Is water Baptism essential for salvation?

TheSeabass · Jun 23, 2017

Archivist said:
Just a few posts ago you said that babies were sinless. Now you are saying that no one is sinless.

Which is it?

When I said no one is sinless I am referring to people that are both:
1) capable of sinning and
2) have chosen to sin.

Infants are not capable of sinning. Rom 3 "there is none that seeketh after God. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood:...etc" Obviously Paul did not have infants in mind when writing Rom 3 section here. Infants are not able to seek, speak deceit, tell lies, curse, walk, murder, etc. (See also Romans 7:8-9 as an infant Paul was dead to the law therefore not a sinner)

Also when I said no one is perfectly sinless it would not include Christ. He was capable of sinning but chose not to sin.

TheSeabass · Jun 23, 2017

-57 said:
I hope for your/our sake God allows a third, fourth, fifth...etc avenue.

One can instantly see your "feel good" or "feel right" gospel has many holes.

You still didn't answer the question....what gave you the ability to believe? Your superior intelligence? Your location of birth? You had a great youth leader? What?

Repentance is enough see Acts 8 and Simon who became a Christian then sinned and commanded to repent.

Romans 10:17 hearing the word is all one needs to have faith. Upon hearing the word then one can "believe in thine heart" Romans 10:9. So belief is developed in the heart upon hearing the word and not something God 'zaps' into men's heart at random with no logical basis.

TheSeabass · Jun 23, 2017

-57 said:
Wrong. How else would one get it?

Romans 10:17-- Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

So where are you getting the idea that faith is something God 'zaps' randomly into some men and not others (showing respect of person) apart from men hearing the word?

TheSeabass · Jun 23, 2017

PropheticTimes said:
TheSeabass said: ↑
The idea that man can only have faith if God gives it to him is to be rejected

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him."
John 6:44

John 6:45 God draws by the word when men are "taught" have "heard" and "learned" the word then men of their own volition "cometh to Me (Christ)".

So God's drawing men and men coming to Christ is not something mysterious, irresistible that occurs separate and apart from the word and man's volition.

Archivist · Jun 23, 2017

TheSeabass said:
John 1:1,14 Jesus is the word. Jesus left the earth some 2000 years ago leaving behind His written word, the bible. So the written word, the bible, is the only source of God's truth in the world today. Men do not create truth, the church does not create truth, God's truth comes from God and God alone. Men can have meetings and counsels but they can never create any truth that God has not already given us in the written word, they can only create FALSE UNINSPIRED teachings.

Your statement was "the bible is the source of God's truth." That is wrong. Jesus is the source of God's truth. The Bible tell's us of God's truth, but it is not the source of God's truth. Jesus was before the Bible; Jesus will be after the Bible.

Are you Catholic?

Do you not know where to look to find a poster's denomination?

The bible has truth and I must follow the bible if I am to know truth. I know that truth can never be found among all the 1000's of religious groups that all contradict each other.

So you have the truth, anyone who disagrees is wrong.

It comes down to who can prove their interpretation to be the correct one following proper rules of exegesis - logic.

Therefore Christianity is not, never has been made up of varying contradicting interpretation with all those interpretations being right. The contradictions prove most are wrong.

And why single me out? The faith onlyist here, the Calvinists, the Catholics here all will claim they have the correct interpretation and others are wrong. They would be just as guilty of what you charge me.

How am I singling you out? In what way am I charging you with anything? I specifically said multiple times that you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture.

So if I said "he that openeth the can and empties it out shall have soup to eat".

The logical order, the logical progression of the statement has "opening" BEFORE "emptying" without me having to say "he that first opens the can and then empties the can"

Again, you cannot empty a can without opening it. However you can be baptized without believing.

Your statement does not contain a logical progression of steps as my did or the Lord's sis in Mark 16:16a.

Sure it does. Reread what I posted earlier. If I say that to get to Morgantown you must take a bus and a train, that neither states nor implies that you have to take the bus first.

The fact Christ put "believeth" BEFORE "baptism" means belief come before baptism. He created a logical sequence of steps, a logical order of events that first step must be done before going to the next step. If there is no logical sequence, no logical order of steps to be taken then one can read the verse "he that is baptized and believes shall be saved". This would not be posible for an unbeliever - atheist would not be baptized.

