does baptism save???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by new2calvin
i dont think baptism saves. i think that its just a symbol like communion is. what are ur thoughts???

:bow:God Be Praised:bow:

I agree.  Salvation is by grace through faith alone.  Works come after salvation and are evidence that you are saved.  Historically though many have believed that baptism plays a part in salvation.  many believed that (infant) baptism took away original sin.  Even Augustine believed it.  I disagree but I think that it is important to understand that many important people in church history have believed that baptism is part of salvation before debating some here who believe that it is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Outspoken -

No problem dude, what did Christ himself say condemns and saves you? John 3. faith.

A one-verse theology is totally unimpressive. Please read Jesus' other comments on the necessity of obedience.

You might also want to acquaint yourself with the Pauline corpus, and the book of James.

If baptism was so important he would have said it explicitly

*snip*

Fortunately, he did. In fact, he commanded it.

Thus:

  • Mark 16:15-16.
    And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
    He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ******.
He that believeth... and is baptised shall be saved.

He that believeth not, will obviously never be baptised, and therefore... will be condemned. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Outspoken

Standing in the Gap
Nov 8, 2002
6,441
16
47
✟22,188.00
Faith
Christian
"A one-verse theology is totally unimpressive."

I agree, but explict statements like the one I told you about in John defintly go the length to clear up an issue :)

"the book of James"

I have thanks, and you must keep that passage in chapter 2 in context with the illistration of a man and a mirror in chapter 1 to clearly understand it. Works aren't required, they are a natural expression.

"Fortunately, he did. In fact, he commanded it."

I think you need to read what your bible translator says about that passage. In all fairness it was probably added later. I do view it as scripture, but I wouldn't build theology on it. In other words, try again. If ou find me an explict statement any other place I'd take it. I can find you several refering to faith. John 3 is the most conveient though. :)

"He that believeth not, will obviously never be baptised, and therefore"

Classic example of adding YOUR thoughts to the text and not letting the text speak for itself. It is made clear that bapstism isn't required but is a natural tendency of a christian. Thus why the man on the cross beside Christ was saved but NOT baptised. I would also ask you to show me where Paul was baptised in scripture or where he claims it in reference to his teachings and authority. If its that important he would have surely done so. For example in Galatians we have Paul defending his right to be known as a disciple and apostle but NEVER talks about his baptism, how strange since you find that it would be so important to his claim??? ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Outspoken -

I agree, but explict statements like the one I told you about in John defintly go the length to clear up an issue

No, they prove nothing unless (a) they can be vindicated by other passages which make the same point, and (b) they can be harmonised with other passages which appear to contradict them.

I have thanks, and you must keep that passage in chapter 2 in context with the illistration of a man and a mirror in chapter 1 to clearly understand it.

I do, and that's the whole point.

Works aren't required, they are a natural expression.

Please show me where James says this. Thankyou.

I think you need to read what your bible translator says about that passage.

My what?

In all fairness it was probably added later.

In all fairness, it wasn't. But I can understand that it troubles you, and I sympathise with your difficulty.

I do view it as scripture, but I wouldn't build theology on it.

*snip*

Seeing as it's a commandment of Christ, I take it rather seriously.

Classic example of adding YOUR thoughts to the text and not letting the text speak for itself.

Oh, but I did! Even if I hadn't added what I added, the point would still be made: he that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

It is made clear that bapstism isn't required but is a natural tendency of a christian.

And just where is this "made clear"?

Thus why the man on the cross beside Christ was saved but NOT baptised.

I agree that he was saved without baptism. God is certainly at liberty to accept those whose hearts are right, and who died before they had an opportunity to be baptised. But unless a man has the excuse of the thief on the cross, the commandment is clear: repent and be baptised for the remission of your sins.

I would also ask you to show me where Paul was baptised in scripture or where he claims it in reference to his teachings and authority.

*snip*

ROTFL! :D The fact that we are not specifically told when he was baptised, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Paul baptised others, and that he taught it as a commandment to be received, so that we might enter the body of Christ.

