Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[zeke]

I wasn't. I changed my mind about Christ and wanted to live accordingly (repentance), and surrendered my defenses about my sin and guilt to God, trusting him to have mercy on me, and I was saved.@#$%

If you did not repent then Jesus says you will perish. Are you sure belief is all that is required to be saved? Are you sure you were saved BEFORE you repented?

I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
(Luk 13:3 NKJV)​

I was water baptized two months later.

Were you, like Paul baptized to wash away your sins? If not, why not? Were you “baptized into Christ” - “baptism into His death” at your baptism?

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
(Act 22:16 NKJV)​

Baptism is (was) a metonymy for repentance.@#$%

You are mistaken again – baptism is not repentance and repentance is not baptism. Repentance and baptism are separate acts of obedience that the believer is required to do before his sins are remitted per Peter. Easy concept.

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Act 2:38 NKJV)​

Well, just show me where it says Jesus was talking exactly about water baptism as we are discussing it here in this thread and we can stop debating it.

I have already done that but you refuse to see the truth that is before your eyes. Why? Jesus is “exactly” discussing “water” in the passage in question – “born of water and the Spirit” - water is water - the kind that gets you wet as you are immersed in water - baptized into Christ Jesus (Rom 6:3-5). The Lord's church has taught this truth for over 2000 years. The new birth is required before one can be in the kingdom of God – before one can be saved.

You would have us believe that Jesus requires something essential to our salvation (the new birth) but we cannot understand what that essential something is - that's a rather ludicrous idea and your interpretation of the new birth is painfully incorrect. The new birth has always included baptism in water and the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit. It amazes me to see the mental gymnastics some will go to in their futile attempt to eliminate God's ordinance of baptism from His word.

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:5 NKJV)

John 3:5

Be born of water - By “water,” here, is evidently signified “baptism.” Thus the word is used in Eph_5:26; Tit_3:5. Baptism was practiced by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practiced by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said Mar_16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible​

With an overall Biblical view of baptism and it's history in the people of God it's easy to see that the repentance is what it's all about, not the legalism of water as the way salvation is to occur.

Only if that “overall Biblical view of baptism” is based on a sectarian bias that cannot accommodate the truth. Baptism, like belief and repentance is an act of obedience required by God before one “shall be saved” - we must "work the works of God". It is all in the Book my friend – why do you kick against the pricks? “Truth Crushed to Ground Shall Rise Again!”

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary​

Was Jesus being legalistic and dogmatic when He required belief and baptism before one would be saved? Am I 'earning salvation' when I obey from the heart His command to be baptized in water? Do you completely misunderstand God's ordinance of baptism? The answers to those questions are obvious.

 

[Webb]

Stan53 and I formerly wrote on this thread. I suggested we have a debate on the one-on-one and he agreed. Stan53 concluded the discussion before it reallly got started. I encourage those on this thread to read our very short one-on-one.

 

[dadof10]

Peter tells us that baptism saves us "as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Right, Peter tells us HOW water baptism saves, by applying the merits of the resurrection to the person.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..."

Baptism saves you as an appeal to God, through the resurrection.

Nowhere does it say that we MUST be baptized to be saved, though.

Does it say water baptism "now saves you"? Nowhere does it say we are saved by faith ALONE, so it can be both. Justification is a process, which includes baptism, charitable works, sacrifice, etc. all done in faith. This is the clear teaching of Scripture.

Rather, we must appeal to God for salvation through Christ, and one way that is accomplished is through baptism.

You're twisting the words of the passage. It says baptism saves as an appeal, not WE MUST appeal.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Referring to "Repent and be baptized":

Hebrew expression constantly restates the same thing twice with an "and" in between. "Let them become a snare and a trap." A snare is a trap. Reiteration of the same concept using a different word, that's downright regular for this area of the Middle East.

I talk like this all the time. A lot of people do this at one time or another, and it amazes me that people don't recongnize that we do that when it comes to the Bible.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul's very direct statement is not to put the works cart before the horse of salvation -- works follow, they don't pull the salvation horse along.

I like to borrow the economic term of 'pushing on a string'.

Like you say, works are drawn along behind salvation. Trying to push on salvation through works is like pushing on a string...it don't work.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you did not repent then Jesus says you will perish. Are you sure belief is all that is required to be saved? Are you sure you were saved BEFORE you repented?

