Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[- DRA -]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Is baptism necessary to be saved?"

If having one's sins remitted (taken away) is necessary to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is required to be saved per Acts 2:38.

If being freed from one's sins is required to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that baptism that unites one with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is required to be saved per Romans 6:7.

If having one's sins washed away is required to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that baptism is required to be saved per Paul's description of his conversion in Acts 22:16.

If 1 Peter 3:21 says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (NKJV)," then I'm inclined to acknowledge that baptism is indeed required to be saved.

And, last but certainly not least, if baptism is really based on faith in the working of God per Colossians 2:12, then who really has faith? Those who submit to baptism to be raised as Christ was, or those who don't?

Just a few thoughts. God bless.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Yes. Well, I should say that in some places it says he is the "Christ" and in other places it says other people are the Christ. In some places it says he is Son of God and others Son of Man. IN some places it says anyone can forgive sin, other places only God can forgive sin... Doesn't your Bible have these "problems"?

So your version says that Jesus is the Christ and that you are a sinner who needs Salvation. Begin from there, and then you will understand the other details that you mentioned.

Baptism, a representation of the Noahachian flood, is now saving you, not by putting off the filth of the flesh but by the inquiry into God by good conscience, through the upstanding of Jesus Anointed.

AND?

So it says that baptism is now saving you. End of the matter.

Apparently you and I have experienced this revelation differently...

One accepts this revelation AS IT IS, and another does not accept it but builds human philosophies around it.

Was that before or after he created the animals to keep man company and before he created Eve from a rib bone?

God created man, male AND female He created them. He created them in His own image after He created the animals. And none of the animals could be a helper suitable for the man, because animals are not created in the image of God.

How do you know that? What would you say is "image" different about a Bonobo and a Human?

Did you ever see a bonobo repenting?

Anyway, the Bible says that God created MAN in His own image. If you doubt the Word of God, then it's your own problem.

Humans are animals.

If you believe that about yourself, then ok. But don't force others to think they are animals. The Bible clearly says that man was created in the image of God.

Nevertheless, why do you only pick and choose which verses you are going to comment on or pay attention to? Why do take these verses out of context and then try and twist the context to fit them?

The context clearly says that God created man in His own image.

How about this time you actually look it up and mark it down so I don't have to give the citation a 6th time? (Although I appreciate your revealing that you haven't looked it up before)
2 Samuel 24:1 God did it
I Chronicles 21:1 Satan did it

Now, my clear question was: "where did you read that God incited David to do the SIN involved in that census?"

And I have put "sin" in capital letters, hoping that you will see it...

Now, your answer to my question was those two verses. Let's see if any of those verses says that God incited David to do the SIN involved in the census:

"Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."" ( 2 Samuel 24:1 )

I see that the anger of the LORD made David number Israel and Judah, because God wanted to discipline or punish them for their sins. Where did you read that God incited David to sin? On the contrary, we see that God wants to PUNISH sin through David.

The other verse:

"Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel." ( 1 Chronicles 21:1 )

In this verse, God is not even mentioned!! So God is not said to cause the sin of David. While in the previous verse we saw that the ANGER of the Lord burned against Israel ( and God's anger burns against sin ) , in this verse, it is said that SATAN himself stood up against Israel, which means that Satan had something against Israel. While the previous verse mentions the ANGER of the Lord, thus showing that God was against the SIN of Israel, this verse mentions Satan himself.

Satan is against humans.
God is against the SIN in humans.

Sin destroys, and Satan knows it. And God wants to save you from sin.

So Satan moved David to sin, because that would destroy Israel.

God moved David against the sin of Israel, because that would punish their sinfulness.

But David chose to sin.

Do you get paid for being a contortionist?
This might help you to think about the problem:
http://www.joyfulministry.com/census.htm

Satan and God (according to the Old Testament authors) work together... are partners...

No, according to the WHOLE Bible, Satan is under the control of God. Satan wanted to destroy Israel, and God wanted to save Israel without disrespect for David's will and without giving place to human pride. By His Grace we are saved, and not by anything good in us.

HIS BLOOD? The actual blood? Are you crazy?

No, I am not. The Bible says:

"Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." ( Hebrews 10:19-22 )

"but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." ( 1 John 1:7 )

And the Lord Himself said it clearly:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." ( John 6:53 )

You need to really drink the real blood of Jesus Christ, or else you don't have life in yourself. You drink the real blood by faith.

Gosh, there you go with that "intentional misrepresentation of the truth" again. Not ever, no where, not once, NEVER did Jesus say anything like that, nor did anyone (except late comers like yourself) record Jesus saying anything like that, nor did Paul, in his letter to Timothy even imply that Jesus ever thought that.

SO WHOEVER YOU ARE FOLLOWING THAT TOLD YOU THAT... it wasn't Jesus.

We have seen how clearly the Lord said that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah, that is eactly what Jesus taught isn't it? Make sure they know you are being loving when you feed the hungry and visit the imprisoned....

Yes, for they called Jesus a bad man after He did all that good, and... they crucified Him... You know...

REALLY????? Noah built a savior?

Noah built the Ark ACCORDING to the instructions of GOD, and not according to his human imagination.

You know what? You will die just like them too. We are all going to die just like them. It isn't about dying (except to self) it is about living.

But Jesus clearly said:

"everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" ( John 11:26 )

It seems that you don't believe this, KCDAD... Does this mean that you don't believe what Christ said?

And the worse is that you are inviting me not to believe what Christ said, and instead to believe you when you say that I will die. No, I prefer to believe Christ. He is more trustworthy.

So lovingly you mock me? Is that why I can't tell you are showing me God's love?

Show me where I mocked you like you do.

You are Apollos!?!?!?!?! Awesome! I am impwessed.

No. Who is Apollos, and who is YAQUBOS?

I do want to hear the word of Yaqubos. What I don't want is you to misrepresent your word as God's word.

And I don't want to tell you my words. I am telling you what God says, not me.

I do want to read Moses' and Ezra's and David's and Isaiah's and Matthew's and Paul's words... but I don't want them misrepresented as God's words either.

And yet, those humans always said that what they were writing was the Word of God, and not their own human words.

Whoopdeedo for you. I was never a sinner. My sin was forgiven about 1925 years before I was born.

"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." ( 1 John 1:8 )

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." ( 1 John 1:10 )

And the forgiveness of sins is by faith in Christ:

"Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." ( Acts 10:43 )

Please, explain to us how you believed in Him before you were born.

