Baptism: Essential for salvation or not?

[New_Wineskin]

I am trying to think of reasons why this discussion is pertinent.

I am saved, baptized or not. So why do we debate this? what are we really arguing? One side is saying that if I die and am not baptized in H2O, I am bound for hell, while the other says that it is not necessary. I guess for the reason that others are not misled that thier loved ones who were not baptized (but were potentially saved) are headed to hell?

Honestly, if some want to believe that, then thats fine. The only time I would dislike it is within the situation I just outlined, and maybe some others like it. Otherwise, who cares? its between you and God now.

Or maybe its just very, very late and I am tired...

There are at least three sides :
a) salvation doesn't occur unless one is baptized in water
b) same as a but a very specific ritual performed by certain people ( and using a specific magical incantation ) are required for the baptism to be authentic
c) Water baptism is not required for salvation but is required for obedience
d) it is not required in any way
e) it is only required if the Lord specifically tells the individual


There are several reasons why people are discussing this . It isn't as much about themselves as it is in what to demand of those who have not as yet been water baptized . Those that don't consider it as a requirement won't push newborn Christians into having it performed on them .

I am not sure if those that consider it as a requirement for salvation would accept the water baptism of those that do so out of obedience but not for the purpose of salvation . It may depend on the individual who thinks that way .

 

[Toms777]

I am trying to think of reasons why this discussion is pertinent.

I am saved, baptized or not. So why do we debate this? what are we really arguing? One side is saying that if I die and am not baptized in H2O, I am bound for hell, while the other says that it is not necessary. I guess for the reason that others are not misled that thier loved ones who were not baptized (but were potentially saved) are headed to hell?

Honestly, if some want to believe that, then thats fine. The only time I would dislike it is within the situation I just outlined, and maybe some others like it. Otherwise, who cares? its between you and God now.

Or maybe its just very, very late and I am tired...

I'll tell you why discussions like this matter. You may clearly undersatand the truth on this matter, but there are others who do not, who lurk. I know because having been on discussions such as this before, I sometimes hear from some lurkers. You can ofetn assume maybe 10 lurkers for each participant.

For those people it canm be important for them to hear what the scripture says on important topics such as this that relate to salvation. I concern myself with those who may fear their salvation when they are in fact saved having received Jesus as their Saviour.

For those who have heard the truth and make their decision, I agree that is between themselves and God, but there may yet be others who need to hear what scripture says.

That is the way that I feel.

 

[william jay schroeder]

i would like who ever his saying that babtism is a command and or reguierd for salvation should read the book of 1 John espessccially 5:1-5 vrs 4 saying ....And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. vrs 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. It says this all through the new testament. it never ever speaks of babtism in two ways together to be saved in any verse. Babtism is always spoken as a singular action of either spirit or water. most if not all of water babtism is spoken of very early in church history. spiritual babtism is spoken early and all through the scriptures.

 

[Believer-in-Christ]

Baptism is like a clear message to God of repentence. It's just a way of showing your heart to the Lord. I was Baptised by the Holy Spirit before being baptised by water. It's usualy the other way around but to me I know I have received the Holy Spirit and that's what is most important.

I chose to commit to a water baptism next Sunday. It's not something you need to do. It's a personal decision.

 

[Christler]

No, The Bible never mentions Baptism in the salvation process
Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Romans10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

I still can't understand for the life of me why people keep putting more to it !
"God is not the author of confussion!" Why would anyone think that God would allow the sciptures to be unclear about something as important as salvation.
we've read Romans 10:9-10, can anyone please show me the refrence to baptism in these to verses? with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Baptism is an ordinance that we who are saved have been commanded to do.

Everyone please forgive me if I come across a little stern, I've responded to this question alot of times in my life, and I get angry with the devil for encouraging unlearned teachers, and preachers to impart such false doctrine unto the body of Christ. So my anger is not toward anyone reading this post, It is toward the works of confussion.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

What does 1 Peter 3:20 say saved the eight souls?

1 Peter 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

The ark that Noah built because of his Faith in God is what saved them. The verse says it saved them through water as one goes through a trial.

Please allow me to point out what the passage says. I bolded the part that you seemed to have missed (see bolded red font in the passage you posted).

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism of the Spirit by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Water baptisms are to be encouraged because it was an outward declaration, "the pledge of a good concious toward God" to the members of the Body who are then bond by God's word to keep us accountable. The eunuch spoken of in Acts was anxious to make that declaration.

