1) that the Corinthians had been baptized in the name of Christ 2) that to be "of" someone, that someone has to be crucified for you and you have to be baptized in that some one's name. Apollos, Paul nor Cephas had not been crucified for anyone nor is anyone baptized in their name. These two things are only true of Christ. Therefore, if you are to be of Christ, then Christ must be crucified for you and you must be baptized in the name of Christ. Thus Paul settles the division by aligning the Corinthians behind Christ.


"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:"

This is a not-but elliptical statement where emphasis is put on preaching over baptism but not to the complete exclusion of baptism.

Compare 1 Cor 1:17 to 1 Pet 3:3,4

-not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:
-not outward adorning, but inward adorning (hidden man)

Peter is not saying the wives should not put on apparel, but he is emphasizing the inward adorning but not to the exclusion of the outward adorning. If one thinks Paul is saying not to baptized or baptism is not important, then to be consistent, one must think Peter is telling the wives to go naked.

LOL!!! You can twist the scripture any which way you want to but if baptism was needed for salvation then Paul just did everyone a disservice and preached a different gospel. Sure, Paul was battling some that were elevating them above the gospel, however, the statement that Paul said is all encompassing.

Lets look at the Gospel of John. Only faith is listed as a condition for receiving eternal life (3:16, 18, 36, 5:24, 20:31, among many). If there were more conditions, then John's entire gospel is not only seriously misleading and inadequate but never actually presents the actual plan of salvation. This, of course, is absurd. John himself tells us in 20:31,

31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

The fact that baptism is not mentioned as a condition for salvation anywhere in the gospel of John means that it is not necessary for salvation but a result of salvation.