Questions regarding baptism

[Guojing]

I don't believe there were two gospels. A lot of the problem is improper reasoning. Too many Christians don't reason correctly and as such come to wrong conclusions.

I heard that even the Baptist Churches nowadays no longer believe that water baptism is required for salvation.

Is that true? Other than the Catholics and the church of Christ, what other denominations still believe water baptism is required?

 

[sdowney717]

John 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Acts 11:13-15 New King James Version (NKJV)
13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.

Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
Acts 16:31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Any baptism of believers is done on already saved persons.
But you should get water baptized, because it is an outward sign of your faith, a testimony to the world that you belong to Christ. But it does not save you, God already saved you, as a baptism by water is a believers baptism. We dont baptize unbelievers!

 

[Butch5]

I heard that even the Baptist Churches nowadays no longer believe that water baptism is required for salvation.

Is that true? Other than the Catholics and the church of Christ, what other denominations still believe water baptism is required?

Just because people are wrong doesn't mean baptism isn't necessary. You've 2000 years of people manipulating the Scriptures. If you study the early history of the church you'll find that for about the first 325 years the church didn't question whether baptism was necessary or not. It's just that today so many people read the Scriptures and either have no idea of the history or they simply don't care. As I said, another big problem is that too many don't know how to reason properly and as such draw erroneous conclusions. Anyone who does a decent study of logical fallacies will see the plethora of fallacies in the arguments of many Christians.

However, Jesus' statement in Mark 16 really removes and question. There's no way, grammatically, to get around what He said. 'He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He put believes and is baptized in the present tense. Shall be saved is in the future tense. Therefore, grammatically, believes and is baptized must come before shall be saved. There is no way around this argument.

The reason many say baptism isn't necessary is because they have a faulty understanding of Paul's statements about works. Ephesians 2:8 is a prime example. Paul said that they were saved through faith and not works. Many Christians read this completely out of context. They determine that works mean something a person does, baptism is something someone does, therefore baptism must not be necessary because it's something someone does. The problem is two fold. One, they've taken the passage out of context and two, they've simply imposed there own definition of works onto Paul's writings instead of letting him define what the works are. He defines the works in his letters. They are the works of the Mosaic Law. Because of a lack of historical understanding and a lack of context they draw an erroneous conclusion.

 

[Butch5]

John 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Acts 11:13-15 New King James Version (NKJV)
13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.

Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
Acts 16:31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Any baptism of believers is done on already saved persons.
But you should get water baptized, because it is an outward sign of your faith, a testimony to the world that you belong to Christ. But it does not save you, God already saved you, as a baptism by water is a believers baptism. We dont baptize unbelievers!

This is the argument from silence. It's a fallacy. The argument is that since baptism isn't mentioned it isn't necessary. It's a fallacy. He also didn't mention, repentance or the remission of sins. Would argue that one doesn't have to repent to be saved? Would you argue that one's sins don't have to be forgiven to be saved? I doubt you would. Just because Luke only records certain words doesn't mean the other stuff wasn't said.

Peter said that baptism saves. That really should end the discussion. The logical way to look at the Scriptures is to see all of the things that are said to save and conclude that they are all necessary. We should just pick things we want to say save and discard the rest.

 

[Guojing]

Just because people are wrong doesn't mean baptism isn't necessary. You've 2000 years of people manipulating the Scriptures. If you study the early history of the church you'll find that for about the first 325 years the church didn't question whether baptism was necessary or not. It's just that today so many people read the Scriptures and either have no idea of the history or they simply don't care. As I said, another big problem is that too many don't know how to reason properly and as such draw erroneous conclusions. Anyone who does a decent study of logical fallacies will see the plethora of fallacies in the arguments of many Christians.

However, Jesus' statement in Mark 16 really removes and question. There's no way, grammatically, to get around what He said. 'He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He put believes and is baptized in the present tense. Shall be saved is in the future tense. Therefore, grammatically, believes and is baptized must come before shall be saved. There is no way around this argument.

The reason many say baptism isn't necessary is because they have a faulty understanding of Paul's statements about works. Ephesians 2:8 is a prime example. Paul said that they were saved through faith and not works. Many Christians read this completely out of context. They determine that works mean something a person does, baptism is something someone does, therefore baptism must not be necessary because it's something someone does. The problem is two fold. One, they've taken the passage out of context and two, they've simply imposed there own definition of works onto Paul's writings instead of letting him define what the works are. He defines the works in his letters. They are the works of the Mosaic Law. Because of a lack of historical understanding and a lack of context they draw an erroneous conclusion.

Alright, I understand where you are coming from since I have experienced both sides of the debate in the past. Both sides will typically just "stand fast" in either side, and just keep on doing their ping pong, and they will not come into a common agreement.

This debate about water baptism is very much similar to the debate of Paul vs James. As I have stated, ever since I understood how to rightly divide the word of truth between Jews and Gentiles, it solved many of these "ping pong" issues for me.

 

[Butch5]

Alright, I understand where you are coming from since I have experienced both sides of the debate in the past. Both sides will typically just "stand fast" in either side, and just keep on doing their ping pong, and they will not come into a common agreement.

This debate about water baptism is very much similar to the debate of Paul vs James. As I have stated, ever since I understood how to rightly divide the word of truth between Jews and Gentiles, it solved many of these "ping pong" issues for me.

