Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[Stan53]

Keep it pleasant guys

I'm being very pleasant:angel....trust me!

 

[Asyncritus]

4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,†He said, “you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.†(Acts 1:4-5 NASB)

Jethro, all these people HAD BEEN WATER BAPTISED ALREADY.

THEY WERE DISCIPLES OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, remember?

Therefore this receiving of the HSp was BY WATER-BAPTISED PEOPLE, contrary to your argument.

This is exactly what Peter is now telling the crowd, as you correctly quote:

33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see (fire) and hear (tongues). (Acts 2:33 NASB parenthesis mine)

This is on WATER-BAPTISED PEOPLE, viz. the apostles, contrary to your argument.

"38 Peter said to them, “ Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise (of the Holy Spirit) is for you and your children and for all who are far off (because that's what the prophecy says he just quoted), as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.†(Acts 2:38-39 NASB parenthesis mine)

They repented, AND WERE BAPTISED, in WATER.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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..

Here is your problem...it was not Ernest T. who said water saved them but an inspired Peter who said eight souls were saved by water. It appears your arguement is with Peter and not Ernest T.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: 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..

So you say baptism is a command of God, but on the other hand you claim baptism is not necessary. That means following God's command is not necessary.
Yet disobedience to God is sin therefore not being baptized is sin. Following God's command to be baptized is not an option. If for no other reason, God commanding baptism makes it essential to salvation.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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.

This is not remotely close to what Peter said.

Again, Peter made the OT flood water the type and made NT water baptism the anti-type. In the parenthetical phrase Peter makes a distinction between the flood water and the water of baptism. The flood water is not the answer of a good conscience towards God but water baptism. One cannot face God with a sinful, guilty conscience. Baptism remite sin getting rid of the guilty concience of sin. Baptism is how one gets that good conscience towards God, it does not happen by doing nothing.

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.

Through or by does not matter, it does not change the type to anti-type Peter made, it certainly does not chamge the fact "Baptism doth also now save us".
People have long tried to find a way to change the simple fact Peter stated here.

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

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.

Repentance and baptism are not the same thing in Acts 2:38. A sinner can repent of his sins but repentance does not remit sins. The sins remain until he is baptized to have those sins remitted.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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."

Faith includes being baptized so it is not alone.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

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.

Good luck. Some will just not accept what Peter said.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...I continue to challenge any of you faith only advocates to a one-on-one.

"Faith, apart from works" (Romans 4:6), and "faith alone" (James 2:24) are not the same thing. It's important for all of us to make it clear which one we are talking about to avoid confusion.

 

[Eventide]

Re: BCC ?

So you say baptism is a command of God, but on the other hand you claim baptism is not necessary. That means following God's command is not necessary.
Yet disobedience to God is sin therefore not being baptized is sin. Following God's command to be baptized is not an option. If for no other reason, God commanding baptism makes it essential to salvation.

We are blessed to bring the gospel of God's Son to the world, although it's the Spirit's work to bring conviction of these things.. The more dogmatic and legalistic we tend to be about issues like this, the more it seems to push men away... Certainly true in my experience.

 

[Eventide]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

Here is your problem...it was not Ernest T. who said water saved them but an inspired Peter who said eight souls were saved by water. It appears your arguement is with Peter and not Ernest T.

Once again, your entire emphasis here is about how water saved eight souls.. Nothing about Christ suffering for our sins, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God.. How that He was put to death in the flesh and made alive by the Spirit.. How He went and preached to those in prison... Etc..

We also have plenty of other references concerning Noah and the ark which he was commanded to build.. No mention of that either..

Instead it's all about water saving people..

To make another poor pun.. IMO that's a shallow look at this living and powerful portion of the word of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I totally disagree with your take on the word "justification" in James meaning "shown to be righteous". It obviously means "shown" or proved to MAN, which doesn't make sense because no one was on the mountain with Abraham and Isaac. This is what I meant when I said this view twists the words of Scripture.