The symbolism/comparison/or type and antitype is that water saved Noah and his family and baptism saves us. Two things need emphasized:
1st. - the comparison is that water saved them just as water baptism saves us
2nd. - Baptism saves us. This is what the passage says. How does baptism save? Not by washing the dirt from the body, but by giving us a good (clear)conscience through the resurrection of Christ. Have you read Romans 6:3-11? It describes what occurs during baptism. We are united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection during baptism. Especially note verses 7 and 11. During baptism we are freed from sin and become alive to God. That is how baptism saves us. There is no magic or power in the water. The power is based on faith in the working of God (Col. 2:12). Baptism alone will not save. Baptism must be coupled with faith (see Mark 16:16 and Heb. 11:6). That point is also illustrated in Acts 8:36b-37a -- faith/belief was required before Philip would baptize the eunuch.

What baptism is under consideration in 1 Pet. 3:21? The point being made is that water saved the eight people on the ark and water baptism saves us today. Let's check some other passages to see if this understanding harmonizes. Note Acts 8:35-39. Philip "preached Jesus." After hearing "Jesus preached," the eunuch desired which baptism -- the one in water or one with the Holy Spirit? Which baptism does the text point out that he desired after hearing "Jesus preached"? Clearly, it was the one in water? Why? Considering what 1 Pet. 3:21 and Romans 6:3-11 says about baptism, the answer should be rather obvious. The eunuch wanted to be baptized in water to be saved -- by being united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Following his baptism in water, the eunuch "went on his way rejoicing" (NKJV). What a beautiful story of one who was converted to Christ. There is so much we can learn from Scripture if we will just accept what the Scriptures say, and then check our understanding of a particular passage or text to see that it agrees with other passages.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

What does 1 Peter 3:20 say saved the eight souls?

The Ark.

First off, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. This is the first time I recally seeing you post in this particular discussion.

Now, look closer at the passage. Does the passage say that the eight souls were saved by the ark? I am convinced the passage plainly says that the eight souls were saved "through water" (NKJV).


Originally Posted by: - DRA -

What saves us in verse 21?

Baptism, but not the removal of dirt (as with literal baptism) but baptism of the heart, a pledge to God.

Baptism does indeed save us. That is clearly what the passage says.

What I don't see the passage saying is the wording that you are suggesting about the "baptism of the heart, a pledge to God." I don't find these thoughts in the verse. I tend to think that these are your thoughts that you have added to the passage. You will have to help me out here. I honestly don't see how those thoughts are connected with this passage.

Now, consider Acts 8:35-39. Philip "preached Jesus". The eunuch then desired to be baptized in water. Why? To wash the dirt from his body? No, that is NOT what baptism is designed to do. Rather, it is designed to wash away sins (see Acts 22:16). Have you read and considered Romans 6:3-11? Those blessings occur during baptism -- NOT before baptism -- and, NOT after baptism. That text describes how we are united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection in baptism.

May our God bless you richly in your efforts to study His word and apply it to your life.

 

[- DRA -]

1 peter 3:20 says that it synbolizes the babtism now used. which one spirit or water. all the scriptures only speak singularly about babtism so how could it be both that is needed. water babtism is never ossiated with Christ except for when John babtized him. water babtism is never explain how when and why its needed. All the other ordanaces and commands in scripture are. if was essential why isnt it given a chapter in scripture to show the importance. vrs 21 the rest of the story. ....It (spirtual) saves you by the resurrection of Jesus. It doesnt say They save you , it would have to if both were needed.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

I tend to look at spiritual things from a different angle than you do. Please allow me to explain. Consider a passage such as Acts 8:35-39. The passage clearly states that Philip "preached Jesus" (see verse 35). And, in the following passages it is rather clear that after hearing "Jesus preached", the eunuch desired to be baptized in water. I see a clear association with preaching Jesus and baptism in water. In fact, this is what is called a NECESSARY INFERENCE. Although it is NOT directly stated what Philip preached when he preached Jesus, it is necessarily inferred or implied that he had to have spoken about baptism -- in water.

Baptism is required for salvation (Mark 16:16), the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and to wash one's sins away (Acts 22:16). Romans 6:3-11 describes the blessings that occur during baptism. In fact, these passages offer a detailed description of how one is born again -- being born of water and of the Spirit (consider also John 3:3-5). The baptism that saves us is the baptism in water (1 Pet. 3:20:21). That explains the eunuch's desire to be baptized in Acts chapter 8, and also explains Peter's command for baptism in water in Acts 10:47-48.

There is a difference in the baptism of John and the baptism in the name of the Lord (see Acts 18:24 through 19:5). The reason for each of those baptisms was different (see Matt. 3:11 and Acts 2:38).

Don't miss what 1 Pet. 3:21 says -- baptism saves us. Why NOT do a search through the N.T. and see what it says that saves us? You will find that several different factors are involved. Which ones are true? They all are according to 2 Tim. 3:16a -- "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with us.