Actually, many of these issue are based on one of two issues. Either people take stuff out of context or they simply don't reason properly. Take for instance Mark 16:16. Those who argue against the necessity of baptism will claim that because Jesus didn't say, he who doesn't believe and isn't baptized shall be condemned, baptism isn't necessary. That argument is really ridiculous. I don't even know how anyone came up with it. It makes no sense at all. Not only it is a non sequitir, it's also an argument from silence. So, it's actually two fallacies. Let's apply the argument to a different subject and we can see how it makes no sense. Suppose I said, if you want to drive across the country you'll need to put gas and oil in the car, but if you don't put gas in the car you can't go. It's pretty obvious that a car needs both gas and oil to drive across the country. However, if you don't put gas in the car it won't drive across the country. Does that mean that you don't need oil in the car, just because it won't go without gas? Obviously not. It's got to have both. Without either one it won't drive across the country. So the argument for those who say baptism isn't necessary would go like. Since I didn't say, if you don't put gas and oil in the car, oil isn't needed to drive across the country. That argument is obviously ridiculous. We all know that we're not driving a car across the country with no oil. So, those who use this argument are in error, their thinking is flawed. Their thinking contains fallacies, errors in reasoning.

The other reason is a lack of context. People read the Bible and just think, this is what it means to me. Too many don't stop to consider what was happening when these letters were written. What were the circumstances? What did the readers already know and understand? How did they think? There's a world of difference between the 1st century Biblical world and the 21st century world. That's one reason why studying the early church helps. It helps us to understand what was going on. It helps us to understand how they thought and understood the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. Too many ignore this and seem to think they can just interpret the text however they see fit.

But, even apart from the historical context, people don't even read the books of the Bible in context. They simply pull sentences from here and there and make claims as to what the Bible says. Ephesians 2:8-9 is a good example. I don't know how many times people have said to me, anything you do is a work and Paul said we're saved by grace and not works and then they'll post Ephesians 2:8-9. So, they taken it upon themselves to define what these works are that Paul is talking about. And, they've defined them wrongly. Paul goes on to elaborate what those work are. He goes on to say that Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition and has abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances. That's the Mosaic Law.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
(Eph. 2:14-15 KJV)

So, these people have taken Paul's words completely out of context and imposed their own theology onto them by taking them out of context and trying to use them for something that Paul wasn't talking about.

Another example would be John 14. Ask someone to show you where the Bible teaches that people go to Heaven and almost certainly John 14 will be presented.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (Jn. 14:2-3 KJV)

They assume this means that Jesus is going to Heaven and they will go there when they die. However, if we look at the passage in context rather than pulling it from the context, we find that Jesus also told them that where He was going they could not go.

33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. (Jn. 13:33 KJV)

36 Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. (Jn. 13:36 KJV)

Again, after Peter asked where He was going Jesus told Peter that he could not go. He told Peter, that he could follow Him later. People say see, they will go to Heaven. The problem is that they've not looked carefully at the passage they quoted. Jesus said in 14:3 that if He goes, He will come again so that where He is they can be. Notice that for them to be with Him He has to come back. They weren't going to Him, He was coming to them. It's amazing to see people quote this passage as proof that people go to Heaven when this passage explicitly denies that. It states unequivocally that Jesus will return so that they could be with. He had told them where He was going they couldn't go. That people use this passage to say people go to Heaven shows a complete lack of understanding of the context and what He was saying. People just throw passages of Scripture around with no real concept of what is actually being said. A lot of this is because or proof texting. People are told what the Bible says and given a handful of randomly dispersed verses of Scripture that are supposed to prove what they were told.

 

[Kris Jordan]

No Kris, I'm interpreting them in their historical context. This is how to understand what the Scriptures actually say. The Bible isn't a book full of one liners. Every verse is connected to the book in which it appears. Each of those books was written to a group of people who were living in a historical setting. Paul's letters were written to Christians who already knew what was necessary to be saved. He didn't have to make a list of everything necessary because they already knew it.

I understand the meaning and importance of the historical context of the Scriptures and I also understand Hermeneutics, etc. However, I strongly disagree with your generalized statement of, “Paul's letters were written to Christians who already knew what was necessary to be saved. He didn't have to make a list of everything necessary because they already knew it.” If this were the case, he would not have written about what saves us and what doesn’t.

Now you're moving the goal posts. Are the label and the stitching part of the shirt? They are. Thus your shirt isn't completely read. I've pointed out several fallacies in your arguments and you've not addressed them. Here you've used the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. When you say you're shirt is red, you simply discard the parts that aren't read. This is the same thing you're doing with baptism. You simple discard what you don't want.

I’m not sure why you are struggling with understanding simple statements and their meaning and intention. Instead you’re splitting hairs over non-existent hairs. If I say, “my shirt is red,” I am expressing a very simple, plain and 100% honest statement about the color of my shirt. I am not referring to, nor speaking about, nor even discussing the other components of the shirt. I am simply making a very clear statement about the color of my shirt. Let’s say for example you were wearing a solid, blue shirt and your boss called you and asked you what color shirt you were wearing -- would you be confused about what he was wanting to know? Would you actually answer him with, “My shirt is blue, but the label is white and the stitching is black, so I’m wearing a blue, white and black shirt.”...? Of course you wouldn’t, because the meaning and intention of his question was very clear and simple. He wanted to know what color shirt you were wearing.