No. I repented, then I was saved by that repentance...then I got water baptized two months later.

You won't understand that if you have an incomplete understanding of what 'repentance' means. Here's something that helps us know what it is:

"I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds" (Acts 26:20 NIV1984)

I think you can see that 'repentance' means much more than just not doing wrong anymore. In fact, the 'not doing wrong' is actually the evidence that you have repented, not necessarily the 'not doing wrong' itself. Do you see it?

I repented, changing my mind about my sin and the knowledge I had about the forgiveness of sin through Christ, and I showed that change of mind and heart by what I did. Salvation first, through faith and repentance, then works to show that faith and repentance. For me, that meant getting baptized two months after I repented and was saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Were you, like Paul baptized to wash away your sins? If not, why not?

No, I did not. I had already had my sins washed away. My baptism turned out to be what Peter said it is. A public declaration of my repentance--my pledge of a good conscience before God. And I can't tell people enough how important and valuable it is to do that. If anyone reading this thread believes and is saved (as evidenced by the indwelling Holy Spirit) but has not been baptized I say, "GET BAPTIZED!"

If you are already saved and sealed with the Holy Spirit baptism is a wonderful jump start into a bold and unreserved witness of your faith in Christ. (Besides that, Christ commanded it, lol. That was the reason I did it to begin with). It's harder to turn back when you've publically declared your intention to follow Christ. Baptism is a good way to cement your commitment to God. It's like a signature on a contract to buy something that you wanted to agree to, but hadn't, knowing you weren't really committed to it until you did.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

In regard to 'water' in John 3:

I have already done that but you refuse to see the truth that is before your eyes. Why? Jesus is “exactly” discussing “water” in the passage in question – “born of water and the Spirit” - water is water - the kind that gets you wet as you are immersed in water - baptized into Christ Jesus (Rom 6:3-5).

No, you have not shown me where the Bible specifically tells us the 'water' in John 3 is literally being water baptized as new believers do that. I agree it's definitely water, as in the wet kind. But he doesn't say whether he means the water of the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1) as I have explained that, or the water of the womb (see context), or the water of John's baptism being performed at that time. Just show me where it plainly says what the 'water' is that Jesus is talking about, then we can all cover up the belly button of our opinions (everyone has one--and most should probably stay covered up) and get on board with the one true meaning of it you insist is so plainly stated, not just implied, in the Bible.

The Lord's church has taught this truth for over 2000 years. The new birth is required before one can be in the kingdom of God – before one can be saved.

You would have us believe that Jesus requires something essential to our salvation (the new birth) but we cannot understand what that essential something is - that's a rather ludicrous idea and your interpretation of the new birth is painfully incorrect.

The new birth is plainly understood in the Bible. What some insist is that can only happen at and in conjunction with water baptism. That is what is not so obvious to some. It's obvious to me. The Bible plainly records an example of someone being born again by the Spirit (the new birth you refer to) before and apart from his water baptism.

The new birth has always included baptism in water and the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit. It amazes me to see the mental gymnastics some will go to in their futile attempt to eliminate God's ordinance of baptism from His word.

Get this out of your head right now once and for all: Not being saved at water baptism as a matter of legalistic law does not mean the elimination of God's command to be water baptized! What it means is, water baptism was not meant to be a legalistic ritual or rule through which he gives the Holy Spirit in salvation. The Bible plainly shows us that belief to not be true at all. I'm convinced the idea can represent a very dangerous works mentality in the one who believes it. It's no surprise that people who think God only gives his Holy Spirit at water baptism also vehemently defend works as a requirement for salvation. Is that really such a big surprise, folks?

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:5 NKJV)

John 3:5

Be born of water - By “water,” here, is evidently signified “baptism.” Thus the word is used in Eph_5:26; Tit_3:5. Baptism was practiced by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practiced by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said Mar_16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible​

The 'sign and seal of the renewing influneces of his Spirit'? He's kidding, right? I WISH it were that simple. There are lots of people who have been water baptized in their local Church of Christ who are hardly born again by the Spirit, but who nevertheless think so, just because they were baptized. James, John, Paul plainly tells us what the sign of the indwelling Holy Spirit is...and it ain't gettin' wet. Even the famous James 2 sermon about faith and works says it, but is instead used as a proof text that a person can only be saved at water baptism. They ignore what he actually IS talking about there--'love your neighbor as yourself', and not as a means of getting saved, but as a way to know you are saved. It has NOTHING to do with water baptism.

