Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

[TheSeabass]

The eunuch was indeed water baptized and asked Phillip to be water baptized

As to the jailer, I don't remember that even mentioned in THE WORD

(And we are certainly NOT to add to the NT scriptures)

Ones faith is supposed to be based on the NT gospel (THE GOOD NEWS OF JESUS CHRIST)

...with no additions , no alterations to it

There is one gospel, one faith and one way to be saved. So the eunuch and jailer would be saved in the same way. Both heard the gospel, that includes baptism, therefore that is why they were baptized. Water baptism therefore is part of the gospel not an addition or alteration to it. Trying to make baptsim non-essential is an change-alteration to the gospel.

The gospel is something that is to be OBEYED 2 Thessalonians 1:8:

Jn3:5---------------Spirit++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1Cor12:13---------Spirit+++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>in the body
Tts3:5----------Holy Spirit+++++++laver of water>>>>>>>>saved
1Pet1--------------Spirit+++++++++obedience>>>>>>>>>>elect

Therefore submitting to water baptism is obedience to the gospel. Again, 2 Thess 1:8 God has vegeance upon those that 'obey not" the gospel of Christ.

 

[TheSeabass]

OK. But Acts 2 is Peter discharging his GOD COMMANDED duty per Matt 28. It is not God telling the new believers to be baptized, it is Peter.

The God-Commanded requirement is STILL on the evangelist; and not the new believer.

Peter was preaching the gospel as directed, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Peter was commanding what the Holy Spirit commands.

The command in v38 "be baptized every one of you" was given to his lost Jewish hearers (the pronoun "you") and not to his fellow disciples.

 

[Dave-W]

The command in v38 "be baptized every one of you" was given to his lost Jewish hearers (the pronoun "you") and not to his fellow disciples.

Absloutely. And what was that?

It was Peter obeying Matt 28.19 "baptizing them in the name... "
It was NOT making a new command.

 

[JohnKing67]

Both heard the gospel, that includes baptism, therefore that is why they were baptized.

Seems like you could be jumping to conclusions that that was why the jailer got baptized. It could have been an outward display of a salvation that already took place when he believed on Jesus Christ. Again Paul made no mention of water baptism when directly asked "what must I do to be saved?"

 

[Der Alte]

And I just proved them wrong in post #431 . . .

No you did not! Making claims is not the same as proving it.

 

[Der Alte]

Nonsense.
Titus 3:4-6 states emphatically that Baptism is a NEW BIRTH:
But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the BATH OF REBIRTH and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us, through Jesus Christ our savior.

No Titus 3:4-6 does not emphatically say that Baptism is a new birth." If Paul had intended to say "baptism [baptizo] of rebirth" that is what he would have said, but he didn't he chose a different word "loutron." And John 3:6 says you must be born, not reborn, of water and the spirit. Elsewhere Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:3-4 Paul specifically said three times that baptism represented death not birth. Would you have us believe that Paul contradicts himself in Col 2:12 and Rom 6:3-4 to make Titus 3:4-6 support your belief in baptismal regeneration?

According to YOU - Jesus said:
“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of his mother's womb through amniotic fluid."
And that is a perversion of Scripture.

You have written the perversion of scripture "being born of his mother's womb through amniotic fluid" I said no such thing.

What He actually said was:
“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

You keep quoting this out-of-context proof text and ignoring Jesus' clarification in the next verse.

John 3:5-6
(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.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

In vs. 6 Jesus explains why a second birth is necessary that which is born of the flesh is flesh. But where did the reference to flesh come from? In vs. 5 Jesus said "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit." Then in vs. 6 Jesus said that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Your interpretation requires three births; natural birth/flesh, birth by water and birth by spirit.

2 chapters earlier, we see the baptism of Jesus - and guess how that was manifested?? With water and spirit.

Was Jesus born of the spirit in John? Neither of the three accounts of Jesus' baptism, Matthew, Luke or John, say anything about being born of water or of the spirit.

 

[MarysSon]

So when you use a verse you're right, when others do it who you don't agree with then it's cherry-picking. I see.

What are you talking about??

I was responding to a claim that Baptism is "NEVER" equated to rebirth and I presented Scriptural proof to the contrary.

I suggest you pay attention to the conversation . . .

 

[MarysSon]

No you did not! Making claims is not the same as proving it.

Wrong.

I obliterated your claim that Baptism is "never" equated with birth by presenting explicit Scriptural proof to the contrary.

 

[Der Alte]

Wrong.
I obliterated your claim that Baptism is "never" equated with birth by presenting explicit Scriptural proof to the contrary.

You obliterated nothing and proved nothing as I have shown. post #446 above. "Birth" and "rebirth" are not the same thing.

 

[TheSeabass]

Absloutely. And what was that?

It was Peter obeying Matt 28.19 "baptizing them in the name... "
It was NOT making a new command.

WHAT????

The command in Acts 2:38 to be baptized is a command Peter is giving to his hearers and not to himself.

 

[TheSeabass]

Seems like you could be jumping to conclusions that that was why the jailer got baptized. It could have been an outward display of a salvation that already took place when he believed on Jesus Christ. Again Paul made no mention of water baptism when directly asked "what must I do to be saved?"

