Is baptism neccesary for salvation?

Franklin,

Yes or no, please

What say the scriptures? How do you read?

You posit that the thief was never baptised? On the very same grounds, and with every bit of the same evidence that you provide for the idea that the thief was never baptised, I will declare that he WAS baptised. He was among those who had previously been following Jesus and fallen away. Like I said - every last bit of evidence that you use to declare the thief was never baptised is exactly the same evidence that I need to make my claim.

As to your question about the one who dies while being en-route to be baptised... I will state that this cannot happen. God does not permit such circumstances to occur. Or will you claim that God has no ability to preserve a person's life when it is necessary? The second and third of your scenarios are malapropos.

Did Jesus say that it is necessary to be born again before it is possible to see the kingdom of God?

The man in my scenario is saved. No doubt about it.
The reason I asked is that if this other doctrine is a doctrine then He is not saved. There is no doctrine of "as soon as possible". So, Franklin would have to say "No" He's not saved. Of course this can't be true if the man on the cross was saved. So, this doctrine of saved by works has serious problems, or, a poor man in the space lab is dead even after He chooses Christ. It' one or the other.

I believe in baptism, I am baptized. I believe all should be. But, baptism is not in our hands, it;so a spiritual event, you can use water if you like.

I will leave now.

Blessings

It is sure that either the doctrine of "Sola Fide" or "works are necessary" has serious problems. And given that Jesus declared that it was necessary to be born of water and of the Spirit, it is clear which of the two has the problems.

Originally posted by Thunderchild
It is sure that either the doctrine of "Sola Fide" or "works are necessary" has serious problems. And given that Jesus declared that it was necessary to be born of water and of the Spirit, it is clear which of the two has the problems.

Click to expand...

It is sure that the faith alone doctrine is totally unbiblical and has serious problems!  The concept of faith only carries with it the idea that when an alien sinner totally believes and puts his/her faith in Jesus Christ and accepts Him as his/her personal savior, it is at this point in time that the person's name is added to the Lamb's book of life, and absolutely no other actions are required in order for the believer to receive forgiveness of sins and to enter into a covenant relationship with God.  James 2 defines the true definition of being saved by faith alone: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Can it be wrong for us to teach that a man is not saved by faith only when, in fact, the bible does?

 

JN 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

JN 3:9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.



Born of water (all babies) = first birth

Born again = born of spirit.

Jesus takes about 2 births,,,,flesh and spirit or water and spirit, same thing. You must be born again is once born again in spirit, we are all born of water the first time we are born. Nicodemus was confused about how to get back to his first birth, to do it again. He understood when Jesus told Him it was a spiritual birth.

I am not against water baptism. I am a Baptist. I am only trying to put forth that water is what we are all born in the first time.

Not that it SHOULD be necessary to point out the obvious meanings of the passage, but should doesn't always meet with reality.

Jhn 3:3-7   Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?     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.   That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.    Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.    The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 
 

Note 1: Jesus did NOT say man that is born of the water must be born of the Spirit - there is only one birth mentioned here, not two - rewording the text to make it seem that he was referring to separate births does not work.

Note 2:  Jesus begins his answer with an exposition of his statement, "except a man be born anew" which Nicodemus clearly had mis-understood to mean that he should be physically re-born. (scotches the "born of heaven/from above" story).

Note 3: Red highlight regarding flesh answers the objection in red by Nicodemus. Jesus is pointing out that, no - he is not telling Nicodemus that he must be born again physically, he is talking about spiritual re-birth.

 

 

http://www.equip.org/free/DB045.htm


Baptism is a commandment, yet it does not SAVE you. Can you be wed without a wedding ring? Yes, but who will know you are married?

I am out of this.

The cause of some to be "messin up" is because all things in God’s word have spiritual application to you, but not all things have doctrinal application to you personally".

Originally posted by Thunderchild
What say the scriptures? How do you read?

Click to expand...

Read my signature.....

You posit that the thief was never baptised? On the very same grounds, and with every bit of the same evidence that you provide for the idea that the thief was never baptised, I will declare that he WAS baptised. He was among those who had previously been following Jesus and fallen away. Like I said - every last bit of evidence that you use to declare the thief was never baptised is exactly the same evidence that I need to make my claim. [/B]

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you that the thief was never baptized, however, if the thief was baptized at all it would probably have been by the authority of John the baptist. Jesus' disciples baptized (see John 3:23-30, 4:1-2), but this was not the same as that commanded on Pentecost, because Jesus had not yet died on the cross.  This proves the point. If baptism were a requirement prior to the death of Jesus on the cross, then there is no evidence that the thief was not baptized by Jesus' disciples. But it was not a requirement. There is no evidence in the New Testament that anyone was "baptized into Christ" prior to the day of Pentecost (which is recorded in Acts 2). Those who lived prior to Jesus death on the cross lived under the Old Testament law, and baptism was not part of the Old Testament law. Thus, the specific terms of salvation of the thief on the cross is irrelevant to the terms of our salvation today. 

  
 

Should I accept your word on this matter, Job? I find it more likely that Peter knew the subject well enough to make his opinion the more likely to be accurate. 1 Peter 3:20-21 ... the baptism that now saves us...

"So now it's belief alone that will save you? Well, the devil also believes, does that mean he is saved"

*sigh* frank, I thought you would know the difference between faith in terms of belief and belief as in exsistance. Do you not look up greek terms at all?

"I wonder what the Apostle Paul would say if he showed up at one todays modern evangelical salvation presentations"

he would cheer and say you've got it right.

NO ritual will help save you Frank, this is exactly what Paul wrote to the galatians. They thought, like you, that a ritual physical thing could save them and to get salvation they had to do it. Paul was literally screaming NO NO NO. TRUE baptism is needed, but this has NOTHING to do with water or even the act of dunking in water. True salvation happens in the heart Frank, with no other thing needed. Paul proclaims this in EVER letter he sends, and Christ proclaims this in every gospel. Weather you choose to believe it or not is a whole nother thing.

"Those who lived prior to Jesus death on the cross lived under the Old Testament law, and baptism was not part of the Old Testament law. Thus, the specific terms of salvation of the thief on the cross is irrelevant to the terms of our salvation today"

Please find scripturally where it says that people didn't need to get baptised before christ died because the spirit had not come yet.

OK - Louis Booth is correct - It is only the Bible that is wrong. When it says Believe and be baptised, and you will be saved. It means only "believe and you will be saved" When it says "the saving of 8 persons through the flood is the antitype of the baptism that now saves you" that too is wrong. When it says that being baptised into the Christ washes your sins away - that too is wrong. When Jesus is recorded to say that it is necessary to obey him, that too is wrong - given that one of his commands is to baptise people. When the Bible says that the one who sins is an idolator and will inherit nothing of heaven except that he repent, that too is wrong. When the Bible says that no one is saved except that he repent, that too is wrong. I could go on with the full list of 57 or so points - each reiterated - at which the Bible is in error (according to the sola fide crowd), but there is no need to do so. There are any number of witnesses available to declare that the authors of the Bible got it all wrong.

Please note: Before this discussion gets too far out of hand, I suggest that time away from this thread would be beneficial. Let's respect each other's opinions and be kind toward each other in responding. I don't want to lock this thread, so reconsider a period of cooling off.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Who could resist such a request from so pretty a set of little angels and pinks?

Anything for cooler heads to prevail.