 

[Bulldog]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

What does 1 Peter 3:20 say saved the eight souls?



First off, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. This is the first time I recally seeing you post in this particular discussion.

Now, look closer at the passage. Does the passage say that the eight souls were saved by the ark? I am convinced the passage plainly says that the eight souls were saved "through water" (NKJV).

Forgive me, I got all mixed up.

Baptism does indeed save us. That is clearly what the passage says.

What I don't see the passage saying is the wording that you are suggesting about the "baptism of the heart, a pledge to God." I don't find these thoughts in the verse. I tend to think that these are your thoughts that you have added to the passage. You will have to help me out here. I honestly don't see how those thoughts are connected with this passage.

What I was speaking of is:

1 Peter 3:20-21 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who were disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Dr. Kenneth Wuest's commentray on the passage are helpful:

Water baptism is clearly in the apostle's mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word "counterpart." So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh." Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words "the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," in that he believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection. (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament II:92-109)​

Rather, it is designed to wash away sins (see Acts 22:16).

It's important to look at the orignal Greek in the passage rather than the ambiogious English. See:

From the English rendering, admittedly on the surface it looks as though water baptism washes away sins. However, the English here does not represent the Greek syntax at this point. First, in most English translations, there are two conjunctions (kai [“and”]), but not in the Greek, for there is only one conjunction: anastas baptisai kai apolousai tas hamartias sou, epikalesamenos to onoma autou (lit. “Rising up be baptized, and [kai] wash away the sins of thee invoking the name of Him”). Hence, one conjunction does not indicate two separate clauses being communicated here, but one.

Second, the two imperative verbs baptisei (“be baptized”) and apolousai (“wash away”) are in the middle voice.[10] Hence, grammatically a literal reading would be: “Rise, have yourself baptized and allow your sins to be washed away, invoking the name of Him.” The grammatical connection to “washing away your sins” then, is not being water baptized, but rather with the calling on or invoking the name of the Lord (cf. Acts 2:21 and Rom. 10:13).​

http://christiandefense.org/Baptismal_Regen.htm#ACTS22

Have you read and considered Romans 6:3-11? Those blessings occur during baptism -- NOT before baptism -- and, NOT after baptism. That text describes how we are united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection in baptism.

So everytime the Bible uses the word "baptism" it is used it is in reference to water baptism?

~God Bless

 

[- DRA -]

I am trying to think of reasons why this discussion is pertinent.

I am saved, baptized or not. So why do we debate this? what are we really arguing? One side is saying that if I die and am not baptized in H2O, I am bound for hell, while the other says that it is not necessary. I guess for the reason that others are not misled that thier loved ones who were not baptized (but were potentially saved) are headed to hell?

Honestly, if some want to believe that, then thats fine. The only time I would dislike it is within the situation I just outlined, and maybe some others like it. Otherwise, who cares? its between you and God now.

Or maybe its just very, very late and I am tired...

Codeman,

Hopefully you are now rested and refreshed.

Have you considered Acts 2:38,41,47? As I understand those verses, it is rather clear what the apostle Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, told the Jews to do to have their sins taken away. Three thousand Jews followed his instructions and were saved. The Lord added them to the church. Given this story, I would be hard pressed to teach or promote the idea that the Jews that didn't obey the apostle's instructions were also saved. In fact, I am fully persuaded that such a notion would NOT be true.

I can sympathize with the mental struggle that are grappling with. I grew up in a family that was NOT God-fearing. In my late teens, I developed a plan in my mind of what I thought being a Christian was all about. However, I came to learn that my plan did NOT harmonize with God's word. It was decision time. I chose to abandon my ideas for what God wanted me to do. I obeyed the gospel and became a Christian (see 1 Pet. 1:22). I am very thankful that God extends His grace to all (Titus 2:11). As a growing Christian, I soon became familiar with 2 Thess. 2:10-12. It describes a mindset that we all must guard against. It involves wanting things "my way" instead of desiring to know and follow the truth. The scary part to me was how God reacts to this situation -- sending strong delusion. Not by forcing it on a person, but giving whoever desires to "have things their own way" what they need to go down the path they have chosen. That passage has greatly influenced me to become a focused student of the Bible -- following closely the admonition given in 1 Pet. 4:11a - "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles [words] of God." (NKJV)

There were those who thought they had obeyed the Lord in Acts 19:1-5. They had NOT. But they promptly obeyed when they learned better. Isn't there something that we should learn from this?

 

[- DRA -]

i would like who ever his saying that babtism is a command and or reguierd for salvation should read the book of 1 John espessccially 5:1-5 vrs 4 saying ....And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. vrs 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. It says this all through the new testament. it never ever speaks of babtism in two ways together to be saved in any verse. Babtism is always spoken as a singular action of either spirit or water. most if not all of water babtism is spoken of very early in church history. spiritual babtism is spoken early and all through the scriptures.