Grace be with you!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

False dichotomy... there is no such thing in the Bible as Christ's grace.. it is God's grace, and everyone is covered, God's grace is sufficient.
That's true of anyone, I suppose...

No such thing as the grace of Christ? OK:

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich." ( 2 Corinthians 8:9 )

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." ( 2 Corinthians 13:14 )

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel" ( Galatians 1:6 )

And many other verses...

You said no such thing as the grace of Christ? Well, I advise you to read the Bible before you affirm any such things...

And everyone is covered by this Grace, even if they don't believe in Christ? Well:

"For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace" ( Romans 4:16 )

If it is not by faith, then it is not in accordance with true Grace. In that case, it may be according to your imaginary false "grace".

Stop your inventions and imaginations, and come to Christ, believing His Word.

In Christ's Love,
YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

If having one's sins remitted (taken away) is necessary to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is required to be saved per Acts 2:38.

But if having one's sins remitted ( taken away ) is ITSELF Salvation, and not only a means for Salvation, then the whole thing changes.

If being freed from one's sins is required to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that baptism that unites one with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is required to be saved per Romans 6:7.

But if being freed from one's sins is ITSELF Salvation, and not only a means for Salvation, and if Salvation is that death, burial and resurrection with Christ, then the whole thing changes.

If having one's sins washed away is required to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that baptism is required to be saved per Paul's description of his conversion in Acts 22:16.

But if the washing away of our sins is ITSELF Salvation, then the whole thing changes.

If 1 Peter 3:21 says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (NKJV)," then I'm inclined to acknowledge that baptism is indeed required to be saved.

But if you continue the verse, then you will conclude something else: that baptism is required IN Salvation, and not FOR Salvation.

And, last but certainly not least, if baptism is really based on faith in the working of God per Colossians 2:12, then who really has faith? Those who submit to baptism to be raised as Christ was, or those who don't?

So baptism is the SIGN of true faith. Salvation is by faith alone.

Just a few thoughts. God bless.

May the Lord bless you richly!

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

Look, my friend. You go ahead and believe anything you want, anything that makes you treat you neighbors and enemies with the love, mercy, and justice of God.

I am not going to continue this argument pointing out that starting with a presumption "invented" by Saul, A Roman Citizen, a non-orthodox Jew, and an admitted liar and manipulator, is taking the first step south on a Northern journey. I am ending it.

Per God and the adversary... of course you have no idea what you are doing quoting from "The Bible, The Word of God"... but that has been your Modus Operandi for this whole discussion.
The Verse reads literally from the Hebrew:
"And he is being anger of Yahweh to be hot of in Israel and he is inciting David in them to say of go you! count you! Israel and Judah"

Do you not the see the command of God to David to take a census? Do you see other obvious error? Judah is a part of Israel at this point in history. The Kingdoms do not divide until later. (Like later, when this was written)

Taking the census was not the sin? What was? VERSE 10!!!!! Counting Israel.

It is just so stinking obvious to anyone who isn't trying to twist and manipulate the text to say something it doesn't that this is a case where many hundreds of years later, others are writing a history of Israel and Judah... one guy writes it from one point of view and another guy writes it from another point of view... God or the adversary (it really doesn't even matter who or what incited David to do it) but something got David all in a tizzy and he decided to try and figure out if everyone was participating and paying taxes and serving in the army and doing everything else they should be doing to help out the nation. This was what the historians report as being the cause of the famine and drought that followed... GOLLY MOLLY, just like some people blame the personal income tax (The IRS) and the Federal Reserve for the depression of the 1930s.

Satan is under God's control? Don't you understand how ridiculous that statement is? So God sent Satan to tempt Jesus in the wilderness??? (Jesus sent Satan to tempt himself????)

Satan is doing God's bidding and yet God is going to destroy Satan because he is sooooooooooooooooo evil. WHUH???????

Moving on...
I know what The Bible says... apparently better than you. How can you explain all the people who are saved WITHOUT the blood of Jesus. (You can not claim "salvation" unless your sins are forgiven... right? If you have no sin... you don't need salvation... right?

Jesus told the disciples to forgive sin, and he, himself, forgave sin with no blood involved. Simply by telling someone that it was so, their sin was forgiven. Once sin is forgiven it is "remembered no more". No salvation necessary. NO blood, NO saving necessary.

"Drink my blood"??? This is your idea of a command of Jesus to be washed by his literal blood? You think this is LITERAL?

" Yes, for they called Jesus a bad man after He did all that good, and... they crucified Him... You know..."

Do you really think that is why they crucified him? Because he claimed to be showing the love of God?

" OK. But make sure you know what the Love of God is, so that you may see it when I demonstrate it.

That was your statement... YOU are demonstrating the love of God and I don't recognize it because.... why?

" And I don't want to tell you my words. I am telling you what God says, not me."

I see. You think yourself a prophet. "Nuff said." You are not. Ba bye

 

[YAQUBOS]

Look, my friend. You go ahead and believe anything you want, anything that makes you treat you neighbors and enemies with the love, mercy, and justice of God.

Only faith in the true Grace of God makes you righteous in Christ so that you may really love your friends and enemies without hypocrisy. So you need to believe the Word of God, and not your human imaginations. You need to be born again.

I am not going to continue this argument pointing out that starting with a presumption "invented" by Saul, A Roman Citizen, a non-orthodox Jew, and an admitted liar and manipulator, is taking the first step south on a Northern journey. I am ending it.

You are not continuing this argument because your ignorance of the Scripture has been shown very clearly, specially when you said that there is nothing in the Bible such as "Christ's Grace"...

You choose whatever you like in the Scripture, and you believe whatever you want from the Scripture, and reject all what you don't like. That's not how we respect the Word of God. Paul was sent by Jesus Christ as Apostle. If you don't agree with Jesus in sending Paul as an Apostle, then your problem is with Jesus Himself, not with me.

Per God and the adversary... of course you have no idea what you are doing quoting from "The Bible, The Word of God"... but that has been your Modus Operandi for this whole discussion.

The Sword of the Spirit is so powerful. Proof: No one can oppose it, as we have seen.

The Verse reads literally from the Hebrew:
"And he is being anger of Yahweh to be hot of in Israel and he is inciting David in them to say of go you! count you! Israel and Judah"

Do you not the see the command of God to David to take a census? Do you see other obvious error? Judah is a part of Israel at this point in history. The Kingdoms do not divide until later. (Like later, when this was written)

Taking the census was not the sin? What was? VERSE 10!!!!! Counting Israel.

