Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: Think...

Well it's clear that we'll need to agree to disagree here and move on.. good conversation though imo.

The only thing we could agree on here is that you are trying to change what Peter said to avoid the force of his words, that being, baptism doth also now save us.

 

[Eventide]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

Peter did NOT say eight souls saved by the ark.

Maybe it was to obvious ... and again, I can't understand why anyone would think that the waters of the flood saved anyone..

Sometimes the most obvious things are hidden when we're looking at ourselves rather than Christ.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: Think...

good post Eventide;647650..


Without the shedding of Jesus The Christ's blood there is no remission of sins.
Without the remission of sins, there is no salvation of anyone.

think also of this...

the finished work of Jesus was finished when he said..."it is finished".
then to prove it was finished he walked out of a grave.
did you notice there is no baptismal pool anywhere near the cross or the grave of Jesus????????
There is a reason.
Did you notice that the gospel is always preached, believed, and then water follows.
Its never water first, or water for....its always, gospel, faith/believe, and THEN you baptise.

Acts 8:37,38



K

At what point does one have his sins remitted by the blood of Christ?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

Maybe it was to obvious ... and again, I can't understand why anyone would think that the waters of the flood saved anyone..

Sometimes the most obvious things are hidden when we're looking at ourselves rather than Christ.

Because Peter said eight souls SAVED BY WATER.

 

[Eventide]

Re: Think...

The only thing we could agree on here is that you are trying to change what Peter said to avoid the force of his words, that being, baptism doth also now save us.

From my own experience I know that I was saved and sealed with the Spirit of God before I was baptized in water. I think JB touched on this and I think it's important.. I don't know a single person who was born again AFTER (or because) they were baptized... in water.

 

[Eventide]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

Because Peter said eight souls SAVED BY WATER.

And yet we KNOW that the water destroyed everything EXCEPT those who were on the Ark..

Go figure..

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro wrote, #321: COLME ON CHURCH! COME TO YOUR SENSES. GOD GIVES HIS HOLY SPIRIT WHEN AND WHERE HE WANTS TO. SOMETIMES ACCORDING TO ACTS 2:38, SOMETIMES ACCORDING TO ACTS 10 IN THE HOME OF CORNELIUS."

Of course God gives ''His Spirit when and where He wants to" because He IS God, but you have neither authority nor right to claim it on your terms.

Peter said the Spirit fell on the house of Cornelius as it did on the apostles on Pentecost, Acts 2, Acts 11:15. Notice those words in the text: "as on us at the begining." What happened when the Spirit came on the apostles "at thebegining"? Well, there was a rushing, mighty wind, did that occur when you claimed you got the Spirit? There were tongues like as of fire which sat upon each of the apostles, now are you going to tell us that also happened to you? I you are going to claim conversion like that of Cornelius you have got to have that. If not, why not?

Furthermore Acts 10,11 was in fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. Was yours? If not, why not?

Furtherore the case of Cornelius occurred but once, we are not informed by scripture that it ever happened again. BUT, the case of Acts 2 where the Spirit is given FOLLOWING water baptism involved at least 3,000 from all known countries at the time AND the promise of the "remission of sins" and "gift of the Holy Spirit" was "--unto you , and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call", Acts 2:39. Now, all you have to do is show where any such promise was made in the giving of the Spirit to Cornelius.

Thats right, only God can decide when, where and how He will bestow portions of the Holy Spirit and the scripture onlly guide, not subjectiveism as you have so hinted.

Don't you know you're nibbling the ground out from under your own experience and what you claim is the one and only way that a person gets the Holy Spirit? Think about it.

The scriptures plainly teach the apportioning of the various gifts of the Spirit as God wills. The Holy Spirit did come with fire the moment I surrendered to God's indictment against me about my sin, but not in the particular gift of tongues...but neither was it given to me when I was water baptized, as it most certainly should have if we follow your line of thinking that you're using to try to invalidate my salvation experience.

Can you now understand the implication to you that this legalistic argument you are leveling against me brings? If I'm only allowed by you to receive the Holy Spirit in only one of the particular times the Bible shows that happened, and in the exact way that it happened, then I think it fair that for your argument to be valid that you also have received the Spirit at that time and in that way, too. Fair is fair.

