Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If water baptism is a requirement to be saved, why then did the Spirit fill them on the day of Pentecost. There was no record of them being baptized. The Spirit would not fill an unredeemed heart. This is an apostolic teaching, which I have been a part of for a long time, until God Himself showed me how wrong it was, fully legalistic. No one fully obeys God, only Jesus did. Full obedience has never been required for salvation. Because only Jesus was perfect, which is why we must be baptized or immersed fully in Him. The redeemed soul always wants to obey God, but our conditions sometimes hinder our obedience. But that does not mean we are not saved, it means we are his workmanship in progress. Baptism is a form and symbolic but has no redeeming power what so ever. If man can be justified by the doing of the law (obedience) then Christ is dead in vain (he didn't have to die if this was possible).Praise God for His grace and truth.

See if you can find it, regarding water immersion baptism :

those who were immersed, believed Jesus is the Messiah , son of the Living God.
those who were not immersed, did not accept Jesus as the Messiah - they rejected Him.

 

[marineimaging]

Well, Jesus told the thief on the cross that surely he would be with Him in Paradise today..., and he had not been baptized, but believed. If it is a law, then many a man seeking the fulfillment of Christ's promise on the battlefield are in hell because they believed, they received Christ, but they did not have the ability to be baptized in the water.

 

[Philip_B]

Well, Jesus told the thief on the cross that surely he would be with Him in Paradise today..., and he had not been baptized, but believed. If it is a law, then many a man seeking the fulfillment of Christ's promise on the battlefield are in hell because they believed, they received Christ, but they did not have the ability to be baptized in the water.

I don't dispute that at all, and God is certainly not about to be told by us who he can or can't save, yet baptism is a recurring thread in scripture, and indeed Jesus himself was baptised, setting for us a pattern or normative Christian practice.

 

[SkyWriting]

Is water baptism a requirement to be saved

Water is not always available. So no.

 

[marineimaging]

I frequently immersed myself while swimming in the Neches and Angelina rivers and sometimes even spoke to Jesus with contriteness and love while doing so. Even though I was already saved the act of immersion did not make me baptized . Think of what was happening in the days of Jesus revealing Himself to the world. John baptized the Jews to separate them from those who followed the law givers. He baptized them to precede the coming of Jesus, and then baptized Jesus himself to fulfill the prophecies. So, if our actions are enough to define us, then, at the well Jesus must have damned Himself because he broke three Jewish customs. Firstly, he spoke to a woman, and to a Samaritan, and suggested using her cup which would have made him ceremonially unclean. But He wasn't unclean and He wasn't damned. Jesus told the woman that the laws of men were put aside because HE was the living water. Repenting of your sins, accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, those are the most important inward steps. Baptism by immersion is the outward event by which we make our declaration to the world that we belong to Jesus after we have made ourselves His.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't dispute that at all, and God is certainly not about to be told by us who he can or can't save, yet baptism is a recurring thread in scripture, and indeed Jesus himself was baptised, setting for us a pattern or normative Christian practice.

Sure. But water is not always available. So no.

 

[SkyWriting]

See if you can find it, regarding water immersion baptism :

those who were immersed, believed Jesus is the Messiah , son of the Living God.
those who were not immersed, did not accept Jesus as the Messiah - they rejected Him.

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[JackRT]

Baptism with water is normal but it is not normative. Traditional Christian theology also recognizes Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire.

 

[renniks]

Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

No.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Where did this come from?? He is not talking about works, or anything of the sort. The OP asked strictly about is water baptism necessary, and the answer is yes.

The Bible clearly states that we are to be baptized and "born again" in water and spirit.

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Sounds pretty clear to me.

I believe a Christian will want to be water baptized so as to fulfill all righteousness, but I do not believe water baptism is for salvation. 1 Peter 3:21 makes that clear. Paul says I come not to baptize but to preach the gospel. If baptism was how one gets saved, then why is Paul against the first step in how to be saved? Also, Cornelius was saved before being water baptized. The Spirit came upon him and his house without water baptism.

As for being born of water:

Ephesians 5:25-27 says that Christ gave Himself for the church so that He might sanctify us with the washing of the water of the Word so that He might present to Himself a church who is holy, blameless, without spot, or wrinkle, etc.