There was a sin involved in that census. But not any census can be considered a sin. We have seen that God previously told the men of God to do census and there was no problem.

It is just so stinking obvious to anyone who isn't trying to twist and manipulate the text to say something it doesn't that this is a case where many hundreds of years later, others are writing a history of Israel and Judah... one guy writes it from one point of view and another guy writes it from another point of view... God or the adversary (it really doesn't even matter who or what incited David to do it) but something got David all in a tizzy and he decided to try and figure out if everyone was participating and paying taxes and serving in the army and doing everything else they should be doing to help out the nation. This was what the historians report as being the cause of the famine and drought that followed... GOLLY MOLLY, just like some people blame the personal income tax (The IRS) and the Federal Reserve for the depression of the 1930s.

What you said here is not what is said in the Word of God. We clearly see how you build your human imaginations and philosophies around the Sacred Text.

The census is not sinful in itself. David had in his heart a bad reason for the census that Satan had moved. God did not make David have that sinful reason. We read no such thing in the whole Bible. We already saw how the ANGER of the Lord is mentioned in the first verse, while SATAN is mentioned in the second verse.

You are wasting your time, trying to look wise, after it was clearly shown that you don't know the Scripture.

Satan is under God's control? Don't you understand how ridiculous that statement is? So God sent Satan to tempt Jesus in the wilderness??? (Jesus sent Satan to tempt himself????)

Read carefully and learn wisdom:

"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil." ( Matthew 4:1 )

God the Holy Spirit led Jesus to the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, and all that was under control.

By the way, I need to remind you that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Satan is doing God's bidding and yet God is going to destroy Satan because he is sooooooooooooooooo evil. WHUH???????

Satan is doing evil. God controls that evil so that even that will serve His good purpose. And, no, God will not destroy Satan in the sense of annihilation, but Satan is condemned to eternal Hell.

Moving on...
I know what The Bible says... apparently better than you. How can you explain all the people who are saved WITHOUT the blood of Jesus.

No human was ever saved without the Blood of Jesus Christ.

(You can not claim "salvation" unless your sins are forgiven... right? If you have no sin... you don't need salvation... right?

Jesus Christ saved us from sin and eternal death in Hell.

Jesus told the disciples to forgive sin, and he, himself, forgave sin with no blood involved. Simply by telling someone that it was so, their sin was forgiven. Once sin is forgiven it is "remembered no more". No salvation necessary. NO blood, NO saving necessary.

All the sins that have ever been forgiven by God since the beginning of humanity until now and will be forgiven, are forgiven because of the propitiation in the BLOOD of Jesus Christ on the cross:

"being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." ( Romans 3:24-26 )

So all the sins previously committed since the beginning of humanity, and the sins committed at the present time, are forgiven because of the propitiation in the BLOOD of Jesus Christ through faith.

"Drink my blood"??? This is your idea of a command of Jesus to be washed by his literal blood? You think this is LITERAL?

I didn't speak about being washed by His blood in that passage. I was talking about literally drinking His blood by faith. If you think that you will drink His blood in an imaginary way, then tell us how. Faith is a real spiritual drinking, and you need to know that.

" Yes, for they called Jesus a bad man after He did all that good, and... they crucified Him... You know..."

Do you really think that is why they crucified him? Because he claimed to be showing the love of God?

I didn't say such a thing. I said that even when you show real love, people may not understand that real love and consider it bad. You told me that real love is understood by everyone, and here you have an opposite example in the Lord himself who loved everyone but was misunderstood.

" OK. But make sure you know what the Love of God is, so that you may see it when I demonstrate it.

That was your statement... YOU are demonstrating the love of God and I don't recognize it because.... why?

Because you need to know what the Love of God is. His Love is not emotions.

The unbelieving Jews didn't understand the Love of Christ.

" And I don't want to tell you my words. I am telling you what God says, not me."

I see. You think yourself a prophet. "Nuff said." You are not. Ba bye

The Bible is the Word of God, and I am telling you what the Bible says.

I pray for your Salvation.

In Christ's Love,
YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

YAQUBOS;

God the Holy Spirit led Jesus to the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, and all that was under control.

By the way, I need to remind you that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Remind ME??? You are the one having Jesus praying to himself and God sending himself to be tempted by the devil(who is under his control in the first place... some temptation )

Satan is doing evil. God controls that evil so that even that will serve His good purpose. And, no, God will not destroy Satan in the sense of annihilation, but Satan is condemned to eternal Hell.

God controls the evil? So Go dis ultimately responsible for all evil the world... BRILLIANT!!!!
Be sure you think God then for all the evil in the world... the millions starving, dying of disease and being enslaved...

No human was ever saved without the Blood of Jesus Christ.

NO? Abraham? How was Abraham in heaven with Lazarus?

Jesus Christ saved us from sin and eternal death in Hell.

Jesus TRIED to save us from our own ignorance and pagan selfishness. That had nothing to do with his sacrifice. IT has to do with whether or not you accept what Jesus taught.... get it? Accept Jesus?

All the sins that have ever been forgiven by God since the beginning of humanity until now and will be forgiven, are forgiven because of the propitiation in the BLOOD of Jesus Christ on the cross:

So all the sins previously committed since the beginning of humanity, and the sins committed at the present time, are forgiven because of the propitiation in the BLOOD of Jesus Christ through faith.

OK... OK...

Paul was a liar, a manipulator and WRONG. And , you are a fool for following Paul instead of the Lord he professed to "know"

I didn't speak about being washed by His blood in that passage. I was talking about literally drinking His blood by faith. If you think that you will drink His blood in an imaginary way, then tell us how. Faith is a real spiritual drinking, and you need to know that.

Faith is real spiritual drinking....
Literally drinking by faith...

This isn't foolishness, this is borderline insanity.

I didn't say such a thing. I said that even when you show real love, people may not understand that real love and consider it bad. You told me that real love is understood by everyone, and here you have an opposite example in the Lord himself who loved everyone but was misunderstood.

You equated doing things with being good. Not a very consistent position for one who believes that belief (and not works) is what is important.

Because you need to know what the Love of God is. His Love is not emotions.

It isn't nonsense, either

The unbelieving Jews didn't understand the Love of Christ.

