Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

[miknik5]

Back to baptism

John the Baptist understood more than we did and do even now

Paraphrased:
"You look to be baptized by me? But I should be baptized by YOU...

Let it be done now. It is proper for us to fulfill all righteousness"

 

[miknik5]

Be water baptized
But understand that it isn't the water that washes

It's CHRIST

And if HE doesn't wash us, we have no part with HIM
(John 13)
All the disciples were clean (except one) and it was because they believed and it was because CHRIST declared them
C. L. E. A. N

(They were clean by THE WORD which they had received)

And believed

 

[TheSeabass]

John 3:5 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. ​

This was spoken to a Jewish priest, who thought that being born a Jew, in and of itself, ensured his salvation. This was spoken early in Jesus' ministry and certainly before He was crucified.
.....If I understand the argument correctly Jesus told Nicodemus a Jewish priest that he needed to be baptized and born of the spirit before he could enter the kingdom of God.
.....If Jesus was talking about baptism in John 3:5, why did you say in an earlier post that

"the thief is not an example of NT gospel salvation ...Christ and the thief were both still alive and the NT was not in effect when Christ promised him paradise."​

Jesus and Nicodemus were both alive when Jesus told him, according to you, "Except a man be born of water [i.e. be baptized]... he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Your earlier post quoted below.

When Jesus, the Testator of the NT, spoke to Nicodemus He was not dead and His testament was not in force, yet He told Nicodemus that "Except a man be born of water [which is being interpreted as baptism]... he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

John's baptism was under the OT law and it was how Nicodemus could be born again. John's baptism was replaced by Christ's baptism as to how one is born again under NT law. Christ's baptism under the NT is a baptism into the death of Christ (Rom 6:3-5) therefore the thief could not be baptized into the death of Christ since Christ had not died so the thief is not an example of NT salvation.

 

[TheSeabass]

that verse is talking about forgiveness of sins in Christ sacrifice and shedding of blood for the remission of sins, not about new testament law.

the laws that Jesus gave in the sermon on the mount were in effect when he said them.

Heb 9:16-17 proves the NT could not be in effect until some point AFTER Christ died. Christ was still alive when He promised the thief paradise so the NT could not be in effect.

 

[TheSeabass]

No he didn't
CHRIST baptized the eunuch into HIMSELF

Of course it's passive
It's not man's work

Phillip water baptized the eunuch. THis water bapism is he one baptism of Eph 4:5 that is now in effect.

 

[redleghunter]

John's baptism was under the OT law and it was how Nicodemus could be born again.

It is your position that in John 3 Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus how he can be saved under the old covenant?

 

[miknik5]

John's baptism was under the OT law and it was how Nicodemus could be born again. John's baptism was replaced by Christ's baptism as to how one is born again under NT law. Christ's baptism under the NT is a baptism into the death of Christ (Rom 6:3-5) therefore the thief could not be baptized into the death of Christ since Christ had not died so the thief is not an example of NT salvation.

Sir?

John was not CHRIST

He came as a voice and herald of the ONE who was coming after him

Who was before him

John's baptizing was a sign of THE LAMB of GOD who came forth from GOD and into the world

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Heb 9:16-17 proves the NT could not be in effect until some point AFTER Christ died. Christ was still alive when He promised the thief paradise so the NT could not be in effect.

again, the context of that verse is about Christ sacrifice on the cross taking away sins through the shedding of his blood.

that chapter is not referring to the institution of new testament laws.

 

[Der Alte]

John's baptism was under the OT law and it was how Nicodemus could be born again. John's baptism was replaced by Christ's baptism as to how one is born again under NT law. Christ's baptism under the NT is a baptism into the death of Christ (Rom 6:3-5) therefore the thief could not be baptized into the death of Christ since Christ had not died so the thief is not an example of NT salvation.

That sounds plausible. Please show me some OT scripture which required baptism? When Jesus and or His disciples performed baptisms before His death were those OT or NT baptisms?

John 3:22
(22) After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he [Jesus] tarried with them, and baptized.
John 3:26
(26) And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the [Jesus] same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
John 4:1
(1) When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,​

 

[redleghunter]

Heb 9:16-17 proves the NT could not be in effect until some point AFTER Christ died. Christ was still alive when He promised the thief paradise so the NT could not be in effect.

What does Hebrews 11 tell us?

 

[TheSeabass]

It is your position that in John 3 Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus how he can be saved under the old covenant?

Yes, the NT law was not yet in effect at that time.

Mark 1:4 says John's baptism was for the remission of sins, yet Hebrews 9:22 says "...without shedding of blood is no remission." So how could John's baptism remit sins BEFORE Christ shed His blood? It would remit sins in promise, those baptized with John's baptism would have their sins remitted looking forward to the time Christ would shed His blood. John's baptism was "unto repentance" Matthew 3:11 meaning those baptized with Johns baptism had to maintain a repentant life looking towards Christ shedding His blood so their sins would be remitted. If they did not maintain a repent life style then their sins would not be remitted when Christ shed His blood.


Christ's baptism eventually replaced John's baptism as how one is born again.

 

[TheSeabass]

Sir?