If baptism is not essential to salvation and if baptism was not preached when the gospel was preached, then what biblical logical reason can you give as to why both the eunuch and the jailer were immediately baptized afterward being preached to?

 

[MarysSon]

No Titus 3:4-6 does not emphatically say that Baptism is a new birth." If Paul had intended to say "baptism [baptizo] of rebirth" that is what he would have said, but he didn't he chose a different word "loutron."

And John 3:6 says you must be born, not reborn, of water and the spirit. Elsewhere Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:3-4 Paul specifically said three times that baptism represented death not birth. Would you have us believe that Paul contradicts himself in Col 2:12 and Rom 6:3-4 to make Titus 3:4-6 support your belief in baptismal regeneration?

You have written the perversion of scripture "being born of his mother's womb through amniotic fluid" I said no such thing.

You keep quoting this out-of-context proof text and ignoring Jesus' clarification in the next verse.

John 3:5-6
(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.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

In vs. 6 Jesus explains why a second birth is necessary that which is born of the flesh is flesh. But where did the reference to flesh come from? In vs. 5 Jesus said "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit." Then in vs. 6 Jesus said that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Your interpretation requires three births; natural birth/flesh, birth by water and birth by spirit.

Was Jesus born of the spirit in John? Neither of the three accounts of Jesus' baptism, Matthew, Luke or John, say anything about being born of water or of the spirit.

Where are you getting this nonsense??
The word used in Titus 3:5 is not "Loutron" - it is παλιγγενεσια (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah) - and it means "NEW BIRTH".

As for John 3:5 - Jesus says that a man must be "born" of water and Spirit. HOWEVER - He is explaining what He meant in verse 3, when He said:
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

You need to read ALL of these verses in context.
It is your cherry-picking of verses that causes you so much confusion.

Finally - the Catholic interpretation doesn't require three births, but TWO:
1. Natural Birth
2. Birth from Water and Spirit (John 3:5)

When Jesus was Baptized with water - the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove.

Water and Spirit.

 

[MarysSon]

You obliterated nothing and proved nothing as I have shown. post #446 above. "Birth" and "rebirth" are not the same thing.

Precisely - and THAT was my point all a long.
YOU are the one claiming that Jesus was talking about natural birth.

You also said that Baptism is always compared to death and never birth.

I obliterated that claim.

 

[JohnKing67]

What are you talking about??

I was responding to a claim that Baptism is "NEVER" equated to rebirth and I presented Scriptural proof to the contrary.

I suggest you pay attention to the conversation . . .

Thanks, but I don't need your suggestions.

 

[MarysSon]

Thanks, but I don't need your suggestions.

Then don't address me with non seqiturs.

In other words - if you wanna have a conversation - stick to the topic of the conversation so we can have a cohesive discussion.

 

[JohnKing67]

Then don't address me with non seqiturs.

In other words - if you wanna have a conversation - stick to the topic of the conversation so we can have a cohesive discussion.

Then don't address me with non seqiturs.

In other words - if you wanna have a conversation - stick to the topic of the conversation so we can have a cohesive discussion.

My conversation is fine. Not at all sure about yours though. Anyway I'm tired of arguing with you since it's going nowhere. Bye.

 

[JohnKing67]

If baptism is not essential to salvation and if baptism was not preached when the gospel was preached, then what biblical logical reason can you give as to why both the eunuch and the jailer were immediately baptized afterward being preached to?

Again I believe it's something God wants you to do after you're saved, not to get saved. It's an outward expression of what's already taken place.

 

[Philip_B]

Again I believe it's something God wants you to do after you're saved, not to get saved. It's an outward expression of what's already taken place.

I think the slight problem I have with the sentiment you express here is the sense of completion being expressed. Might is suggest that it might be better something like this.

I believe it's something God wants us to do as part of our response to him.
It's an outward expression of what is already taking place.​

I have followed the debate, quietly, and I wonder why. I think I have a problem talking about water baptism, as if there were several types of baptism, which kind of goes against the grain of someone who regularly professes to believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.

I think it is a mistake to completely and utterly divorce baptism from repentance / conversion / acknowledgement / turning / metanoia / however-we-express-it, for I think the normal practice of the Church and of the Christian is to understand that these are linked.

And as always, there will be moments when for whatever reason that part of the response may not be achieved, and at those times my faith says God gets in the gap. None the less as always we should 'mind the gap'.

 

[JohnKing67]

I think it is a mistake to completely and utterly divorce baptism from repentance / conversion / acknowledgement / turning / metanoia / however-we-express-it, for I think the normal practice of the Church and of the Christian is to understand that these are linked.

I believe that water baptism serves a purpose, but I think it's faith in the blood of Jesus that saves, not water. Adding water to salvation is like saying the blood of Jesus isn't sufficient.

 

[Philip_B]

I believe that water baptism serves a purpose, but I think it's faith in the blood of Jesus that saves, not water. Adding water to salvation is like saying the blood of Jesus isn't sufficient.

No, it much more about how he would have us respond to the sacrifice made once for all upon the cross.