Baptism, Is it required to go to heaven?

[stelow]

God's covenant with us is a BLOOD covenant; to enter into this covenant, God required His only begotten Son's obedience unto death, there's nothing you can add to it, but the filthy flesh of man will continue to try. Jesus paid the price that was required by God for our forgiveness so we could become the children of God.


John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

John 3:16-18
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Acts 16:30-31
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

John 19:29-30
29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

 

[Svt4Him]

One verse on baptism can't do away with all the verses, like posted above, that do not have baptism.

Okay. Let me rephrase my statement, so there are no misunderstandings. Jesus was physically present with the person whom he forgave and this was under the old covenant. Jesus had not died and therefore the new covenant was not in effect

No, Jesus had become a curse already, and had become sin already, as the Bible says cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree. If the thief was still under the OT, a sacrifice would need to be made, the sin would have been imparted to a goat, and the goat would have been released. Unless he was a murderer, then he would have been kicked out and killed with no hope of salvation. The thief on the cross was under the 'new covenant'. This, with all the other verses, shows that Mark's verse is incomplete, as the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so it must be in how we understand it. The only part that remained was the resurrection to show the sacrifice was acceptable, but salvation happens at the cross.

 

[DerSchweik]

One verse on baptism can't do away with all teh verses, like posted above, that do not have baptism...

But it hasn't been just one verse, has it?

Well, if nothing else, at least acknowledgement has been achieved that other verses DO exist on the topic of salvation - and like it or not, believe it or not, trust it or not, have faith in it or not - those verses DO exist and are relevant, whether one knows how to address them properly or not.

Moreover, these verses exist without anyone having to ADD them to God's word, as some have wrongfully charged, nor can they be SUBTRACTED from His word, marginalized, or ignored altogether, as some teach, and continue to teach.

The sum of your word is truth,
and every one of your righteous rules endures forever. Psalm 119:160

It's not a proper scriptural study that weaves a doctrine from one aspect of scripture yet ignores other aspects of it that somehow don't "fit" the first. I would only affirm that we are indeed saved by grace through faith, that believing is FUNDAMENTAL to salvation - as is repentence, confession, - and baptism.

"Belief" seems to be the crux issue here - and what that means or encompasses.

Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God. John 12:42f

(CF also John 2:24, Jas 2:19, etc. etc.) - Understanding what belief entails is crucial, for how is it some did believe, do believe yet are clearly not saved?

For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. Hebrews 3:16ff

So much efficacy is placed on belief and faith w/r to salvation - again, I affirm the absolute necessity of belief (who claims I in any way deny it?) But belief is not belief without accompanying obedience - and all disobedience is unbelief.

"Belief" and "faith" are often used interchangeably, but it's possible to believe and not have faith. It's not possible to have faith and not believe though, and neither is it possible to have faith [belief] and not obey. And obedience is not a work.

What manner of work is it that promotes a belief [in God] yet does not affirm obedience to Him at the same time? What teaching does that? "...that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." Is Jesus saying we needn't repent? We needn't confess [Him]? We needn't "do" anything except "believe?" It would be absurd to claim that - yet that is what this teaching does - "it's ok to be disobedient, as long as you believe; what could be easier than that - good news, huh?"

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith." - Romans 1:16f

...is a gospel message that rests solely on Christ's work on the cross, on His character, His love for the Father, and for us, on His absolute willingness to do the Father's will, even if it led Him to the cross, all of which was done on our behalf - and BECAUSE it was God's will Christ endure the cross - we have the gift of salvation because Jesus obeyed His Father and submitted to His will that He endure the cross on our behalf.

That is indeed good news - but it is no good news at all if the message denies us the opportunity to partake of, and share in His sacrifice, and in His resurrection to a new life in Him. Tell me - how does one believe themselves into that?

A gospel that says to the effect all we need "do" is believe, or give assent to [the fact that] Christ's death, burial, and resurrection occurred, yet denies the need or opportunity to be part of it is no gospel at all.

Yet the charge is that those who say "submit to [being baptized]" (Acts 2:37ff) is adding to the scripture or is (somehow) a "work" and is "going beyond Christ's work." This I neither affirm nor accept.