Millions, if not billions of people know about the account. It was recorded for our benefit. It teaches us that we can know if we have the faith that is able to save (as opposed to the faith that can not save-like the 'faith' demons have) because of what it causes us to do.

James is echoing what Peter, John, and Paul also say in the Bible, that we can know we have a genuine faith in Christ by whether or not that faith finds it's expression in the specific work of the law 'love your neighbor as yourself'. We aren't justified (made righteous) by that, we are shown to be righteous by that. That is how we set our hearts at rest before God, knowing that we belong to the truth:

18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19 This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence (1 John 3: 18-19 NIV1984)

James is teaching this very thing in his sermon. He's not teaching us that we are made righteous by loving our neighbor. We are shown to be righteous by loving our neighbor.

I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion of James 2.

Keep it in the context of baptism and you won't have a problem with the mods. Notice that James 1 and 2 is not even about baptism. It's about 'love your neighbor as yourself', a work of the law. James calls it the 'royal law of scripture'. Like I say, this isn't even the only place that the Bible exhorts us to prove, or show our righteousness, the righteousness we have by faith, by upholding the law of 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

I'll just focus on this one sentence. When Abraham "believed God..." it was in Gen. 15:6, he didn't offer Isaac until Gen. 20. These two things happened years apart. Was Abraham justified when he believed, but not saved until he "showed" it years later? That's not what Paul said.

I agree. He was justified (declared righteous) when he believed God. That is Paul's whole argument. Justification is by faith, apart from the merit of work. And James makes sure we understand that a faith that can't be seen in the work of 'love your neighbor as yourself' is a faith that can not save a person. Not because the work itself saves, but because that work is the outward evidence of the inward faith that saves all by itself apart from the merit of works.

Concerning Hebrews 11 being about "saving faith"...



First of all, it's not one passage its an entire chapter dedicated to the faith of all the OT saints. This is a treatise that it was FAITH, not works of the law, that saves.

I think it will be of more value to you if you understand it as a treatise that shows us how faith is seen in what it does, and that you must persist in the doings of faith, persevering to the end, in order to inherit the blessing. I'm confident that an honest examination of the context bears this out.

Secondly, this is only about saving faith.

"But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named."

Maybe the word "heavenly" here doesn't really mean "heaven", huh?

The passage is about the obedience of faith and how we must persevere in the obedience of faith to inherit the blessing. Particularly the blessing not attained in this life (the kingdom of God) as illustrated in the perseverance of the saints who had faith, and persevered in that faith as evidenced by their continuing obedience, but who did not receive in their life times the things promised that they believed in. It's an illustration of how faith, the faith that pleases God, perseveres to the end in the hope of inheriting the blessing promised--even when that means you won't see it in this lifetime, as some of the saints listed did not see it, but nevertheless persevered in the promise.

Please. It is you that is missing the point (intentionally?). The point is that in Gen. 12, Abraham had faith and DID WHAT GOD SAID, he left Haran.

"So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him."

Yes. It's an example of the faith of Abraham and how he persevered in that faith to the very end, never seeing the complete fulfillment of the promise in this life. That is the lesson of the chapter. It's not a lesson on when faith, and what kinds of things believed for, justify a person by faith.

Isn't this YOUR point concerning James, that the "kind" of faith that saves is the faith that has "works" attached?

Yes. Specifically the lawful work of 'love your neighbor as yourself'. The Bible uses the saints of old to illustrate how faith can be seen in what it does. That is how we can know if we have the 'kind' of faith that saves--a genuine faith.

By your own definition Abraham was justified in Gen. 12, long before he "believed God..."

I don't know. The Bible doesn't tell us that. Hebrews 11 is not a list of times and places people were declared righteous by their faith. It is a list of times and places where people showed their faith in the promise. And for our benefit, so that we also will be careful to persevere in our faith in the Promise right to the end, even knowing we will not fully receive the Promise in this lifetime, just as that was true for them.

So, my point remains. Abraham was justified more than once, which means justification is an ongoing process, not a one time event.