Read Romans 6 and tell me if you still think that Paul didn't consider baptism to be important. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Theresa

With Reason
Nov 27, 2002
7,866
198
46
✟24,289.00
Faith
Catholic
I'm not the expert but the reason why Catholics say that non-Christians can be saved is because there are normal means of salvation for those who know them. For example, throughout the Gospel you find Jesus saying many different things. The rich man comes up to Jesus and asks what he must do and Jesus doesn't say obey the commandments or be baptised but to go sell all that he owns. Does that mean that he doesn't need to believe? These are called abbreviated summaries of salvation. Throughout the Gospels we are told that to be saved we must do several things:believe in Jesus and obey his teachings. His teachings tell us that to be saved we must be baptised, confess/repent of sins, eat body and blood, carry cross, persevere to the end, etc., etc. (I believe I gave verse numbers in Sola, Sola, Sola). These things are considered normitive means of salvation. The thief on the cross, however, proves that God is not limited to these things and may save whom he wishes. For me it's like this, in order for me to go to heaven, I must obey these things because this is the truth as I know it. For you, it may be different as long as you are following the truth as you know it, without ignoring the possiblity of other truths and investigation of them. (I apologize if my words get twisted in the near future because of denial and righteous indignation)

Here's something else to consider. In John 3:5 - Jesus says, "I am telling you the truth," replied Jesus. No one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

Some deny that this means baptism, but if you investigate further you notice that one chapter before he says this, Jesus himself was baptised (John 1:32) and directly after this him and his disciples went and baptised (John 3:22). Perhaps a bit of detective work might help to see the bigger picture.

Here's another verse to consider:
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your family," [so they believed and were baptised] "At that very hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; and he and all his family were baptized." Acts 16:31-34

"The few people in the boat - eight in all - were saved by the water, which was a symbol pointing to baptism, which now saves you." 1 Peter 3:20-21

Consider also Col 2:11-12 where baptism has replaced circumcision

If you wish, I will find you the verses that tell us how baptism is needed for the forgiveness of sins.

Thanx, Luv
Theresa
 
Upvote 0
in the verse he was not expressing baptism as a neccesity for salvation he was expressing the process wich is expressed many other places it's always belief then baptism not baptism then belief thats one of the main annabaptist arguments also did you take into account that it could also meen a baptism of the Holy spirit
 
Upvote 0

Outspoken

Standing in the Gap
Nov 8, 2002
6,441
16
47
✟22,188.00
Faith
Christian
"No, they prove nothing unless (a) they can be vindicated by other passages which make the same point, and (b) they can be harmonised with other passages which appear to contradict them."

Yup, and I have shown that. I have asked you where Paul or any other disciple talks about it. what they do talk about is Peter making a ritual a requirement and paul being very much against it and Peter realizing that no ritual should be there as a 'requirement' to salvation because there are none. Same principle applies :)

"Please show me where James says this. Thankyou."

LIke I said before, James chapter 1.

"Seeing as it's a commandment of Christ, I take it rather seriously.
"

LOL, if you want to build your theology on "maybes" go for it, I'd rather build it on places where they are for sure, like the John passage I showed you. There is no difficulty understanding what Christ is saying. He is saying that faith is the only requirement.

"God is certainly at liberty to accept those whose hearts are right, and who died before they had an opportunity to be baptised."

Nope, sorry, God doesn't make excpetions. He loves me just as much as he loved him. :)

"The fact that we are not specifically told when he was baptised, is irrelevant. "

this is where you are dead wrong. It is very very VERY relevant. Paul would not let a point like that go untouched if it was true. His writing style alone tells us that. Paul always hits an objection from EVERY possible angle when answering a question. He was never satified with one answer, he always had several pointing to the same answer. If this was such a MAJOR thing as you say, Paul would have touched on it constantly in his letters, but he never does. As for romans 6 if you want to take that literally then you need to be killed like Christ was killed. The symbolic part he is talking about is the water ritual. That part of baptism is a symbol. The real baptism, that is of the Holy Spirit, is what is required to be a christian, on that I agree, but this comes at the point of faith.

"Acts 16:31-34 "

Correct, they were saved, THEN they were baptised.

"Consider also Col 2:11-12 where baptism has replaced circumcision "

Umm, they ruled out circumsicsion as being needed for salvation, thus so is baptism :)

"1 Peter 3:20-21 "

Its not the water that saves, its the faith that is needed. that is explained in the passage, for it says its not the physical event that plays a part, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the Pledge (or response) of a good conscience toward God."

very good verse to prove baptism is not a requirement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.