Do we need to be baptized in order to be saved ?

[Guojing]

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.

The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

But the connecting word and is only true if both components are true.

That is basic sentence logic.

If you don't believe in the first place, you won't bother with water baptism.

 

[concretecamper]

A common argument used in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the Old Testament mandate."

You can't get around the fact that the Old Covenant ended at the Death AND Resurrection of Christ. If you want to propose a different timeline on when the Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant began, now would be the time

 

[Danthemailman]

But the connecting word and is only true if both components are true.

That is basic sentence logic.

If you don't believe in the first place, you won't bother with water baptism.

Jesus clarifies the first clause with, "but he who does not believe shall be condemned." Jesus did not say whoever is not baptized will be condemned and Jesus did not mention baptism along with believes in (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). So, like I said before. John 3:18 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.

If he who believes will be saved (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well. It's true what Jesus said in Mark 16:16, yet it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism, which is in perfect harmony with John 3:18. He who takes his medication and washes it down with water will be made well. What about if there is no water? It logically follows that we wash down medication with water but if there is no water and we take it dry, will the medication still, make you well? What if someone believes but is on their death bed and is unable to receive water baptism? Will they still be saved?

There have been numerous people over the years who attend false religions and cults that have been water baptized but don't truly believe in Jesus Christ unto salvation. Now they may believe "mental assent" in the existence of Christ and that He is the Son of God and that His death, burial and resurrection "happened", but they are not trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) Instead, they "add" works to the gospel. (Galatians 1:6-9)

We also have infants receiving water baptism (well sprinkling) who are incapable of believing. Not everyone who receives water baptism truly believes the gospel. Been there, done that prior to my conversion several years ago.

 

[Danthemailman]

You can't get around the fact that the Old Covenant ended at the Death AND Resurrection of Christ. If you want to propose a different timeline on when the Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant began, now would be the time

So, you are saying that the thief on the cross was not subject to water baptism because he died under the Old Covenant?

In regard to John's baptism in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance for "in order to obtain" remission of sins or was it for "in regard to/on the basis of" the forgiveness of sins received upon repentance? Be careful. John's baptism took place BEFORE the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus clarifies the first clause with, "but he who does not believe shall be condemned." Jesus did not say whoever is not baptized will be condemned and Jesus did not mention baptism along with believes in (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). So, like I said before. John 3:18 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.

As I said, there was no need to mention both because the connecting word and is only true if both components are true.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that one of the thieves had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died on the cross before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

The thief not being baptized before his death is an absurd statement. Nonsensical. Christian baptism was instituted by Christ AFTER his resurrection but before his ASCENSION (Matthew 28:18ff).

The first Christian baptisms occurred on the day of Pentecost....some 53 days AFTER the thief and Jesus were executed by Romans. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM BEGINS ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST. There is no such thing as Christian baptism before Pentecost.

So how was the thief saved? Exactly the same as all the OT saints....by faith....as in found in the hero's listing of in Hebrews 11....by faith.

To say the thief wasn't baptized but saved is also to say....Ezra or Nehemiah, King David, Jacob, or Rachael was saved without baptism. An absurdity.

The lack of an elemental basic understanding of Biblical theology is articulated when someone says: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE THIEF ON THE CROSS?

 

[Danthemailman]

The thief not being baptized before his death is an absurd statement. Nonsensical. Christian baptism was instituted by Christ AFTER his resurrection but before his ASCENSION (Matthew 28:18ff).

The first Christian baptisms occurred on the day of Pentecost....some 53 days AFTER the thief and Jesus were executed by Romans. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM BEGINS ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST. There is no such thing as Christian baptism before Pentecost.

So how was the thief saved? Exactly the same as all the OT saints....by faith....as in found in the hero's listing of in Hebrews 11....by faith.

To say the thief wasn't baptized but saved is also to say....Ezra or Nehemiah, King David, Jacob, or Rachael was saved without baptism. An absurdity.

The lack of an elemental basic understanding of Biblical theology is articulated when someone says: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE THIEF ON THE CROSS?

There are certain folks who argue that the thief on the cross may have been baptized before being crucified as a thief. So, how do you interpret "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3? BTW: Ezra, Nehemiah, King David, Jacob, and Rachael were before John the Baptist.

 

[Danthemailman]

As I said, there was no need to mention both because the connecting word and is only true if both components are true.

I already proved otherwise in post #310.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

here are certain folks who argue that the thief on the cross may have been baptized before being crucified

Who are these "certain folks?" Please cite academic sources.