The same is true for statements throughout Scripture about what saves us. It’s really that plain and simple. But more on that later...

It's interesting that you mention the historical context and overall context and then just dismiss it. Ephesians 2:8 is specifically talking about the works of the Mosaic Law. Your use of this passage completely ignores the historical and overall context of the passage. The same can be said of the Romans passages you mentioned. They are explicitly dealing with whether one is justified by faith or the Mosaic Law. So again, you've ignored the historical and overall context.

In each of these passages Paul is discussing whether one is saved/justified by faith or the Mosaic Law. These passages have absolutely nothing to do with baptism. The subject never comes up.

Wrong, my brother. Let’s talk immediate context. You need to re-read Ephesians Chapter 2:1-10 in context. Paul is not referring to the works of the Law here as you claim he is when he says we have been saved by grace through faith in verses 8-9 -- he first referred to how they used to live (of which he did at one time as well) which was following the ways of the world and the ruler of the kingdom of the air, gratifying the cravings of the flesh and following its desires and thoughts, etc., but then he goes into how it was God’s great love for them (and us too) that saves us...through faith! You are completely misreading this very important and doctrinally specific verse.

As far as Romans 5:1-2 goes, you are completely off in your analysis that he is speaking of whether one is saved by faith or the Law. Re-read the book of Romans, paying special attention to chapter 3. Prior to what Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in chapter 5, he writes something very similar in 3:21-26. How you conclude that salvation is not by grace through faith when it can’t say it any plainer or clearer is beyond me.

Furthermore, both Jews and Gentiles are saved the exact same way...by grace through faith.

It's not faulty. It's your line of reasoning that is faulty as I've pointed out by showing the fallacies. If you can believe you can show any fallacy in what I've posted feel free. It's not there.

The words do mean what they say. They just don't mean what you say. You're imposing your belief onto the text and using an argument from silence to claim that your interpretation is correct. However, as I've pointed out, the argument from silence is a fallacy.

The passages say what saves, however, they don't say that that is all that saves and they don't give a list of what saves. You might have been able to make an argument from silence if it wasn't for the fact that we have other passages that state that other things save.

This is not an argument from silence on my part, but an argument from silence on yours. You are arguing for things that aren’t written there and I am arguing from what is written there. But again, it’s a “my shirt is red” principle.

Your argument doesn't address the issue. whatever the reason one obeys doesn't change the fact that Christ became eternal salvation to those who obey. If one doesn't obey, He isn't salvation for them. The obedience is a must. Thus it is necessary for salvation.

Woa, Wait a minute! You took a huge leap and read into something that is not in the text. Be very careful, friend.

It's interesting that you mention James. He states plainly that a man isn't justified by faith alone. He said that Abraham was justified by his works. We know that in order to be saved one must be justified. If one isn't justified one isn't saved. Abraham was justified by his works, thus his works were necessary for his salvation. This is really clear.

I think you struggle understanding biblical concepts and principles, and I don’t mean that in a condescending way.

So basically you are contradicting Scripture with your “understanding” of what is actually being said/stated. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul clearly states we are not saved by works. That means we are not justified by works. Yet, you claim that James declares that we are saved by works. The two cannot both be true. So according to your interpretation of Scripture, one of those Bible verses is a lie. Which one?

I declare that both Paul and James are in complete agreement with what saves someone, and that it is God’s grace (justification, righteousness, salvation, forgiveness, eternal life) that is imparted to us through faith when we believe -- and when genuine saving faith is present, it produces good works as evidence of the invisible faith within that cannot be seen.

James 2:23 tells us that Abraham believed God and it was accounted/credited to him as righteousness (his belief is what saved him) -- and then his saving faith was evidenced through his actions/works, hence faith and works go hand in hand, but works are not...and were not ever able to save anyone. The Scripture clearly states in Isaiah 64:6b, “...And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;”

It’s the same analogy I gave you about a husband and wife. If a husband truly loves his wife or a wife truly loves her husband, it will be evidenced by what they do for and to each other because nobody (but God) can see that love inside, since it is invisible. But if a spouse says they love their spouse but never shows it, then love is not actually present in their heart.

No offense Kris but this is nonsense. Are you really suggesting that Noah didn't go through literal water in the flood?

I think you're just trying to get around what it plainly says. Eight souls were saved through water. The like figure whereunto baptism does now save us. Noah didn't go through a spiritual baptism in the ark. He went through water just like peter said. It seems you're trying to allegorize the passage away.

No offense taken. I’m a big girl.

But really think about what you are saying in your answer when you stated, “Eight souls were saved by water.” Those souls weren’t saved by the water, they were saved from the waters that would have otherwise killed them, had it not been for the ark!

The literal floodwaters of Noah’s day killed everyone on the face of the earth except Noah and his family. The only reason the floodwaters didn’t kill Noah and his family was because of the ark. Therefore the floodwaters themselves did not act as any type of saving mechanism for Noah and his family but they were God’s means of death and destruction, had it not been for the ark itself. It was the actual ark that saved them “through” the waters of death or “from” the waters of death. So in the account of Noah, the water itself didn’t serve any other purpose than to bring God’s destruction upon the earth and to all mankind, except Noah and his family who were saved. So the water didn’t save Noah in any way whatsoever, the ark did – and it saved him from the destructive waters which would have otherwise killed them all.