Truly, a gospel that excludes sharing in His death, burial, and resurrection to a new life in Him is no gospel at all.

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

 

[stelow]

Act 15:7 – 11
7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

John 1:12”But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.”

Romans 10:13"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

I Peter 1:23"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

Ephesians 2:8"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

1John 5:10"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that BELIEVETH NOT God hath made Him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son"

1 John 5:11-13
11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

John 12:48"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: THE WORD THAT I HAVE SPOKEN, THE SAME SHALL JUDGE HIM in the last day”

 

[DerSchweik]

Calling on the Lord's Name

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved - Acts 2:21

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:13

Jesus' Life

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Perseverance

You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives - Luke 21:17ff

Endurance

...and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved - Mt 10:22

But the one who endures to the end will be saved - Mt 24:13

Confession

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved - Romans 10:9

So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven - Mt 10:32

Gospel & Holding Fast...

Now I would remind you, brothers,of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.- I Cor 15:1

Baptism, Repentence

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ - I Peter 3:21

“Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. - Acts 2:37ff

Lose Life

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. - Luke 9:24

For whoever would save his lifewill lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” - Mark 8:35ff

God's Mercy, Regenerative washing, renewal of the H. S., Grace

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. - Titus 3:5ff

Being 'In Christ'

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. - Jn 3:17

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” - Acts 4:12

Words (the gospel)

...he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household - Acts 11:14

Love of truth

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved

God's Patience

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. - 2 Pet 3:9

Belief / baptism

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Paying attention [to the word]

The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” - Acts 16:14ff

Saul [Paul] - no waiting, baptized, called on His name

And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ - Acts 22:14ff

The Ethopian Eunuch - "Look, here is water!"

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. - Acts 8:35ff

First century Christians rejoiced AFTER their baptisms, not before, were judged faithful AFTER their baptisms, not before.

Baptism does not nullify the grace of God. It does not add to His word - it in fact fulfills His word.

Baptism is not a work [of man], but a work of God.

Baptism does not nullify belief, but is the practical and natural expression of belief - because baptism was part of the gospel message, not subsequent to it.

I sincerely (I say this from my heart) don't know how an honest read of the New Testament can omit the necessity of baptism from the salvation process - I just don't. And I can't apologize for the gospel, or the fact that baptism is part of it - indeed I rejoice it is and pray fervently others will one day see the truth therein.

 

[stelow]

First century Christians rejoiced AFTER their baptisms, not before, were judged faithful AFTER their baptisms, not before.

DerSchweik, this is not true, as we see here in these scriptures in the Book of Acts, they received the Holy Spirit and were praising God before they got baptized in water.

Acts 10:44-48
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

 

[DerSchweik]

DerSchweik, this is not true, as we see here in these scriptures in the Book of Acts, they received the Holy Spirit and were praising God before they got baptized in water.

Acts 10:44-48
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

stelow - I appreciate your response - thanks!.

I think it pertinent to note that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which you raise here, and Christian baptism are two completely different things - which the context of each bears out.

Most notably, the difference being that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is but one of two, and only two occurrences in the New Testament - one for the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and this one for the gentiles in Cornelius' household. I just don't think it's proper to equate the two [baptisms] as many tend to do.

And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized withthe Holy Spirit not many days from now.” - Acts 1:4ff

..and then in Acts 2:

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Peter had to speak to the multitudes gathered to explain the extraordinary situation, that they weren't drunk with wine, as some supposed, but that what had occurred was in accordance with prophecy - Joel 2:28ff.

It was because of these circumstances that Peter had opportunity to address the crowds with his first sermon, convicting them of their complicity in crucifying the Christ, the message piercing their hearts such that they wailed "Brethren, what must we do?" (Acts 2:37). Answering them, Peter stated:

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Acts 2:38

Clearly, the two baptisms are completely different, for why would Peter command they be baptized otherwise?

The situation in Acts 10 begins with Cornelius' prayer to God and God's answer to seek out Peter. At the same time, Peter was having a vision - being urged to eat things that were unclean to the Jews (vs. 9-16). Three times he was urged to eat that which he (a Jew) had been taught was unclean.