I know you're going next. Trust me. You can't win this one.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

And yet we KNOW that the water destroyed everything EXCEPT those who were on the Ark..

Go figure..

So according to you Peter was wrong. That is a tough position to take in trying argue water baptism is not essential to salvation.

They were saved by water as Peter said. The water cleansed the earth of the wickedness and they were saved from that wickedness by the water.

 

[Eventide]

Christ in you...

IMO Mary is another wondrous picture of being born again.. and to have Christ in your earthen vessel.. and while she carried Christ physically, we have the Spirit of Christ in us.

The similarities are amazing I think... and that happened to her because she BELIEVED the message which was sent from above..

 

[Eventide]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

So according to you Peter was wrong. That is a tough position to take in trying argue water baptism is not essential to salvation.

They were saved by water as Peter said. The water cleansed the earth of the wickedness and they were saved from that wickedness by the water.

Please don't put words in my mouth.. imo you're wrong in thinking that the WATER is what saved them... the account of the flood is scriptural and even a passive study of that should reveal that the water destroyed.. it didn't save.

I'll certainly admit that I could be wrong also.. although I think that the evidence for this one is in and it's overwhelming that Christ is what saves and not being dunked in water.

And if there's a type in this story that would glorify Christ.. it would certainly be the ARK and not the WATER..

 

[reba]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

Please don't put words in my mouth.. imo you're wrong in thinking that the WATER is what saved them... the account of the flood is scriptural and even a passive study of that should reveal that the water destroyed.. it didn't save.

I'll certainly admit that I could be wrong also.. although I think that the evidence for this one is in and it's overwhelming that Christ is what saves and not being dunked in water.

And if there's a type in this story that would glorify Christ.. it would certainly be the ARK and not the WATER..

We agree!

 

[Eventide]

BCC ?

I'll never forget my short experience when I was indoctrinated in the Boston Church of Christ.. they were so fanatical about water baptism that they claimed to be the only true church on earth.. and that you'd absolutely go to hell if not baptized in water.... AND.. that if a person wasn't baptized in THEIR assembly, that it didn't count etc..

I'm all for teaching the command of God to be baptized in water.. although in many cases it becomes so fanatical that baptism becomes more important than preaching Christ..

 

[heymikey80]

Peter said "baptism doth also not save us". Baptism saves, that settles the issue. Nothing else in the context chnages these five simple words. After Peter declares that baptism saves he then tells us what baptism is not for.

No, Peter doesn't say "not for the removal of dirt from the flesh." Peter says "not the removal of dirt from the flesh." In other words the water isn't the part of baptism that saves.

There isn't the Greek preposition, "for the purpose of" here. It's not here.It can't be injected into the phrase if Peter didn't put it there.

Peter then goes on to say what saves: "but the answer in good conscience before God." I'm sure everyone catches that: this is the part of baptism that makes baptism saving: the conscientious response.

Peter just made Noah being saved by water the type and us saved by water bpatism the anti-type.

No, the Greek word here is "dia", which is "through". It's nonspecific. Obviously a dozen others have pointed it out, the water was the cause of death, not life, for Noah's contemporaries and the world. But it was the thing through which the life of Noah was preserved. That's probably why it's not a good model of baptism to inhale, but rather to hold one's breath through the water.

In Acts 2 Peter calls on people to "repent and be baptized" -- calling particular attention yet again to the operative part of baptism: repentance.

1 Pet 3:21 is not a dry baptism.

Nobody said the sign shouldn't accompany the spiritual reality. But a sign is still a sign, not the thing signified.

I don't put my sign(ature) on a contract and then assume all's done in the contract.

Nobody should consider baptism to be more than a corresponding signature of your repentance. If you don't happen to sign off on your repentance, really, it's not crucial. It's important, sure. But it's the repentance that's crucial.

 

[heymikey80]

God does the work in baptism, not man. In Acts 2:38 the verb baptized is passive where the action is done to the one being baptized.