No. I think it's wrong to think that is what the passage is teaching us. The important thing about justification that the Bible does say is that Abraham was justified (declared righteous) because he believed God's promise about a Son coming from his own body who would inherit the blessing on his behalf. That is what is important. It's a shadow of how we, also, one day would be declared righteous by believing in the promise of a Son (Jesus Christ) coming from our own bodies (via the Holy Spirit) who would inherit the blessing (the kingdom) on our behalf. And how it was having genuinely believed that promise that Abraham was declared righteous before God, apart from the effort of work to earn that blessing. That is what we are to walk away with from the story.

The argument that Paul is addressing is many thought you had to be circumcised to be declared righteous. And who could argue with that easily since God plainly said he would be cut off from the promise if he didn't get circumcised. But Paul explains how the command to be circumcised to be in the covenant was really just the symbol of the righteousness he had by faith, apart from work. People try to make a similar argument for water baptism. It's clearly presented as a condition (like circumcision) for inheriting the blessing, but we know from Paul's teaching about Abraham's righteousness and the command to be circumcised that it is really faith, all by itself, apart from works that declares a person righteous and eligible for covenant privileges.

When you get time, could you please address the following point from my last post, this directly concerns baptism:

So a person must "trust", which is an ACT of the will. If the person doesn't "trust", he is not saved. So, in your opinion, we must DO something or we won't be saved. How is this different from my view on baptism? Having faith, or "trusting" is a work too.

You have to have faith in Christ to be justified. Your justification by faith is tested for genuineness (like precious gold) by what it does. If it fails the test it is fake. If it perseveres in obedience it is genuine. The testing doesn't make faith now able to save. It shows it to be able to save or not. 'Love your neighbor as yourself' is what does that, not baptisms, not circumcisions, not communions, not worship schedules, not worship procedures, not even the doctrinal beliefs one holds about God. That doesn't mean those are not important in some way, even required. It means they do not make faith able to save. Faith saves all by itself apart from the effort of work. Work shows it to be able to save. That is the correct approach to all this.

Maybe now you can see how it's not meaningful to try to measure the 'work' of believing against literal works to discern which works make us righteous. That's not the point. The baseline is faith in Christ. From there it's a matter of discerning how what we do dovetails with our faith in Christ, not what else must we do to be declared (made) righteous.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro your much worded post flops inasmuch as No tongues speaking or fire is associated with Acts 2:38. Try something else.

Me thinks you're avoiding the point.

The point is the gift and promise of the Holy Spirit the believers received on the Day of Pentecost is the same gift and promise of the Holy Spirit the crowd received. You're trying to defend your experience as being different from what happened in the book of Acts by saying Acts 2:38 is a different gift and promise of the Holy Spirit. I showed you right from the passage it's impossible to defend that.

I figure if you're going to invalidate my experience with the Holy Spirit because I didn't have the exact same manifestation of the Spirit as Cornelius, then your experience in regard to Acts 2:38 should be the same, too. I think that's fair. But you tried to excuse yourself from having the same manifestation of the Spirit as the crowd by saying they had a different gift and promise of the baptism of the Spirit. I showed that is not true.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: BCC ?

So you say baptism is a command of God, but on the other hand you claim baptism is not necessary. That means following God's command is not necessary.

...not necessary for salvation. Let's be fair here.

Yet disobedience to God is sin therefore not being baptized is sin. Following God's command to be baptized is not an option. If for no other reason, God commanding baptism makes it essential to salvation.

Okay, maybe we can make some headway here.

This is the point that many people seem to not get to easily. Baptism can be misunderstood two ways: 1) it's a literal act that actually secures salvation for you, 2) we are saved by faith, but the obedience of baptism is a required and obligatory manifestation of faith that must accompany saving faith.

We've talked enough about #1. As far as #2, I agree that you got to wonder about the faith of the person who doesn't want to get baptized. But Paul makes it clear that the manifestation, the obedience of faith that counts is 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

The only thing that counts is faith..."

