Is baptism necessary to be saved?

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

I don't see "dispensation."

1 cor 9:17 dispensation of the gospel
eph 1:10 dispensation of the fulness of times
eph 3:2 dispensation of grace
col 1:25 dispensation of God

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

those are water but we see two different forms of baptism in Matt 3:11

1cor 12:13 by one spirit we are baptised in to Christ.....
Eph 4:4-6...... one baptism puts us into christ

but no water interesting

did you read these verses

 

[heb12-2]

did you read these verses

I have read the verses you mention. You should re-examine one that you listed. Eph. 4:5 says there is "one baptism". The question now is, "Which one is it?"

We know that there have been more baptisms in the past, but the question is, "Which one is for us today?"

Baptisms in the past:
- baptism of John (Mk. 21:25),
- baptism of Moses (1 cor 10:2)
- baptism of Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11)

There is a baptism of the future:
- fire baptism (Mt. 3:11). This is hell fire. Read the next verse. Trust me, you don't want this baptism!

The "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5) for the present is water baptism.

Holy Spirit baptism:
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was never commanded. It was promised to the apostles (Ac. 1:5). The purpose was for them to "receive power" (Ac. 1:8) and establish them as "witnesses" of Christ's resurrection (Ac. 1:8, 22). This was all accomplished in Acts 2.

The other example of Holy Spirit baptism was on the Gentiles in Ac. 10. The purpose of them recieving the baptism of the Holy Spirit was to show that "God also to the Gentiles granted repentence unto life." (Ac. 11:16-18).

The purpose of Holy Spirit baptism has been fulfilled in both these cases. So why do we need it today? Do we need to establish the apostles as witnesses again? Or do we need to establish that the door has been open to the Gentiles again? No, both of these have been proven and established. The need for Holy Spirit baptism has been fulfilled.

The need for John's baptism has been fulfilled. He prepared the way for Christ. We don't need it today. That is evidenced by reading Ac. 19:1-5.

We don't need the baptism of Moses, because it was to lead them out of Egyptian bondage (1 Cor. 10:2). That has been fulfilled.

Do we need water baptism? Well, has the need been for fullfilled? It's purpose is "for the remission of sins" (Ac. 2:38), to "wash away thy sins" (Ac. 22:16), to "save us" (1 Pet. 3:21), and it is "commanded" (Ac. 10:47-48). Do unsaved men still need their sins remitted and washed away? If the answer is yes, then water baptism is the "one baptism" mentioned in Eph. 4:5. If water baptism is not the "one baptism" of Eph. 4:5, everyone who is baptised by water is taking part in the wrong baptism.

For your consideration.

 

[heb12-2]

Thats interesting heb. Ill have to look up just what Jacob, David, Ruth, and all the other biblical folks did with their licenses....

You're confusing the way one gets married in our culture with how they were married in their culture.

 

[heb12-2]

i dont think god is going to hold us to all these rules when jesus came to free us from the bondage of the law. its the condition of your heart to symbolically die to yourself and be raised with christ. that is the ultimate sign of humility.
if you decide that you will be baptized then you have that condition of heart.
i think that condition of the heart is necessary.

When you say, "these rules", which rules are you referring to? You follow the rule that one must believe. Why not follow the rule to be baptized?

 

[heb12-2]

It seems to me that baptism is always mentioned as a consequence of receiving the holy spirit. It is an outward symbol of something that has already occured within a person's soul. Therefore I conclude that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but a natural response to God's grace and mercy.

Those who are saying that baptism is not necessary are basing that on two false assumptions: 1) that baptism is an "outward sign of an inward decision"; 2) that being baptized for the remission of sins somehow does away with the grace of God.

You need to first prove these two assumptions with scripture. Nowhere in all of scripture does it ever say baptism is "an outward sign", so why do so many say it? I kindly and lovingly challenge you to find one verse that even hints at it. You can't find it.

Next, simply because the Bible commands us to be baptized doesn't in any way mean that we "earn" our salvation by our meritorious works. When we are baptized, we simply submit to God's plan of grace.

Let me explain it this way. If I sold you my car for $5,000, you could say that you "earned" it, right? But if I offered to give it to you for free, it would be a "gift", right? But suppose I said, "All you need to do is come and get my car, take the keys, and make the necessary title changes", would anyone dare say that you "earned" my car? You better not, I gave it to you! But simply because you submitted to my conditions for receiving my car doesn't in any way nullify my gracious gift to you. Finally, the car is not legally yours until you've made the title changes and have it in your possession.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

I have read the verses you mention. You should re-examine one that you listed. Eph. 4:5 says there is "one baptism". The question now is, "Which one is it?"