Infants are baptized everyday, and doing so is in line with scripture.

You did not prove my interpretation to be wrong nor yours to be right.

I'm not trying to prove your interpretation to be wrong. Try reading what is written. I said that you are entitled to your interpretation even though the vast majority of Christians would disagree with your interpretation.

I asked a simple question that you did not even answer. Original sin has a contradiction right off the bat. I asked the following "Psa 51 speaks of conception. Psalms 58:3 speaks of birth. Conception and birth are 2 distinct points separated by about 9 months. So if original sin were true, when does one become a sinner? At conception? At birth? In one becomes a sinner at conception he cannot become a sinner at birth for he already is a sinner. If one does not become a sinner until birth, then he is not a sinner at conception."

I did answer your question--you are entitled to you interpretation of the interaction between Psalm 51 and Psalm 58. Most Christians would disagree with you. We are conceived and born in sin. That is not a contradiction.

Why do you seem to think that your interpretation of scripture is the only valid interpretation.

TheSeabass · Jun 23, 2017

-57 said:
I said EVERY INSTANCE OF SALVATION. Did you forget?

I did notice you seem to try to earn, merit, your salvation. BTW, are you a JW?

No, you did not prove any instance of one being saved while remaining is disobedience.

In Acts 2, were they saved BEFORE OBEYING God's command to repent and be baptized for remission of sins or AFTER they obeyed?

In Romans 6:17-18 where those Jewish converts justified BEFORE they obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine or AFTER they obeyed from the heart?

Again, your straw man has been exposed. I am no more meriting/earning my salvation in obeying God's will to obey the gospel no more than Noah earned the salvation of his household in obeying God's will in building the ark.

I am a member of the church of Christ.

Archivist · Jun 23, 2017

TheSeabass said:
When I said no one is sinless I am referring to people that are both:
1) capable of sinning and
2) have chosen to sin.

So I showed that you were wrong so you will just add some other stuff that you didn't say before to try to salvage your statement.

Infants are not capable of sinning. Rom 3 "there is none that seeketh after God. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood:...etc" Obviously Paul did not have infants in mind when writing Rom 3 section here. Infants are not able to seek, speak deceit, tell lies, curse, walk, murder, etc. (See also Romans 7:8-9 as an infant Paul was dead to the law therefore not a sinner)

And you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture.

Also when I said no one is perfectly sinless it would not include Christ. He was capable of sinning but chose not to sin.

And we agree on that.

TheSeabass · Jun 23, 2017

PropheticTimes said:
1 Corinthians 12:3 3Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is LORD," except by the Holy Spirit.

I have not been baptized with water.
I confess Jesus is Lord and Savior, the only begotten Son of God.
My confession shows that the Holy Spirit indwells me, according to 1 Corinthians 12:3.
The Holy Spirit indwells me, therefore I am a child of the Living God.
Water baptism IS NOT a requirement for salvation.

"I see more Pharisees among Christians than there were around Pilate." - Margaret of Cortona

Someone posted earlier in this thread:

Water baptism saves,
puts on in the kingdom,
is where sins are washed away,
is where one puts on Christ,
where one walks in newness of life,
is accepting and obeying the gospel.

So one can be saved without being saved,
without being in the kingdom
without putting on Christ
without walking in newness of life
without accepting and obeying the gospel?

1 Cor 12:3 "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

This verse does NOT mean one must have some miraculous zapping by the Holy Spirit to enlighten one's knowledge that Jesus is Lord. If this were true, then what basis is used for the HS to zap one person with this knowledge that Jesus is Lord but not another person? Such a thing makes the HS a respecter of person and culpable for those that do not know Jesus is Lord.

The Holy Spirit is the author of the word thruogh inspired writers of the bible. When one hears/reads the word thsoe inspired writers wrote down, then one learns THROUGH THE WORD that Jesus is Lord.