EPh 2:8-------faith>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saved
1Pet3:21-----baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

Since there is just one way to be saved, faith must include baptism where God does the work of cutting away the body of sin, Col 2:11,12..."the operation (work) of God..."


Many people make a contradicton out of Eph 2:8,9 not realizing that faith itself is a work. In v8 Paul says they were saved by faith but then in v9 he says 'not of works'. If "not of works" includes all works including the work faith then that would eliminate faith from being essential to salvation.

The way most verses seem to read to me is that faith in Jesus brings salvation, and faith in Jesus results in a desire to learn from Him and to please Him. When that desire arrives at Jesus' teaching and Christian teaching on baptism, it typically results in some practice of baptism.

So faith --> salvation
And faith --> baptism
And faith --> desire for Christ
And faith --> desire for learning
And faith --> desire to submit to Christ's teaching

So "faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone."

 

[Webb]

Jethro on postg 347 says: ''IF i'M ONLY ALLOWED BY YOU TO RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ONLY ONE OF THE PARTICULAR TIMES THE BIBLE SHOWS THAT HAPPENED, AND IN THE EXACT WAY THAT IT HAPPENED,THEN I THINK IT FAIR THAT FOR YOUR ARGUMENT TO BE VALID THAT YOU ALSO HAVE RECEIVED THE SPIRIT AT THAT TIME AND IN THAT WAY TOO. FAIR IS FAIR.'' ''I KNOW YOUR'E GOING NEXT. TRUST ME. YOU CAN'T WIN THIS ONE.''

Thanks for the admission above that the Spirit on Cornelius was a one and only time. I would need go no farther, but I shall. I DID receive the Spirit at the time taught by Acts 2:36- 39, when I believed Christ, repented and was baptized for the remission of my sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit and this was the promise to "ALL" who did that. I point out also that your claim to the Holy Spirit (the case of Cornelius) didn't have the promise of "ALL" as the case in Acts 2 and somehow you failed to comment on that. Also, the comimg of the Spirit upon Cornelius was the baptismal measure, that of Acts 2:38 is not. I do not claim the baptismal measure of the HolySpirit as no man today has it dispite the claim of any man today.

Let me assure you, I'm not in this to "WIN" anything. Only God truimphs. As with Paul, I am set for the defense of the gospel, Phil.1:1i7.

It is not my desire to continue posting in this manner. As I've stated before I welcome the opportunity to meet this issue with any faith only advocate on the one-on-one segment of this forum.

 

[Webb]

One other note Jethro. I previously mentioned the fact that on Pentecos when the apostles were baptized in the Spirit, cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them. I remarked that if you were baptized with the Spirit as were the apostles and Cornelius tongues like of fire would have sat upon you as well .

You answered in post 347: ''THE HOLY SPIRIT DID COME WITH FIRE THE MOMENT I SURRENDERED TO GOD'S INDICTMENT AGAINST ME ABOUT MY SIN, BUT OT IN THE PARTICULAR GIFT OF TONGUES----BUT NEITHER WAQS IT GIVEN TO ME WHEN I WAS WATER BAPTIZED, AS IT MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE IF WE FOLLOW YOUR LINE OF THINKING."

Well, Jethro, I can't help but think that if indeed the Spirit did come upon you with FIRE that that news would have made the news headlines, but I don't recall hearing about that. BTW the Bible didn't say it was actually "fire" but "cloven tongues like as of fire". Another big difference between you and the scripture is that you said the "fire" happened ''THE MOMENT I SURRENDERED TO GOD'S INDICTMENT''. By the time the apostles and Cornelius were baptized by the Spirit they had already "surrendered" to God. Also please note I have not indicated one receives the "gift of tongues following water baptism. The house of Cornelius did. The disciples of John did. However a careful study of the scripture will show that one today have the gift of tongues as in the 1st century church. And, yes, I know, my last statement will raise an agonizing groan and shout of dismay from many.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

Well, then I'll take that as a yes.. you're thinking that the WATER is what saved those on the Ark..

IMO that's seriously flawed.. The Ark ALONE saved them through the water.