Right. Only those enlightened Greeks and Romans... right?

The Bible is the Word of God, and I am telling you what the Bible says.

No you are not. You are telling me what you think it says, and since you think it is one single message, you have to twist yourself into all kind of knots trying to make it make sense.

I pray for your Salvation.

I pray for your enlightenment

RE: Plato's Cave. Come out of the cave Yaqubos, the world is more than dancing shadows.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If having one's sins remitted (taken away) is necessary to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is required to be saved per Acts 2:38.

But if having one's sins remitted ( taken away ) is ITSELF Salvation, and not only a means for Salvation, then the whole thing changes.

Not sure exactly what your point is. In the context, the apostle Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, charged the Jews with killing Jesus (vs. 23). Peter then uses Psalm 16, 2 Samuel 7, and Psalm 110 as the basis for declaring Jesus as both Lord and Christ (vs. 36). Some of the Jews believed the message, were cut to the heart, and asked what they should do (vs. 37). Peter responds with, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ [i.e., by His authority] for the remission of sins." Do you agree with what Peter told them? Peter directed their attention to Jesus, and then told them what the Lord authorized them to do to have their sins taken away. Since sins are what separate us from God per Isaiah 59:2, then having our sins taken away would unite us with God, right? And, that idea is synonymous with being saved. If you beg to differ, then please explain.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If being freed from one's sins is required to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that baptism that unites one with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is required to be saved per Romans 6:7.

But if being freed from one's sins is ITSELF Salvation, and not only a means for Salvation, and if Salvation is that death, burial and resurrection with Christ, then the whole thing changes.

Romans 6:3-11 discusses the blessings that occur in baptism. If being united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, where we die to sin, become freed from it, and become alive to God (i.e., being born again) isn't necessary for salvation, then you need to help me understand what you mean by "the whole thing changes." Are you promoting salvation apart from Jesus? Apart from His cross? Please explain.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If having one's sins washed away is required to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that baptism is required to be saved per Paul's description of his conversion in Acts 22:16.

But if the washing away of our sins is ITSELF Salvation, then the whole thing changes.

Once again, I don't know how you think a person can be saved without having their sins washed away. Considering the context, Jesus sent Ananias to Saul. And, Ananias gave the instructions in Acts 22:16. And, Saul obeyed what he was told (i.e., was baptized per Acts 9:18). Therefore, the context is clear that Jesus authorized both the message and the messenger sent to Saul. Please explain the meaning of "the whole thing changes" in light of this passage in its context.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If 1 Peter 3:21 says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (NKJV)," then I'm inclined to acknowledge that baptism is indeed required to be saved.

But if you continue the verse, then you will conclude something else: that baptism is required IN Salvation, and not FOR Salvation.

Okay, there's seems to be a problem acknowledging what the passages says. Considering the context - that eight souls were saved by the flood waters per vs. 20, the conclusion is that baptism saves us. A type and antitype relationship is presented. Is there a problem acknowledging the passage says baptism save us? Not sure what you have in mind distinguishing between "IN Salvation" versus "FOR Salvation." Please explain your scriptural basis for your designations.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

And, last but certainly not least, if baptism is really based on faith in the working of God per Colossians 2:12, then who really has faith? Those who submit to baptism to be raised as Christ was, or those who don't?

So baptism is the SIGN of true faith. Salvation is by faith alone.

Does Acts 2:38 say baptism is "the SIGN of true faith" or a requirement to have one's sins taken away?

How about Acts 22:16? Was Saul commanded to be baptized as "the SIGN of true faith," or to have his sins washed away?

Please help me better understand where you are coming from. It seems as if you have problems acknowledging what the Scriptures teach about the baptism in the name of the Lord.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Remind ME??? You are the one having Jesus praying to himself and God sending himself to be tempted by the devil(who is under his control in the first place... some temptation )

Jesus prayed to the Father.
The Holy Spirit led Jesus to the wilderness to be tempted.

So where did you read me saying that Jesus prayed to Himself, or that God sent Himself to be tempted by Satan??

I already told you: I need to remind you that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

God controls the evil? So Go dis ultimately responsible for all evil the world... BRILLIANT!!!!

God is to be thanked for NOT allowing evil in the world reach its purpose.

God is not responsible for any evil. He is against evil. He is controling it, or else evil would overcome at the end.

Be sure you think God then for all the evil in the world... the millions starving, dying of disease and being enslaved...

I thank God for all the good that He is making out of all the evil that Satan is wanting and doing.

NO? Abraham? How was Abraham in heaven with Lazarus?

Abraham also was saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ. We have seen this in detail in my previous reply.

Jesus TRIED to save us from our own ignorance and pagan selfishness. That had nothing to do with his sacrifice. IT has to do with whether or not you accept what Jesus taught.... get it? Accept Jesus?

The Bible says that Jesus SAVED us by Grace through faith. If you think that the Bible is wrong, and that you are right, then you are arrogant.

The Bible also clearly says that Christ saved us from sin and eternal death in Hell.

OK... OK...

Paul was a liar, a manipulator and WRONG. And , you are a fool for following Paul instead of the Lord he professed to "know"

Reminder: Jesus Christ sent Paul as His Apostle.

Faith is real spiritual drinking....
Literally drinking by faith...

This isn't foolishness, this is borderline insanity.

That's why many of Christ's disciples left Him after they heard Him say these things.

And Jesus explained why they left Him:

"But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him." ( John 6:64 )

So if you don't really believe in Jesus, you will think that what He said is insane.

You equated doing things with being good. Not a very consistent position for one who believes that belief (and not works) is what is important.

I never said that works are not important. Good works are an evidence of real faith.

It isn't nonsense, either

It IS for human depraved mind.

Right. Only those enlightened Greeks and Romans... right?

ALL believers, whether Jews or Nations.

No you are not. You are telling me what you think it says, and since you think it is one single message, you have to twist yourself into all kind of knots trying to make it make sense.

We have seen how I am quoting the Bible as a whole.

I pray for your enlightenment

Rebellion against God's Word is not enlightenment, but the worst kind of darkness.

RE: Plato's Cave. Come out of the cave Yaqubos, the world is more than dancing shadows.

The truth of God is not Plato's Cave. Sin is that cave! So you come out of it by faith in Christ.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If having one's sins remitted (taken away) is necessary to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is required to be saved per Acts 2:38.