Thank you again for sharing this passage and your thoughts with us.

Now, have you read James 2:14-26. It describes the faith that pleases God. The faith that pleases God involves both action and obedience.

Consider Acts 2:38. Repentance and baptism were commanded. In Acts 10:47-48 and 22:16 baptism is commanded.

Mark 16:16a says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (NKJV)

In Heb. 5:9, does Jesus save those who obey Him, or those who don't?

 

[- DRA -]

No, The Bible never mentions Baptism in the salvation process
Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Romans10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

I still can't understand for the life of me why people keep putting more to it !
"God is not the author of confussion!" Why would anyone think that God would allow the sciptures to be unclear about something as important as salvation.
we've read Romans 10:9-10, can anyone please show me the refrence to baptism in these to verses? with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Baptism is an ordinance that we who are saved have been commanded to do.

Everyone please forgive me if I come across a little stern, I've responded to this question alot of times in my life, and I get angry with the devil for encouraging unlearned teachers, and preachers to impart such false doctrine unto the body of Christ. So my anger is not toward anyone reading this post, It is toward the works of confussion.

Christler,

I sense your frustration. However, please allow me to explain things from a different perspective.

I have read and considered Romans 10:9-10 many, many times. It discusses salvation under the gospel of Christ. However, there is a point that I encourage you to also consider, is this the only passage that discusses salvation under the gospel of Christ in the N.T.? I have found that it is NOT. Consider repentance. Jesus taught that it is necessary (Luke 13:3,5). Likewise, the apostle Peter taught that it was necessary (Acts 2:38), as did the apostle Paul (Acts 17:30). So, is it necessary or not? It is NOT mentioned in Romans 10:9-10, but other passages emphasize that it is necessary. Which passage should I accept as the truth? Why shouldn't I accept both passages as being true? Doesn't accepting 2 Tim. 3:16a demand that I do so? After all, if I accept that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, then I should be willing to listen to all that is said about salvation under the gospel of Christ, right? And, I should also be willing to consider all that is said about the baptism in the name of the Lord and how it relates to salvation through Christ, right? (see Mk. 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Rom. 6:3-11, Gal. 3:26-27, Col. 2:12, 1 Pet. 3:20-21).

Consider Acts 2:38. Is baptism portrayed in that verse as you describe it -- an ordinance that someone that has been saved has been commanded to do? That is NOT what I understand the verse to be saying at all. Can you see why I am reluctant to stray from the passage? I see what is says, but don't see what you seem to see there. The passage is making both repentance and baptism a requirement "for the remission of sins." I am simply NOT willing to accept a view that contradicts Scripture. I accept Acts 2:38, and I accept Rom. 10:9-10.

Consider Matthew chapter 2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, called out of Egypt, and yet called a Nazarene. Which aspect is true? Now, apply this principle to the passages in the N.T. that discuss salvation under the gospel of Christ. Are you considering all the passages, or just one?

In His service,
. . . DRA

 

[- DRA -]

Forgive me, I got all mixed up.

No problem. It happens to all of us at some point in our studies.

What I was speaking of is:

1 Peter 3:20-21 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who were disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Thank you for clarifying this point. I don't often use the NIV. The word "pledge" that appears in the NIV seems to me to be a strange way of expressing the thought of the Greek word "eperotema."
Strong's Online edition offers this definition for that word:

1.) an enquiry, a question
2.) a demand
3.) earnestly seeking
a.) craving, an intense desire

Looking at 1 Peter 3:21, the thought is that baptism saves us by being the anwer of a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Christ. That implies or infers that we must be baptized to obtain the good conscience. This concept agrees with Rom. 6:3-11. Note verse 7. During baptism one dies and is freed from sin. Note also verse 11. In baptism one is made alive to God -- through the resurrection of Christ.

Dr. Kenneth Wuest's commentray on the passage are helpful:

Water baptism is clearly in the apostle's mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word "counterpart." So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh." Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words "the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," in that he believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection. (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament II:92-109)​

First off, thanks for posting this commentary. Now, let's briefly consider his reasoning.

I agree that water baptism in under discussion. However, I must disagree with Wuest on his comments about how baptism saves us. The comparison being made in this passage is NOT between the O.T. sacrifices and Christ -- that comparison is made in Hebrews chapters 9-10. The comparison being made in 1 Pet. 3:20-21 is between the waters of the flood and the waters of baptism. Noah and his family were saved by water, and we are saved by water baptism now.