What kind of faith?

...faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6b NIV1984)


That is the only thing that counts! Faith that works through love, not through the superficials of the faith.

Love is the signifying mark of true faith that one can not be saved without. Not baptisms, not communions, not circumcisions, not worship practices and timetables, not even proper doctrinal beliefs about God. Those do not count toward the faith that justifies. They may be expressions of faith, and even important ones to some extent or another, but they are simply not in and of themselves the signifying works that must accompany saving faith in order for that faith to be proven genuine and, thus, able to save. Only 'love your neighbor as yourself' is that. Period.

That's why I say you have to know WHY someone is resisting water baptism to know whether water baptism is for them a matter of salvation or not. Baptism is not, categorically, a device to be saved by, nor the measure of genuine saving faith.

 

[dadof10]

Millions, if not billions of people know about the account. It was recorded for our benefit. It teaches us that we can know if we have the faith that is able to save (as opposed to the faith that can not save-like the 'faith' demons have) because of what it causes us to do.

The passage says "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" The point is, this couldn't possibly have anything to do with Abraham being "justified" in his faith (or however you want to put it) before MAN. He was justified when he sacrificed Isaac ONLY before God. It doesn't matter that this episode was recorded, it matters that Abraham was "considered righteous" (as the NIV puts it) WHEN he offered Isaac. The context shows the meaning. Since there was no one else who witnessed this event EXCEPT GOD, this can only mean justified before God.

I agree. He was justified (declared righteous) when he believed God. That is Paul's whole argument. Justification is by faith, apart from the merit of work. And James makes sure we understand that a faith that can't be seen in the work of 'love your neighbor as yourself' is a faith that can not save a person. Not because the work itself saves, but because that work is the outward evidence of the inward faith that saves all by itself apart from the merit of works.

You are dodging the question and simply repeating your beliefs. This is my point:

I'll just focus on this one sentence. When Abraham "believed God..." it was in Gen. 15:6, he didn't offer Isaac until Gen. 20. These two things happened years apart. Was Abraham justified when he believed, but not saved until he "showed" it years later? That's not what Paul said.

This was in response to your claim:

Abraham was justified (made, or declared righteous) when he believed God's promise for a son coming from his own body. And then Abraham was justified (shown to righteous) by what he did. Both are necessary for salvation.

These two things happened years apart. If both are NECESSARY for salvation, was Abraham unsaved all those years, even though he was justified (made, or declared righteous) in Gen. 15?

I think it will be of more value to you if you understand it as a treatise that shows us how faith is seen in what it does, and that you must persist in the doings of faith, persevering to the end, in order to inherit the blessing. I'm confident that an honest examination of the context bears this out.

No, it really doesn't, and again you are dodging the point. I would be more value to me if you would simply address the point and climb down off your high horse. I don't need your instruction.

The passage is about the obedience of faith and how we must persevere in the obedience of faith to inherit the blessing. Particularly the blessing not attained in this life (the kingdom of God) as illustrated in the perseverance of the saints who had faith, and persevered in that faith as evidenced by their continuing obedience, but who did not receive in their life times the things promised that they believed in. It's an illustration of how faith, the faith that pleases God, perseveres to the end in the hope of inheriting the blessing promised--even when that means you won't see it in this lifetime, as some of the saints listed did not see it, but nevertheless persevered in the promise.

OK. This has nothing to do with my point, again. You made the point that the "faith" spoken of in Heb. 11 was "talking about faith that pleases God. I had faith that did pleasing things for and because of God, before I actually placed my trust in Christ's blood. But I wasn't declared righteous until I had a very specific faith in God's promise of His Son, Jesus. A Son that would come from my own Body via the Holy Spirit. And that is the point."

My point in pasting the verses about a "heavenly city" was to show that Heb. 11 is about being "declared righteous", after all, can a person get to this "heavenly city" without being "declared righteous"?