While perplexed as to the dream, Cornelius' servants found him and urged him to follow them. The Holy Spirit told Peter to go with them (vs. 19f) and so the next day, contrary to everything he had been taught as a Jew (by the Law) - not to associate with Gentiles, he went with them. After hearing Cornelius, Peter understood the reason for the dream:

So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. - Acts 10:34f

...and so Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and those [Gentiles] gathered in his house.

It was during Peter's preaching of the gospel to this Gentile gathering that the second event occurred:

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.- Acts 10:44ff

Note the significance those [of the circumcision - Jews] placed on this extraordinary event. What happened to them [at Pentecost] was happening now to the Gentiles!

And so naturally,

Peter declared,“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Again, two different baptisms - for two entirely different purposes - not to be confused with each other - and again the difference marked by Peter's command they be baptized - this time in the name of Jesus.

That there are only two "baptisms of the Holy Spirit" (as described here in Acts) is not surprising - for there were only two groups of people that comprised all of humanity - Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles). The message Peter understood in all this was that the gospel message was not for Jews only, but for Gentiles as well - that God shows no partiality - "but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

The praise leveled, that you reference in your rebuttal, was the praise via the speaking in tongues, prompted by the extraordinary outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles. Does that make sense?

 

[stelow]

DerSchweik, this will be my last post on this thread, so I'll just leave with these last three verses from the Scriptures, probably this will not change either of our minds; I know you haven't changed mine. Just to let you know I've been baptized in water twice since I became a newborn in Christ. I've been screamed at by other legalistic believers since the first two times, who said it still wasn't good enough for me to be saved, and needed to be baptized in water again.


Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, LEST THE CROSS of CHRIST should be MADE OF NO EFFECT.

 

[DerSchweik]

stelow - it pains me to hear this.

I can shed the accusations of being a "legalistic believer."

I can shed the inference of having screamed, of having judged another believer's salvation. For my part, and God is witness, I think my posts are evidence enough I've done neither. If anyone feels judged, then it was Scripture, and not me that did it.

But if this conversation is over because anyone thinks my posts are mere 'persuasive words of human wisdom', I admit to an even greater pain in my soul - knowing all I've done apart from attempting to clarify and explain has been primarily the posting of Scripture. My inability to persuade is of no great concern or import - but if Scripture cannot persuade then indeed no human conversation can either.

If Scripture frustrates - I need not apologize for I have nothing for which to apologize. God's Word is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart..."

I realize most will not read my posts, or similar posts of others here, with little more than a skeptical, knowing eye, posts that seem to contradict what many have long been taught, raised in, whose circle of fellowship believes in (friends, family, grandparents, pastors, etc.), and whose broader circle includes many heroes of their faith, learned men, widely published men and preachers and teachers - whose teachings seem to have produced effective counters and rebuttals to the Scriptures raised - a whole culture of spiritual mass in opposition to those Scriptures.

That's a lot of inertia to overcome, I realize.
That it threatens long-held traditions and beliefs of many I realize as well

Be it known this topic is on my heart and on my heart for one reason and one reason alone – Christian unity.

...and it is your last verse that enables one last comment of my own for it speaks to the very heart of both sides of this matter.

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. - I Cor 1:10ff

This is arguably the MOST MISQUOTED verse in opposition to Christian baptism and those who wield it do so to repudiate the importance of, or need for baptism.

First – the purpose of this paragraph – Christian unity. Paul is appealing to the Corinthians to be united. There were divisions and quarrels arising amongst them on the basis of who was following whom – of who was IDENTIFYING with whom.

Second – Paul’s appeal that they be united is an appeal to the BASIS of their true identity. And what was that basis? Their BAPTISM!

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The obvious and rhetorical answer was “NO!” They were baptized in the name of Christ – and it is on this basis, and this basis alone that Paul’s argument for unity has any meaning (c.f. Romans 6:1ff for an in-depth explanation of what that means). They [we] are Christians, not “Paulians,” “Appolonians,” or “Cephians.”