Wuest states that "water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith." My question is, "Is this what 1 Peter 3:21 says about baptism?" The NKJV says that baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward God." My question is, "If baptism is the answer of a good conscience, then what the person's conscience like before baptism?" Wouldn't their conscience have been bad, dirty, or guilty?

Baptism saving us through the resurrection of Christ is described in detail in Romans 6:3-11. Have you read those passages? One dies to sin and becomes alive to God in baptism. Sins are removed and a person receives a good (clean) conscience. We have harmony between this passage and 1 Pet. 3:21 only when we acknowledge that baptism does indeed save us -- by uniting us with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. We are born again in baptism by arising no longer a sinner, but one with a good or clean conscience.

It's important to look at the orignal Greek in the passage rather than the ambiogious English. See:

From the English rendering, admittedly on the surface it looks as though water baptism washes away sins. However, the English here does not represent the Greek syntax at this point. First, in most English translations, there are two conjunctions (kai [“and”]), but not in the Greek, for there is only one conjunction: anastas baptisai kai apolousai tas hamartias sou, epikalesamenos to onoma autou (lit. “Rising up be baptized, and [kai] wash away the sins of thee invoking the name of Him”). Hence, one conjunction does not indicate two separate clauses being communicated here, but one.

Second, the two imperative verbs baptisei (“be baptized”) and apolousai (“wash away”) are in the middle voice.[10] Hence, grammatically a literal reading would be: “Rise, have yourself baptized and allow your sins to be washed away, invoking the name of Him.” The grammatical connection to “washing away your sins” then, is not being water baptized, but rather with the calling on or invoking the name of the Lord (cf. Acts 2:21 and Rom. 10:13).​

http://christiandefense.org/Baptismal_Regen.htm#ACTS22

As I began considering this commentator's comments on Acts 22:16, I was reminded of Acts 9:9,11. Saul was without his sight three days. During this time he was praying to God. However, he was not saved when Ananias came to him in Acts 22:16 -- surely, he wouldn't have brought up that Saul's sins needed to be washed away if they already had been, right? Thus we can be assured at that point that Saul's sins had not been taken away. What was required for Saul to be have his sins washed away? The NIV, which you quoted from earlier, says, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." The NKJV, which I prefer, says, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Clearly, it is evident at this point that Saul was not saved and needed to be. What he needed to do was clearly stated to him. I am interested to know why the various groups of translators that worked together to give us translations such as the KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, NRSV, and NIV did NOT reach the same conclusion as this commentator. Also, I would like to see the understanding being promoted here be harmonized with Rom. 6:3-11, Acts 2:38, and 1 Pet. 3:21.

So everytime the Bible uses the word "baptism" it is used it is in reference to water baptism?

~God Bless

No. I have NOT said this. What I have simply done is to offer Scriptural evidence that the baptism in water in the name of the Lord is what is required for salvation today under the gospel of Christ e.g. John 3:3-5; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:12-13; 8:35-39; 10:47-48; 16:15, 30-34; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-11; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26-27; Col. 2:12; and 1 Pet. 3:20-21.

Thanks for taking the time to study this issue.

 

[Toms777]

No, The Bible never mentions Baptism in the salvation process
Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Romans10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

I still can't understand for the life of me why people keep putting more to it !
"God is not the author of confussion!" Why would anyone think that God would allow the sciptures to be unclear about something as important as salvation.
we've read Romans 10:9-10, can anyone please show me the refrence to baptism in these to verses? with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Baptism is an ordinance that we who are saved have been commanded to do.

Everyone please forgive me if I come across a little stern, I've responded to this question alot of times in my life, and I get angry with the devil for encouraging unlearned teachers, and preachers to impart such false doctrine unto the body of Christ. So my anger is not toward anyone reading this post, It is toward the works of confussion.

I understand your frustration. I share that frustration. But we must also understand that there are three different types of people (at least). Those who can see clearly what scripture says, those who struggle trying to understand it (for whatever reason) and those who willfully ignore what scripture says. The Bible describes all three. I am not giong to try to say where indidviduals on here stand in this regard other than to say that when I comment on here, even when I am speaking to someone who appears to be willfully ignoring what the Bible says, I find that I need to remind myself of a couple of things:

1) The person may appear to be willfully ignoring God's word, but may come across that way because he is willfully ignoring God's word or perhaps because he knows what God's word says and is struggling because he'd rather not accept it, though the Holy Spirit is making Him uncomfortable. The second situation may be more common than we realize but we cannot know the heart.

2) There may be lurkers who just don't know and in gthat case it is important that we present the truth of God's word, as you did in this message.