We know that there have been more baptisms in the past, but the question is, "Which one is for us today?"

Baptisms in the past:
- baptism of John (Mk. 21:25),
- baptism of Moses (1 cor 10:2)
- baptism of Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11)

There is a baptism of the future:
- fire baptism (Mt. 3:11). This is hell fire. Read the next verse. Trust me, you don't want this baptism!

The "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5) for the present is water baptism.

Holy Spirit baptism:
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was never commanded. It was promised to the apostles (Ac. 1:5). The purpose was for them to "receive power" (Ac. 1:8) and establish them as "witnesses" of Christ's resurrection (Ac. 1:8, 22). This was all accomplished in Acts 2.

The other example of Holy Spirit baptism was on the Gentiles in Ac. 10. The purpose of them recieving the baptism of the Holy Spirit was to show that "God also to the Gentiles granted repentence unto life." (Ac. 11:16-18).

The purpose of Holy Spirit baptism has been fulfilled in both these cases. So why do we need it today? Do we need to establish the apostles as witnesses again? Or do we need to establish that the door has been open to the Gentiles again? No, both of these have been proven and established. The need for Holy Spirit baptism has been fulfilled.

The need for John's baptism has been fulfilled. He prepared the way for Christ. We don't need it today. That is evidenced by reading Ac. 19:1-5.

We don't need the baptism of Moses, because it was to lead them out of Egyptian bondage (1 Cor. 10:2). That has been fulfilled.

Do we need water baptism? Well, has the need been for fullfilled? It's purpose is "for the remission of sins" (Ac. 2:38), to "wash away thy sins" (Ac. 22:16), to "save us" (1 Pet. 3:21), and it is "commanded" (Ac. 10:47-48). Do unsaved men still need their sins remitted and washed away? If the answer is yes, then water baptism is the "one baptism" mentioned in Eph. 4:5. If water baptism is not the "one baptism" of Eph. 4:5, everyone who is baptised by water is taking part in the wrong baptism.

For your consideration.

So how do you deal with 1 cor 12:13 you Ignored that verse

For by one Spirit are we all baptised in to one body

Read it and believe it please do not be foolish ..........1cor 1:18-21

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

1 cor 9:17 dispensation of the gospel
eph 1:10 dispensation of the fulness of times
eph 3:2 dispensation of grace
col 1:25 dispensation of God

Let me clarify. I was looking for dispensation used in the sense of people being under different dispensations of salvation.

 

[heb12-2]

So how do you deal with 1 cor 12:13 you Ignored that verse

For by one Spirit are we all baptised in to one body

Read it and believe it please do not be foolish ..........1cor 1:18-21

To see water baptism and the Holy Spirit joined together in 1 Cor. 12:13 is not surprising. Notice some passages in which they are joined together:
a) "Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5)
b) "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Ac. 2:38)
c) "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (***. 3:5)

I don't believe that 1 Cor. 12:13 is saying that the Holy Spirit is the "ELEMENT" the Corinthians were baptized into, but the "INSTRUMENT" used to influence them to be baptized. "By" (Strong's 1722) means "instrumentality" according to the lexicons. The phrase "by the Spirit" is also found in verse 3 and verse 9 of 1 Cor. 12. In those verses, "by the Spirit" means "under the influence of the Spirit." Compare 1 Cor. 12:13 with Lk. 4:1 where Jesus "was led by the Spirit into the wilderness." In other words, 1 Cor. 12:13 is teaching that the Corinthians were all led to be baptized into one body under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

"By one Spirit" in 1 Cor. 12:13 is similar to the following verses as well:
1) "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." (Eph. 2:18).
2) "Which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph. 3:5).

As to how the Holy Spirit leads is another discussion, good for one to start on another thread.

But notice also that 1 Cor. 12:13 teaches the result of baptism: that it puts us into Christ's body. At baptism, the Lord adds one to the church (Ac. 2:47).

Now, as to 1 Cor. 1:18-21, what is the preaching of the cross? Are you implying that preaching baptism is not preaching the cross?

When Philip spoke to the Eunuch in Ac. 8:35 he "preached unto him Jesus". but the next verse says he asked about baptism. Pray tell how he know to be baptized. Because preaching Jesus includes preaching the conditions for salvation, which includes baptism.

Do you not know that one meets Christ at the cross when they are baptized? Look at Rom. 6:3-5, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."

Do you not see the cross in those verses?

 

[Evee]

John baptized with water.
Jesus baptized with fire and the holy ghost.

 

[heb12-2]

Not quite.

But, think of this the next time you tell someone BAPTISM IS A MUST - you just might cause them to NOT become Christian...

