Of course, we are commanded to be baptized AFTER we believe and are saved. (Acts 10:43-48)
Belief goes beyond mere mental assent. πιστεύω
pisteúō, pist-yoo'-o; from
G4102;
to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ):—believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
G4100 - πιστεύω pisteúō, pist-yoo'-o; from ; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ):—believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
www.blueletterbible.org
In James 2:19, we see that the demons believe "mental assent" that "there is one God," but they
do not believe in/have faith in/trust in/reliance in Jesus Christ for salvation. In other words, they
do not believe in/on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31)
and are not saved. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works.
In John 12:42, do we know the real condition of these "believing" rulers' hearts? Was it (mere mental assent belief James 2:19) or (trust and reliance saving belief John 3:16)? Not all belief is the same. We do know that they loved men's praises (vs. 43) more than God's (John 5:44). Some may argue that the unwillingness of the chief rulers to confess Christ in this isolated situation throws doubt on the complete genuineness of their belief and others may argue that they simply have a weak moment in this isolated situation in front of the Pharisees. Does this mean they never confessed Christ at all?
The Apostle Peter at one point failed to confess Jesus before men (John 18:17-27), but after the Holy Spirit was given, he was a different man who boldly confessed Him. (Acts 4:8-13) We know that Peter was saved even though he had a weak moment and the same may be true for these chief rulers as well. Does the text specifically say that they were saved or not saved? If the chief rulers truly believed (trusted in Christ for salvation) even though they had a weak moment, then they were saved. (John 3:16) If their lack of confession was the result of a lack of genuine belief, then they were not saved. (John 3:18)
Their disobedience was a manifestation of their unbelief.
You seem to define belief "as" obedience/works. This misguided reasoning culminates in salvation by works. I once quoted Ephesians 2:8,9 to a Roman Catholic and clarified that we are saved by grace through faith, not works and the Roman Catholic responded by saying,
"I know that." Then after we discussed it a little deeper, it turns out the Roman Catholic misinterpreted Ephesians 2:8,9 as such:
Saved by grace through faith "infused" with good works and just not works of the law. I discovered the heart of the problem of the Roman Catholic misinterpretation. After claiming that the Roman Catholic church does not teach salvation by works, that Roman Catholic also made this statement below:
We ARE saved by faith - as long as you properly define "Faith". Faith is NOT simply "believing". Faith INCLUDES: Being baptized, eating His body and drinking His blood/partaking the Lord's Supper during Mass, works of mercy and charity, obeying his commandments, doing the will of the Father etc..
His argument about faith being
defined as and
INCLUDES these works above is just sugar-coated double talk and equates to salvation through faith (his version of faith) + works. His contradictory argument was just smoke and mirrors.
Water baptism is commanded but it's still not absolutely necessary for salvation. Just ask the thief on the cross. I already explained Mark 16:16 in post #7. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus gives his disciples to go and make disciples and baptize converts, yet nothing is said about baptism being absolutely necessary for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
We can also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received
the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 -
the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was
BEFORE receiving water baptism. (Acts 10:47)
In Acts 10:43 we read
..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received
the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 -
when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 -
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as
repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
*So the only logical conclusion
when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*
Excellent article on Acts 22:16 -
Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?
It's never logical to "add works" to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Christ save us which renders Christ an IN-sufficient Savior. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed. (Romans 3:24-28)
Who said anything about disobeying our Lord? I have been water baptized and I can't think of one Christian I know who has refused to be water baptized after they believed the gospel and were saved. There is half a dozen or so verses in the Bible that works-salvationists try to use as proof texts in their efforts to prove that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, yet a careful examination of each of these texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, though they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, these texts prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation. Pride is what keeps people from placing their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and giving Him 100% credit for their salvation. Instead, such people turn to supplements/works to help Christ save them and seek for credit.
The illustration of Naaman being healed from leprosy by dipping in the Jordan and receiving healing is not synonymous with people being forgiven of their sins by dipping in the waters of baptism. If being healed from leprosy is an illustration of salvation, we have another case that reveals one can be saved without any water. Read it in (Luke 5:12-15). No water is found here. Secondly, Naaman was not even a believer until after dipping in Jordan. He said "NOW" (after being healed) I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," (2 Kings 5:15) and vowed to worship only Him (vs. 17). If we follow this "example," we will have to baptized unbelievers! Naaman received cleansing from leprosy (not eternal life) after he dipped in the Jordan 7 times, but no sins were literally remitted for Naaman in Jordan. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.
The NT uses the experience of Naaman as illustrative of the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD and not of salvation by H20. Naaman was a heathen, not a believer, and did not know God until the miracle occurred. The purpose of the miracle had nothing to do with salvation by water baptism, but was to demonstrate "there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8) and that "there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," as Naaman found out. (2 Kings 5:15) So Naaman received healing from leprosy by dipping in the Jordan 7 times, but he did not receive the free gift of eternal life based on the merits of dipping in the Jordan 7 times.
Now although Paul can speak of people’s initial response of choosing to believe the gospel as an act of obedience in which he describes it as
"obeyed the gospel" (Romans 10:16; 1:16) the purpose of Paul’s apostleship was not merely to bring people to conversion but also to bring about transformed lives that were obedient to God.
Notice that Paul said they HAVE (already) received grace and apostleship
FOR/UNTO obedience to the faith in Romans 1:5. Just as in Ephesians 2:10, Paul said that we are created in Christ Jesus
FOR/UNTO good works. Paul did not say that they did not receive grace and apostleship until they produced obedience afterwards. Obedience that is produced out of faith is works.
Yes, baptism does need to be mentioned in verses that make it clear we are saved through
belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 15:9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:7-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Timothy 3:15; Philippians 3:9; 1 John 5:13 etc..) in order to prove that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Your arguments come straight out of the church of Christ and I at one time had temporarily attended the church of Christ several years ago, so I understand how they try to "shoehorn" works (with a heavy emphasis on water baptism) "into" salvation through faith. None of your arguments are anything new or enlightening.
The sum of thy Word is truth and we are to properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine and not distort and pervert passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" a gospel plan of works salvation.
With you as well.