Not sure exactly what your point is. In the context, the apostle Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, charged the Jews with killing Jesus (vs. 23). Peter then uses Psalm 16, 2 Samuel 7, and Psalm 110 as the basis for declaring Jesus as both Lord and Christ (vs. 36). Some of the Jews believed the message, were cut to the heart, and asked what they should do (vs. 37). Peter responds with, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ [i.e., by His authority] for the remission of sins." Do you agree with what Peter told them? Peter directed their attention to Jesus, and then told them what the Lord authorized them to do to have their sins taken away. Since sins are what separate us from God per Isaiah 59:2, then having our sins taken away would unite us with God, right? And, that idea is synonymous with being saved. If you beg to differ, then please explain.

I agree with Peter. He said that baptism is a necessary part of Salvation. But Peter never said that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation. In the verse that you quoted, it is clearly stated that baptism without repentance is nothing:

"Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized 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 )

Baptism doesn't give you forgiveness of your sins unless you repent. So baptism is a part of that Salvation ( = forgiveness of sins ) that you receive by faith ALONE.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If being freed from one's sins is required to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that baptism that unites one with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is required to be saved per Romans 6:7.



Romans 6:3-11 discusses the blessings that occur in baptism. If being united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, where we die to sin, become freed from it, and become alive to God (i.e., being born again) isn't necessary for salvation, then you need to help me understand what you mean by "the whole thing changes." Are you promoting salvation apart from Jesus? Apart from His cross? Please explain.

Romans 6:3-11 never says that baptism is the new birth. It says that Salvation that INCLUDES baptism is ITSELF that death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. When you receive that BY FAITH ALONE, you are born again. If you refuse that, then you will remain in your sins even if they throw on you all the waters of the world.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If having one's sins washed away is required to be saved, then I'm inclined to say that baptism is required to be saved per Paul's description of his conversion in Acts 22:16.



Once again, I don't know how you think a person can be saved without having their sins washed away. Considering the context, Jesus sent Ananias to Saul. And, Ananias gave the instructions in Acts 22:16. And, Saul obeyed what he was told (i.e., was baptized per Acts 9:18). Therefore, the context is clear that Jesus authorized both the message and the messenger sent to Saul. Please explain the meaning of "the whole thing changes" in light of this passage in its context.

I don't think that a person can be saved without having his sins washed away. But that washing ITSELF is Salvation. Paul received that Salvation or washing away of his sins ( which includes baptism ) by faith alone.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If 1 Peter 3:21 says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (NKJV)," then I'm inclined to acknowledge that baptism is indeed required to be saved.



Okay, there's seems to be a problem acknowledging what the passages says. Considering the context - that eight souls were saved by the flood waters per vs. 20, the conclusion is that baptism saves us. A type and antitype relationship is presented. Is there a problem acknowledging the passage says baptism save us? Not sure what you have in mind distinguishing between "IN Salvation" versus "FOR Salvation." Please explain your scriptural basis for your designations.

The waters of the flood KILLED those who were not in the Ark. Only eight persons were saved through the waters of the flood BECAUSE they were IN THE ARK.

Now, replace:

The waters of the flood --> Baptism.

The Ark --> Christ Jesus.

Those who were in the Ark --> Those who are in Christ Jesus.

And let's read the same truth again:

Baptism KILLS those who are not in Christ Jesus. Only those who are in Christ Jesus are saved through baptism BECAUSE they are in Christ Jesus.

So baptism itself is not that being in Christ. Many are baptized, but are not really in Christ Jesus. In their case, baptism only brings death to them, just as the waters of the flood brought death to those who were not in the Ark.

Just as the waters of the flood were essential to kill the sinful, and save those who were in the Ark, in the same way baptism saves those who are in Christ by FAITH ALONE. But those who are not in Christ BY FAITH ALONE, are not saved by baptism, just as those who were not in the Ark were not saved by the waters of the flood.

So baptism is necessary IN Salvation, just as the waters of the flood were necessary IN the salvation of those who were in the Ark. The Ark and being in the Ark were necessary FOR salvation.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

And, last but certainly not least, if baptism is really based on faith in the working of God per Colossians 2:12, then who really has faith? Those who submit to baptism to be raised as Christ was, or those who don't?



Does Acts 2:38 say baptism is "the SIGN of true faith" or a requirement to have one's sins taken away?

Acts 2:38 says that baptism without repentance is NOTHING. Repentance means living faith.

Cornelius and those who were with him repented and received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized.

How about Acts 22:16? Was Saul commanded to be baptized as "the SIGN of true faith," or to have his sins washed away?

Acts 22:16 does not even say that Paul had to be baptized IN ORDER TO wash away his sins. The passage is clear:

"Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." ( Acts 22:16 )

So Paul was to be baptized AND to wash away his sins BY CALLING ON HIS NAME. Calling on His Name means believing in Him.

Let's see what washes away our sins:

"but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." ( 1 John 1:7 )

The Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. How?

"Peter said to Him, "Never shall You wash my feet!" Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me."" ( John 13:8 )

Jesus Christ applies His Blood on us to wash us. Of course, you don't think He washes us by washing our feet. The same is for baptism.

But how does Jesus apply His Blood on us?

"Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you."" ( John 13:10 )

How were they clean? They have bathed!! Is this baptism? Let's see:

"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you." ( John 15:3 )

So they have bathed by the Word of Christ!! Washed by the Word of God that applies the Blood of Christ on us. How does that Word apply it on us?

"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." ( Romans 10:17 )

So FAITH alone receives the Word of God and thus applies on us the purifying Blood of Christ.

Is this my imagination? Does the Word of God really say that faith purifies us? Let's see:

"and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith." ( Acts 15:9 )

So the Grace of God alone received by faith alone is necessary FOR Salvation. Baptism is a necessary part of that Salvation. And as faith washes our hearts by the Word, so that is represented by the sign of water baptism.

Please help me better understand where you are coming from. It seems as if you have problems acknowledging what the Scriptures teach about the baptism in the name of the Lord.

I come from the Scripture alone. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, and I believe all what He says in His written Word, the Bible.

Jesus baptized all His disciples. One of them was Judas Iscariot. This also was baptized, but was not born again, because he did not have FAITH. Just as Jesus said to His disciples:

""But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him." ( John 6:64 )

Grace be with you!

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

"God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"... the Son prayed to the Father.. God prayed to God... what don't you get about that????

 

[YAQUBOS]

"God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"... the Son prayed to the Father.. God prayed to God... what don't you get about that????