Water baptism no more signifies saving faith than circumcision does. People who rely on things like water baptism for confirmation of salvation are terribly, terribly deceived. Since the inception of the law that seems to be the theme of the entire Bible--people deceitfully relying on religious externals for confirmation of salvation and right standing with God.

Everything that some people misunderstood about circumcision is what some people have misunderstood about water baptism. The parallels are scary.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Justification is a process, which includes baptism, charitable works, sacrifice, etc. all done in faith. This is the clear teaching of Scripture.

14 ...by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14 NIV1984)

When we trust in the blood of Christ for the fogiveness of sin we are forever made perfect before God by that one sacrifice. No further sacrifice for sin is necessary. One sacrifice makes us perfect forever. We don't have to be continually made righeous over and over again--that would require Jesus to be repeatedly sacrificed. Instead what we do is continue in the faith in Jesus' one sacrifice that made us righteous and perfect before God. From there what we do shows us to be continuing in the faith that made us forever perfect and righteous before God.

It's impossible for works to make a person righteous. Only faith in the forgiveness of God that takes away unrigheousness can do that. Works only show that we have that faith.

 

[dadof10]

The verse I cited (Rom 4:5) and the verses Paul cited exemplifying the justification of Abraham were before circumcision was introduced, and long, long before the Law was introduced.

Then why does he tie it directly to works of the law?

"Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Rom. 3:27-31)

He then goes on:

"What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works..." Stop right here.

What "works" is Paul talking about? Since this is a continuation of his thoughts of Chapter 3, it's reasonable to assume the "works" being referenced there are the same "works" being referenced here.

"...he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."

First, he speaks about Abraham, then says "So also David..." and continues contrasting "works" with faith. Now I'm sure the Law had been introduced at the time the Psalms were written. And he continues...

"Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Seems Paul had something specific in mind, probably circumcision. If you don't like Paul's drawing a parallel between Abraham and circumcision, take it up with him. It's obvious what he's getting at in Romans 4.

Paul's logic in Romans 4:4 is that works deserve a wage -- but God's grace isn't working on a wage, but on faith in God to forgive.

Agreed. The Jews thought that when a devout Jew kept the Law, God was indebted to the person. God made a deal, so to speak, that if you do X,Y,Z, I'll do A,B,C. Think about that attitude for a minute. Why on earth would a Jew need a savior? All he had to do was to keep the Law and they would inherit eternal life. This is what Paul is reacting to, not good deeds done in faith.

If you require works -- any works by Paul's definition -- that qualifies into the logic of Romans 4:4, and thus Paul rejects it. In other words, anything you work that requires God to pay with salvation -- that's the work Paul is talking about.

Sorry, no. Nowhere in Paul's letters does he contrast faith with good deeds or baptism or keeping the commandments or sacrifice (all things that "save" according to Scripture). Nowhere in Scripture are the above called, or even alluded to as, "works". As proved above, he is speaking specifically about works of the Law, or circumcision. Please read Acts 15 for an overview if the first heresy within the Church, which revolved around this topic.

Paul hasn't even mentioned the Law up to this point. So no, Paul isn't contrasting Law with good works.

LOL...Does it have to be mentioned BEFORE to be relevant?

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands -- 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.

Again, he ties "works" directly to circumcision and the Law.

Paul is contrasting works as prerequisite, with works as result. "not from works ... for good works." (Ep 2:8-10) It's what Paul wrote.

It's not the same meaning. "Works" and "good works" are two different things, otherwise he is saying "Faith, not the good works we were created to do". That makes no sense.

Sorry, no. There's no such connection being made here. Paul's very direct statement is not to put the works cart before the horse of salvation -- works follow, they don't pull the salvation horse along.

Paul's statements in both Romans and Ephesians (and everywhere else) is in direct relation to works of the Law, circumcision specifically. Acts 15 bears this out also. You need to PROVE that by "works" Paul meant baptism, charity, etc. Then, if you do, we all have a problem because Scripture plainly says we are saved by water baptism, keeping the commandments, sacrifice, etc.