John was not CHRIST

He came as a voice and herald of the ONE who was coming after him

Who was before him

John's baptizing was a sign of THE LAMB of GOD who came forth from GOD and into the world

I never said John was Christ. Evidently you are reading more into my posts than what is there.

 

[TheSeabass]

again, the context of that verse is about Christ sacrifice on the cross taking away sins through the shedding of his blood.

that chapter is not referring to the institution of new testament laws.

Hebrew 9:16,17:
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The meaning of Hebrew 9:16-17 is that a testament is not of force until AFTER men are dead, meaning Christ's NT could not come into force until some point after He was dead. Matthew 28:19-20 John 16:15-16 and Luke 24:47 are 3 accounts of the Great Commission. Luke 24:47 "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Christ spoke these words AFTER He had died, yet these words still not take effect for several weeks later in Jerusalem. So even though I may die today, it can still take some time for my will to go through a probate period before it takes effect.

 

[TheSeabass]

That sounds plausible. Please show me some OT scripture which required baptism? When Jesus and or His disciples performed baptisms before His death were those OT or NT baptisms?

John 3:22
(22) After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he [Jesus] tarried with them, and baptized.
John 3:26
(26) And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the [Jesus] same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
John 4:1
(1) When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,​

There was no baptism under the OT law as that of Acts 2:38. So Abraham, Moses, David, etc were never required to be baptized with this baptism.

Nicodemus needed to be born again, so there must have been a way for him to be born again for Christ would not condemn him for what was out of his control. John's baptism is how one was born again for Nicodemus, John 3:23. Christ also baptized, John 3:22; John 4:1 but He did not baptize men himself personally but baptized by giving His authority to His disciples to baptize.

 

[TheSeabass]

What does Hebrews 11 tell us?

Hebrews 11 tells me of those OT characters that had an obedient faith.

 

[Der Alte]

There was no baptism under the OT law as that of Acts 2:38. So Abraham, Moses, David, etc were never required to be baptized with this baptism.

Nicodemus needed to be born again, so there must have been a way for him to be born again for Christ would not condemn him for what was out of his control.

Exactly, Christ would not have condemned Nicodemus for something that he had no knowledge of and which was out of his control. In the absence of any scriptural evidence, assumption that "there must have been a way" does not make it a fact.

John's baptism is how one was born again for Nicodemus, John 3:23.

John says nothing about being "born again" and certainly not that his baptism was how one was born again.

Christ also baptized, John 3:22; John 4:1 but He did not baptize men himself personally but baptized by giving His authority to His disciples to baptize.

One should not make assumptions. Only John 4:2 says that Jesus Himself did not baptize.

John 3:22
(22) After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he [Jesus] tarried with them, and baptized.
John 3:26
(26) And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same [Jesus] baptizeth, and all men come to him.
John 4:1
(1) When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,​

 

[miknik5]

Yes, the NT law was not yet in effect at that time.

Mark 1:4 says John's baptism was for the remission of sins, yet Hebrews 9:22 says "...without shedding of blood is no remission." So how could John's baptism remit sins BEFORE Christ shed His blood? It would remit sins in promise, those baptized with John's baptism would have their sins remitted looking forward to the time Christ would shed His blood. John's baptism was "unto repentance" Matthew 3:11 meaning those baptized with Johns baptism had to maintain a repentant life looking towards Christ shedding His blood so their sins would be remitted. If they did not maintain a repent life style then their sins would not be remitted when Christ shed His blood.


Christ's baptism eventually replaced John's baptism as how one is born again.

No one could be baptized into John's baptism


That's what the end of acts 18 and beginning of acts 19 was trying to clear up

 

[miknik5]

I never said John was Christ. Evidently you are reading more into my posts than what is there.

Christ did NOT have to be baptized

And. HE did not receive the HOLY SPIRIT after HE was water baptuzed

HE already was HOLY and the full manifestation of THE FATHER


Too many overlook that John was told that the ONE whom he would see THE SPIRIT upon is THE ONE who would baptize with the HOLY SPIRIT and with fire

John received THAT SIGN of who CHRIST was before he baptized HIM

Why do you think John deterred from baptizing HIM and said, you come to me? I need to be baptized by YOU!

 

[miknik5]

I never said John was Christ. Evidently you are reading more into my posts than what is there.

Only clearing up what one might assume to be there

Just like Paul dudcfir thise in Acts 19 who had incorrect info regarding "John's baptism"

 

[TheSeabass]

Exactly, Christ would not have condemned Nicodemus for something that he had no knowledge of and which was out of his control. In the absence of any scriptural evidence, assumption that "there must have been a way" does not make it a fact.

So there was no way for Nicodemus to be again therefore Christ unjustly condemned him for not being born again.....is this what you are saying?

John says nothing about being "born again" and certainly not that his baptism was how one was born again.

One should not make assumptions. Only John 4:2 says that Jesus Himself did not baptize.

John 3:22
(22) After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he [Jesus] tarried with them, and baptized.
John 3:26
(26) And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same [Jesus] baptizeth, and all men come to him.
John 4:1
(1) When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,​

If John's baptism was NOT how one was to be born again, then how was Nicodemus to be born again?