The incarnated God the Son prayed to God the Father. So God the Father didn't pray to Himself, nor did God the Son pray to Himself.

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

The incarnated God the Son prayed to God the Father. So God the Father didn't pray to Himself, nor did God the Son pray to Himself.

YAQUBOS†

Take away your superfluous qualifying adjectives and what do you get?

"_____ _______ God ______ ______ prayed to God ______ ______."

"So God _____ _______ didn't pray to Himself, nor did God____ ____ pray to Himself."

And that makes sense to you?????????????????????????????????????????

 

[YAQUBOS]

Take away your superfluous qualifying adjectives and what do you get?

"_____ _______ God ______ ______ prayed to God ______ ______."

"So God _____ _______ didn't pray to Himself, nor did God____ ____ pray to Himself."

And that makes sense to you?????????????????????????????????????????

I previously warned you: you need to know that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Those are not "superfluous qualifying adjectives". They are three Persons.

God the Son was incarnated. This doesn't mean that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit also were incarnated.

The Son IS God. But God is NOT the Son. That would be Sabellianism. The Holy Spirit has clearly said this in John 1:1.

You need to know the basics. We have already seen that you still don't know that there IS in the Bible something called "the Grace of Christ"...

If you still don't know that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then how will you understand what it means to be baptized in that Name??

YAQUBOS†

 

[- DRA -]

I agree with Peter. He said that baptism is a necessary part of Salvation. But Peter never said that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation. In the verse that you quoted, it is clearly stated that baptism without repentance is nothing:

"Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized 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 )

Baptism doesn't give you forgiveness of your sins unless you repent. So baptism is a part of that Salvation ( = forgiveness of sins ) that you receive by faith ALONE.

I agree that Acts 2:38 teaches the necessity of both repentance and baptism in the name of Christ (i.e., by His authority). They are requirements "for the remission of sins." I understand this phrase is synonymous with being saved. In short, to be saved is to have your sins taken away, and vice-versa. If you differ, then please explain how they are separate concepts.

I disagree with the idea that salvation is by "faith ALONE." Take the passage under consideration in its context. In verse 36, the apostle Peter, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave the conclusion to the message preached: Jesus is both Lord and Christ. Some of the Jews were convicted of their wrongdoing and asked what they should do (verse 37). Note Peter's response in verse 38. Did he say you can be saved by faith alone? Nope, but he told them what to do to have their sins taken away, which is another way of saying he told them what to do to be saved. Assuming they could have been saved by "faith ALONE," then Peter's response in verse 38 should have been, "You believe, therefore you are saved from your sins." Is that what Acts 2:38 says in your Bible?

Romans 6:3-11 never says that baptism is the new birth. It says that Salvation that INCLUDES baptism is ITSELF that death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. When you receive that BY FAITH ALONE, you are born again. If you refuse that, then you will remain in your sins even if they throw on you all the waters of the world.

Let's note the context of Romans 6: "3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Obviously, what is described here results in a new birth, synonymous with "newness of life." The process is explained more thoroughly in the verse that follow.

Granted. Baptism is based on faith ... faith in the working of God per Colossians 2:12-13. Without faith, one only gets wet. However, with faith, accompanied with repentance per Acts 2:38 and confession per Romans 10:9-10 & Acts 8:37, the blessing described in Romans 6 occur DURING baptism - NOT BEFORE.

I don't think that a person can be saved without having his sins washed away. But that washing ITSELF is Salvation. Paul received that Salvation or washing away of his sins ( which includes baptism ) by faith alone.

Here's the way the Bible describes the washing away of Saul's/Paul's sins: "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Saul's response was: "... And he arose and was baptized (Acts 9:18). So, please explain how/why we are supposed to conclude that Saul's sins were washed away by faith alone.

The waters of the flood KILLED those who were not in the Ark. Only eight persons were saved through the waters of the flood BECAUSE they were IN THE ARK.

Now, replace:

The waters of the flood --> Baptism.

The Ark --> Christ Jesus.

Those who were in the Ark --> Those who are in Christ Jesus.

And let's read the same truth again:

Baptism KILLS those who are not in Christ Jesus. Only those who are in Christ Jesus are saved through baptism BECAUSE they are in Christ Jesus.

So baptism itself is not that being in Christ. Many are baptized, but are not really in Christ Jesus. In their case, baptism only brings death to them, just as the waters of the flood brought death to those who were not in the Ark.

I hear what you are saying, but the type/antitype relationship discussed in 1 Peter 3:20-21 is that eight souls were saved by water, and baptism now saves us. No, baptism doesn't save without Christ. It saves by giving us a clear conscience (by taking our sins away) through the resurrection of Christ (as explained in verse 21), which brings to mind Col. 2:12-13 and Romans 6:3-11 again. Baptism is God's way for us to be united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. That's how baptism saves us.

As for being in Christ, Galatians 3:27 describes how one gets "into Christ." It occurs in baptism. Therefore, the inference is that before baptism one is outside of Christ. Therefore, one can't be saved by "faith alone" separate and apart from baptism, unless one could be saved without being in Christ. See the reasoning?

Just as the waters of the flood were essential to kill the sinful, and save those who were in the Ark, in the same way baptism saves those who are in Christ by FAITH ALONE. But those who are not in Christ BY FAITH ALONE, are not saved by baptism, just as those who were not in the Ark were not saved by the waters of the flood.

Can you direct me to a passage that says "FAITH ALONE" puts one into Christ?

So baptism is necessary IN Salvation, just as the waters of the flood were necessary IN the salvation of those who were in the Ark. The Ark and being in the Ark were necessary FOR salvation.

Don't have a problem with being in the ark and being in Christ type/antitype. However, Galatians 3:27 plainly states how one gets into Christ. And, it isn't by faith alone. Rather, it's by faith coupled with baptism, just like in Mark 16:16).

Acts 2:38 says that baptism without repentance is NOTHING. Repentance means living faith.

For sure, Acts 2:38 combines repentance and baptism with the coordinating conjuntion "and." Repentance means to turn about, or around. Typically, where man is concerned, it means to turn from sin. While it is the demonstration of "living faith," it has a different meaning.

Cornelius and those who were with him repented and received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized.

