I’ve read through page 7 of this thread (and intend to finish it) and I haven’t yet seen anyone bring up the soundest reason of all for baptism:
When we accept Jesus, we take Him as our Savior and Lord. If we mean anything by the word Lord, we mean that we will do, to the best of our ability, what He says to do.
I understand your point to be that the soundest reason for baptism is because the Lord said do it - - and we should do our best to do it. I am going to have to beg to differ with you. The Lord said baptism was necessary for salvation in Mk.16:16, the apostle Peter said baptism was necessary for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, and the apostle Paul said baptism was necessary to have sins washed away in Acts 22:16. These are the scriptural reasons for baptism, thus they are the soundest reasons.
Starting with John the Baptist, Scripture has passage after passage, most of which have already been quoted, saying “Repent and be baptized,” “He that believes and is baptized,” and so on.
Now, nobody whatsoever is saying that getting dunked under water is by itself going to save you – if that were the case, a bully-type kid that used to swim at the same city pool as me would be one of the world’s premier soul-savers! (insert tongue-in-cheek-smiley here)
Agreed. No one is saying baptism alone saves. That is what the second part of Mk 16:16 is saying.
Rather, what happens is that you turn to God in grateful acknowledgement of His grace, and accept Jesus as Savior and Lord, and then do what He says. And one of the things He says is to be baptized. The Great Commission sends us as disciples to all the world, proclaiming the Good News and baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Is it 100% necessary for salvation? Nothing is – we are saved by the grace of God and the Atonement of Christ, not by anything we ourselves do. But we’re called to believe, to repent, to confess Jesus (Matt.10:32-33; Rom.10:9;Acts 8:37), and to be baptized. The hypothetical guy who finds God while dying in the middle of the Sahara is saved by God’s grace, nothing else. The guy on his deathbed, the same thing.
Commenting on your points first that I highlighted with green font: I'm confused. How is that we have to turn to God and accept Jesus as our Savior, but yet we are not saved by anything we ourselves do? Isn't turning to God and accepting Jesus doing something? Please offer more of an explanation.
I agree. We are saved by the grace of God (Rom.3:24). But not by grace alone. Consider: God's grace has been extended to all men(Titus 2:11). Yet, all men will not be saved (Matt.7:13-14). Therefore, there must be other factors involved in man's salvation.
Then I added confession (in red font) w/scriptural references to the list of things God requires for salvation.
There’s a passage in Romans that says “He who believes in his heart, and confesses with his lips, that Jesus is Lord shall be saved,” or words to that effect. From this we do not conclude that no mute person can be saved. But we do conclude that a person able to talk who believes had better be confessing Him with his/her lips.
The scripture is Rom.10:9. True, I agree with your conclusion - - anyone who has the ability to confess Jesus with their mouth is required to. But are saying all a person has to do to be saved is to confess and have faith? If so, I beg to differ once again.
The same thing holds for baptism. If one comes to know the Lord, and it is physically possible for him/her to be baptized, he/she is obliged to obey God’s command and be baptized. That somebody is dying in the Sahara or a car wreck whom God will save because he/she came to know God and had no opportunity for baptism is no excuse for us.
I disagree. Your scenario has someone knowing the Lord before they have obeyed all of his commands. Your reasoning sounds very soothing to the ears of those who grasp at anything and everything to promote salvation by "faith only." Here is what I don't know. I do not know how many times the one dying in the Sahara or in a car wreck passed up on opportunities to be baptized. Neither I, nor you, are authorized to speak on such matters as to whom the Lord will excuse on judgment day from not obeying his commands - - God has not spoken about such matters - - and we are exhorted to "speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet.4:11). It is the Christian's responsibility to teach those who are able to obey God in baptism, to obey the command. There is a sense of urgency in this message. No one has the promise of tomorrow (James 4:14). "Today, if you will hear His voice" (Heb.3:7,13,15 ; 4:7) is in the midst of warnings to not delay obedience - - heeding the message will prepare the person that may end up dying in the Sahara or in a car wreck.
I might note that the Roman Catholics had a rather sound doctrine on this: while all Christians should be baptized, a believing person who is unable to be baptized, according to them, receives the “baptism of desire” – because he/she wills to follow Christ, but is unable to carry out this particular command, He takes the desire for the deed. Likewise a martyr for the faith not yet baptized is considered to have received the “baptism of blood” – his blood shed for Christ baptizes him as he dies. None of this is Scriptural so far as I know, but it rings true to the grace of the God who knows our weakness and loves us nonetheless.
The text of the last paragraph that I highlighted with green font is an excellent commentary on this paragraph.