There may also be others on here who simply have a difficult time understanding the word. maybe they have been brought up in, or attend, or have attended a church which teaches error to one degree or another and are struggling with accepting that long held teaching may be wrong. I was there once about 10 years ago and it can be painful to toss out beliefs which have been long hel;d, maybe for decades, but for those who love truth, when the Bible and our beliefs are in conflict, the Bible must win.

So, I do very much understand your frustration, but we do not always know what is in the hearts of others and why it is that they oppose the clear teaching of the Bible.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Thank you again for sharing this passage and your thoughts with us.

Now, have you read James 2:14-26. It describes the faith that pleases God. The faith that pleases God involves both action and obedience.

Consider Acts 2:38. Repentance and baptism were commanded. In Acts 10:47-48 and 22:16 baptism is commanded.

Mark 16:16a says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (NKJV)

In Heb. 5:9, does Jesus save those who obey Him, or those who don't?

first in James 2:16-26 your Faith is expressed to others by your works or how you live your life its hard to say i have faith and then not live it. your right in what you say In Acts he indeed does command babtism but it is stated to the generall adiaunce that is present it is not stated to the church of Christ so its difficult to assume its a command to all believers. Christ is the only one who can make a direct command to all believers and did so on many occasions but none dealt with water babtism or ordanances of any kind. Mark 16:16 is not water babtism because it would assume that water babtism is all that saves and or is the most essential part of salvation, This cant be because of all the scriptures i have given preveiously prove this wrong. we most likely never agree with each other but to teach salvation by water babtism is a dangerous doctrine. I have seen to many people believe they are saved just because they were water babtized. It also severely lessenes the grace of God and Jesuses death on the cross. I dont see a problem with water babtism just the way it is taught.

 

[Toms777]

first in James 2:16-26 your Faith is expressed to others by your works or how you live your life its hard to say i have faith and then not live it.

You are corect. Many people who make the mistake of thinking that works save us mis-understand faith from a Greek perspective. In Greek, "faith" and "faithfulness" are essentially the same thing. Thus if you have faith in God, that is demonstrated by your faithfulness. If you lack faith you are not faithful. these two go hand in hand. This is one reason why it is important to go to the original langauges to get the proper understanding.

your right in what you say In Acts he indeed does command babtism but it is stated to the generall adiaunce that is present it is not stated to the church of Christ so its difficult to assume its a command to all believers.

Again, a mistake which is common amongst those who believe baptism is essential is to believe that a command is essential for salvation. If that were true, then we must perfectly obey the law or go to hell, but since Rom 3:23 says that we have all sinned, if those who claim that obedience is essential for salvation were right, we would all be on our way to hell without hope.

Fortunately, our salvation depends upon Christ's faithfulness not ours. Those who believe baptism is essential cannot deal with the Thief on the cross. They try to argue that there was a different way for salvation before the cross but scripture says directly that that is impossible. So far I have not yet seen any of these who believe baptsim is essential be able top deal with this - some will try a fancy dance around the question, but none can explain the thief on the cross without getting into a different way of salvation either for the theif or for everyone before the cross.

Since the Bible says that is impossible, what the belief in baptism being essential represents is a different gospel (because it provides another way of salvation), which Paul says is no gospel at all.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Thank you again for sharing this passage and your thoughts with us.

Now, have you read James 2:14-26. It describes the faith that pleases God. The faith that pleases God involves both action and obedience.

Consider Acts 2:38. Repentance and baptism were commanded. In Acts 10:47-48 and 22:16 baptism is commanded.

Mark 16:16a says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (NKJV)

In Heb. 5:9, does Jesus save those who obey Him, or those who don't?

first in James 2:16-26 your Faith is expressed to others by your works or how you live your life its hard to say i have faith and then not live it. your right in what you say

Focus on James 2:21-24. Abraham "works" were those things that he did to obey God concerning the offering of Isaac in Genesis chapter 22. Go there. Especially note verse 12. Abraham's faith in action was NOT to express this to others -- rather, it was to express his faith to God.

In Acts he indeed does command babtism but it is stated to the generall adiaunce that is present it is not stated to the church of Christ so its difficult to assume its a command to all believers. Christ is the only one who can make a direct command to all believers and did so on many occasions but none dealt with water babtism or ordanances of any kind.

Let's consider the context of Acts chapter 2. There were Jews in Jerusalem from "every nation under heaven" (verses 5, 9-11). After the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles (verses 1-4), Peter taught the multitude (verses 22-36). In essence, the apostle Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, used Psalm 16 and 2 Samuel 7 to prove that Jesus was both Lord and Christ. In a nutshell, Peter charged the Jews with killing the Christ -- the Messiah of the O.T. (verses 22-23). The Jews were convicted of this sin and asked the apostles what they should do (verse 37). Peter's response is for them to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins". Three thousand Jews "gladly received his word" and obeyed the command (verse 41). They were saved and added to the church (verse 47).