 

[zeke]

No. I repented, then I was saved by that repentance...then I got water baptized two months later.

But one's sins are not 'washed away' until one submits to baptism in water. Paul believed Jesus was the Christ on the road to Damascus but his sins were not forgiven until he obeyed the command from God's servant to arise and be baptized...

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
(Act 22:16 NKJV)​

You are also in disagreement with the words of Peter...

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Act 2:38 NKJV)​

It is obvious to anyone who can read English that Peter states repentance and baptism are to take place before one's sins are remitted. Peter doesn't say believe, repent for the remission of sins and then be baptized 2 months later. Jesus did not say believe and be saved and then be baptoxzed if you can find the time. Faith, repentance and baptism comes before one has his sins forgiven. You remain in error.

 

[zeke]

No, you have not shown me where the Bible specifically tells us the 'water' in John 3 is literally being water baptized as new believers do that.

The water of the new birth has always been the water of baptism - the kind that gets you wet. The church of God has taught this truth for over 2000 years. Anyone who must change "water" to the amniotic fluid of childbirth does so out of total desperation. All men are born via their mother's amniotic fluid - Jesus says the new birth includes water and Spirit - two elements one birth. Jesus submitted to baptism in water as did all of His disciples. Baptism has always been essential to the Gospel of Christ.

We are told the same thing in Titus 3:5...we are saved "through the washing of regeneration (baptism in water) and renewing of the Holy Spirit".

Titus 3:5. By the washing of regeneration - Δια λουτρου παλιγγενεσιας· Undoubtedly the apostle here means baptism, the rite by which persons were admitted into the Church, and the visible sign of the cleansing, purifying influences of the Holy Spirit, which the apostle immediately subjoins. Baptism is only a sign, and therefore should never be separated from the thing signified; but it is a rite commanded by God himself, and therefore the thing signified should never be expected without it. ~ Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible​

In their desperation to uphold their sectarian dogma many completely misunderstand God's clear teaching on baptism. Again, baptism in water is commanded by God himself, and therefore the thing signified (the washing away of sins) should never be expected without being baptized "for the remission of sins". Don't let sectarian error lead you astray as it has done for many of this thread.

 

[zeke]

There are lots of people who have been water baptized in their local Church of Christ who are hardly born again by the Spirit, but who nevertheless think so, just because they were baptized.

And you are able to judge the hearts of men - how exactly? Did you get this great "power" from God or out of grandiose delusion. The truth remains, the one who is baptized without faith simply gets wet - the one who obeys the Lord "from the heart" via faith, repentance and baptism will be saved. You kick against the pricks my friend and God's word remains true.

Your sectarian dogma does not trump God's word and I hardly think you have the authority to judge anyone's heart - yes?

 

[zeke]

Water baptism no more signifies saving faith than circumcision does. People who rely on things like water baptism for confirmation of salvation are terribly, terribly deceived.

Again folks, baptism in water is from God - Jesus instituted and command baptism. Those who obey their lord in baptism are "working the works of God - i.e., doing that which God requires. Sectarian error says baptism is not essential but the Lord tells us the truth...

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)​

The choice is ours - the word of God vs. the error of sectarianism. I will choose the word of God.

 

[Kidron]

But one's sins are not 'washed away' until one submits to baptism in water.

"Sins" are washed away as soon as they are forgiven.
Water does not forgive sins.
God forgives sins, and he is not water.
The Blood of God, in the form of Jesus The Christ, is the only sacrificial and divine cleansing agent offered for forgiving all sins.
God requires a sacrifice to forgive, and water baptism is not a sacrifice, it a ritual.
God applies his divine blood when the gospel is preached and a hearer receives it and by faith believes it....(>FAITH< cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God).
At that very instant the hearer's sins have been washed away by the blood of Jesus The Christ who shed his blood for this very purpose.

The New Testament will now explain this to you.