Likewise, Jesus acts as our “ark” from the death and destruction that sin brings us. We are saved through belief in Him, or as Peter puts it, through “the answer of a good conscience before God.” We are saved from the destruction that our sin would otherwise bring us if it weren’t for Jesus and His undeserved grace. “This” is the type of baptism that saves, not the act of being submerged under or sprinkled with water.

The word isn't washing, it's bath. A bath is taken in water. One immerses themselves in water to bathe. You are correct when you say it's about the cleansing of sins. That takes place in water baptism.

Wrong! The verse says, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

The “washing” that is described is regeneration, which means = new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation.

I don’t understand how you don’t see the verse for what it actually says. You are missing the whole entire point because you are so convinced that baptism saves you. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Instead, this doctrine of “baptism saves” takes the glory away from Jesus and what He did for us and puts it on man and “his” acts of righteousness, which, according to verse 5 of Titus 3 and verses 8-9 of Ephesians 2, do nothing to save us.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mk. 1:1-4 KJV)

Note how Mark starts, the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What's the first thing he mentions? The baptism for the remission of sins. It's part of the Gospel. We know Jesus did the same thing in His ministry.

Let me ask you this: What does the “act itself” of water baptism symbolize to you? In other words, what does it represent? It’s obviously not just some random act that was done, so there had to be a meaning for it. What is that meaning to you?

Ananias also told Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins.


15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:15-16 KJV)

According to Galatians 1:11, Paul first received the gospel directly from Jesus on the road to Damascus and was saved – this was before he ever encountered Ananias.


According to Acts 9:17, then Paul received his sight and the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized.


According to Acts 22:16, then Paul was baptized as a symbolic act (and testimony) of having his sins forgiven, having called on the name of Jesus -- through whom His death, burial and resurrection enabled him (and us) to be forgiven. *Also see 1 Corinthians 6:11 and 1 Peter 3:21.


According to Acts 26:11-23, when Paul was reiterating his conversion experience to King Agrippa, he states that God was sending him to open the eyes of the Jews and Gentiles, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in [Jesus]. No mention of baptism saving anyone here.

and then we have Peter,

38 Then Peter said unto them, 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. (Acts 2:38 KJV)

Baptism is for the remission of sins. Tell me Kris, how can one be saved without the remission of sins? If baptism isn't necessary then neither is the forgiveness of sins. This is plain and straight forward.

No, baptism does not remove our sins – only Jesus’ shed blood does that, and that occurs the moment we believe Him for our forgiveness and salvation. It is HIS BLOOD that removes our sin from us and cleanses us:

· Ephesians 1:7 – “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence...”

· Hebrews 9:13-15 – “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

· 1 John 1:7 -- “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

· Hebrews 10:19-22 – “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”

· Hebrews 13:12 – “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.”

· Matthew 26:27 – “Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


So in closing, think it would help me if you could answer a few questions:

1. What was water baptism supposed to mean or symbolize in the New Testament to those who were baptized? (I think you are so caught up in the actual “act” or “work” of water baptism that you have completely lost sight of the entire purpose and meaning of the act itself.)

2. How does Jesus’ life, death and resurrection save us? In other words, what is it about “that” that saves us or enables us to be saved?

It saddens me that you don’t believe Jesus’ death and resurrection is sufficient to save you and redeem you completely, if you would just trust Him for it. And if Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t adequate enough to save us, then no other act “we” could contribute can or will ever help that process.

 

[Concord1968]

We can see this kind of thinking all the way back in the 5th century with the Athanasian Creed. It says that anyone who doesn't believe what is written in the Creed cannot be saved. Yet, the Creed contains blatant errors and has strayed from the original faith.

Such as?

 

[Butch5]

Such as?

Such as what?

 

[Concord1968]

Such as what?

Such as = Give us some examples of the "blatant errors" and "straying from the faith" you claim are found in the Creed(s).

 

[Butch5]

I understand the meaning and importance of the historical context of the Scriptures and I also understand Hermeneutics, etc. However, I strongly disagree with your generalized statement of, “Paul's letters were written to Christians who already knew what was necessary to be saved. He didn't have to make a list of everything necessary because they already knew it.” If this were the case, he would not have written about what saves us and what doesn’t.

No offense Kris, but it doesn't matter if you agree. Paul states it. Look at his letters. He opens them with, to the church at xyz. The church is made up of believers, Christians, people who have already been saved. If they've been saved, they know what is required to be saved.


Also, please, please, please, look up the fallacy called the argument from silence. You keep using this fallacy. It's an error in your reasoning. When you say, ” If this were the case, he would not have written about what saves us and what doesn’t” you're presuming to read his mind. You don't know why he said what he said. Basically, your argument is, because Paul didn't say it the way I think he should have, it doesn't mean what you said. That's not an argument. that's an opinion.

I’m not sure why you are struggling with understanding simple statements and their meaning and intention. Instead you’re splitting hairs over non-existent hairs. If I say, “my shirt is red,” I am expressing a very simple, plain and 100% honest statement about the color of my shirt. I am not referring to, nor speaking about, nor even discussing the other components of the shirt. I am simply making a very clear statement about the color of my shirt. Let’s say for example you were wearing a solid, blue shirt and your boss called you and asked you what color shirt you were wearing -- would you be confused about what he was wanting to know? Would you actually answer him with, “My shirt is blue, but the label is white and the stitching is black, so I’m wearing a blue, white and black shirt.”...? Of course you wouldn’t, because the meaning and intention of his question was very clear and simple. He wanted to know what color shirt you were wearing.

The same is true for statements throughout Scripture about what saves us. It’s really that plain and simple. But more on that later...


But you continue to move the goal posts. When we ask what saves and we look at Mark 16:16 it says, he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. But when I post this, suddenly you don't want to accept the very clear and simple answer. Instead you want to try and go to the next verse and somehow claim that it negates previous statement. You take the part of Scripture that doesn't mention baptism and use it to negate the part that does. just like you take the red shirt and ignore the label. That's not how it's done.

Wrong, my brother. Let’s talk immediate context. You need to re-read Ephesians Chapter 2:1-10 in context. Paul is not referring to the works of the Law here as you claim he is when he says we have been saved by grace through faith in verses 8-9 -- he first referred to how they used to live (of which he did at one time as well) which was following the ways of the world and the ruler of the kingdom of the air, gratifying the cravings of the flesh and following its desires and thoughts, etc., but then he goes into how it was God’s great love for them (and us too) that saves us...through faith! You are completely misreading this very important and doctrinally specific verse.

No, Kris, it's not I who is misunderstanding it. Read chapters 1-3. They are about how the Jews and the Gentiles have been brought together through Christ.



8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: (Eph. 2:8-16 KJV)


He said they were saved by grace through faith not of works. Then he explains it. The Gentiles who were far off have been brought near. Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition. This is a reference to the wall in the temple that the Gentiles could not pass. Only Jews could pass this wall. Paul is saying that both the Jew and the Gentile are now equal. He goes on to say that Christ has abolished the Law in ordinances. That's the Mosaic Law. So, the passage is absolutely talking about the Law of Moses. The contrast is between the Law of Moses and faith. Baptism is nowhere in this discussion. So, again, the passage doesn't pertain to the baptism debate. To use it in this way is to use it out of context in an argument from silence (fallacy).

As far as Romans 5:1-2 goes, you are completely off in your analysis that he is speaking of whether one is saved by faith or the Law. Re-read the book of Romans, paying special attention to chapter 3. Prior to what Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in chapter 5, he writes something very similar in 3:21-26. How you conclude that salvation is not by grace through faith when it can’t say it any plainer or clearer is beyond me.

Furthermore, both Jews and Gentiles are saved the exact same way...by grace through faith.

I've read it Kris, many times. You should re-read it also, all of it, in context. The argument is, once again, faith vs. the Mosaic Law


20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (Rom. 3:20-22 KJV)


He states plainly that no one will be justified by the deeds of the Law. So, the contrast is the Mosaic Law vs. faith. Once again baptism is nowhere in the discussion. So, again, to use this passage in an attempt to argue that baptism isn't necessary is to take the passage out of context and use it to make an argument from silence, a fallacy.

This is not an argument from silence on my part, but an argument from silence on yours. You are arguing for things that aren’t written there and I am arguing from what is written there. But again, it’s a “my shirt is red” principle.

Kris, please study the argument from silence. It's throughout your posts. It's a fallacy, an error in reasoning, it's wrong. You're argument is from silence because you're only accepting those passages the fit your narrative. When I post a passage that disagrees with your narrative you say it doesn't mean that. You 're claiming that being saved is by faith alone, yet the passages you post don't say one is saved by faith alone. You're assuming it's faith alone. However, we have other passages that list other things that save.


Mine isn't an argument from silence because I'm not arguing from these passages that you posted. I'm simply pointing out that they don't say what you claim they say.

Woa, Wait a minute! You took a huge leap and read into something that is not in the text. Be very careful, friend.

That's funny Kris. You've been reading the word alone into most the texts you've posted. The passage says that Christ became eternal salvation to those who obey. You sidestepped that without a response. The passage doesn't say that He is eternal salvation for anyone other than those who obey.

I think you struggle understanding biblical concepts and principles, and I don’t mean that in a condescending way.

I have no problem with the concepts. It was the Biblical concepts that showed me the erroneous teachings in many churches today, like the one you're espousing.

So basically you are contradicting Scripture with your “understanding” of what is actually being said/stated. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul clearly states we are not saved by works. That means we are not justified by works. Yet, you claim that James declares that we are saved by works. The two cannot both be true. So according to your interpretation of Scripture, one of those Bible verses is a lie. Which one?

Neither is a lie. My understanding doesn't present problems with the Scriptures. On the contrary, it's the one that you're espousing. As You stated below about James 2:23, you have to change what James said to make it fit your narrative. As I pointed out above, Paul is stating that one is saved through faith and not the Mosaic Law in Ephesians 2. The works of the Mosaic Law are the works that Paul tells the Ephesians they are saved by. Not, "anything you do" as many proclaim today. James on the other hand is talking about helping the poor and widows etc. They are different works than what Paul is talking about. James says that faith without works is dead, and asks rhetorically, can that faith save? The answer is no. That really ends the discussion right there, just like Mark 16:16 does. Faith without works can't save so one cannot be saved without works.

I declare that both Paul and James are in complete agreement with what saves someone, and that it is God’s grace (justification, righteousness, salvation, forgiveness, eternal life) that is imparted to us through faith when we believe -- and when genuine saving faith is present, it produces good works as evidence of the invisible faith within that cannot be seen.

I agree that they are in agreement. It's just not as you say.

James 2:23 tells us that Abraham believed God and it was accounted/credited to him as righteousness (his belief is what saved him) -- and then his saving faith was evidenced through his actions/works, hence faith and works go hand in hand, but works are not...and were not ever able to save anyone. The Scripture clearly states in Isaiah 64:6b, “...And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;”

It’s the same analogy I gave you about a husband and wife. If a husband truly loves his wife or a wife truly loves her husband, it will be evidenced by what they do for and to each other because nobody (but God) can see that love inside, since it is invisible. But if a spouse says they love their spouse but never shows it, then love is not actually present in their heart.

You're conforming it to fit your narrative. It doesn't say his faith was evidenced through works. He actually said he would show his faith out of his works. If his faith comes out of his works then they can't be the product of this faith.

Also, you have Isaiah 64:6 out of context. Isaiah was speaking about the Israelites in this passage, not Christians or mankind.

 

[Butch5]

No offense taken. I’m a big girl.

But really think about what you are saying in your answer when you stated, “Eight souls were saved by water.” Those souls weren’t saved by the water, they were saved from the waters that would have otherwise killed them, had it not been for the ark!

The literal floodwaters of Noah’s day killed everyone on the face of the earth except Noah and his family. The only reason the floodwaters didn’t kill Noah and his family was because of the ark. Therefore the floodwaters themselves did not act as any type of saving mechanism for Noah and his family but they were God’s means of death and destruction, had it not been for the ark itself. It was the actual ark that saved them “through” the waters of death or “from” the waters of death. So in the account of Noah, the water itself didn’t serve any other purpose than to bring God’s destruction upon the earth and to all mankind, except Noah and his family who were saved. So the water didn’t save Noah in any way whatsoever, the ark did – and it saved him from the destructive waters which would have otherwise killed them all.

Likewise, Jesus acts as our “ark” from the death and destruction that sin brings us. We are saved through belief in Him, or as Peter puts it, through “the answer of a good conscience before God.” We are saved from the destruction that our sin would otherwise bring us if it weren’t for Jesus and His undeserved grace. “This” is the type of baptism that saves, not the act of being submerged under or sprinkled with water.

That's not what Peter said. 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Pet. 3:20 KJV)


Eight souls were saved through water. The Greek word translated "through" is dia. It means agency or via. I bought my cruise tickets through a travel agency. Peter is saying that the water is the means through which the eight souls were saved. Are you telling me that Peter is wrong? That's all I conclude from you statement above. In your above statement you told me what Peter didn't mean, but you didn't tell me what he did mean, since apparently it's not what he said.

Wrong! The verse says, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

The “washing” that is described is regeneration, which means = new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation.

I don’t understand how you don’t see the verse for what it actually says. You are missing the whole entire point because you are so convinced that baptism saves you. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I see it for what it says, the bath of regeneration. It's a regeneration that takes place in a bath, bath of regeneration. There's only one bath in the Christian faith and that is baptism. To show you how the early Christians understood this here is a quote from Irenaeus in his refutation of Gnostics. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a student of the apostle John himself.


1. It happens that their tradition respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of “redemption” as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Instead, this doctrine of “baptism saves” takes the glory away from Jesus and what He did for us and puts it on man and “his” acts of righteousness, which, according to verse 5 of Titus 3 and verses 8-9 of Ephesians 2, do nothing to save us.

I don't know where this idea came from but it's utter nonsense.

Let me ask you this: What does the “act itself” of water baptism symbolize to you? In other words, what does it represent? It’s obviously not just some random act that was done, so there had to be a meaning for it. What is that meaning to you?

Just what it says. It's for the remission of sins. Note puts it at the forefront of his Gospel.

According to Galatians 1:11, Paul first received the gospel directly from Jesus on the road to Damascus and was saved – this was before he ever encountered Ananias.

You're assuming he was saved at that point.

According to Acts 9:17, then Paul received his sight and the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized.


According to Acts 22:16, then Paul was baptized as a symbolic act (and testimony) of having his sins forgiven, having called on the name of Jesus -- through whom His death, burial and resurrection enabled him (and us) to be forgiven. *Also see 1 Corinthians 6:11 and 1 Peter 3:21.


According to Acts 26:11-23, when Paul was reiterating his conversion experience to King Agrippa, he states that God was sending him to open the eyes of the Jews and Gentiles, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in [Jesus]. No mention of baptism saving anyone here.

Again, you're back to the argument from silence. There's also no mention of repentance. Would you argue that it's not needed?

No, baptism does not remove our sins – only Jesus’ shed blood does that, and that occurs the moment we believe Him for our forgiveness and salvation. It is HIS BLOOD that removes our sin from us and cleanses us:

· Ephesians 1:7 – “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence...”

· Hebrews 9:13-15 – “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

· 1 John 1:7 -- “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

· Hebrews 10:19-22 – “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”

· Hebrews 13:12 – “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.”

· Matthew 26:27 – “Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

So, you flatly deny what Peter said? Do you reject his words? He stated plainly that they needed to be baptized for the remission of sins. Are you saying he was wrong?

Why do you insist it's an either/or rather than both? That's called the false dilemma fallacy. Yes sins are remitted the blood of Christ. The way it's done is through water baptism. You see when we reason correctly it all fits together. Ananias told Paul to go and be baptized and wash away his sins. The Greek word baptized, is in the imperative mood, that means it's a command. It's also in the middle voice, that means it's something Paul is to do to himself. So, Paul was commanded to do something to himself, that was to wash away his sins. How do you suppose Paul could wash away his sins if baptism doesn't wash away sins?

So in closing, think it would help me if you could answer a few questions:

1. What was water baptism supposed to mean or symbolize in the New Testament to those who were baptized? (I think you are so caught up in the actual “act” or “work” of water baptism that you have completely lost sight of the entire purpose and meaning of the act itself.)

I've explained it. It's not a symbol. It's the act of appealing to God for the forgiveness of sins. One enters the water asking God for the forgiveness of their sins.

2. How does Jesus’ life, death and resurrection save us? In other words, what is it about “that” that saves us or enables us to be saved?

He ransomed mankind from Satan's control. He taught men how to be reconciled to God.

It saddens me that you don’t believe Jesus’ death and resurrection is sufficient to save you and redeem you completely, if you would just trust Him for it. And if Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t adequate enough to save us, then no other act “we” could contribute can or will ever help that process.

Don't be saddened for me, you should be saddened for yourself. I've given you clear passages of Scripture that state plainly that baptism saves. You've rejected them and continue to believe your narrative. You've been misled, as many have. It's up to us to open our minds. There's been 2000 years of men adding to the Scriptures. They've added quite a bit.


In the end, I've shown you passages that state explicitly that baptism saves. You've not shown a single passage that says one is saved by faith alone. You've given arguments from silence to make that case.

 

[JLB777]

I realize there may not be a simple answer to these questions.

1-if I have accepted Jesus as my savior, is baptism required? I have not been baptized, and am in the process of joining a congregation and would be baptized after becoming a member. For reasons too complicated to bring up here (regarding my mental health) I may need to put membership on hold. Which would delay baptism. If I die would I go to Hell?

2-if due to my issues I cannot join and get baptized soon, and baptism is required for salvation, are there pastors who will baptize you without you having a relationship with their church? Is this a legitimate thing to do?

I’m 40, was never Baptized as a child. I’ve been a believer for a long time, I just never sought out church membership and baptism. Now That my issues may delayed my baptism, I’m worried.

You do not need to be a “member of a church” to be baptized.

Being a “member of a church” is a man made tradition.



If you are born again, then you have been baptized into Christ, and are a member of The Church.

• For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.
1 Corinthians 12:13-14


There are three biblical baptism’s mentioned in the Bible.




JLB

 

[Kris Jordan]

No offense Kris, but it doesn't matter if you agree. Paul states it. Look at his letters. He opens them with, to the church at xyz. The church is made up of believers, Christians, people who have already been saved. If they've been saved, they know what is required to be saved.


Also, please, please, please, look up the fallacy called the argument from silence. You keep using this fallacy. It's an error in your reasoning. When you say, ” If this were the case, he would not have written about what saves us and what doesn’t” you're presuming to read his mind. You don't know why he said what he said. Basically, your argument is, because Paul didn't say it the way I think he should have, it doesn't mean what you said. That's not an argument. that's an opinion.




The same is true for statements throughout Scripture about what saves us. It’s really that plain and simple. But more on that later...


But you continue to move the goal posts. When we ask what saves and we look at Mark 16:16 it says, he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. But when I post this, suddenly you don't want to accept the very clear and simple answer. Instead you want to try and go to the next verse and somehow claim that it negates previous statement. You take the part of Scripture that doesn't mention baptism and use it to negate the part that does. just like you take the red shirt and ignore the label. That's not how it's done.





No, Kris, it's not I who is misunderstanding it. Read chapters 1-3. They are about how the Jews and the Gentiles have been brought together through Christ.



8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: (Eph. 2:8-16 KJV)


He said they were saved by grace through faith not of works. Then he explains it. The Gentiles who were far off have been brought near. Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition. This is a reference to the wall in the temple that the Gentiles could not pass. Only Jews could pass this wall. Paul is saying that both the Jew and the Gentile are now equal. He goes on to say that Christ has abolished the Law in ordinances. That's the Mosaic Law. So, the passage is absolutely talking about the Law of Moses. The contrast is between the Law of Moses and faith. Baptism is nowhere in this discussion. So, again, the passage doesn't pertain to the baptism debate. To use it in this way is to use it out of context in an argument from silence (fallacy).







I've read it Kris, many times. You should re-read it also, all of it, in context. The argument is, once again, faith vs. the Mosaic Law


20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (Rom. 3:20-22 KJV)


He states plainly that no one will be justified by the deeds of the Law. So, the contrast is the Mosaic Law vs. faith. Once again baptism is nowhere in the discussion. So, again, to use this passage in an attempt to argue that baptism isn't necessary is to take the passage out of context and use it to make an argument from silence, a fallacy.




Kris, please study the argument from silence. It's throughout your posts. It's a fallacy, an error in reasoning, it's wrong. You're argument is from silence because you're only accepting those passages the fit your narrative. When I post a passage that disagrees with your narrative you say it doesn't mean that. You 're claiming that being saved is by faith alone, yet the passages you post don't say one is saved by faith alone. You're assuming it's faith alone. However, we have other passages that list other things that save.