20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah — an ark being preparing — in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; YLT

20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.RSV

20 because they wouldn’t listen. You know, even though God waited patiently all the days that Noah built his ship, only a few were saved then, eight to be exact—saved from the water by the water. MSG

20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. ESV

20 which aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: RV

The water seems to be the agency of salvation for Noah and family.

But we have to decide what 'through' means in the context.

It appears to me that the ark was like a tunnel through the raging waters, the death which surrounded them on every side.

Baptism is very like that. It is a symbol of death and burial, which entirely surrounds the candidate under the water, as it did in the ark, which was like their coffin.

There is another parallel drawn for us by Paul, and in this case, there is no ark to debate about.

1 Cor 10. 1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; AV

1 ¶ For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, how that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; RV

1 ¶ I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, ESV

1 ¶ Remember our history, friends, and be warned. All our ancestors were led by the providential Cloud and taken miraculously through the Sea.
2 They went through the waters, in a baptism like ours, as Moses led them from enslaving death to salvation life. MSG

1 ¶ I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, RSV

1 ¶ And I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2 and all to Moses were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea; YLT

Here, the Israelites passed through the Red Sea, with water on every side, and the cloud, which is merely water in another form, above them.

The figure is again perfectly clear and unambiguous. Baptism is a symbolic entry into death and the grave. Those Israelites were as good as dead until they emerged from the water on the other side.

Note, the water is the principal player in all this: in the Sea around them, underfoot, and above. Entirely surrounding them. Paul could not have used a clearer figure of baptism.

In both cases, notice, UNLESS THE INDIVIDUAL HAD ENTERED THE WATER AND RE-EMERGED, he would have died. Literally.

It's the same here. Baptism doth now also SAVE US, and the two figures are totally unambiguous on the point. Aren't they?

Paul brings it all together with customary clarity:

Rom. 6. 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

The corollary being that if you are NOT baptised, you are NOT baptised into His death. Which is a pretty nasty state to be in.

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Corollary again: If we have not been BURIED WITH HIM, there is no need for God to RAISE US UP FROM THE DEAD, either figuratively speaking or literally, as he now says:

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Corollary: if we have NOT BEEN PLANTED in baptism, we SHALL NOT BE ALSO in the likeness of his resurrection: Another very nasty position to be in.

Given all that, why are we arguing futilely aganst the facts?

Yes, circumstances may prevent baptism, as several have pointed out. But the Judge of all the earth will do right, and it is His sole prerogative to act at His own discretion at the appointed day.

And He will, we can depend upon it.

Only one thief was saved so we may rejoice in His mercy - but only one, so that we may not presume.

 

[Asyncritus]

Jethro:

''THE HOLY SPIRIT DID COME WITH FIRE THE MOMENT I SURRENDERED TO GOD'S INDICTMENT AGAINST ME ABOUT MY SIN, BUT OT IN THE PARTICULAR GIFT OF TONGUES----BUT NEITHER WAQS IT GIVEN TO ME WHEN I WAS WATER BAPTIZED, AS IT MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE IF WE FOLLOW YOUR LINE OF THINKING."

I really don't understand what you are saying here.

Do you mean that your conscience burned like fire?

Or that visible, cloven tongues as of fire appeared on your head?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro on postg 347 says: ''IF i'M ONLY ALLOWED BY YOU TO RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ONLY ONE OF THE PARTICULAR TIMES THE BIBLE SHOWS THAT HAPPENED, AND IN THE EXACT WAY THAT IT HAPPENED,THEN I THINK IT FAIR THAT FOR YOUR ARGUMENT TO BE VALID THAT YOU ALSO HAVE RECEIVED THE SPIRIT AT THAT TIME AND IN THAT WAY TOO. FAIR IS FAIR.'' ''I KNOW YOUR'E GOING NEXT. TRUST ME. YOU CAN'T WIN THIS ONE.''

Thanks for the admission above that the Spirit on Cornelius was a one and only time.

Don't misunderstand what I said, it was ONE of the ways that God gives the Holy Spirit. This has NOTHING to do with the fact that Cornelius is the one detailed account right in the Bible itself of one receiving the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism, contrary to the legalistic argument of some that God only gives his Holy Spirit at water baptism.