Paul was one of those inspired writers that received revelations from the HS, Paul wrote those inspire revelations down "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"
Ephesians 3:3-4. Note all that is needed to 'understand' that Jesus is Lord is reading the word that the HS authored.

Further reading on this 1 Cor 12:3 verse:

1 Corinthians 12:3

“That no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is accursed’; and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord’, except by the Holy Spirit”

John Calvin appealed to the above verse, and argued that this passage is teaching that due to man’s supposed corrupted nature, he cannot even believe what the Bible says about Jesus without the miraculous aid of the Holy Spirit. But Jackson notes, “This Corinthian passage merely asserts that belief in Christ’s lordship is dependent upon the revelatory mission of the Spirit. To suggest that it affirms that each individual must have a direct, personal enlightenment of the Spirit, is to assume more than the text says. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures; apart from that body of information, no man can declare Christ’s lordship” (Christian Courier). In addition, Paul in this context is talking about inspired men. No man who is truly inspired would ever say anything against Jesus (remember in Corinth all sorts of false religions and false prophets existed). Paul is not teaching that only an inspired person can say, “Jesus is Lord”, because people who will end up lost also professed that Jesus was Lord (Matthew 7:21-23). Even unsaved people can profess that “Jesus is Lord”. “And why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46).
The "Illumination" Theory - Sunday Sermons ‹ Fifth Street church of Christ

TheSeabass · Jun 23, 2017

Archivist said:
So I showed that you were wrong so you will just add some other stuff that you didn't say before to try to salvage your statement.

And we agree on that.

You made a charge against something I posted, so I further clarified what I said.

When I say no one is perfectly sinless, obviously I was not including Christ. I assumed too much if you thought I was including Christ in that statement. You also know I do not believe in the man made idea of original sin, so infants would not be included in that statement either. Again, I assumed to much.

If original sin were true, then Christ would been a sinner by default being physically born a human.

Archivist · Jun 23, 2017

TheSeabass said:
You made a charge against something I posted, so I further clarified what I said.

No, I never "made a charge" against anything you posted. You wrote:

"No one is perfectly sinless, therefore God allowed a second avenue of forgiveness for the Christian in repenting, Acts 8:22."

That contradicted what you had earlier said so I posted the following:

"Just a few posts ago you said that babies were sinless. Now you are saying that no one is sinless.

Which is it?"

I was clearly asking for clarification. Where is the "charge"?

When I say no one is perfectly sinless, obviously I was not including Christ. I assumed too much if you thought I was including Christ in that statement.

I never mentioned any such thing, so I don't know why you would think that.

You also know I do not believe in the man made idea of original sin, so infants would not be included in that statement either. Again, I assumed to much.

But your exact words were "No one is perfectly sinless." Unless you don't count babies as being persons, the words "no one" would seem to include them.

Albion · Jun 23, 2017

TheSeabass said:
There is nothing in the context that requires infants to be baptized.

Very true. And I've agreed to that point several times already. But since the conversation reported in that verse only concerned adults, there is nothing we can conclude about anyone else being baptized.

--Infants had not committed ant sin, adults had

All humans are born in sin.

--Infants could not understand what was being preached or commanded, adults could

The sacrament is God's. He orders it and he impacts us through it. No one can completely understand all the things of God in any case, but this is one of the few instances where skeptics will argue that we must completely understand the ordinance or else it is ineffective. That's illogical and also inconsistent use of Scripture.

--Baptism is for remission of sins, infants had no sin

That's already been covered. All men are born in sin.

PropheticTimes · Jun 23, 2017

TheSeabass said:
Someone posted earlier in this thread:

Water baptism saves,
puts on in the kingdom,
is where sins are washed away,
is where one puts on Christ,
where one walks in newness of life,
is accepting and obeying the gospel.

So one can be saved without being saved,
without being in the kingdom
without putting on Christ
without walking in newness of life
without accepting and obeying the gospel?

1 Cor 12:3 "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

This verse does NOT mean one must have some miraculous zapping by the Holy Spirit to enlighten one's knowledge that Jesus is Lord. If this were true, then what basis is used for the HS to zap one person with this knowledge that Jesus is Lord but not another person? Such a thing makes the HS a respecter of person and culpable for those that do not know Jesus is Lord.

