Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[Jethro Bodine]

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:[/COLOR]



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.

I'm sorry. I don't know how I missed your post here.

I respect the challenge you have put forth here. But it still doesn't explain Cornelius' experience. We don't know if he had John's baptism or not. The Bible doesn't tell us as far as I know. But, whether he had been baptized or not by John (probably not, IMO--he was a gentile) he still violates the argument about the one and only way a person can be saved in regard to water baptism. Let's look at the only two possible scenarios there are:

1) Cornelius does not have John's baptism.

This would be the exact scenario of the crowd on the Day of Pentecost (assuming none of them had John's baptism). He receives the Holy Spirit prior to, and apart from his water baptism. Not possible according to the 'baptism saves' argument based on Acts 2:38 that says the giving of the Holy Spirit can only happen at, and through water baptism for previously unrepentant, and unbaptized people (which is why they say baptism saves).


2) Cornelius does have John's baptism.

This would be the case you point out of the Apostles and believers who were the first to receive the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. The problem is, why does Peter then have Cornelius and his family re-baptized if he has already repented through John's baptism, as the Apostles themselves had been, and satisfied both requirements that the 'baptism saves' argument says must be met in order to receive the Holy Spirit? Not to mention he already has the Holy Spirit. Peter seems to be showing us that he did not understand the role and purpose of water baptism as some are suggesting he did in Acts 2:38--that is, as the only way a person can get the Holy Spirit to be saved.

 

[Eventide]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

The Ark saved Noah's house

Thank you !

 

[MarkT]

Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

Yes. Remember John baptised Israel before Jesus arrived, but since Jesus arrived John's baptism has decreased and Jesus' baptism has increased until today it is all Jesus. Everything has been put under his feet. Today there is only one baptism and that is Jesus' baptism. If you understand Jesus' baptism is greater than John's then you really don't need to be baptised twice. Jesus' baptism is all inclusive. However repentance is still required. People need to turn from their wicked ways and believe in him.

I have this against the churches - the things Jesus said to do to remember him you do because of tradition, but you don't even know him.

 

[WIP]

I closed this thread to clean out a lot of personal off topic posts from the last few pages. Please try to stay on the topic of this thread.

From the ToS:
2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Never said it was...please look at what comments I responded to. I was talking about water baptism.




Like I said.




Apparently it was necessary for Apollos to be saved, Acts 18:25.
Let's NOT start getting water baptism confused with Baptism/Infilling of the Holy Spirit. Actually Paul doesn't say in Eph 4:5 what baptism he is referring, but most likely the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist said this is John 1:33, Jesus said it in Acts 1:5, Peter said it in Acts 2:38, Acts 8:15-17, Acts 10:47 but in reverse, Acts 11:16-17 where Peter confirms the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for EVERYBODY.

Apollos would have been a disciple of John's and baptized with John's baptism.

There is no baptism with the Holy Ghost today, that baptism was a prophecy of Joel that God fulfilled some 2000 years ago. Human adminsitered baptism of the great commission is to last to the end of time, Mt 28:19,20. So it must be the one baptism of Eph 4:5.

Eph 4:5 baptizo literally means an immersion and proper exegesis requires a word be understood by its literal meaning. Baptizo in Eph 4:5 would not have some figurative meaning about being baptized with some spirit baptism.

"F.F. Bruce says: “baptism in the New Testament is always baptism in water unless the context shows it to be something else; that is to say, the word is always to be understood literally unless the context indicates a figurative meaning†(Questions Answered, p. 106). There is nothing in this passage to indicate a figurative usage."

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/697-ephesians-4-5-one-baptism

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: BCC ?

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.

So if one does not agree with you then he is being dogmatic and legalistic.


Your problem is that you erroneously think baptism does not save, so you have a great need to change how 1 Pet 3:20 ends. So I will be dogmatic about not allowing you to change the bible to fit your theology. For if God's word is changed we no longer have God's inspired word but we are simply left with Eventide's opinions.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

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.

