Is baptism neccesary for salvation?

"What in the world are you talking about? Here's Colossians 2:8 - it says NOTHING about always or anything!"

hmm..thought I said 9..my appoliges I ment 2:9 The verse doesn't say when he was baptised the fulliness of diety was in him. It DOES say that it lives in Christ in bodily form...which he has had since birth....

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"What in the world are you talking about? Here's Colossians 2:8 - it says NOTHING about always or anything!"

hmm..thought I said 9..my appoliges I ment 2:9 The verse doesn't say when he was baptised the fulliness of diety was in him. It DOES say that it lives in Christ in bodily form...which he has had since birth....

Click to expand...

The verse is in present tense, so all we can conclude from that verse is that the Deity is in him NOW.

"The verse is in present tense, so all we can conclude from that verse is that the Deity is in him NOW."

So you're saying he was talking about Christ at that moment? Um...he was already asended and not in bodily form..sorry, try again...

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"The verse is in present tense, so all we can conclude from that verse is that the Deity is in him NOW."

So you're saying he was talking about Christ at that moment? Um...he was already asended and not in bodily form..sorry, try again...

Click to expand...

That's what he's saying. I really would like to suggest that you learn about the different tenses in the Greek - there are a whole lot of them, including a tense that means was in the past and still is. Guess what? This verse doesn't use that tense!

So what do we conclude with this? Perhaps that the idea that Christ is still in bodily form in heaven? If we do indeed have something resembling bodily forms in heaven, this may not be so far from the truth.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
That's what he's saying. I really would like to suggest that you learn about the different tenses in the Greek - there are a whole lot of them, including a tense that means was in the past and still is. Guess what? This verse doesn't use that tense!

So what do we conclude with this? Perhaps that the idea that Christ is still in bodily form in heaven? If we do indeed have something resembling bodily forms in heaven, this may not be so far from the truth.

Click to expand...

_____You are right about those verb tenses but let’s give a look at a commentary on this verse by one of the most renowned Greek scholars of the 20th century, A. T. Robertson.

Robertson’s Word Pictures in the N.T.
{For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily} (\hoti en autôi katoikei pân to plêrôma tês theotêtos sômatikôs\). In this sentence, given as the reason (\hoti\, because) for the preceding claim for Christ as the measure of human knowledge Paul states the heart of his message about the Person of Christ. There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very \essence\ of God, from \theos, deitas\) and not to be confused with \theiotes\ in #Ro 1:20 (from \theios\, the {quality} of God, _divinitas_), here only in N.T. as \theiotês\ only in #Ro 1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. \Theiotês\ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions. Paul here asserts that "all the \plêrôma\ of the Godhead," not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (\sômatikôs\, late and rare adverb, in Plutarch, inscription, here only in N.T.), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (#Php 2:9-11), "the body of his glory" (\tôi sômati tês doxês\). The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (#Joh 1:1,18; Php 2:6), during the Incarnation (#Joh 1:14,18; 1Jo 1:1-3). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (#Php 2:7). Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.

The body that we have will not be flesh and bone. 1cort 15:50 No it will be a spiritual body.
1cort 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

We will have a body but not even the apostles knew what this body would look like.
1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Maybe this will be helpfull on the verse Col 2:9

HOW COULD THE "FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD" DWELL IN CHRIST BODILY? (COL. 2:9)

The Passage:

"For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).


Some Background Material:

In order to understand and appreciate Paul's statement in Col. 2:9 we need to look briefly at some background material. Paul had received a report from Epaphras regarding the condition of the church in Colossae (Col. 1:7-8; 4:12-13). It was both favorable and unfavorable. The unfavorable part had to do with the false teaching which was being done there, and which was greatly hindering the progress of the church. We have no direct knowledge of the false teaching being done at Colossae, but we can only infer its nature from what Paul said to them in this letter. These false teachers seem to have accepted Christianity, but tried to add to it some deeper knowledge to which they claimed to have access. According to them, one apparently needed more than what was found in Christ. Their theory is now known as The Colossian Heresy.

The "Colossian Heresy" was the initial phase of that subtle philosophy which in later years became known as "Gnosticism." Although Gnosticism was not fully developed at this time, a knowledge of its principal features is necessary to an intelligent reading of this epistle.

The Gnostics denied the direct creation of the world by God Himself, because, in their estimation, that would require God be the creator of evil.

The Teacher's Annual Commentary explains the Gnostic theory on "creation" as follows:

"Creation, according to their theory, was made possible through a series of emanations from God, each successive emanation being less divine, until the point was reached where contact with matter, which they regarded as essentially evil, became impossible."<28>
Since the bodies of men are evil matter, they could not have been created by God. Since matter was essentially evil, there could not have been any true incarnation. "Christ, therefore, as they viewed the matter, was not God manifested in the flesh (Col. 1:19-22).... Instead of the incarnation -- God manifested in the flesh -- there was merely an aeon or angelic intermediary."<29>


An Explanation:

Paul told the Colossian brethren that in Christ "dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). This is one of the strongest statements in the entire Bible emphasizing the Deity of Christ. It is not said that a part of the attributes of God dwells in Christ, but all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him.

On this point, Albert Barnes wrote:

"The meaning is that it was not any one attribute of the Deity that became incarnate in the Saviour; that he was not merely endowed with the knowledge, or the power, or the wisdom of God, but that the whole Deity thus became incarnate, and appeared in human form."<30>

In a tract on the Godhead, James M. Tolle stated:

"The Greek [@theotes] (Godhead) means "deity, i.e., the state of being God, Godhead; Col. 2:9," not merely the attributes or quality of divinity (Greek [@theiotes]). According to the very words of the text, then, Jesus Christ is the same essence and substance as Deity, thus He is God, the fullness of Jehovah in the flesh."<31>

The word used here for "bodily" is found nowhere else in the New Testament (although the adjective "bodily" is found in Luke 3:22 and 1 Tim. 4:8) and means "having a bodily appearance ... and the fair sense of the phrase is that the fullness of the divine nature became incarnate and was indwelling in the body of the Redeemer."<32> The word bodily, that is, bodily-wise, is carefully chosen. Lightfoot speaks to the point: "It is not `in a body' for Deity cannot be so confined. It is not `in the form of a body' for this might suggest the unreality of Christ's human body, but `bodily,' i.e., bodily-wise, or with a bodily manifestation."<33>

The following translations emphasize this truth:

1. "For it is in him that all the fullness of God's nature lives embodied" (American Translation)

2. "Yet it is in him that God gives a full and complete expression of himself" (Phillips)

3. "For it is in Christ that all the fullness of God's nature dwells embodied" (Weymouth)

4. "Because in him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily" (Emphatic Diaglott)

5. "For it is in him that all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily" (Moffatt, 1901)

6. "It is in Christ that the entire fullness of deity has settled bodily" (Moffatt, 1935)

7. "For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form -- giving complete expression to the divine nature" (Amplified New Testament)

Oosterzee commented on Col. 2:9 as follows:

"And with reason, since the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily, i.e., essentially, and the name of the Lord ... under the Old Covenant given to Jahveh, is ascribed to Him without any limitation. If the word of Scripture is here to decide, such facts fully entitle us to speak not only of the Godhead of the Son ... "the most full Godhead; not simply Divine properties (virtues), but the Divine nature itself" (Bengel)."<34>

Col. 2:9 is simply another statement affirming that the Divine nature assumed bodily form, which is in exact agreement with John 1:1-3,14,18, and Phil. 2:5-7. It is one of the simplest and yet one of the strongest statements in the Bible of the Deity of Christ. One is complete in Christ (Col. 2:10) and must not allow anyone or anything to come between him and Christ. Why accept a substitute?


CONCLUSION

Paul clearly sets forth that the good news about Christ has been preached in the entire world. Christ is presented as the supreme Savior because of His Deity (Col. 1:15,17). Christ is the supreme Savior because of His awesome power (Col. 1:15b,16a,17-18b). Christ is the supreme Savior because of His positions. He is the sovereign rule of the universe. Everything in the material universe and spiritual realm are subject to Him because He created them (Col. 1:16b; Cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). Why follow the stars when you can follow the One Who created them? Why worship angels when you can worship the One Who created angels? Why follow anyone else?

"That's what he's saying. "

Noo...He is saying that Christ is and always was God.

Solomon built the temple. No he didn't - he appointed people who undertook the work. How often is it said that a given person did a thing when in fact that person simply commissioned a work and made sure it was carried out? The Bible uses ordinary language and ordinary meanings to impart its message. Jesus was baptising - not personally but, as it were, by delegating people to do it on his behalf.

How and when are our sins removed? What procedure is involved when we are baptised into the name of Christ Jesus? Does baptism in water play any part in what saves us? What are the circumstances surrounding the process of being raised to a new life in Christ Jesus? Is the use of the term "baptism" alone usually indicative or baptism per water or of baptism per the Holy Spirit or per fire?

Search the Bible for the explicit answers to these questions, and there no longer remains any doubt about whether baptism is, can, or should be undertaken. Nor are there any doubts about whether it could possibly be necessary.
Concepts based on interpretation of ambiguous passages can begin to be dealt with only after these searches are successfully concluded.

There is NO verse in the bible anywhere where it even implies that if you aren't baptised you aren't saved.

*sigh* ed you just don't like looking at the whole bible don't you?

Only non-belief condemns you. That's made clear in every book. Its said very explictly in John 3 for example. You like to take verses out of context and lump them together to prove a point. If your process is so right then show me it in one passage where salvation is talked about? I can show you very clearly in EVERY passage salvation is talked about that its belief that is needed.

Please read Acts 2 in it's entirety. Don't you think that following the first gospel sermon they would have the prayer of faith to be saved ? Well, I guess they didn't know any better back then, did they ? I sure wouldn't want to base my salvation on something I couldn't find in the bible. On the other hand, baptism is in almost every example of salvation in the New Testament. How about Romans 6 ? You Calvinists are the ones who take scripture out of context.

"On the other hand, baptism is in almost every example of salvation in the New Testament"

You're wrong. Its mentioned in the passage but ONLY belief is mentioned when he says what you are and are not condemned for in John 3. There are several other passages that talk about salvation that don't mention baptism at all.

forgive me for I do not have my Bible handy with me...all of this will be from the top of my head.

First off, I am not condeming WATER baptism. It is an act of obiedence, and something EVERY Christian should do, and WANT to do. However, it is not necessary for salvation.

Keep in mind that there are several types of Baptism the Bible talks about, water baptism, baptism by the Holy Spirit. Think of the words by John...when he says that there will be one greater that baptizes with fire and (sorry like I said this is from the top of my head)...Honestly do you think this would happen physically? Why does John use the word fire instead of water?

Think of when Jesus was on the cross...one of the guys next to him realized that Jesus is who he said he was...and Jesus said, "Surely I will see you in Paradise." This guy had a loophole around water baptism.

The thing about water baptism is its a symbolic representation of what happens to your body spiritually. As your physically body is emerged in water your old self is washed away and you arise a new creation. Spiritually the Holy Spirit comes in and cleanses you of your sin, your old self is literally washed away and you are a new creation.
Water is also used for a different meaning in the Bible. Think back to the woman at the well...Jesus told her something like, I have water in which once you drink you will never thrist again.
there is another point I would like to make, but I would like to have my Bible so I would not make a mistake.

But in a nutshell it deals with Paul saying in Romans how when we are saved we receive the Holy SPirit...this is repeated several times throught the Bible. And then back in Acts while Peter was giving a message, the Holy Spirit fell upon the listeners(I think this was at the day of Pentecost). Now if water baptism is necessary for salvation, then how could these individuals recieve the Holy Spirit without it?

ANd then there is the point of being baptized by water is a work, its not about grace. Where is Gods grace and love in being baptized by water? Remeber though we should be baptized by water, I think everyone should, and I think thats why Peter made a strong point by making sure everyone was being baptized by water. I dont think he did it to make sure they are saved. In Acts there was the story about the guy who said "what hinders me from being baptized right now?" translation...."What hinders me from showing the world that I am a) on fire for God, b) I am filled with the Holy Spirit c) I just made a great creation.

Also I think baptism helps us realize what just happened to us spiritually.

Other vs
Acts 1:5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 19:4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

toad, I think you're right on the money.

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread. I'm interested in this subject.
When you say you have salvation isn't it the same as having the Holy Spirit in you. If you don't have the Holy Spirit, you are not converted and your not His. So, can you have the Holy Spirit without baptism? If you can, then baptism isn't a prerequisite for salvation. I am baptized and I advocate everyone to be baptized but I don't think its a prerequisite to salvation.

The first time the Holy Spirit was avaiable en masse was on that first Pentecost, 120 were in that upper room. Mind you these could have been baptized before. The only other occurance was before Christ ascended and the Apostles recieved the Holy Spirit when they were together. Again they could have been baptized before, but these recieved the Holy Spirit without baptism being mentioned.

I agree that we should, its an outward declaration as well as 'like' signing a contract with God. But the big question would have to be, when do you get the Holy Spirit?

-thoughtful-