Yes. It's an example of the faith of Abraham and how he persevered in that faith to the very end, never seeing the complete fulfillment of the promise in this life. That is the lesson of the chapter. It's not a lesson on when faith, and what kinds of things believed for, justify a person by faith.

The "lesson" of ALL of Paul's "faith vs works" chapters is that we are not saved by works OF THE LAW. That doesn't stop you from drawing more out of these lessons, does it? Paul says "all have sinned..." and this is used against the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness, even though that's not Paul's point or "lesson". Are we to ignore any underlying, or assumed teaching because it's not the "lesson"?

Here is the point: Abraham fulfilled both of YOUR requirements for "saving faith" in Gen. 12.

Heb 11 says: By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.

Gen. 12 says "So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him."

He had faith and he OBEYED GOD, which SHOWED him to be justified (made or declared righteous). Abraham had a "saving faith", was "made or declared righteous", according to YOUR requirements in Gen. 12. I'm sure you'll agree, he also was "made or declared righteous" in Gen. 15. This is what you have to reconcile with your view that justification is a one time event.

Yes. Specifically the lawful work of 'love your neighbor as yourself'. The Bible uses the saints of old to illustrate how faith can be seen in what it does. That is how we can know if we have the 'kind' of faith that saves--a genuine faith.

So, all these "saints of old" had a "genuine faith"? Then, according to Paul, they (including Abraham) were all justified, made or declared righteous.

I don't know. The Bible doesn't tell us that. Hebrews 11 is not a list of times and places people were declared righteous by their faith.

No, it's a list of people who had "genuine faith". Does "genuine faith" without anything else attached, save? Isn't this your contention?

No. I think it's wrong to think that is what the passage is teaching us. The important thing about justification that the Bible does say is that Abraham was justified (declared righteous) because he believed God's promise about a Son coming from his own body who would inherit the blessing on his behalf. That is what is important.

What is important is what the ENTIRE Bible teaches about justification, not just our preconceived notions about it. You keep trying to blow off my point by calling it unimportant. The Bible ALSO says Abraham was justified by works and that he had a "saving faith" way back in Gen. 12. Why do you consider this unimportant? It seems that Biblical teaching on whether justification is a process or an event is pretty important, considering the implications.

It's a shadow of how we, also, one day would be declared righteous by believing in the promise of a Son (Jesus Christ) coming from our own bodies (via the Holy Spirit) who would inherit the blessing (the kingdom) on our behalf. And how it was having genuinely believed that promise that Abraham was declared righteous before God, apart from the effort of work to earn that blessing. That is what we are to walk away with from the story.

Are we to ignore everything else taught or assumed? Is this the way you study Scripture?

The argument that Paul is addressing is many thought you had to be circumcised to be declared righteous. And who could argue with that easily since God plainly said he would be cut off from the promise if he didn't get circumcised. But Paul explains how the command to be circumcised to be in the covenant was really just the symbol of the righteousness he had by faith, apart from work. People try to make a similar argument for water baptism.

People like Peter. "...baptism, which now saves you..." Obviously Paul isn't making the connection between circumcision and baptism that you want him to. In fact, there is no negative Biblical connection between the two. Baptism is NEVER said to be a "work" like circumcision is.

It's clearly presented as a condition (like circumcision) for inheriting the blessing, but we know from Paul's teaching about Abraham's righteousness and the command to be circumcised that it is really faith, all by itself, apart from works that declares a person righteous and eligible for covenant privileges.

What we know by BIBLICAL TEACHING, including Paul's, is that justification is not a one time event, and that faith, baptism, keeping the commandments, sacrifice (i.e. childbearing), etc. all have an effect on that justification.

You have to have faith in Christ to be justified. Your justification by faith is tested for genuineness (like precious gold) by what it does. If it fails the test it is fake. If it perseveres in obedience it is genuine.

Like the saints in Heb. 11, therefore the faith Abraham had in Gen. 12 was "saving faith".