The other examples of conversion in the book of Acts should also be examined to better understand what God requires from sinners in initial obedience to the gospel of Christ e.g. Acts 8:12-13; 8:35-39; 10:47-48; 22:16.

Have you considered what Galatians 1:11-12 says about Paul's teachings? They came directly from the Lord. The same is true for all the apostles' teachings and for the Holy Scriptures -- "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16a). In essence, the apostles doctrine (see Acts 2:42) was with the authority of the Lord. They completed the message of truth (consider John 16:13 and Heb. 2:3-4).

Mark 16:16 is not water babtism because it would assume that water babtism is all that saves and or is the most essential part of salvation, This cant be because of all the scriptures i have given preveiously prove this wrong. we most likely never agree with each other but to teach salvation by water babtism is a dangerous doctrine. I have seen to many people believe they are saved just because they were water babtized. It also severely lessenes the grace of God and Jesuses death on the cross. I dont see a problem with water babtism just the way it is taught.

The baptism that Jesus is speaking of in Mark 16:16 is one that must be coupled with faith, and one that is required for salvation. This is in the context of His sending the apostles into the world with what is often referred to as the great commission. Mark 16:16 does NOT present baptism as the most essential part of salvation. However, the passage does present baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation. Let's see which baptism was taught in the examples of the conversions of sinners to Christ in the N.T. In Acts 8:35, Philip "preached Jesus." After hearing this preaching, the eunuch desired to be immediately baptized in water (see verse 36). What did Philip say was necessary for him to be baptized? Faith or belief (see verse 37). Let's think for just a moment. Isn't there a passage that discusses both belief/faith and being baptized as requirements for salvation? Yes, there is. Mark 16:16. If we harmonize these passages, we can see why it was necessary for the eunuch to have faith in order to be baptized. We can also see why the eunuch desired to be baptized in water -- to be saved. If we accept the Lord's teaching in Mark 16:16, then we should be able to rejoice just like the eunuch did in Acts 8:39 after being baptized in water in the name of the Lord.

Is teaching salvation by water baptism a dangerous doctrine? Since baptism in water immediately followed Philip's preaching of Jesus in Acts 8:35-39, the apostle Peter commanded it in Acts 10:47-48, and Peter declared that baptism (in water) saves us in 1 Pet. 3:20-21, then I am confident that I have Bible authority to teach what the N.T. teaches is necessary for salvation.

Does baptism lessen God's grace and Jesus' death on the cross? First off, baptism is commanded. The Jews obeyed it (see Acts 2:38,41), as did the Gentiles (Acts 10:47-48). Have we lessened God's grace by our obedience to God? Not according to Jesus' teaching in Luke 17:10. Does baptism lessen Jesus' death on the cross. Not according to Rom. 6:3-11. During baptism the sinner becomes united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. I think of it this way. The Bible plainly describes the blessings that occur during baptism. I find that a lot of folks want these blessings, in fact they claim to have these blessings, but do not submit to baptism. Or they claim they had the blessings before they were baptized. Something is very wrong with this picture. Such things are NOT in harmony with the Scriptures. My desire is that men/women come to know God and obey the gospel of our Lord (2 Thess. 1:8).

 

[Bulldog]

Thank you for clarifying this point. I don't often use the NIV. The word "pledge" that appears in the NIV seems to me to be a strange way of expressing the thought of the Greek word "eperotema."
Strong's Online edition offers this definition for that word:

1.) an enquiry, a question
2.) a demand
3.) earnestly seeking
a.) craving, an intense desire

Looking at 1 Peter 3:21, the thought is that baptism saves us by being the anwer of a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Christ. That implies or infers that we must be baptized to obtain the good conscience.

You're ignoring the language used not "the removal of dirt from the flesh." AN exerpt from Robertson's wod pictures on the verse:


Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (ou sarkoß apoqesiß rupou). Apoqesiß is old word from apotiqhmi (Romans 2:1), in N.T. only here and 2 Peter 1:14. Rupou (genitive of rupoß) is old word (cf. ruparoß, filthy, in James 2:2; Revelation 22:11), here only in N.T. (cf. Isaiah 3:3; Isaiah 4:4). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Hebrews 9:13). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin.


http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commenta...k=1pe&chapter=003&verse=021&next=022&prev=020

This concept agrees with Rom. 6:3-11. Note verse 7. During baptism one dies and is freed from sin. Note also verse 11. In baptism one is made alive to God -- through the resurrection of Christ.

"Baptised into" as used multiple times in the New Testament-is simply a statement of our uniting with Christ.

