Is baptism neccesary for salvation?

That's very good!

If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.

Originally posted by cthoma11
Bzzzt, wrong thread. This thread is not discussing whether baptism is optional, it is discussing is when salvation is imparted.

Go back and read my comments on the rest of the thread (or even some of it). If you had done this you would know I am not butting against Christ's commands. In fact I don't think anyone is. I and almost everyone else have said this numerous times.

This thread is getting quite long so if you want a summary, I am arguing that:

God's Grace and our acceptance of it through the faith God gives us results in our salvation. True salvation then results in our obedience to Christ's commands. Of which baptism is one of.

The opposite point seems to be that:

 God's grace + works results in salvation.

Click to expand...

 

There is another veiw and that is that God's grace is conditional. Yes, it is a gift but it is a conditional gift. The land of promise was a "gift" to Isreal by God, but was it an unconditional gift? No. They had to meet the condtions God gave them to attain and keep the land. They had to fight for the land and then they had to remain faithful to God's commandments to keep the land.

Originally posted by Jephunneh
Baptism saves no one.
It only serves as a testimonial picture of the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ AFTER one has believed on Christ (Acts 8:36-38).
Paul said in I Corinthians 1:17 that ". . . Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
This "gospel" is defined by Paul in I Corinthians 15:1-4, and it does NOT include water baptism. The dying thief was not baptized, yet Jesus saved him (Luke 23:42-43), and John wrote that we are washed in the BLOOD of Christ (Rev. 1:5), not in the water.
In fact, the saints in Heaven claim to have gotten there by the blood of Jesus (Rev. 5:9), not by water. By faith in the blood of Jesus Christ one is saved (Rom. 3:25). Water baptism only follows this faith as an outward step of obedience.

Click to expand...

 

Prove that the thief on the cross was NOT baptized. The thief could have been baptized by John or by one of Christ's disciples which baptized more than John.


Mark 1:5 (KJS) And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

John 4:1 (KJS) When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Even if the thief was not baptized Christ could forgive sins while He was on the earth.


Matt 9:2 (KJS) And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This [man] blasphemeth.
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5 For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

I do not know of no one who would say that water washes away our sins. However, it is when one obeys the command to be baptized that one comes into contact with Christ's blood which was shed at His death.

Roma 6:3 (KJS)  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.


Notice we are baptized INTO His death, that means we have not reached His death until we are baptized.

Just a side note to think about. Please read the following verse.

John 19:34 (KJS) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Does anyone but me seem to think it strange that water and blood both are mentioned. I mean it would not seem strange if it would have said, "forthwith came there out blood" but God saw it necessary to connect blood and water together at the cross of Christ.

Originally posted by cthoma11


I did not raise Matt 26:28 as a place where the same translation should be used. This is a straw man argument.

Further, the majority of the New Testament was written in Greek so looking at valid possibilities for translation is not changing the bible nor the meaning of the bible. The accusation that I am attempting to change the meaning of the bible is an unjustified comment. I am doing nothing different than you, studying the bible and attempting to gain understanding and to explain the understanding I already have.

The English word "for" used in the referenced verse can be legitimately interpreted in a prescriptive or a descriptive manner in this case. Interpreting it descriptively harmonizes the various verses and sections throughout the New Testament that refer to salvation through belief in Christ only far better than doing so prescriptively. [/B]

Click to expand...

 

Now answer a question, for the scriptures (that is Acts 2:38 & Mt. 26:28 specificly) to harmonize what does the phrase "for the remission of sins" mean since it is written the same in the Greek as well as English.

Originally posted by Burdine
 

Now answer a question, for the scriptures (that is Acts 2:38 & Mt. 26:28 specificly) to harmonize what does the phrase "for the remission of sins" mean since it is written the same in the Greek as well as English.

Click to expand...

Given that my knowledge of Greek is extremely limited, I would not presume to try to decipher the nuances and differences of Greek grammar. Instead I'll quote from AT Robertson's word pictures. He was a greek scholar who taught new testament greek for over 46 years. He was and is recognized a a brilliant greek scholar. His opinion on this is below.


This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eiv does exist as in #1Co 2:7 eiv doxan hmwn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eiv for aim or purpose. It is seen in #Mt 10:41 in three examples eiv onoma profhtou, dikaiou, mayhtou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in #Mt 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eiv to khrugma iwna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the _Koin‚_ generally (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. <I>{The gift of the Holy Ghost}</I> (thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatov). The gift consists (#Ac 8:17) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).



<P dir=ltr>


<P dir=ltr>Trying to build a doctrine on one or two verses doesn't work. You must harmonize everyone of the new testament and old testament verses that point to salvation via faith alone. Your argument above asking for proof that the thief on the cross was not baptized is nonsense. The onus is on you to prove he was. There is no evidence that after he believed, he was baptized. Postulating that he was baptized by John or one of the disciples is merely conjecture.



<P dir=ltr>

Given that my knowledge of Greek is extremely limited, I would not presume to try to decipher the nuances and differences of Greek grammar. Instead I'll quote from AT Robertson's word pictures. He was a greek scholar who taught new testament greek for over 46 years. He was and is recognized a a brilliant greek scholar. His opinion on this is below.