... Do you want to keep someone from making a death bed decision to follow Christ because you have pumped them full of HAVE TO's and MUSTs - like baptism?

At death, there is no time for such ceremony.

Think about it.....

What if I said exactly what you said, only I replaced the word "baptism" with "faith", would you still stick to your hypothetical situation?

"But, think of this the next time you tell someone FAITH IS A MUST - you just might cause them to NOT become Christian...

... Do you want to keep someone from making a death bed decision to follow Christ because you have pumped them full of HAVE TO's and MUSTs - like FAITH"

No, you wouldn't loosen God's requirement for Faith, and neither would I, or could I. But I can no more loosen God's requirement to be baptized than I could loosen God's requirement to have faith. Both are "HAVE TO'S and MUSTS", and both are necessary for salvation. I too, am touched by those sad stories, and those occasions grieve me as they do you. But a sad story doesn't change the truth. Let God handle those matters.

The hypothetical has been given about the person that's on his way to be baptized and dies. But what if I gave a hypothetical of the person on his way to Hear the word and dies before he has faith (Rom. 10:17)?

Would you loosen God's requirement for faith for this person, and since you could imagine the sadness of that occassion, would you therefore conclude that it's really not necessary to believe?

Who really believes God? The one that only believes the part about faith, or the one that believes all of it? Why not believe all the testimony of God and not just the parts that demand faith?

 

[heb12-2]

John baptized with water.
Jesus baptized with fire and the holy ghost.

So which were you baptized with? Have you been baptized into water? If you have been baptized into water, I am positive that you did not consider it as John's baptism, did you?

 

[heb12-2]

I think that it is necessary to be water baptized after you are saved... Once you go in, you come out a new person.

Don’t Reverse The Order

Mark 16:16
Bible order: Believe................Baptism...............Saved
Reverse order: Believe............Saved................Baptism

Acts 2:38
Bible order: Repent..............Baptism...........Remission
Reverse order: Repent.........Remission...........Baptism

1 Pet. 3:21
Bible order:........................Baptism....................Saved
Reverse order:....................Saved.....................Baptism

Acts 22:16
Bible order: Arise...........Baptism..........Wash away sins
Reverse order: Arise......Wash away sins.......Baptism

Col. 2:11-12
Bible order: Dead.................Baptism.................Raised
Reverse order: Dead..............Raised................Baptism

Rom. 6:3-4
Bible order: Dead.................Baptism...............New life
Reverse order: Dead.............New life.............Baptism

Gal. 3:26-27
Bible order: Faith..............Baptism............Put on Christ
Reverse order: Faith........Put on Christ...........Baptism

 

[heb12-2]

But then it also goes to show this... the criminal to join Jesus in paradise died under the New Covenant... for he died after Christ declared "it is finished." And this criminal was never baptised... yet we know he is in heaven with Christ. Why was he able to get by without it? Shouldn't it then not be required of us all if not for him? Remember God is no respector of persons...

Answer #1:
The thief died on the other side of the cross. There may have been a brief amount of time between Jesus' death and the thief's, but Christ's baptism had not been established yet. Read Rom. 6:3-5 and explain how the thief could obey those verses.

The thief could not have obeyed the baptism of the great commission in Mt. 28:19-20 and Mk. 16:15-16, for Jesus gave the great commission after his resurection.

Answer #2:
Since it would have been impossible for the thief to have been baptized into Jesus' death, how do you assert that the thief was not baptized under the ministry of John? You have no proof. You are basing a position on something that can't be proven. Here's a thought provoker. How did the thief know so much about Jesus' kingdom? He said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." (Lk. 23:42). How did he know more about Jesus' kingdom that Jesus' own disciples? I am not saying he was baptized by John, but I can't say he wasn't either. Can you prove that he wasn't baptized by John? Can you put your finger on the passage?

Answer #1 is the stronger one so I placed it first. Answer #2 is still unanswerable just the same.

The point: if you're going to show by the scriptures that baptism is not necessary, then you'll have to do it with a different example than the thief.

 

[heb12-2]

Funny how He didn't include all these legalistic requirements as well. [/i]

Why do you refer to baptism as a "legalistic requirement" but not faith? Is faith a "requirement"? If so, then why is it not "legalistic"?

 

[sbbqb7n16]

I must say, I'm glad I started this thread. I'm not sure if any of you are opening your Bibles and reading the scripture references that I have given, so I'm going to quote the scripture now.

Mark 16:16 INCLUDES the word AND. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be ******."

We can conclude that if you don't believe, then there is no use in you being baptized.

Yes but the question then remains... baptism in water? baptism in the blood of Christ? baptism in the Spirit? which baptism is the one that counts?