Your positing of such statement is to be a transgression of the Eight Commandment....deliblerating lying.

 

[Danthemailman]

Who are these "certain folks?" Please cite academic sources.

Your positing of such statement is to be a transgression of the Eight Commandment....deliblerating lying.

I'm not sure about their academic credentials, but many of the folks that I've had conversations with over the years on various Christian forum sites typically attend the church of Christ and some are Catholic.

I am not lying. The Bible has something to say about slander so be careful. (Exodus 20:16; Proverbs 10:18; 1 Peter 2:1)

You did not answer my question from post #314. So, how do you interpret "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3? Was this baptism of repentance for "in order to obtain" remission of sins or was it for "in regard to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance? Be careful. John's baptism took place BEFORE the resurrection of Christ. Please answer this time.

I have been in multiple conversations with folks over the years who said that John's baptism here in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 is for "in order to obtain" the remission of sins. Here are some example statements below from various folks from various Christian forum sites:

"Mark 1:4 tells us that baptism is for the remission of sins....."John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

Even John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sin.

Mark 1:4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

*This same person just above also said:

I continually encounter people trying to justify that baptism is not an absolute necessity for one's salvation by use (erroneously) of the thief on the cross as justification, as he was not baptized but yet saved by the Lord, which is true! BUT, the error in this is the lack of understanding of the scriptures. You must read and understand Hebrews 9:15-17 which clarifies why the thief on the cross was saved by Jesus without being baptized. Christ was still alive when this occurred meaning it was done while the old testament or covenant was still in effect; the new testament had not yet been established because Christ had not yet died. And since the Lord was still alive no one could possibly be baptized into Christ under NT salvation criteria. Baptism did not become a requirement as part of salvation until the new testament began which was after the death of Christ.

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of REPENTANCE for(eis) THE REMISSION OF SINS.
John's baptism of repentance WAS FOR (EIS) THE REMISSION OF SINS.
If you dont like how John the baptist baptism is expressed in Mark's gospel account, then take it up with Mark.
John the baptist baptism was for (eis) the remission of sins. ALL, WERE SAVED THAT OBEYED JOHN'S BAPTISM.
SAVED IN WATER BAPTISM. Sure does sound similar to Jesus' baptism. And for the same purpose. FOR(EIS) THE REMISSION OF SINS.

*This same person just above also said:

Since it is a fact that the thief on the cross died under of old covenant, the law of Moses.
You could use this silly argument for any old testament character. Moses for example was not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. That is as much proof that baptism is not essential for salvation in the gospel of Jesus Christ as is the thief.

I have been in numerous discussions over the years on various Christian forum sites (including this one) with folks who either say, "how do we know whether or not the thief on the cross was already baptized" or that the thief on the cross died while the old covenant was still in effect because Christ had not yet died (even though Jesus died before the thief on the cross). Some mention both just to cover all the bases.

Here are more statements below from folks that I've had discussions with:

How do you know that the thief was not baptized by John the Baptist at Luke 3:3 and Mark 1:4?

There is no way for anyone to say the thief wasn’t baptized only that he wasn't baptized in water while hanging there dying bedside Jesus. A large number of people in that region were baptized prior to the thief hanging on the cross and he could absolutely have been baptized.

We don’t know whether he was baptized or not so it’s not a good example of someone being saved without baptism. There’s nothing to say he wasn't baptized in water.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

How do you know that the thief was not baptized by John the Baptist at Luke 3:3 and Mark 1:4?

John's baptism is not Christian baptism. Duh!

Christian baptism is in the name of the Triune name. John's disciples never heard of the HS in Acts 19:1ff. The pericope Acts 19 in all probability was incorporated into the the NT to demonstarte all of John's disciples had to be baptized into Christ's baptism rather than Johns. This is not re-baptism. John's baptism doesn't include united with Christ in his death and resurrection.

 

[concretecamper]

So, you are saying that the thief on the cross was not subject to water baptism because he died under the Old Covenant?

In regard to John's baptism in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance for "in order to obtain" remission of sins or was it for "in regard to/on the basis of" the forgiveness of sins received upon repentance? Be careful. John's baptism took place BEFORE the death, burial and resurrection of Christ

It is quite simple. Let's take this one step at a time. Did the thief die under the Old Law or New Law?

 

[Danthemailman]

John's baptism is not Christian baptism. Duh!

Christian baptism is in the name of the Triune name. John's disciples never heard of the HS in Acts 19:1ff. The pericope Acts 19 in all probability was incorporated into the the NT to demonstarte all of John's disciples had to be baptized into Christ's baptism rather than Johns. This is not re-baptism. John's baptism doesn't include united with Christ in his death and resurrection.