And so it goes, you get blasted for not having scriptural support for your experience. Then when you do have scriptural support it's only one isolated incident...and your experience wasn't exactly like the one cited. I find that to be a very dishonest, grasping method to use to break someone's argument.

I would need go no farther, but I shall. I DID receive the Spirit at the time taught by Acts 2:36- 39, when I believed Christ, repented and was baptized for the remission of my sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit and this was the promise to "ALL" who did that.

Good. And there's no reason to try to invalidate your testimony, because it is certainly scriptural. But it is also equally scriptural that God can give the Holy Spirit before and apart from water baptism. I don't question your experience because it's scriptural. You can't question mine, because it also is scriptural.

I point out also that your claim to the Holy Spirit (the case of Cornelius) didn't have the promise of "ALL" as the case in Acts 2 and somehow you failed to comment on that.

All I can get out of that is you are suggesting that if you leave off that part God is allowed to give the Holy Spirit to you before and apart from your water baptism. That further supports my testimony. The (supposed) condition of water baptism was not added to my call to faith in Christ. I guess you're saying that makes it possible for God to give me the Holy Spirit at the same time Cornelius got it. I'm okay with that, but honestly, even then I don't know how either you or I would know if Peter got to that part in his sermon, or not.

Also, the comimg of the Spirit upon Cornelius was the baptismal measure, that of Acts 2:38 is not.

There is nothing in the Acts 2 account that tells us Peter promised a different baptism to the crowd. The continuity of the passage shows it was the same baptism of the Spirit, not a different one.

It's amazing to me how the baptism crowd tells us we're the one's basing our arguments on subjectivity. We're simply going by the account written. You are the one that has to grasp for all kinds of rationalizations and inventions to make the account support your view. I have no respect for that kind of teaching. None.

I do not claim the baptismal measure of the HolySpirit as no man today has it dispite the claim of any man today.

You probably need to get out of the four walls of your predetermined belief. Really.

It's interesting that you can rely on (a misuse of) Paul's teaching about the gifts to defend you not having the same baptism in the Holy Spirit as those in the book of Acts, but I can't use his teachings to defend my experience of receiving the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, Webb, fair is fair. If you insist I have the exact same experience of the Holy Spirit in the part of Acts I defend for my experience to be valid, then so should you also have the same experience of the Holy Spirit in your water baptism that is seen in the book of Acts. And if you're going to rationalize your different experience with Paul's teachings you should give me the room to do the same.

Let me assure you, I'm not in this to "WIN" anything. Only God truimphs. As with Paul, I am set for the defense of the gospel, Phil.1:1i7.

It is not my desire to continue posting in this manner. As I've stated before I welcome the opportunity to meet this issue with any faith only advocate on the one-on-one segment of this forum.

Oh, I'm not kidding myself. I know where these kinds of contentions always end. The person persists in the invented logic of their rationalizations even when staring into the plain, reasonable teachings and examples of scripture. In that sense, it's just like talking to an unbeliever. I don't let myself get victimized by those kinds of situations anymore.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro:

''THE HOLY SPIRIT DID COME WITH FIRE THE MOMENT I SURRENDERED TO GOD'S INDICTMENT AGAINST ME ABOUT MY SIN, BUT OT IN THE PARTICULAR GIFT OF TONGUES----BUT NEITHER WAQS IT GIVEN TO ME WHEN I WAS WATER BAPTIZED, AS IT MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE IF WE FOLLOW YOUR LINE OF THINKING."

I really don't understand what you are saying here.

Do you mean that your conscience burned like fire?

Or that visible, cloven tongues as of fire appeared on your head?

I have seen the Holy Spirit manifest in fire over other people before. It wasn't red or orange like fire. It was like the transparent shimmering of the air above a camp fire, and it was coming down from above onto the heads of the people.

I'm not interested in trying to explain my personal experience of the Holy Spirit to someone who just wants to invalidate it. If you're truly wanting to know the experience for yourself I'll explain it to you. But I find it very fruitless to argue the move of the Holy Spirit with people. You just have to know the experience for yourself to know it's real.

edit: Please forgive me if you were really asking about my experience from a pure heart and with the intent of knowing if for yourself.