I really don't care what the Jews done in the 1st century. I care about what the Bible says. I use it as my only authority. I get the truth from it. I go by NO creed at all, so I don't obey the will of man.

Well well... calm down there buddy. You do realize that when you read the gospel accounts you are reading about what 1st century Jews were doing right? You do understand that if you don't see the Gospels in the light of 1st century Judaism then you miss many many intuitive "gems" don't you? How else do you understand the Pharisees reactions if you don't understand the mindset of a 1st Century Jew awaiting the arrival of an earthly deliverer to deliver the land of Isreal from the grips of the Romans who disown the true Christ because He didn't fit their preconcieved ideas?... I hope you get my point... there is more to reading the Bible than just reading the words on the page... When dealing with the topic of baptism, the situation is no different. You must first understand what baptism was to the 1st century Jew before you attempt to fashion a theology around your own idea.

Who can deny that baptism saves us after reading 1 Peter 3:21: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

yet again... which baptism? Do you know which one Peter meant when he wrote this passage? How do you rule out the possibility of Peter making reference to the Holy Spirit cleansing within the believer?

Again, Acts 22:16 says: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Really... I see here in this verse that baptism and the washing away of your sins are two separate events... 3 commands are given. 1) Arise 2)Be Baptized 3) wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. To me this verse you gave shows clearly that it is rather calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ which saves you... baptism is a separate matter altogether.

Baptism washes away your sins. Could it get any more simplier? Going under water is something that is commanded for us to do to be saved, and I'm not going to question our Lord, just as I'm not with the thief. That was a pardon that He granted to the thief. I'm not going to go around and say, "Since you, Lord, gave the thief a pardon, I'm not going to obey your will. I'm going to take the parts of your word out that I don't like and don't want to have to do." That is what everyone of you are doing when using the thief argument.

Then why include the theif example within the gospel writings if not to show the reader an example of faith? If Jesus' death already paid for my sins... then why would water (of little value next to the precious blood of Christ) be trusted in to make me clean when I already am?

We read just one or two passages that we like and get our authority. We must read all of the New Testament to get our authority. Remember 2 Timothy 3:16: " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Our authority today is the New Testament since the Old Testament was hung on the cross with Jesus. We must take all of it into consideration.

Ahhh but you also rule out the theif example although it is Scripture as well... why do you pick and choose your own Scriptures on this same matter and instruct us not to? You must as well include the theif into the doctrine of baptism... otherwise you do the very thing of which you condemn us and so make yourself a hypocrite. I don't mean to say this to make you angry or anything believe me. Just please play by your own rules...

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Answer #1:
The thief died on the other side of the cross. There may have been a brief amount of time between Jesus' death and the thief's, but Christ's baptism had not been established yet. Read Rom. 6:3-5 and explain how the thief could obey those verses.

The thief could not have obeyed the baptism of the great commission in Mt. 28:19-20 and Mk. 16:15-16, for Jesus gave the great commission after his resurection.

Well in regard to paragraph one... I don't really know. But Rom 6:3-5 doesn't have a command in it. The theif however did suit verse 5 very well.

Par. 2: The Great Commission was to go and baptise in a name.

Answer #2:
Since it would have been impossible for the thief to have been baptized into Jesus' death, how do you assert that the thief was not baptized under the ministry of John? You have no proof. You are basing a position on something that can't be proven. Here's a thought provoker. How did the thief know so much about Jesus' kingdom? He said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." (Lk. 23:42). How did he know more about Jesus' kingdom that Jesus' own disciples? I am not saying he was baptized by John, but I can't say he wasn't either. Can you prove that he wasn't baptized by John? Can you put your finger on the passage?

Mark*1:4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
2 Luke*3:3 And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;
3 Acts*13:24 after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
4 Acts*19:4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

If this criminal had truly had a "baptism of repentance" as the Bible calls it... why would his life get so bad off to have his punishment be crucifixion?

Now I do notice that here John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Then we must decide whether the "baptism" or the "repentance" is the one which brings the forgiveness of sins.

Have you also wondered why when Jesus found the greatest faith in all of Isreal... He found it in a Roman soldier, not His own disciples? Funny how they were prone to do that...

Answer #1 is the stronger one so I placed it first. Answer #2 is still unanswerable just the same.

The point: if you're going to show by the scriptures that baptism is not necessary, then you'll have to do it with a different example than the thief.

So you say... not many people are shown the message of Christ when hanging on a cross. Although some others are shown His message while in positions that cannot allow for baptism. What if an elderly person physically unable to go under water comes to believe? Should that person be baptised (literally means to go under)? What about someone on death row that cannot leave the confinements of a prison? What should be done for this person?