25 "...even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."
(Ephesians 5:25-27).

Jesus says, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15:3).

"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word." (Psalms 119:9).

So the water = the Word of God.

So when a person is said to be born of water, it is not talking about baptism, but it is talking about being born again by the Holy Scriptures.

For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

 

[LoveofTruth]

The problem with the first exegetic example you gave is that it doesn't make sense. I've heard this explanation from many Protestants - but the conversation stops after I say what I am about to say:

If Jesus had said plainly, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" - he would be condemning all aborted and miscarried children to Hell.

To put it frankly - it would have been moronic for Jesus to say this because Nicodemus already knew how children are born. He was asking Jesus how a person is born AGAIN. In this verse (v. 5), Jesus explains to him how this is done.

Consider your position if this conversation had taken place in plain English:
Nicodemus: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God because nobody could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
Jesus: “I’m telling you the truth – nobody can get to Heaven unless they are born again.”
Nicodemus: “How can someone be born when they are old? They can’t go back into their mom’s womb to be born!”
Jesus: “I’m telling you the truth – nobody can get to Heaven unless they come from their mom’s womb.

Do you see how silly and nonsensical this exchange is when you remove Baptism from the context??
Nicodemus's next response would have been something like this:
Nicodemus: “I already know how kids are born but that's NOT what I asked you."

No, you missed the key verse of definition from Jesus when he shows the two births he is talking about. The one birth of the flesh and the other of the spirit,

nicodemus May have thought that his natural birth as a child of Israel was enough to save him by this was not true.
Here are the two births defined in this section

“ John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

So we see a natural birth and a spiritual birth. Two mentioned.

as clear as a sunny day

 

[LoveofTruth]

The context of Hebrews chapter 9, the Hebrew writer is showing the differences between the OT and the NT... giving a description of how those OT rites were performed then showing how the blood of Christ is superior to those of animal sacrifices Heb 9:1-15. Then in verses 16 and 17 shows how those under the OT (as us today) still required the blood of Christ to have all sins remitted completely. The OT needed to be cancelled out to bring in the NT where all men's sins can be cleansed away by the blood of Christ.

Verse 17 categorically states "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." The language cannot be more plain and simple. Even wills/testaments today operate under this very same standard. Therefore the 'thief argument' is dead. I see you continue to look for ways around this, but there is no way to get around the simple words, meaning of Heb 9:16,17. You are removing it from its context for you are trying to find a way to get the thief saved under the NT without being baptized to satisfy your theological bias.

All OT saints were saved by grace through faith and not by water baptism or by outward circumcision etc. The true circumcision has always been of the heart in the old and new testaments.
Jesus said at one time (before his death and resurrection and before the New Testament was in effect)

John 3:36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

And we read of many who believed in him before the cross.

“ John 10:42. And many believed on him there.”

Also Jesus said they were saved before his death on the cross (though not without his death for sin an resurrection in time)

Jesus said,

“ John 17:6. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.12. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Baptismal salvation is one of the problems I have involving the "church of Christ."
This is basically saying that a person cannot be saved if they were in a desert or if there was no other Christian around to baptize you. Paul makes it clear that he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel. If Paul was in favor of Baptismal Salvationism, then Paul would have never said what he did in 1 Corinthians 1:17. If Baptismal Salvation was true: Paul would have said something like this, "I come to baptize and to preach the gospel; For without both, no man can be saved." But we know Paul and neither any other apostle said anything like this.

 

[LoveofTruth]

It is your position that in John 3 Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus how he can be saved under the old covenant?

All OT saints were saved by grace through faith. They trusted in Gods righteousness and provision and that righteousness has been declared in Jesus Christ and he is the lamb slain. They had shadows of this but the reality took place in the broken spirit and humble and contrite heart

consider that they believed before Jesus died and rise again and Jesus said he that believes hath everlasting life and is past (present tense) from death to life.
Also we read of many saints saved in the OT read Hebrews 11 they all had faith. Christ dwells in the heart by faith.
And consider this section

Psalm 51:10. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.11. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.12. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.”