Third – Paul just got through acknowledging he DID BAPTIZE people! His statement that Christ didn’t send him to baptize is countered with Christ’s primary purpose for him – to preach the gospel. But this is not proof he didn’t baptize, and it certainly isn’t proof baptism is not important. Paul proclaims his thankfulness that he baptized only several of them, allowing only several of them to be tempted to be taken in by the divisiveness of which they’d fallen (presumably Crispus and Gaius, or the house of Stephanus hadn’t fallen into that temptation themselves – we aren’t told).

While not told explicitly, it is not illogical to infer that Cephas had personally baptized some of these believers, as had Apollos some, and as we just noted, Paul some. The divisions that arose did so on the basis of who had baptized whom. And that was wrong, and Paul rightly attacked it as he did.

And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized inthe name of the Lord Jesus. - Acts 19

Note that Luke doesn’t say here whether it was Paul or others who did the baptizing – wasn’t pertinent or relevant who performed the baptisms.

Father, we know it is the ‘sum of Your word that is truth’ - I pray Father - not my words, not my [insignificant] wisdom, but Yours, and Yours alone would touch those whom You would touch, and soften those whom you would soften. Amen, and God bless.

 

[Svt4Him]

But it hasn't been just one verse, has it?

Well, if nothing else, at least acknowledgement has been achieved that other verses DO exist on the topic of salvation - and like it or not, believe it or not, trust it or not, have faith in it or not - those verses DO exist and are relevant, whether one knows how to address them properly or not.

Oh, you can quote as many verses as you like, but which ones are specific to baptism and salvation? Only Mark's. As for the rest of this, there is also many verses that exist on salvation that do not address baptism at all, so like it or not, believe it or not, trust it or not, have faith in it or not - those verses DO exist and are relevant, whether one knows how to address them properly or not. And the fact that people have to make up new ways the thief was saved in order to hold this doctrine true shows that someone may not know how 'to address them properly'. The thief can't be explained if one believes that baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[DerSchweik]

Oh, you can quote as many verses as you like, but which ones are specific to baptism and salvation? Only Mark's. As for the rest of this, there is also many verses that exist on salvation that do not address baptism at all, so like it or not, believe it or not, trust it or not, have faith in it or not - those verses DO exist and are relevant, whether one knows how to address them properly or not. And the fact that people have to make up new ways the thief was saved in order to hold this doctrine true shows that someone may not know how 'to address them properly'. The thief can't be explained if one believes that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Did you even bother to read anything I posted?

 

[eyzonthepriz]

Nope, it's not. Just ask the thief who died next to Jesus.

GREAT RESPONSE!

 

[RefrusRevlis]

The thief on the cross was under the 'new covenant'.

Absolutely wrong. Here's why:

16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn2
Hebrews 9:16-17

Jesus was alive when he forgave the thief (let us not forget Jesus had the authority to forgive sins while on the earth - Matthew 9:6 etc). Since he had not died, his testament (same thing as covenant) was not yet in effect.
Refrus

 

[Hentenza]

Well, I am glad that Paul didn't think that baptism was necessary for salvation otherwise he messed up when he said that Jesus sent him to preach the gospel not to baptize.

 

[Svt4Him]

Did you even bother to read anything I posted?

Forgive me if I sound like I am trying to dismiss the post without reading them. I do not mean to come across as simply trying to prove I'm right and you're wrong, and if I do come across that way, I am sorry, as I do not read that in your posts, nor do I want that read in mine. I will go reread your posts.

 

[DerSchweik]

Well, I am glad that Paul didn't think that baptism was necessary for salvation otherwise he messed up when he said that Jesus sent him to preach the gospel not to baptize.

Improper logic, at best.

One question H, - if Christ did not send Paul to baptize, but to preach the gospel - and that is what verse 17 says - then why did Paul baptize? To wield this verse as you have would have Paul more than merely "messing up" but being in direct disobedience to Christ.

I know that's not what you intended, so with respect H, I must say this comment demonstrates a complete misread of I Cor 1.

See my post #49 above.

The Problem is Christian Unity (verse 10)
The Symptom is Divisions and Quarrels (verse 11)
The Reason is Who is Identifying with Whom (verse 12)
The Appeal is to their Baptism - the basis of their identity in Christ (verse 13)

Can we at least agree on this?