The Holy Spirit is the author of the word thruogh inspired writers of the bible. When one hears/reads the word thsoe inspired writers wrote down, then one learns THROUGH THE WORD that Jesus is Lord.

Paul was one of those inspired writers that received revelations from the HS, Paul wrote those inspire revelations down "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"
Ephesians 3:3-4. Note all that is needed to 'understand' that Jesus is Lord is reading the word that the HS authored.

Further reading on this 1 Cor 12:3 verse:

1 Corinthians 12:3

“That no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is accursed’; and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord’, except by the Holy Spirit”

John Calvin appealed to the above verse, and argued that this passage is teaching that due to man’s supposed corrupted nature, he cannot even believe what the Bible says about Jesus without the miraculous aid of the Holy Spirit. But Jackson notes, “This Corinthian passage merely asserts that belief in Christ’s lordship is dependent upon the revelatory mission of the Spirit. To suggest that it affirms that each individual must have a direct, personal enlightenment of the Spirit, is to assume more than the text says. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures; apart from that body of information, no man can declare Christ’s lordship” (Christian Courier). In addition, Paul in this context is talking about inspired men. No man who is truly inspired would ever say anything against Jesus (remember in Corinth all sorts of false religions and false prophets existed). Paul is not teaching that only an inspired person can say, “Jesus is Lord”, because people who will end up lost also professed that Jesus was Lord (Matthew 7:21-23). Even unsaved people can profess that “Jesus is Lord”. “And why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46).
The "Illumination" Theory - Sunday Sermons ‹ Fifth Street church of Christ

You can type until your fingers get numb, nothing you say will make me unsaved.

All you are doing is showing total ignorance of the mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, but that is between you and Him, not you and me.

-57 · Jun 23, 2017

TheSeabass said:
Repentance is enough see Acts 8 and Simon who became a Christian then sinned and commanded to repent.

Romans 10:17 hearing the word is all one needs to have faith. Upon hearing the word then one can "believe in thine heart" Romans 10:9. So belief is developed in the heart upon hearing the word and not something God 'zaps' into men's heart at random with no logical basis.

I'm getting tired of your save yourself theology. It doesn't work that way...it works Gods way....You should repent from your means of salvation and trust completely in God.

-57 · Jun 23, 2017

TheSeabass said:
Romans 10:17-- Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

So where are you getting the idea that faith is something God 'zaps' randomly into some men and not others (showing respect of person) apart from men hearing the word?

Are you saying everyone who hears the word of God gets faith?

Faith allows you to hear the word of God.....they complete each other.

-57 · Jun 23, 2017

TheSeabass said:
No, you did not prove any instance of one being saved while remaining is disobedience.

In Acts 2, were they saved BEFORE OBEYING God's command to repent and be baptized for remission of sins or AFTER they obeyed?

In Romans 6:17-18 where those Jewish converts justified BEFORE they obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine or AFTER they obeyed from the heart?

Again, your straw man has been exposed. I am no more meriting/earning my salvation in obeying God's will to obey the gospel no more than Noah earned the salvation of his household in obeying God's will in building the ark.

I am a member of the church of Christ.

I think you would consider yourself saved...yet you remain disobedient to many of Jesus' commandments.

mikeforjesus · Jun 26, 2017

I got my dad to agree that judging that Protestants may need the church and sacraments to be saved is not judging. I am also not saying that I know they do but I don't know. Judging Protestants that they are not going to heaven is judging. A Protestant may be closer to heaven than an orthodox because they may only be lacking one thing which God may give them if required. I just happened to remember this

Oecumenius: “I know your works,” the Lord says, “you are neither cold nor hot.” He who is fervent in the Spirit is “hot,” for the holy apostle speaks of those who are “fervent in the Spirit.” Likewise, he who lacks the power and indwelling of the Holy Spirit is “cold.” But you, he says, “are lukewarm.” He calls that person “lukewarm” who in baptism received the communion of the Holy Spirit but has quenched that grace through sloth and attention to temporal matters. And so, this divine directive: “Do not quench the Spirit.” Would that you would be either “hot,” aglow by the work of the Spirit, or totally “cold,” unbaptized and utterly void of the Spirit’s grace, but not “lukewarm”! For the person who has the mental fire of the Spirit comes to maturity, since the senses have been trained to distinguish that which is good from that which is evil, and that person is spiritual. And that person who has never received the grace of the Spirit, yet may hope at some time to receive it, and so is not counted among the hopeless. But that person who is “lukewarm” is moribund and moving toward death, and risks losing both baptism and the previous zeal. Commentary on the Apocalypse 3.14–22.