Note Peter's conclusion, while under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, in Acts 10:47-48. Was His conclusion the Gentiles were saved? Is that what these passages say? I'm going to venture that this is not what these passages say. Rather, they say simply that none of the Jews there could forbid the Gentiles from being baptized in water in the name of the Lord. Two key thoughts: 1.) the baptism in the name of the Lord is indentified as being in water 2.) the baptism in the name of the Lord is synonymous with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38, which was "for the remission of sins." Therefore, the conclusion is that Cornelius and his household were baptized like those in Acts 2:38,41.

Acts 22:16 does not even say that Paul had to be baptized IN ORDER TO wash away his sins. The passage is clear:

"Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." ( Acts 22:16 )

So Paul was to be baptized AND to wash away his sins BY CALLING ON HIS NAME. Calling on His Name means believing in Him.

Disagree with your reasoning. Note the process described in Romans 10 ...
13 "For 'whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Reversed in order, the logic is you have to have preaching so people can hear the message and believe, and they have to believe in the Lord so they can call on Him to be saved. This proces demonstrates that belief and calling on the Lord aren't the same thing. Belief comes first, then it prompts calling on the name of the Lord. Let's apply this to Acts 22:16. Saul believed, and then was told to call on the name of the Lord by being baptized to wash away his sins. And, he obeyed. Relating it to Romans 10, Ananias preached to Saul, Saul believed the message, then Saul called on the name of the Lord by doing what he was told to wash away his sins. It's a great story!

Let's see what washes away our sins:

"but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." ( 1 John 1:7 )

The Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. How?

"Peter said to Him, "Never shall You wash my feet!" Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me."" ( John 13:8 )

Jesus Christ applies His Blood on us to wash us. Of course, you don't think He washes us by washing our feet. The same is for baptism.

But how does Jesus apply His Blood on us?

"Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you."" ( John 13:10 )

How were they clean? They have bathed!! Is this baptism? Let's see:

"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you." ( John 15:3 )

So they have bathed by the Word of Christ!! Washed by the Word of God that applies the Blood of Christ on us. How does that Word apply it on us?

"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." ( Romans 10:17 )

So FAITH alone receives the Word of God and thus applies on us the purifying Blood of Christ.

Okay, let do a practical application and test your conclusion. Acts 2. The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and Peter preached a sermon. Some of the Jews were convicted in their hearts, which implies/infers they believed the message in verse 37. Therefore, since they heard the word and could be saved by "FAITH alone," then they were saved at this point, right? Yes, that would be the right conclusion if the logic you presented is correct. However, the problem I have with this understanding is that you have them saved in verse 37, but their sins haven't yet been taken away as discussed in verse 38. Therefore, you have them being saved while still in their sins. Frankly, I don't see how that's supposed to work. Sins separate a person from God per Isaiah 59:1-2. Therefore, how can/will God save a person from which he is separated? I humbly suggest you diligently rethink your reasoning. Acts 2:38 clearly shows that salvation under the gospel of Christ doesn't occur by faith alone.

Is this my imagination? Does the Word of God really say that faith purifies us? Let's see:

"and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith." ( Acts 15:9 )

So the Grace of God alone received by faith alone is necessary FOR Salvation. Baptism is a necessary part of that Salvation. And as faith washes our hearts by the Word, so that is represented by the sign of water baptism.

No problem with Acts 15:9. It refers to the conversion of the Gentiles in Act s10. I've previously commented on that conversion. However, since we are talking about faith, James 2:14-26 discusses the faith that pleases God. Note verse 21. Abraham's faith prompted him to obey God (i.e., do what He commanded). Thinking back to Acts 2, who truly had faith in God ... the 3,000 that obeyed what they were told to do in verse 38 (see verse 41), or all those that didn't obey what they were told in verse 38? I believe those who had the faith that pleases God did what they were commanded to do, and afterward received the blessings God promised.

As for grace, it has been extended to all people (Titus 2:11). However, since all won't be saved (Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23), salvation cannot be by grace alone. As for faith alone, it has been discussed several times previously in this post.

I come from the Scripture alone. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, and I believe all what He says in His written Word, the Bible.

Glad to hear these things. We stand on common ground. Therefore, we should come to a common understanding of the Scriptures.

Jesus baptized all His disciples. One of them was Judas Iscariot. This also was baptized, but was not born again, because he did not have FAITH. Just as Jesus said to His disciples:

""But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him." ( John 6:64 )

Grace be with you!

YAQUBOS†

Really? Jesus baptized them in water? Are you sure? Note John 4:1. It says Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. But, also note the next verse, which says,
NKJV (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)
NASV (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were)
NIV although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
NRSV —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized—

In closing, may God bless you in your studies of His word.

 

[darkshadow]

We are not saved by baptism, however it is a requirement as part of salvation. Acts 2:38 " Repent and be baptized everyone of you for the forgiveness of your sins...". That sounds like a command to me. There are 5 things we are to do as Christians regarding our salvation, and they are:
1. Believe - That Christ is who he said he is.
2. Confess - That we are sinners (Not the sinners prayer).
3. Repent - A total 180 degree turn from who we are as sinners.
4. Be baptized - Again Acts 2:38 and the Greek word used means immersed.
5. Preach the word - Not necessarily with our mouths, some preach better by their lives. (Actions speak louder then words.)

Now if someone is not baptized will they go to Hell? That is a judgment call that is in God's hands not mine, nor would I want it to be.

 

[- DRA -]

We are not saved by baptism, however it is a requirement as part of salvation. Acts 2:38 " Repent and be baptized everyone of you for the forgiveness of your sins...". That sounds like a command to me. There are 5 things we are to do as Christians regarding our salvation, and they are:
1. Believe - That Christ is who he said he is.
2. Confess - That we are sinners (Not the sinners prayer).
3. Repent - A total 180 degree turn from who we are as sinners.
4. Be baptized - Again Acts 2:38 and the Greek word used means immersed.
5. Preach the word - Not necessarily with our mouths, some preach better by their lives. (Actions speak louder then words.)

Now if someone is not baptized will they go to Hell? That is a judgment call that is in God's hands not mine, nor would I want it to be.

Granted, in Acts 2:38 baptism is presented as a requirement for salvation (i.e., the remission of sins) as is repentance. However, in 1 Peter 3:21 the statement is plainly made that baptism saves us. The latter part of the passages explains how it does. In short, it gives us a clear conscience (takes our sins away - see also Acts 22:16) through the resurrection of Christ (in baptism we are united with Jesus' resurrection - Col. 2:12-13 & Romans 6:3-11).