Again, ignore theology - this is just applying basic language skills to the text. Is unity an issue? Yes. Are there divisions and quarrels? Yes. Were some identifying with Paul, others with Apollos, others with Cephas, others still with Christ? Yes. Did Paul appeal to their baptisms? Yes.

Fact is, Paul DID BAPTIZE! (verse 14) Apparently so did Cephas and Apollos - and assuredly others. Paul was just glad he hadn't baptized more than he did that they might fall into the same sort of divisiveness these others had (verse 15).

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (vs 14f)

Folks - we need to actually READ the bible and STUDY these passages - in their entirety, not just throw out pithy little quips that seem to support our own particular biases - and with respect, H - I believe that's all that was done here.

I realize the subject of baptism is not an easy one for everyone - and that there are two camps on the subject, but of all the passages relating to the subject of baptism, there are few that are easier to understand than this one - if only on the basis of the language and language structure alone...

 

[stelow]

You will argue about this because you know you're right, it doesn't matter to you what any other brother on here would tell you.

""I'm right and you're wrong". Trying to squeeze the infinite logic and reason of God into the finite logic and reason of man is a futile exercise. Being argumentative is not productive and being belligerent is not loving your neighbor as yourself. We all have better uses for our time and energy."

 

[DerSchweik]

Forgive me if I sound like I am trying to dismiss the post without reading them. I do not mean to come across as simply trying to prove I'm right and you're wrong, and if I do come across that way, I am sorry, as I do not read that in your posts, nor do I want that read in mine. I will go reread your posts.

You will argue about this because you know you're right, it doesn't matter to you what any other brother on here would tell you.

""I'm right and you're wrong". Trying to squeeze the infinite logic and reason of God into the finite logic and reason of man is a futile exercise. Being argumentative is not productive and being belligerent is not loving your neighbor as yourself. We all have better uses for our time and energy."

stel - I appreciate this. Believe me - it's the LAST thing I want to be, perceived or otherwise, is "know it all", argumentative, and certainly not belligerent.

I know my "style" tends to be verbose. I can also be pointed. I also tend to overwhelm with facts, data, points in support of whatever position I might have, whether here, at work, home, whatever. I realize that's my personality - and in the sterility of this electronic environment any tendencies in that direction can, I know, be compounded. I'm not always right, and I'm rarely right in all ways.

I do believe in this topic - obviously.

I do believe in it strongly - but maybe not for the reasons you might think.

I am studied on the topic - personally studied, personally taught - for some 28 years now since I first picked it up before I became a Christian.

If I have offended anyone, in any way - I sincerely apologize and would ask for your forgiveness. I certainly do not intend to offend. In fact, I pray each time to come across with love and understanding. To be received in any other way hurts genuinely.

The passion I have for this topic probably does overwhelm - I try to be logical, I try to be reasonable, and I try most of all to be scriptural. It matters not to me at all that I be the one persuading - but God. I truly mean that.

I will confess, my zeal has been aroused in this thread - I do admit that. I *think* my heart has been in the right place - that's what I pray for before each post - but maybe not. I don't want to be perceived as browbeating anyone, certainly - that's not Christian love.

I know we will likely end "agreeing to disagree." I am ok with that. I guess I figured while there were responses the door remained open to "argue" the topic - not quarrel, but discuss the merits of either side of the issue. I guess all I'd ask others at least try to do is not judge my passion for the topic adversely. And I'll in turn try, prayerfully, to curb my zeal wisely - and in Christian love.

But if what you are saying is that I am not welcome to discuss the issue here anymore - I confess that'll hurt, but I'll honor that and leave. I don't want to cause any to stumble whatsoever....

 

[stelow]

DerSchweik, sounds fair to me. I do agree to disagree though, and my passion is for the new born child of God. The disciple Peter eventually came around to understand the difference between Spiritual baptism which saves and water baptism that only symbolizes what really happened.

Maybe you will too.

Again this is my real life experience not on-line, I have been baptized in water twice and even still since the first two times; I have been screamed at by religious wackos who said I needed to be baptized in water again to be saved. This has nothing to do with you or what you've said just my real life experience.