"For as many as received ME, i give them power to become the Sons of God"
(no water baptism)

"if you hear my words and believe on him who sent me you HAVE eternal life"
(no water baptism)

" He that believeth on the Son HAS eternal life"
(no water baptism)


" For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but HAVE everlasting life"
(no water baptism)

"He that HAS the Son HAS eternal life"
(no water baptism)

"believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and YOU SHALL be saved".
(no water baptism)

"All who call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved".
(no water baptism)

And one more thing.
There was a thief on the cross who trusted Christ and Christ said he was going to paradise (Abraham's bosom) that day with Jesus.
He could have never gone there had he been lost.
He was not water baptised........EVER.<<<
The dying thief is STILL NOT water baptised and its been over 2000 years since he was SAVED.
(I wonder what Peter thinks when they chat about this in heaven);)

and finally,
we are justified by Faith alone according to Paul, who personally received the revelation of the Grace of God from Jesus.

Paul is your gentile apostle.
Peter is not your gentile apostle.
Paul , not Peter was given the revelation of grace while Peter was still enacting the Jewish water ritual for salvation.

Water baptism without faith is dead..
Faith without water baptism is justification and salvation.
You can be water baptised and die unforgiven.
You cannot be saved by faith alone and die unforgiven.


K

 

[zeke]

"Sins" are washed away as soon as they are forgiven.

And the convert to the faith of Christ will have his/her sins forgiven when s/he obeys from the heart the gospel of Christ and that gospel has always included faith, repentance and baptism and then one's sins will be remitted. The advice from God's word to the lost sinner has always been...

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
(Act 22:16 NKJV)​

At conversion, our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ when we believe, repent and submit to baptism in water - "calling on the name of the Lord". It's all in the Book. Have you been baptized in water?

 

[dadof10]

I don't know that Saul was ever saved. The Holy Spirit was not given on the basis of faith in the old covenant but on the basis of family lineage and the calling of God for his purposes.

Wherever you see the Holy Spirit in this New Covenant that is where you have faith in Jesus' blood. That is how you receive the Holy Spirit.

For a sola-scriptura advocate, you sure believe a lot of things not taught in Scripture. Justification by faith alone. Salvation is a one-time event. That baptism, charity, etc are "works". That the OT greats had a faith that was somehow lacking and non-salvific. Now this?

Please show me where Scripture teaches that there was a change. That in the Old Covenant He was given "on the basis of family lineage" and that CHANGED to ONLY being given "on the basis of faith".

Of course the holy Spirit is given by "calling of God for his purposes". It's always been that way AND STILL IS. There is no evidence that NOW whenever you see the Holy Spirit being given it is ONLY on the "basis of faith".

It seems that the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius and his whole household to prove to the "believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter" that their message is going from the Jews to the Gentiles. Note the way it is written;

"While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God."

The Holy Spirit was not poured out on the Gentile BELIEVERS, but "even on the Gentiles". The text even contrasts "the believers" with "the Gentiles". It's quite a reach to assume that because the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them that they were all saved at that moment. You need to stretch the text or come into it with the preconceived idea that ONLY people who are saved can receive the Holy Spirit.

14 ...by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14 NIV1984)

When we trust in the blood of Christ for the fogiveness of sin we are forever made perfect before God by that one sacrifice. No further sacrifice for sin is necessary.

Aren't we discussing HOW the "blood of Christ" or the "one sacrifice", is applied to us? You say it's faith alone, I say it's baptism. This verse does not make your point because it does not say how the "one sacrifice" is applied to the believer. I believe the merits of Christ's blood (or one sacrifice) is applied at baptism.

One sacrifice makes us perfect forever.

Really? You are "perfect" and will remain so forever?

We don't have to be continually made righeous over and over again--that would require Jesus to be repeatedly sacrificed.

Says who? So, every time someone is justified, Christ is re-sacrificed? What is the difference between two people being justified and one person being justified twice? According to your logic, Christ would have to be re-sacrificed every time a person was saved.

The one sacrifice of Jesus REDEEMED the whole world. This sacrifice was sufficient for the redemption of every human being, but unless this redemption is applied to the person, it has no salvific power. You are getting redemption and salvation confused.

Instead what we do is continue in the faith in Jesus' one sacrifice that made us righteous and perfect before God. From there what we do shows us to be continuing in the faith that made us forever perfect and righteous before God.

Please show me where in this verse faith or continuing in faith is mentioned. It doesn't say "by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy BY FAITH ALONE." Again, you are reading your theology into your study.