Our role is to preach the gospel (2 Timothy 4:2). Those that don't obey God will judge. It isn't our place to send them to hell, or, for that matter, to heaven. God is the judge. His judgment will be just and right. On the other hand, it's also not our place to excuse people from obeying the requirements God said were necessary to be saved. Rather, our role is to help them, in whatever way we can, to obey the gospel.

 

[camethodactor]

Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Instead this sacrament is an initiation into a covenanted community with others and with God. Further this signifies an outer transformation. In infants, or children it is often a pledge for the parents to raise them in the larger Christian tradition, or by teaching, word, and example living out the radical example of Jesus.

 

[- DRA -]

Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Instead this sacrament is an initiation into a covenanted community with others and with God. Further this signifies an outer transformation. In infants, or children it is often a pledge for the parents to raise them in the larger Christian tradition, or by teaching, word, and example living out the radical example of Jesus.

If baptism is not necessary for salvation, then a person can be saved while still in their sins (see Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and Romans 6:7).

Can you provide the scriptural references that say baptism is a "sacrament" and an "initiation into a covenanted community."

I think you got the reasoning confused. It typically goes, "Baptism is an outward sign of inward grace (of an inward change)." Perhaps you can provide the scriptural basis for what you have in mind.

As for baptizing infants and children, I am all for it ... providing they believe, repent of their sins (just for the record, I don't think they are sinful at this point in their lives), and confess Jesus. The Scriptural basis for this reasoning can be found in passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, and Acts 8:35-39 (for starters).

 

[YAQUBOS]

I agree that Acts 2:38 teaches the necessity of both repentance and baptism in the name of Christ (i.e., by His authority). They are requirements "for the remission of sins." I understand this phrase is synonymous with being saved. In short, to be saved is to have your sins taken away, and vice-versa. If you differ, then please explain how they are separate concepts.

That's what I told you, DRA. Salvation is itself the taking away of your sins, and baptism is part of that Salvation that you receive by faith alone.

Acts 2:38 is a part of the whole Bible. It was not said in a context that is not related to the rest of the Bible. Acts 2:38 teaches that, even if you are baptized but did not repent, then your baptism does not save you. So the real meaning of baptism is in repentance. After all, the Bible clearly tells you what baptism is: It is the death with Christ to walk in newness of life. In other words, this is what REPENTANCE is:

"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." ( Romans 6:3-4 )

So baptism is the external sign of repentant faith. If you don't have that repentance inside, then the outward sign is nothing. In other words, baptism is not necessary FOR Salvation. It is a necessary part of Salvation. As soon as you have a real repentant faith, then you have eternal life, just like the thief on the cross. And if you really received that Salvation, then you have received the real meaning of baptism, therefore no one can refuse the water of baptism for you if you are not yet baptized:

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days." ( Acts 10:44-48 )

These people received Salvation even before they were baptized, because they had already received the meaning of baptism, i.e. REPENTANCE. And then they were baptized with water.

I disagree with the idea that salvation is by "faith ALONE." Take the passage under consideration in its context. In verse 36, the apostle Peter, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave the conclusion to the message preached: Jesus is both Lord and Christ. Some of the Jews were convicted of their wrongdoing and asked what they should do (verse 37). Note Peter's response in verse 38. Did he say you can be saved by faith alone? Nope, but he told them what to do to have their sins taken away, which is another way of saying he told them what to do to be saved. Assuming they could have been saved by "faith ALONE," then Peter's response in verse 38 should have been, "You believe, therefore you are saved from your sins." Is that what Acts 2:38 says in your Bible?

Actually, when the Bible teaches Salvation by faith alone, people misunderstand it. They think "faith alone" means "dead faith alone". But in fact it is a living faith. When God works faith in you by His Holy Spirit, that means He gives you repentance and all what faith receives, i.e. Salvation. This Salvation is the Grace of God received by faith alone. This Grace gives you a new heart. This Grace, received by faith alone, makes you repent and get baptized.

As faith is born from the seed of the Word of God, so Peter had to tell them the truth of Salvation: repentance for the forgiveness of sins:

"and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." ( Luke 24:46-47 )

Notice with me that, in this passage, our Lord didn't say "repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins". He only mentioned repentance, because, as I told you, baptism is closely related to repentance as it is the sign of that repentance.

Now, if Peter didn't tell those people that they should repent and get baptized, then in what would they believe? In which proclamation? On what would their faith be built?

You can't receive the real meaning of baptism without faith. This faith is a repentant faith; that's its nature. You don't baptize all humans. You baptize those who have faith. So baptism also is received by faith alone. Saying that Salvation is by baptism ( which is another way to say that baptism is necessary for Salvation ) is like saying that you receive the real meaning of baptism by being baptized, which is wrong. Many are baptized, but not all are saved. We have clear examples in the Bible.

So, in brief, Peter didn't tell those people to DO something to be saved. He told them to RECEIVE the Grace of God to be saved. And baptism is part of that Grace.

Let's note the context of Romans 6: "3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Obviously, what is described here results in a new birth, synonymous with "newness of life." The process is explained more thoroughly in the verse that follow.

Did you notice how the passage begins? Let me underline what you need to notice:

"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?" ( Romans 6:3 )

And as you quoted it:

"3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

How many of them were baptized with water? Actually, ALL Christians are baptized. But how many of them are REALLY baptized INTO CHRIST JESUS? Only those who have real repentant faith. So the new birth happens by faith. It is not something you do. It is the Grace of God that you RECEIVE by faith alone.

Granted. Baptism is based on faith ... faith in the working of God per Colossians 2:12-13. Without faith, one only gets wet. However, with faith, accompanied with repentance per Acts 2:38 and confession per Romans 10:9-10 & Acts 8:37, the blessing described in Romans 6 occur DURING baptism - NOT BEFORE.

No, that's not what Romans 6 is saying. Romans 6 is not talking about the TIME of baptism. It is talking about the MEANING of baptism. And, yes, if you don't have the meaning of baptism in you by faith, then you are not saved, because baptism is necessary in Salvation. But it is not necessary FOR Salvation. Only the Grace of God is necessary for Salvation, and you receive that Grace by Faith alone.

By the way, if you say that the blessing of Romans 6 occurs only DURING water baptism, then you contradict the fact that Cornelius and those who were with him really RECEIVED the Gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized with water.



I continue in the next reply, if the Lord wills.

YAQUBOS†