The testing doesn't make faith now able to save. It shows it to be able to save or not. 'Love your neighbor as yourself' is what does that, not baptisms, not circumcisions, not communions, not worship schedules, not worship procedures, not even the doctrinal beliefs one holds about God. That doesn't mean those are not important in some way, even required. It means they do not make faith able to save. Faith saves all by itself apart from the effort of work. Work shows it to be able to save. That is the correct approach to all this.

The correct approach is what Scripture actually teaches, and it doesn't teach the above. Where does it teach that the things you mention above DON'T SAVE? You can change the word from "alone" to "all by itself" but Scripture still doesn't teach that faith without works saves, in fact, it teaches the opposite. It also teaches the opposite about water baptism. These are the plain words of Scripture.

Maybe now you can see how it's not meaningful to try to measure the 'work' of believing against literal works to discern which works make us righteous. That's not the point. The baseline is faith in Christ. From there it's a matter of discerning how what we do dovetails with our faith in Christ, not what else must we do to be declared (made) righteous.

Again, you are ignoring the point. Having faith (trusting God) is an action. It takes an act of the will. We can either choose to DO it or NOT do it. We can either ACCEPT Christ's call or REJECT it. If we must DO SOMETHING (accept, trust) to be saved, how is this trusting NOT considered a "work of righteousness", something that must be DONE in order to be justified? How is this "requirement" different from baptism, keeping the commandments, etc.?

 

[dadof10]

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..

This argument has always baffled me. What was Peter's point if it wasn't that we are saved by or through the actual water? Was his point that the Ark saved us? That's not what he said. He said the waters of the flood "corresponds to baptism, which now saves you..." Unless you think his point is that boats save, I think we should take his analogy at face value. Because it wasn't perfect (and no analogy is), you reject Peter's entire teaching on the subject? We need to look at what his point was and not read into the text our preconceived theology.

 

[zeke]

Faith saves all by itself apart from the effort of work. Work shows it to be able to save. That is the correct approach to all this.

Jesus is quite clear – the promise of salvation is to the one who believes and is baptized and the one who refuses to believe is condemned already regardless of whether he has been baptized are not (Mark 16:16).

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

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. (The Pulpit Commentary)​

It amazes me to see the lengths some will go to eliminate baptism from God’s plan to save our race.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It amazes me to see the lengths some will go to eliminate baptism from God’s plan to save our race.

What lengths?

Cornelius and his family were not saved through water baptism:

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
47 “ Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?†(Acts 10:44,47 NIV1984)


And Paul says the only thing that counts towards justification is faith:

"The only thing that counts is faith..." (Galatians 5:6b NIV1984)

Done. Case closed.

 

[Stan53]

Jesus is quite clear – the promise of salvation is to the one who believes and is baptized and the one who refuses to believe is condemned already regardless of whether he has been baptized are not (Mark 16:16).

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

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. (The Pulpit Commentary)
​

It amazes me to see the lengths some will go to eliminate baptism from God’s plan to save our race.

One verse, from a questionable part of Mark, does NOT a doctrine make. You should know there are examples of scripture where water baptism was NOT preformed or mentioned, and except for this verse, Jesus does NOT put equal emphasis on the baptism part like He does the believe part. Jesus himself told people they were saved and did NOT tell them to get baptized. It may be a command or instruction, but His word says, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people, and we must be saved by it.” Acts 4:12

 

[Eventide]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

This argument has always baffled me. What was Peter's point if it wasn't that we are saved by or through the actual water? Was his point that the Ark saved us?

Sometimes it helps to read other portions of the scriptures to get a broader picture... Like this..

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

What saved Noah's house... The water or the ark ?

 

[dadof10]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

Sometimes it helps to read other portions of the scriptures to get a broader picture... Like this..

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

What saved Noah's house... The water or the ark ?

The Ark saved Noah's house, but "condemned the world". I'm not understanding your point and how it relates to Peter's "...baptism, which now saves you..." Do you think Peter's point was the Ark saves, or the Ark condemns?