Mine isn't an argument from silence because I'm not arguing from these passages that you posted. I'm simply pointing out that they don't say what you claim they say.





That's funny Kris. You've been reading the word alone into most the texts you've posted. The passage says that Christ became eternal salvation to those who obey. You sidestepped that without a response. The passage doesn't say that He is eternal salvation for anyone other than those who obey.


I have no problem with the concepts. It was the Biblical concepts that showed me the erroneous teachings in many churches today, like the one you're espousing.




Neither is a lie. My understanding doesn't present problems with the Scriptures. On the contrary, it's the one that you're espousing. As You stated below about James 2:23, you have to change what James said to make it fit your narrative. As I pointed out above, Paul is stating that one is saved through faith and not the Mosaic Law in Ephesians 2. The works of the Mosaic Law are the works that Paul tells the Ephesians they are saved by. Not, "anything you do" as many proclaim today. James on the other hand is talking about helping the poor and widows etc. They are different works than what Paul is talking about. James says that faith without works is dead, and asks rhetorically, can that faith save? The answer is no. That really ends the discussion right there, just like Mark 16:16 does. Faith without works can't save so one cannot be saved without works.




I agree that they are in agreement. It's just not as you say.




You're conforming it to fit your narrative. It doesn't say his faith was evidenced through works. He actually said he would show his faith out of his works. If his faith comes out of his works then they can't be the product of this faith.

Also, you have Isaiah 64:6 out of context. Isaiah was speaking about the Israelites in this passage, not Christians or mankind.

John 3:16. Short, sweet and to the point.

 

[Guojing]

John 3:16. Short, sweet and to the point.

Actually John 3:16 is also unclear.

Believe what about Jesus to have eternal life? If you read the ending of John, its to believe Jesus as the Son of God John 20:31

But that is now how Paul teaches us Gentiles that we need to believe in, to be saved. 1 Cor 15.

So John 3:16, without Paul's epistles, is as unclear as salvation was under the OT.

 

[Kris Jordan]

Actually John 3:16 is also unclear.

Believe what about Jesus to have eternal life? If you read the ending of John, its to believe Jesus as the Son of God John 20:31

But that is now how Paul teaches us Gentiles that we need to believe in, to be saved. 1 Cor 15.

So John 3:16, without Paul's epistles, is as unclear as salvation was under the OT.

I don't think salvation was unclear in the OT at all. OT saints and NT saints all get saved the same way - by God's grace through faith in Him. OT saints believed God for their salvation that was yet to come (Jesus) and NT saints believe God for their salvation that already came (Jesus). Nothing has changed in that regard. Abraham believed God (= faith) and it was credited unto him as righteousness (= God's grace).

Peter is also in agreement with salvation by grace through faith. Read 1 Peter 1:3-9. It's pretty clear. And undeniable.

 

[Guojing]

I don't think salvation was unclear in the OT at all. OT saints and NT saints all get saved the same way - by God's grace through faith in Him. OT saints believed God for their salvation that was yet to come (Jesus) and NT saints believe God for their salvation that already came (Jesus). Nothing has changed in that regard. Abraham believed God (= faith) and it was credited unto him as righteousness (= God's grace).

Peter is also in agreement with salvation by grace through faith. Read 1 Peter 1:3-9. It's pretty clear. And undeniable.

The term faith appeared only a few times in the ot, with little link to salvation. Many times, works are linked to how you can please God.

It’s only clear to you now because you had the benefit of the complete bible in written form.

 

[Charlie24]

I realize there may not be a simple answer to these questions.

1-if I have accepted Jesus as my savior, is baptism required? I have not been baptized, and am in the process of joining a congregation and would be baptized after becoming a member. For reasons too complicated to bring up here (regarding my mental health) I may need to put membership on hold. Which would delay baptism. If I die would I go to Hell?

2-if due to my issues I cannot join and get baptized soon, and baptism is required for salvation, are there pastors who will baptize you without you having a relationship with their church? Is this a legitimate thing to do?

I’m 40, was never Baptized as a child. I’ve been a believer for a long time, I just never sought out church membership and baptism. Now That my issues may delayed my baptism, I’m worried.

There is a simple answer to your question, it's found in Acts 10:44-48. While Peter was preaching to a group of people, the Holy Spirit fell upon them who believed the Word Peter preached. Then Peter said "can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"

They received the Holy Spirit by believing the Gospel Peter preached. That was their salvation. Then they were water baptized as an outward confession of faith in the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ.

Yes, you should be water baptized because it is a commandment of Christ to do so. Not to be saved, but to publicly confess that you have been saved, as did this group with Peter.

 

[Kris Jordan]

There is a simple answer to your question, it's found in Acts 10:44-48. While Peter was preaching to a group of people, the Holy Spirit fell upon them who believed the Word Peter preached. Then Peter said "can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"

They received the Holy Spirit by believing the Gospel Peter preached. That was their salvation. Then they were water baptized as an outward confession of faith in the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ.

Yes, you should be water baptized because it is a commandment of Christ to do so. Not to be saved, but to publicly confess that you have been saved, as did this group with Peter.

Excellently stated.

 

[Albion]

The term faith appeared only a few times in the ot, with little link to salvation. Many times, works are linked to how you can please God.

Belief in Jesus the Christ would be asking a lot of someone who lived before the Incarnation, wouldn't you say? That isn't what was expected of people in OT times.