PETER, not Ernest T. said eight souls saved by WATER. The point Peter is making in these verses is as eight souls were saved by water we are saved by water baptism. Why not just drop man-made ideas and accept what Peter said?

Your consistent need to change God's word shows you are not able to defend your position. If you can change God's word to fit your opinions then everyone can change God's word and we no longer have God's word but a useless book full of contradicting opinions.

 

[dadof10]

Thank you !

So, what is your point? Are you going to respond to the rest of my post by explaining what this has to do with baptism?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[reba]

This is not a snarky question?
If water baptism saves why the Cross.

Joh 3:16 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.

If IF any one scripture could stand alone i would think John 3:16 might be it.

I see salvation in the Blood of Christ and once again yes a believer should be baptized.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is no baptism with the Holy Ghost today, that baptism was a prophecy of Joel that God fulfilled some 2000 years ago.

This simply is not true. I don't blame people for writing off the Charismatics for all the goofiness and greed that have infiltrated and ruined their movement and which has reduced them to salt to be trodden on by men (the spirit of Simon--Acts 8:18--having infiltrated their ranks), but they definitely knew what they were talking about when they brought the knowledge and experience of the Holy Spirit back into the church in the last century.

I have seen with my own eyes the Holy Spirit descending on a group of Charismatics worshiping God. For those of you who don't know, they believe in the 'falling of the Holy Spirit'. They seek God vigorously in praise and worship until he responds with an outpouring of the Spirit. It's real. God gave me the privilege of literally seeing it with my own eyes.

I did not participate in it. I saw it. It is like fire. Like the shimmering waves of heat above a camp fire or at the end of a long road off in the distance on a hot summer day. I think God did that for me because I was heading toward being a resister of the Holy Spirit movement in the Church. So now I know that God determines to what extent a person dwells in his Spirit, and that we need to leave people alone who lay claim to legitimate Biblical experiences.

Human adminsitered baptism of the great commission is to last to the end of time, Mt 28:19,20. So it must be the one baptism of Eph 4:5.

Paul is speaking of the singularity of Christ, not a single baptism. Remember, one of the problems in the early church was people segmenting themselves under various leaders:

12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.

(1 Cor. 1:12-15 NIV1984)


Historically, baptism was how one identified oneself with a particular leader and his particular doctrine. John's baptism is a perfect example of this. In that time you became a disciple of the one who baptized you or for whom you were baptized for (note 1 Cor. 15:29). Paul wants it understood there is no such thing in the Body of Christ. There is only one teacher and Lord, Jesus Christ. There is no plurality of baptisms, and faiths, and people to be baptized into in Christ. We are all baptized into one Lord and Saviour and faith and Spirit. That's the point, not that there isn't a baptism of the Spirit AND a baptism of water.

 

[Eventide]

Re: BCC ?

So if one does not agree with you then he is being dogmatic and legalistic.

You don't need to agree with me on anything and that's a good thing. I'm simply sharing my thoughts on the topic as are a few others. Legalism tends to be obvious (imo) when topics like water baptism begin to have more emphasis than the work of Christ.

Your problem is that you erroneously think baptism does not save, so you have a great need to change how 1 Pet 3:20 ends. So I will be dogmatic about not allowing you to change the bible to fit your theology. For if God's word is changed we no longer have God's inspired word but we are simply left with Eventide's opinions.

And your opinion of course... Unless you seem to think that your present understanding of this subject is beyond reproach.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: BCC ?

Your problem is that you erroneously think baptism does not save, so you have a great need to change how 1 Pet 3:20 ends. So I will be dogmatic about not allowing you to change the bible to fit your theology. For if God's word is changed we no longer have God's inspired word but we are simply left with Eventide's opinions.

When two things seem to contradict each other in the Bible you take the one that can not stand in the presence of the other and discern it according to that more compelling teaching or example.