Now that I have addressed a verse that you think teaches salvation is a one time event, could you please address the following verses that prove it is a process? Thanks.

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor. 1:18)

"For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life." (2 Cor. 2:15)

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12)

 

[dadof10]

If you're commanded to stop doing something, is that doing something?

Paul has already said "he who does not work but believes ..." (cf. Rom 4:4-5). So -- what's meant by "not work" what Paul means by "not work".

You misunderstand. You MUST HAVE faith, correct? You must "accept Jesus" to be saved, right? This accepting is an action that you MUST DO or you will not be saved. You think all actions (baptism, charity, keeping the commandments, sacrifice) are "works". Why are all those actions "works" to you, yet the ACTION of "accepting Jesus" or "having faith" is not?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But one's sins are not 'washed away' until one submits to baptism in water.

Maybe...maybe not. It did not happen that way for Cornelius. How do we know? He received the Holy Spirit before being water baptized. Unforgiven people do NOT have the Holy Spirit.

(Act 22:16 NKJV)[/B][/INDENT]You are also in disagreement with the words of Peter...

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
​

Cornelius was in disagreement with Peter's words, too. It's obvious what Peter said was not meant to be a legalistic procedure on how to get the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It is obvious to anyone who can read English that Peter states repentance and baptism are to take place before one's sins are remitted. Peter doesn't say believe, repent for the remission of sins and then be baptized 2 months later. Jesus did not say believe and be saved and then be baptoxzed if you can find the time. Faith, repentance and baptism comes before one has his sins forgiven. You remain in error.

It's obvious to anyone who can read English that Cornelius received the gift of the Spirit before the procedure you insist must be followed to get that gift. This doesn't mean you don't have to be water baptized in obedience to Christ's command. It means lose this ridiculous legalistic doctrine that God only gives his Holy Spirit at water baptism and therefore a person can not be saved until they are baptized. That is completely and totally unscriptural.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The water of the new birth has always been the water of baptism - the kind that gets you wet.

Actually, the new birth is a spiritual birth, not a physical one. This is what Nicodemus could not understand. I'm not sure you're very much different than him in your understanding. Cornelius was born again by the Spirit without a drop of water.

The church of God has taught this truth for over 2000 years. Anyone who must change "water" to the amniotic fluid of childbirth does so out of total desperation.

I wouldn't call it desperation, but I agree 'water' in John 3 is probably not symbolic of the breaking of a woman's water prior to physical birth. I personally am convinced it means the waters of the Red Sea.

It's not enough to identify yourself with a natural nation of God's people born and baptized into Moses at the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1). But many Jews and adherents to Judaism took false comfort in that 'birth' and baptism. Jesus said you must also be born from above to see the kingdom of God.

Even if that baptism (the baptism at the Red Sea into Moses) is symbolized by John's baptism, and that's what Jesus is talking about, it still doesn't make John's baptism necessary to see the kingdom. It makes what John's baptism represents necessary to see the kingdom--repentance as signified by obedience to the law ('love your neighbor as yourself'). But as he's pointing out, obedience to the law is not enough. You must also have the Spirit of God to see the kingdom of God. That's where the Jews went so terribly wrong. They embraced the law as a legalistic effort to be declared righteous, instead of living out the law as an expression of the righteousness of faith in the promises by the Spirit.

We are told the same thing in Titus 3:5...we are saved "through the washing of regeneration (baptism in water) and renewing of the Holy Spirit".

Titus 3:5. By the washing of regeneration
​

Water does not regenerate anything. The Spirit does. We have been regenerated and renewed by the Spirit, not water and the Spirit.

...Baptism is only a sign, and therefore should never be separated from the thing signified; but it is a rite commanded by God himself, and therefore the thing signified should never be expected without it. ~ Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Tell that to Cornelius.

In their desperation to uphold their sectarian dogma many completely misunderstand God's clear teaching on baptism. Again, baptism in water is commanded by God himself, and therefore the thing signified (the washing away of sins) should never be expected without being baptized "for the remission of sins". Don't let sectarian error lead you astray as it has done for many of this thread.

I think we should not let people who willfully choose to ignore plain scripture that shows us Cornelius getting the Holy Spirit without his baptism lead us into legalistic teachings about the one and only time and place a person can be saved.