Well, I know that, but they are both still baptism in water. I still need your answer to my question. Was this baptism of repentance in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 for "in order to obtain" remission of sins or was it for "in regard to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance?

It's like pulling teeth to get one of you to answer this question.

 

[Danthemailman]

It is quite simple. Let's take this one step at a time. Did the thief die under the Old Law or New Law?

That is beside the point. In regard to John's baptism in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance for "in order to obtain" remission of sins or was it for "in regard to/on the basis of" the forgiveness of sins received upon repentance?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It is quite simple. Let's take this one step at a time. Did the thief die under the Old Law or New Law?

Yes it is quite simple. The thief died exactly like all the OT saints did.....BY FAITH....as the OT listing in Hebrews 11 states. This is not rocket science.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Well, I know that, but they are both still baptism in water. I still need your answer to my question. Was this baptism of repentance in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 for "in order to obtain" remission of sins or was it for "in regard to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance?

It's like pulling teeth to get one of you to answer this question.

I have answered that question in total.....see my OP The Famous American Baptist Controversy: The Causal Usage of εἰς in Acts 2:38.

 

[Danthemailman]

I have answered that question in total.....see my OP The Famous American Baptist Controversy: The Causal Usage of εἰς in Acts 2:38.

That still did not answer my question.

The only proper conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*

 

[concretecamper]

That is beside the point

---

---

John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. - Mark 1:4

Since the Victim had not been offered, nor had the Holy Spirit yet descended, of what kind was this remission of sins? … Fittingly therefore, when he had said that he came “preaching the baptism of repentance,” he adds, “for the remission of sins”; as if to say: he persuaded them to repent of their sins, so that later they might more easily receive pardon through believing in Christ. For unless brought to it by repentance, they would not seek for pardon. His baptism therefore served no other end than as a preparation for belief in Christ. The Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily

- St. John Chrysostom

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, you are saying that the thief on the cross was not subject to water baptism because he died under the Old Covenant?

In regard to John's baptism in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance for "in order to obtain" remission of sins or was it for "in regard to/on the basis of" the forgiveness of sins received upon repentance? Be careful. John's baptism took place BEFORE the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

John's baptism didn't provide for remission of sins. It was for repentance, in the expectation and anticipation of the coming Redemption through the Messiah.

This is why the disciples encountered near Ephesus by the Apostle Paul had to receive Christian Baptism.

As for the thief on the cross, it is true that he couldn't have been baptized because Jesus did not institute Baptism until after His resurrection (Matthew 28:19) and the first recorded Christian baptism did not occur until the day of Pentecost after the Lord had already ascended (Acts 2:41).

As for how the thief was saved is a very simple matter: Jesus said so. The same Jesus who took five fish and five loaves of bread to feed five thousand, the same Jesus who commanded waves and wind to be still, the same Jesus who said "Your sins are forgiven" to the paraplegic man and also made him walk again, the same Jesus who said "Little girl, get up" and "Lazarus, come forth" is the same Jesus who said to the thief, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise".

So the thief on the cross has two parts:

1) Baptism had not yet been instituted.
2) Jesus declared the thief would be with Him in Paradise.

The first part answers why the thief wasn't baptized--nobody had been baptized yet.
The second part answers how the thief was saved: Jesus said so.

So, now, how does this relate to us and baptism? Well, we aren't nailed to a Roman execution instrument in our last moments of mortal agony, baptism was instituted by the word and command of the Lord Jesus, and the same promise which the Lord made to the thief on the cross He makes with each and every one of us who is baptized and believe. "That where I am, you shall be also".

The same word of salvation that came to the thief is the same word of salvation that comes to each and every one of us in the waters of baptism, in the preaching of the Gospel, in the celebration of the Lord's Supper; in all of God's precious Means of Grace which He has richly given to His Church.

When the Lord speaks, have ears, listen. For His word is everlasting life. We have a loud God, He is loud in His Sacraments.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

That still did not answer my question.

The only proper conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*

You do not have perfect harmony. Not even close.

We interpret Scripture according to Bible speak....not Baptist speak. And you clearly have Baptist presuppositions. Have you ever read Acts 2:38-39? There are two categories of individuals who are to be baptized. Adults who must repent and their children who can't repent. It is impossible for infants to repent! But they are to be baptized.... This promise is for you and YOUR CHILDREN. Is it possible that Acts 2:39 is probably the most hated verse in Scripture for some baptists (but not all)?