We KNOW Cornelius received the Spirit before and apart from water baptism. That is the more compelling evidence and example in scripture that we use that helps us understand God did not mean Acts 2:38 to be a hard and fast doctrine, but certainly one that can still be fulfilled, just not as a rule for salvation. That's why it's important to rightly divide the Word of God. That means taking the entire counsel of God into consideration when forming one's doctrinal beliefs.

 

[Eventide]

Re: I have a baptism to be baptized with

PETER, not Ernest T. said eight souls saved by WATER. The point Peter is making in these verses is as eight souls were saved by water we are saved by water baptism. Why not just drop man-made ideas and accept what Peter said?

Your consistent need to change God's word shows you are not able to defend your position. If you can change God's word to fit your opinions then everyone can change God's word and we no longer have God's word but a useless book full of contradicting opinions.

I simply pointed out that your entire emphasis on these marvelous verses are summed up in eight souls saved by water... Me thinks that's missing the boat...

Look at that.. I did it again.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: BCC ?

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



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.

God's command makes it necessary, the imperative is not just some suggestion. Literal immersion in water is the menas God has chosen to save man so a saving faith MUST include baptism

Again:

eph 2:8----faith>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saved
1pet3:21---baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>saves


Since there is only one way to be saved then faith MUST include baptism. Suggesting that faith without baptism saves creates more than one way to be saved causing contradictions.

Again, Gal 5:6 says faith which worketh by love. Love as defined in the bible is keeping the commandments of Christ, Jn 14:15. Christ commanded baptism so a faith which worketh by love is a faith which keeps Christ's commands which is a faith that obeys Christ's command to be baptized. Gal 5:6 proves my point not yours.

Peter categorically said baptism doth also now SAVE us.

Now you go as far to say "not even proper doctrinal beliefs about God" can save.

So one can be in doctrinal error and be saved. That means one can believe what ever they want to and be saved. But the bible teaches those in doctrinal error will be lost, James 5:20.

Faith only will only keep one lost.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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.

Nowhere in the context of Acts 10 or 11, or anywhere else in the NT, does it say baptism with the Holy Spirit saves or remits sins. The idea that baptism with the Holy Spirit saves is totally foreign to the bible. In Acts 11:14 tells us how Cornelius would be saved, he would be saved by WORDS Peter would preach to him. Peter preached the gospel message to Cornelius and the saving words Peter commanded Cornelius was be water baptized.

Furthermore in Acts 11 Peter has to contend with the Jews in Jerusalem why he went to the Gentiles and in v4 Peter expounds BY ORDER the events of Acts 10. In Acts 11:15 as Peter BEGAN to speak those saving words the HG fell upon Cornelius, so Cornelius had not heard the saving godepl message, Rom 1:16 when the HG fell upon him.

Lastly, in Acts 15:11 Peter said Jew and Gentile are save in like manner. The like manner way the Jews in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved was by water baptism in the name of the Lord for remission of sins. So that rules out baptism with the HG. Again, nowhere does the bible say baptism with the HG saves/remits sins.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

This is not a snarky question?
If water baptism saves why the Cross.

Joh 3:16 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.

If IF any one scripture could stand alone i would think John 3:16 might be it.

I see salvation in the Blood of Christ and once again yes a believer should be baptized.

If Christ did not die on the cross no one could be saved. Yet Christ died on the cross for everyone but every one will not be saved? Why will everyone not be saved? For everyone will not obey Christ, Heb 5:9. Not obey Chris't command to be water baptized.

I've asked you before, if you have been washed by the blood of Christ then how, why. when did that happen and why wash your sins and not every one's sins?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

This simply is not true. I don't blame people for writing off the Charismatics for all the goofiness and greed that have infiltrated and ruined their movement and which has reduced them to salt to be trodden on by men (the spirit of Simon--Acts 8:18--having infiltrated their ranks), but they definitely knew what they were talking about when they brought the knowledge and experience of the Holy Spirit back into the church in the last century.

I have seen with my own eyes the Holy Spirit descending on a group of Charismatics worshiping God. For those of you who don't know, they believe in the 'falling of the Holy Spirit'. They seek God vigorously in praise and worship until he responds with an outpouring of the Spirit. It's real. God gave me the privilege of literally seeing it with my own eyes.

I did not participate in it. I saw it. It is like fire. Like the shimmering waves of heat above a camp fire or at the end of a long road off in the distance on a hot summer day. I think God did that for me because I was heading toward being a resister of the Holy Spirit movement in the Church. So now I know that God determines to what extent a person dwells in his Spirit, and that we need to leave people alone who lay claim to legitimate Biblical experiences.





Paul is speaking of the singularity of Christ, not a single baptism. Remember, one of the problems in the early church was people segmenting themselves under various leaders:

12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paulâ€; another, “I follow Apollosâ€; another, “I follow Cephasâ€; still another, “I follow Christ.â€

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.

(1 Cor. 1:12-15 NIV1984)


Historically, baptism was how one identified oneself with a particular leader and his particular doctrine. John's baptism is a perfect example of this. In that time you became a disciple of the one who baptized you or for whom you were baptized for (note 1 Cor. 15:29). Paul wants it understood there is no such thing in the Body of Christ. There is only one teacher and Lord, Jesus Christ. There is no plurality of baptisms, and faiths, and people to be baptized into in Christ. We are all baptized into one Lord and Saviour and faith and Spirit. That's the point, not that there isn't a baptism of the Spirit AND a baptism of water.

There is not one single verse in the NT that promises Jethro Bodine he will be baptized with the HS, not ONE!!!

Baptism with the HS was a prophecy of Joel where he said God spirit would be poured out upon all flesh. "All flesh" was composed of Jew and non-Jew. The apostles (JEWS) in Acts 2 and Cornelius (GENTILE) in Acts 10 are the only two occasions baptism with the HS takes place in tne NT and in these two instances JEW and GENTILE (all flesh) were baptized with the HS fulfilling Joel's prophecy. Even when the Jewish apostles were baptized with the HS in Acts 2 Peter ties that baptism to Joel's prophecy, Acts 2:15,16. So baptism with the HS was a prophecy of Joel that was fufilled. If it has not been fulfilled, brought to an end, then Jesus was not the Messiah for the Messiah's purpose in coming to earth was to fulfill the law and PRPHETS including Joel.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: BCC ?

You don't need to agree with me on anything and that's a good thing. I'm simply sharing my thoughts on the topic as are a few others. Legalism tends to be obvious (imo) when topics like water baptism begin to have more emphasis than the work of Christ.



And your opinion of course... Unless you seem to think that your present understanding of this subject is beyond reproach.

It's not my opinion Peter said eight souls were saved by water. That is a fact you are not able to accept. I don't know what you mean by "legalism" but changing God's word is wresting the scriptures.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: BCC ?

God's command makes it necessary, the imperative is not just some suggestion. Literal immersion in water is the menas God has chosen to save man so a saving faith MUST include baptism

How can you say this when Cornelius was not saved that way. Your argument is immediately defeated by that.

Again:

eph 2:8----faith>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saved
1pet3:21---baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

But for Cornelius it was...

faith>>>>>>>saved (receiving of the Holy Spirit)
baptism>>>>>>>got wet in a public display of his pledge of a good conscience

So how can what you say be dogmatic, unbendable truth?

Since there is only one way to be saved then faith MUST include baptism. Suggesting that faith without baptism saves creates more than one way to be saved causing contradictions.

But if you look in the scriptures there IS only one un-contradictory way to be saved...faith in Christ.

Again, Gal 5:6 says faith which worketh by love. Love as defined in the bible is keeping the commandments of Christ, Jn 14:15. Christ commanded baptism so a faith which worketh by love is a faith which keeps Christ's commands which is a faith that obeys Christ's command to be baptized. Gal 5:6 proves my point not yours.

No. In context you'll see that Paul is talking very specifically about love for other people, not a generalized obedience to any and all of God's commands (by which you lump in baptism). And it is this exact same, very specific love that the others in the Bible talk about that matters in regard to faith in Christ. It's not a generalized 'obey all things he commanded to be saved' kind of counsel. It's a very matter of factly statement that the only obligatory manifestation of the faith that MUST accompany the faith that justifies is love (for others). That doesn't mean we can ignore everything else God commands. It means there is only one obedience that truly matters in regard to the only thing that justifies--faith in Christ apart from the merit of work accomplished.

Peter categorically said baptism doth also now SAVE us.

It's figurative, not literal. Just like women being 'saved' (or kept) through child bearing. It's what it represents that does the saving, but the figurative literary tool is used to say the child bearing itself saves the woman instead of the faith that produced the life of godly submission.

Now you go as far to say "not even proper doctrinal beliefs about God" can save.

Right. No one ever got saved because they believed the right things about God (just ask your local demon). People get saved because they believe and trust in the forgiveness of God and are declared (made) righteous by that faith.

So one can be in doctrinal error and be saved. That means one can believe what ever they want to and be saved. But the bible teaches those in doctrinal error will be lost, James 5:20.

If your doctrine leads you away from dependence and trust in Christ's forgiveness that is when doctrine condemns you. But sorting out the details of the facts about the faith, all the while trusting and depending on the forgiveness of God, does not condemn a person. If that were not true we'd all be condemned where we stand.

Faith only will only keep one lost.

Which do you mean? Faith that doesn't have with it the obedience of 'love your neighbor as yourself' is a faith that if all by itself in this way can not save you as James teaches that? Or do you mean in regard to faith being the sole agent all by itself by which a person is made (declared) righteous before God as Paul teaches us that?

You HAVE to be specific about which one you're talking about. They are different and can not be lumped together as if 'faith alone' means one and the same argument.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Nowhere in the context of Acts 10 or 11, or anywhere else in the NT, does it say baptism with the Holy Spirit saves or remits sins. The idea that baptism with the Holy Spirit saves is totally foreign to the bible. In Acts 11:14 tells us how Cornelius would be saved, he would be saved by WORDS Peter would preach to him.

(So was he saved by words, or was he saved by the faith those words inspired?)

The Holy Spirit is the sign and seal and evidence of being in Christ. He had that before his water baptism. The Holy Spirit is the sign of his salvation, just as it is for me and you. It's wrong to say the Bible says you can ONLY receive that sign at and through water baptism.

Peter preached the gospel message to Cornelius and the saving words Peter commanded Cornelius was be water baptized.

Hmmm...another figure of speech about what saves. I get it, but do you?

Furthermore in Acts 11 Peter has to contend with the Jews in Jerusalem why he went to the Gentiles and in v4 Peter expounds BY ORDER the events of Acts 10. In Acts 11:15 as Peter BEGAN to speak those saving words the HG fell upon Cornelius, so Cornelius had not heard the saving godepl message, Rom 1:16 when the HG fell upon him.

He heard enough to have faith and be saved. That's all we know. And we know that because God sealed him as his very own as evidenced by the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, in Acts 15:11 Peter said Jew and Gentile are save in like manner. The like manner way the Jews in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved was by water baptism in the name of the Lord for remission of sins. So that rules out baptism with the HG. Again, nowhere does the bible say baptism with the HG saves/remits sins.

The Holy Spirit is the SIGN of salvation, the seal of God's ownership (2 Corinthians 1 thereabouts?). Cornelius has that sign before his water baptism.


It's a beautiful holiday and I've got things to do. I enjoy the discussion, but I gots things to do! God bless to all 'till later.