1Cr 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers{the Israelites} were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Of course the isrealites did not expireience the Christian sacrement of baptism, Judaism never taught baptism as necessary for salvation. Same idea a couple chapters later:

1Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

~God Bless

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Thank you for clarifying this point. I don't often use the NIV. The word "pledge" that appears in the NIV seems to me to be a strange way of expressing the thought of the Greek word "eperotema."
Strong's Online edition offers this definition for that word:

1.) an enquiry, a question
2.) a demand
3.) earnestly seeking
a.) craving, an intense desire

Looking at 1 Peter 3:21, the thought is that baptism saves us by being the anwer of a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Christ. That implies or infers that we must be baptized to obtain the good conscience.

You're ignoring the language used not "the removal of dirt from the flesh." AN exerpt from Robertson's wod pictures on the verse:

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (ou sarkoß apoqesiß rupou). Apoqesiß is old word from apotiqhmi (Romans 2:1), in N.T. only here and 2 Peter 1:14. Rupou (genitive of rupoß) is old word (cf. ruparoß, filthy, in James 2:2; Revelation 22:11), here only in N.T. (cf. Isaiah 3:3; Isaiah 4:4). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Hebrews 9:13). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commenta...k=1pe&chapter=003&verse=021&next=022&prev=020

I sure don't want you to think that I'm ignoring a part of 1 Pet. 3:21. It says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I understand this to mean that baptism saves us, NOT by washing the dirt from our bodies, but by giving us a good conscience. Have you read and considered Jesus' teaching in Matthew 15:1-20? Dirt on the body is one thing, but sin originates from somewhere else -- from within. This should help us appreciate that baptism is NOT designed by God to wash the dirt from our bodies, but to wash the guilty conscience away. That process is described in Romans 6:3-11. Have you read those verses? When you read the verses and accept what they say, you will see how baptism "saves us" by freeing us from sin (Rom. 6:7); thus, giving us a "good conscience."

Robertson tries to explain how baptism doesn't take away sin, but doesn't begin to address what the passage plainly declares -- baptism saves us. Can you help explain what Robertson couldn't? Would you like to explain how baptism can save us, but doesn't take sins away while leaving us with a good conscience? Then, would you please harmonize your reasoning with what Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 says? That is the way Bible study is supposed to work. You derive an understanding from a passage or text of Scripture and make sure that it harmonizes with other passages.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

This concept agrees with Rom. 6:3-11. Note verse 7. During baptism one dies and is freed from sin. Note also verse 11. In baptism one is made alive to God -- through the resurrection of Christ.

"Baptised into" as used multiple times in the New Testament-is simply a statement of our uniting with Christ.

1Cr 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers{the Israelites} were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Of course the isrealites did not expireience the Christian sacrement of baptism, Judaism never taught baptism as necessary for salvation. Same idea a couple chapters later:

1Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

~God Bless

First, did you read and consider Rom. 6:3-11? If you did, I don't see how you can say that baptism "is simply a statement of our uniting with Christ." Although we are indeed united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection in baptism, doesn't the passage offer additional details about what occurs in baptism? I think it does. Take verse 7. It says, "For he who has died has been freed from sin" (NKJV). See what is happening in this passage. We die and are freed from sin. That is what Peter is describing in 1 Pet. 3:21. Baptism does not wash the body, but gives a good conscience. How? By freeing us from sin? Now, my question to you is: "If one is freed from their sins in baptism, then what is one's condition before baptism -- wouldn't they still have their sins?"

Concerning 1 Cor. 10:1-4 . . . consider how the church at Corinth was established. Acts 18:8b says, "And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Note the harmony between this passage and Mark 16:16.) Later, Paul writes to the church at Corinth. There are numerous problems there. They are in danger of falling away and being lost. Paul uses an analogy to illustrate this point. The point he makes is found in the passages you posted. In a sense, the Israelites were baptized into Moses. However, most of them did NOT not please God and perished (1 Cor. 10:5). The Corinthians are admonished to consider these examples, and NOT to make the same mistakes that the Israelites made (1 Cor. 10:6-12).

Consider how the Jews were baptized into the one body, or the church in Acts chapter 2 e.g. verses 38,41,47. What were they commanded to do in verse 38 to obtain the "remission of sins"? Whatever it is, after you do it you are saved and the Lord adds you to the church (see Acts 2:47)? Once again, what were the Jews commanded to do in verse 38 "for the remission of sins"?

 

[Xzist]

it is commanded of us, but NO...it is not how you become saved. its an act of obedience

I keep hearing people say this... ok... so if a person doesn't "obey" and decides not to get baptised... then that disobedience is just over looked huh?

Also... Where does it say in the bible about baptism and obedience?