Click to expand...

A very good approach indeed.

Originally posted by Martin Luther
NO, Jesus saves, not water.

and Jesus himself, never baptized (anyone).&nbsp;

Click to expand...

Amen!

---------------------------------------------

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

Originally posted by Burdine
&nbsp;

There is another veiw and that is that God's grace is conditional. Yes, it is a gift but it is a conditional gift. The land of promise was a "gift" to Isreal by God, but was it an unconditional gift? No. They had to meet the condtions God gave them to attain and keep the land. They had to fight for the land and then they had to remain faithful to God's commandments to keep the land.

Click to expand...

Actually from the Calvinists, you will get an argument that it is unconditional due to election and irresistable grace. Baptism comes due to obedience after salvation. From the majority of others (non Calvinist's that is), you will get that salvation is conditional on the acceptance of God's gift of salvation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, not on the baptism that comes due to obedience after salvation.

You will note that from both positions, you get baptism being a work that we do to show our salvation. Not something we do to obtain salvation. I have given no verses here to support this position, but if you look through the archives, in similar threads on the subject, you will find my responses which have scripture backing up this position.

Again, you can try and build a doctrine on one or two passages, but it has to agree with all the passages and cannot be based on suposition and conjecture.

&nbsp;

Baptism is only an outward sign that you are a believer. It has no effectiveness in saving anyone, it is merely symbolic. Nonetheless, it is a good thing and should be done since we are instructed to do so. The real question, in my mind, regarding baptism is, is it okay to baptize infants.... Of course, everyone is going to go banannas over this one... =)

Dear ALL:

I am reminded of Ephesians 1. It is important to remember that salvation occurred before the very foundations of the earth, so any act today cannot change one's status as one of the elect.
Rejoicing in God's Unconditional Election,
Calvinist

Originally posted by settergren
The real question, in my mind, regarding baptism is, is it okay to baptize infants.... Of course, everyone is going to go banannas over this one... =)

Click to expand...

We did it all the time with my two sons when they were infants, except we just called it bathtime.

Given your definition that "Baptism is only an outward sign that you are a believer." means that baptizing infants is meaningless and hence is just a bath.

Originally posted by calvinist
Dear ALL:

I am reminded of Ephesians 1. It is important to remember that salvation occurred before the very foundations of the earth, so any act today cannot change one's status as one of the elect.
Rejoicing in God's Unconditional Election,
Calvinist

Click to expand...

Actually, it seems that you are confusing the plan (the election) with the execution of the plan (the actual salvation.) Verse 13 is clearly the point when salvation occurs: "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit," ESV

That is, when you believe is when you are sealed with the holy spirit and hence saved.

I am reminded of Ephesians 1. It is important to remember that salvation occurred before the very foundations of the earth, so any act today cannot change one's status as one of the elect.

Click to expand...

Calvin, Eph1 does not say "our salvation occurred before the foundation of the Earth", it says, "He chose us in Him before the foundation, that we should be holy and blameless before Him."

The crux of the issue, is "what did Paul mean, by 'CHOSEN IN CHRIST'?" According to Jesus Himself, in the parable of Matt22:2-14, everyone is invited, but only those who RECEIVE the invitation AND put on righteousness become the chosen.

There is a verse that mirrors Eph1:4----it's 2Thess2:13: "...God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through faith in the truth."

Where does "SAVING-FAITH" come from? According to Scripture, from us (see Rom10:9-10,17).

So, only JESUS was PREDESTINED before the foundation of the World; and we are "chosen in Him when we RECEIVE the gift of salvation (Rom5:17).

In Eph1, verse 13, Paul asserts that our SEAL, of the Holy Spirit, is founded on our BELIEF ("after listening, having believed"---Rom10:17, "Faith comes from HEARING"); this harmonizes perfectly with all of Scripture that says, "salvation is for those who BELIEVE."

BTW, Eph1:4 says "chosen in Him that we should be holy and blameless before God"---please see Col1:23:

And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach---IF INDEED you CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and NOT BE MOVED AWAY from the HOPE of the GOSPEL"...

We know the HOPE of the Gospel, is JESUS (1Tim1:1)---so this is warning us to not be moved away from JESUS!

QUESTION---to remain in "PREDESTINED-ELECTION" (as Calvinism is called), one must re-interpret this passage as an "EMPTY HYPERBOLE"---Paul was just SPOUTING against that which CANNOT happen. Or WAS he?

IF INDEED you continue, firm, steadfast, and not be moved away from Jesus!

If my assertion that salvation is by belief, and that belief comes from the person's OWN HEART (salvation being AVAILABLE to ALL), then there is no way to take this Colossians passage as anything other than what it says---continue and abide in Jesus, OR you will not be presented before God holy and blameless and beyond reproach.

Don't you (meaning alll-you-who-believe-in-Predestinationism) wonder why so much time is WASTED on empty, meaningless hyperbole warnings???

What if they AREN'T meaningless and empty?

What if they're REAL?