You see these are extremes... but there are still possible situations that allow for a true baptism to be foregone. May I remind you that I have been baptised by water immersion. I don't say it shouldn't be done under any circumstances, but I still hold that there are exceptions which permit the believer to still be saved through belief and forego baptism. And if therefore there is a case where a person may be saved and not be baptised then true salvation must lie elsewhere other than in water.

 

[dldjr86]

I do see what you are saying about the 1st century Jews.

It is the baptism of water that we are baptized with. The story of the Ethiopean eunuch shows it is with water.

Acts 22:16 clearly shows that salvation comes after you come up out of the water. You go down a sinful man, and come up a new person. Then you call on the name of the Lord.

It is not the water that saves us, it is our obedience to God in doing the requirments of salvation.

All men have sinned and if you sin, you are not clean.

 

[dldjr86]

I've studied the theory of the thief on the cross, and have concluded that Jesus pardoned him, and that I'm not going to question the actions of our Lord.

 

[heb12-2]

Well in regard to paragraph one... I don't really know. But Rom 6:3-5 doesn't have a command in it. The theif however did suit verse 5 very well.

How does Rom. 6:3-5 suit the thief?

• How would he have known how to benefit from Christ's resurection (vs.5) if the resurrection had not yet occured?
• The thief could not have been "buried with him IN BAPTISM" (vs.4).
• Did the thief "know" that "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him" (vs.9)?
• Could the thief have "obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine" (vs.17)?

You're grasping at straws here.

The Great Commission was to go and baptise in a name.

To baptized "IN THE NAME OF" means "BY THE AUTHORITY OF".
Now watch how "REMISSION OF SINS" is through "HIS NAME":

• “Through HIS NAME whosoever BELIEVETH in him shall receive REMISSION OF SINS.” (Ac. 10:43)
• "And that REPENTANCE and REMISSION OF SINS should be preached IN HIS NAME” (Lk. 24:47)
• "REPENT, and be BAPTIZED every one of you IN THE NAME OF Jesus Christ for the REMISSION OF SINS.” (Ac. 2:38).
• "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on THE NAME OF the Lord." (Ac 22:16).

If this criminal had truly had a "baptism of repentance" as the Bible calls it... why would his life get so bad off to have his punishment be crucifixion?

Are you saying that you are 100% certain that there is no possibility whatsoever that the thief could not have repented and sinned even one time after? Can you state so boldy that you know without even a tiny bit of doubt that the thief was not baptized by John? Quote the passage? Your basing a position on nothing more than an assumption.

With all kindness, I think you need to give a different example than the thief.

Now I do notice that here John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Then we must decide whether the "baptism" or the "repentance" is the one which brings the forgiveness of sins.

Baptism and Repentance are joined together. They are inseparable. Read the verse slowly, "The baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". Don't forget the word, "of".

Have you also wondered why when Jesus found the greatest faith in all of Isreal... He found it in a Roman soldier, not His own disciples? Funny how they were prone to do that...

I fail to see how this nullifies God's command to be baptized.

So you say... not many people are shown the message of Christ when hanging on a cross. Although some others are shown His message while in positions that cannot allow for baptism. What if an elderly person physically unable to go under water comes to believe? Should that person be baptised (literally means to go under)? What about someone on death row that cannot leave the confinements of a prison? What should be done for this person?

Many people are "in positions that cannot allow for" preaching to produce faith (Rom. 10:17). Are you going to lossen God's requirement for faith because a preacher can't get to them and proclaim the good news to them in order for them to have faith? About the prison example, what if they won't even let me in to preach to the inmate? "What should be done for this person?" Should I conclude that faith must not be necessary? That's how your logic wants me to dismiss baptism.

You see these are extremes... but there are still possible situations that allow for a true baptism to be foregone. May I remind you that I have been baptised by water immersion. I don't say it shouldn't be done under any circumstances, but I still hold that there are exceptions which permit the believer to still be saved through belief and forego baptism. And if therefore there is a case where a person may be saved and not be baptised then true salvation must lie elsewhere other than in water.

Yes they are "extremes", and you are basing truth upon an "extreme". Why not APPLY truth to the "extreme", rather than CHANGING truth to fit the "extreme"? The examples I gave above are also "possible situations". Should I say they "allow for a true" FAITH "to be forgone"? "May I remind you" that I believe that faith is necessary, for "without faith it is impossible to please him" (Heb. 11:6). I cannot dismiss faith to fit an "extreme...situation". Nor can I say that God's demand for baptism should be dismissed. That is what you are doing.