A person who is really pleasing God will have mental faith in Jesus with the genuine quality of accepting God which is determination to please God.

The reason jesus may have omitted baptism in the end of that sentence "He who believes and is baptised will be saved but he who does not believe is condemned" may be because the true believers who are determined to please God and obey His commandments will learn they need to be baptised.

The Ethiopian eunuch had a desire to please God and know the truth therefore God made sure there was someone who hears the voice of the Holy Spirit to go preach to Him which is Phillip who was instructed to overtake the chariot.

It appears Phillip told him about baptism or he would never ask for it

Still we leave condemnation to God for those who have not been baptised if He does not require it if He doesn't reveal by revelation to those who please Him like Cornelius anymore but I don't see why He should not. God performed miracles to Jews publicly like the feeding of 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish but I think He still performs miracles not publicly and I think He would have even done so for sodom if they had desired to please God.

God however may prefer not to do miracles unless it is necessary so He may not wish to force people to be baptised now so we should have hope but people should be supported to follow what they think maybe they should. Because someone does something that may be a sin does that mean you do it ? If my brother does something that may be in the grey area that is it may not be wrong does that mean I should follow him because he will think I judge him ? I simply hope for them. My parents may not follow all the teachings of the church that I think the church may teach does that mean I won't ? No I hope they will change their mind but if they do not because I love them I hope for them I think they are good but I trust God knows who is good

Those who see the importance of baptism why do they not see the importance of communion ? Or laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit ? If their opinion is that God gives some pastors the gift to give the Holy Spirit why do they think anyone can baptise to give the Holy Spirit ?

But I hope many don't believe they have rejected communion but they are sure of their interpretation. I hope if they need it God would show it to them if they are repenting within their ability

Seymore Bell · Jul 2, 2017

Vicomte13 said:
No. But since it's trivially easy to obtain, and Jesus said to do it, why not?

Good dental hygiene is not essential for salvation either. That's not a good argument against the practice, however.

Ch. Bell

No. Water baptism identify us with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

Seymore Bell · Jul 22, 2017

-57 said:
Well, if your sitting on the fence then I ask that you look at the entire verse rather than just 1/2 of the verse.
...Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Notice it doesn't read like this...

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.

Why is baptism left out of the second half of the verse?

Chap. Bell

Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall damned.
Why is the word baptism omitted in the second half of the Verse?
Because, it is not essential to one's salvation. For example, say you have diabetes, and your family Doctor has prescribe insulin, and pills for this illness. On your next appointment he only prescribed pills to treat your diabetes. Why, it's no longer needed to control this disease.
I hope this help.

Can you find several verses that tell us what water baptism actually does?

TheSeabass · Jul 23, 2017

PropheticTimes said:
You can type until your fingers get numb, nothing you say will make me unsaved.

All you are doing is showing total ignorance of the mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, but that is between you and Him, not you and me.

No one can undo, change the bible and it requiring water baptism to be saved, Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Cor 1:12-13; Gal 3:27; Eph 5:26; Col 2:12-14; etc etc

TheSeabass · Jul 23, 2017

-57 said:
I'm getting tired of your save yourself theology. It doesn't work that way...it works Gods way....You should repent from your means of salvation and trust completely in God.

No one can save themselves by themselves. Yet one CAN save himself by being obedient to the gospel and it is in that since people have been told:
Acts 2:40 save yourselves
1 Tim 4:16 save thyself
2 Cor 7:1 cleanse ourselves
James 4:8 cleanse your hands ye sinners
etc

Is water Baptism essential for salvation?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Facilitator

Lord Have Mercy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads