Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[dadof10]

Well, Peter answers that in verse 21, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The pledge is the act of confessing Jesus and the baptism is the symbol of that process.

That's pretty creative....The water of the flood symbolizes the REALITY of water baptism. There is no mention of baptism symbolizing a process or anything else.

Where is the Ark mentioned here? You are claiming:

"Right so the water was to purge life and they were saved OUT of that purge via the Ark. Gen 7:7; And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood."

Peter means what he says. He is not being vague or coy or slick. He means simply water baptism saves. Why can't the words just mean what they say? Why must there be some alternative meaning involving Arks and escapes and purges of the earth?

 

[Stormcrow]

So infant baptism alone saves?

Yes.

if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. Romans 10:9-10 (NASB)

There's not a single infant ever born that can meet these conditions for salvation. Not one. Water baptism has never saved a single soul. Not one.

 

[stovebolts]

I would disagree somewhat with your interpretation Steve. The RSV says ‘through’ water.

Hi Mark,
I was quoting from the KJV. It translates the verse as "saved by water". The ASV uses "saved through water"

Sigh.... again the word is NOT 'by', it is through.

Stan, please see above post to Mark. If you disagree with the translation, you can take it up with the translators of the KJV.

It is a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act

Lets look at the greek word for dia again ok?

New Testament (eds. Brooke Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort)
III. causal, through, by,
B. of the Instrument or Means. (Ephesians 2:8 translates dia as through, aka Instrument)
C. of Manner (Acts 15:7 translates dia as by, aka manner)


The orginal greek word dia supports the english translation of by or through

Note from dictionary.com Through designates particularly immediate agency or instrumentality or reason or motive: through outside aid; to yield through fear; wounded through carelessness.

So we see that saved dia water could be stated as, "the water was the instrument / agent for salvation" in the same manner that in ephesians 2:8, faith is the intrument / agent.

The Ark is what saved them, no matter how many times you try to interpret it as "by", it is "through", as a tunnel through a mountain.

First off, I disagree that it is "through" in the way you put forth; as a tunnel through a mountai. Again, the KJV interprets the word dia as by, which is not as confusing as the word through. However, I've shown that the english word through does support the idea of agency or instrument, which is closer to the greek word.

As far as the ark saving them, Peter clearly states that they were saved dia water. Peter does talk about the ark, but he clearly states that 8 souls were saved dia water. Had Peter not mentioned the ark, you would have had an argument. But as it stands, Peter doesn't mention the ark as what saved the 8 souls.

Why do you think Peter would use that verbiage? Clearly, he understood the flood a little differntly than you do or he would have said, "8 souls were saved through the ark". But that's not what he says, so clearly you need to go back to Genesis and read the story like Peter would have read it. You've missed something that Peter knows, and you've yet to find.

Yes, exactly....it is Grace that SAVES us through faith, in this context. Just like English, Greek has different connotations based on the context it is used in. It may be easy for us to distinguish this in English, just as it is easy for Greeks or Greek scholars to distinguish the context in Greek. Not every word means the same thing in the Bible. The rules of basic grammar don't change.

So you agree that in Eph 2:8 faith is the instrument for God's saving grace. Good!

Now lets look at the verse: eight souls were saved dia water
The manner in which they were saved, is water.
Water was the instrument of their salvation according to Peter.

Now, let us not confuse the subject. It is clear that God used Water to save them. Salvation comes by God, and God alone. but Water was God's instrument for salvation. Baptism is no different and is an instrument for salvation when coupled with a pure heart full of faith.
What I'd like to bring into the mix also is the idea of reconciliation. How does God reconcile all things if not by way of transformation. So we see that God is as much at work in transforming a life, as he is saving a life. Again, you can't separate the physical from the spiritual.

Well I disagree. It may be what you want to see to support your assertion, but I don't see it that way. As well, it is NOT consistent with what the rest of scripture says, so in my view it would be better to err on the side of what scripture is more consistent on.

Actually, I have shown that dia translated as through still connotes instrument and the KJV agrees with this.

If water was God's so-called instrument of salvation then I'm sure it would be much clearer in His word and in the Words of Jesus. As it isn't, this concept is quite a stretch.

KJV: 1 Peter 3:20-21 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Sounds pretty clear to me... Peter says that they were saved by water, and then goes on to say that "baptism doth also now save us". Clearly, baptism has a part in our salvation, just like our faith.

Actually as soon as you die, your physical and spiritual does separate.

Yup, I get that.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

But, we also know that Jesus said, John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Jesus died, and yet he rose again from the dead. Thomas even saw the nail marks and put his hand in the side of Jesus where he was pierced.

John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Do you not believe that wee too will rise again?

 

[dadof10]

if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. Romans 10:9-10 (NASB)

There's not a single infant ever born that can meet these conditions for salvation. Not one. Water baptism has never saved a single soul. Not one.

Quite legalistic. So you believe you are saved by works, that you have to perform the action of "confessing" or you won't be saved? I believe that salvation is by Grace alone. How would you interpret "...baptism, which now saves you..."?

 

[cupid dave]

Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

It would help, but Jesus saw that it was too dangerous after John was arrested for holding a pharisee under too long.
The man died.

After that, Jesus told the apostles to just wash their feet instead.

But the Near Death Experience that John ha been dunking peple into made most "see the light."

 

[Stormcrow]

Quite legalistic. So you believe you are saved by works, that you have to perform the action of "confessing" or you won't be saved? I believe that salvation is by Grace alone. How would you interpret "...baptism, which now saves you..."?

...For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. Matthew 12:34 (NASB)

Confession is the result of a heart filled by gratitude for Christ's sacrifice. Where is the blood of Christ in your view of infant water baptism if infants are save by water baptism alone?

Water baptism has never saved anyone. It is a response to God's grace, not the means by which one receives it.

 

[zeke]

Water baptism has never saved anyone.

What version of the Bible do you use? Baptism does “save us†as we appeal to God for a good conscience – as we call upon the Lord to take away the guilt of past sin. The promise of salvation is made to the one who believes and is baptized (Mark 16:16). There is no promise of salvation made to the one who believes and refuses to be baptized.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(1Pe 3:21 KJV)​

What part of Peter’s words---“baptism now saves us†- do you not want to accept? Paul clearly did not have his past sins "washed away" by the blood of Christ until he obeyed his Lord in baptism (Acts 22:16). The NT is quite clear folks - it is the blood of Christ that completely and finally saves our souls as the repenting believer submits to baptism in water – calling on the name of the Lord.

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

The ordinance of baptism is commanded by God to all who will be His disciples – it is not optional. The NT does not know of an unbaptized child of God after the ordinance was ordained and commanded by Jesus Christ...

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Mat 28:18-20 KJV)​

 

[Stan53]

That's pretty creative....The water of the flood symbolizes the REALITY of water baptism. There is no mention of baptism symbolizing a process or anything else.

Where is the Ark mentioned here? You are claiming:

"Right so the water was to purge life and they were saved OUT of that purge via the Ark. Gen 7:7; And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood."

Peter means what he says. He is not being vague or coy or slick. He means simply water baptism saves. Why can't the words just mean what they say? Why must there be some alternative meaning involving Arks and escapes and purges of the earth?

I can't help it if you read into these passages what you believe beforehand. There's a word for doing that, and it is called eisegesis. You may not even know you are doing it. How can you possibly think the flood would be considered a baptism, when it was God who brought it to destroy mankind. Maybe you also take the scripture literally that says, The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. Gen 6:6?
Peter was using it as an analogy and he used the word symbolizes, not me.

 

[stovebolts]

I can't help it if you read into these passages what you believe beforehand. There's a word for doing that, and it is called eisegesis. You may not even know you are doing it. How can you possibly think the flood would be considered a baptism, when it was God who brought it to destroy mankind. Maybe you also take the scripture literally that says, The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. Gen 6:6?
Peter was using it as an analogy and he used the word symbolizes, not me.

Eisegesis?

Do you mean this?
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=18237

 

[zeke]

How can you possibly think the flood would be considered a baptism, when it was God who brought it to destroy mankind.

The water of the Flood saved Noah as it separated Noah from sin, i.e., the sinful world in which he lived. Peter clearly states the water of Christian baptism (an antitype corresponding to the waters of the Flood) “now saves us” by separating us from sin via the salvation we have through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The believer who submits to baptism is putting his faith in Jesus (calling on His name) as he is immersed in the water (baptized into His death) trusting that God will “washing away” his sins. Easy concept – it is in the Book.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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.
(Rom 6:3-4 KJV)

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

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...
(Mar 16:16 KJV)​

Were you “baptized into Jesus Christ” – were you “baptized into his death”..."calling on the name of the Lord"?

 

[Stan53]

Eisegesis?

Do you mean this?
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=18237

No. I mean this... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

 

[reba]

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

 

[Stan53]

The water of the Flood saved Noah as it separated Noah from sin, i.e., the sinful world in which he lived. Peter clearly states the water of Christian baptism (an antitype corresponding to the waters of the Flood) “now saves us” by separating us from sin via the salvation we have through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The believer who submits to baptism is putting his faith in Jesus (calling on His name) as he is immersed in the water (baptized into His death) trusting that God will “washing away” his sins. Easy concept – it is in the Book.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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.
(Rom 6:3-4 KJV)

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

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...
(Mar 16:16 KJV)
​

Were you “baptized into Jesus Christ” – were you “baptized into his death”..."calling on the name of the Lord"?

Romans 6 is also very clear...it is Paul's attempt to explain how water baptism symbolizes our committemnt to Christ. It is in allegory form, unless you believe we were actually buried into His death? Paul understood his audience here and even said as much in verse 19; I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. It would seem his audeince understood what he meant better than some of us do today.

As far as Act 22:16 is concerned, you have used this in an eisegetical way and have not properly exegeted it. I suggest you read the WHOLE story and decide for yourself if this should be how ALL new Christians should proceed?

Mark 16:16 is problematic in that it is NOT unanimously accepted as being actually from Jesus. The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.
Acts 13:31; “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” There are just way to many verses in the Bible, that don't mentioned water baptism as necessary for salvation. Jesus Himself didn't say so in Luke 7:50;
“Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

The water did in no way, save Noah back then, than it does today, when we are baptized. These things Peter speaks of are symbolic, as he himself states. Not being able to see the allegory or symbolism in scripture can be dangerous and cause people to come to many FALSE conclusions. God's provision for saving Noah was instructing him how to build the Ark. He even closed the door. That was God's plan of salvation for Noah and his family. God's plan for our salvation is equally clear. John 3:16-17; For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. I see nothing that indicates water affects salvation. It may be an instruction to those who believe, to follow, but it has not saving power at all. ONLY Christ has that power.

 

[Webb]

Hi Stan53--What translation are you using? I don't recognize it. Thanking you for the info.

 

[Stan53]

Hi Stan53--What translation are you using? I don't recognize it. Thanking you for the info.

Normally I use the NIV 2011 edition.
Sometimes the NASB or HSCB
All from BibleGateway.com

 

[Webb]

Thanks, but what is the HSCB?

 

[Stan53]

Thanks, but what is the HSCB?

Holeman Standard Christian Bible.

 

[zeke]

Romans 6 is also very clear...it is Paul's attempt to explain how water baptism symbolizes our committemnt to Christ.

Paul’s discourse on baptism is very clear – the mode of baptism is immersion in water and baptism pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. The believer is “buried with Him through baptism into death” and raised up out of the water to “walk in newness of life” It is the new birth – born of water and Spirit. The thing symbolized (salvation through His blood) should never be expected without the symbol (baptism). Have you been baptized in water – baptized into Christ? Is baptism in water from the mind of God or from man?

As far as Act 22:16 is concerned, you have used this in an eisegetical way and have not properly exegeted it.

I have used it exactly as it used and self-explained in Holy Writ – Paul believed Jesus was the Christ and he was baptized in water “for the forgiveness of sins” as he called upon the name of the Lord. This correct meaning is hard to miss my friend – yes? What do you think it means?

Mark 16:16 is problematic in that it is NOT unanimously accepted as being actually from Jesus.

You are quite mistaken – Mark 16:16 has been considered part of the canonical text for over 2000 years. Was Jesus mistaken when He clearly states one must believe and be baptized in order to be saved? What part of Mark 16:16 contradicts what is taught in any other part of the NT? Please be specific – I think you may be confused.

 

[dadof10]

...For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. Matthew 12:34 (NASB)

Confession is the result of a heart filled by gratitude for Christ's sacrifice. Where is the blood of Christ in your view of infant water baptism if infants are save by water baptism alone?

It is the application of the blood of Christ or the merits of the cross or however you want to put it. Isn't that your view of "confession"? That it is how the merits of Christ are applied to us? The only difference is that the baby does NOTHING to merit the Grace, and the "confessor" MUST do something to merit Grace. Infant baptism is an example of pure Grace.

Water baptism has never saved anyone. It is a response to God's grace, not the means by which one receives it.

Where does Scripture call baptism "a response to God's Grace"? Obviously Peter thinks it saves people, otherwise he would not have said "...baptism, which now saves you..." Again, if it doesn't mean baptism saves you, in your opinion, what do you think it means?

 

[dadof10]

I can't help it if you read into these passages what you believe beforehand. There's a word for doing that, and it is called eisegesis. You may not even know you are doing it.

It's not often I actually laugh out loud when I read a post, but after reading this, I couldn't help myself. Peter's actual word's are:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 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.

How were the eight saved? Was it "through" the Ark? No, it was "through water"!

He continues:

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, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

What saves you? Was it the Ark? Was it faith alone SYMBOLIZED by the Ark? By the water? No, it was BAPTISM, which was SYMBOLIZED by the flood water.

Eisegesis??? Please.

How can you possibly think the flood would be considered a baptism, when it was God who brought it to destroy mankind.

First of all, who said the flood was a "baptism"? The flood SYMBOLIZED "baptism, which now saves you". According to Peter, the flood saved the eight, so this is SYMBOLIC of the waters of baptism.

Secondly, it was PETER, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is using the symbolism of the flood to teach that baptism saves, not me. I'm only reading the actual words he wrote without bias. You obviously don't like his methods or his analogy.

Maybe you also take the scripture literally that says, The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. Gen 6:6?
Peter was using it as an analogy and he used the word symbolizes, not me.

Yes, he uses the word "symbolizes" to draw an analogy between the flood SAVING the eight and baptism which saves us. This is pretty straight forward if you read without any preconceived notions. When I come to the conclusion that my views disagree with the plain teaching of Scripture, I find it prudent to change my views, not the words of the sacred texts. Let's see if you feel the same way.