Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[dadof10]

When he received the Holy Spirit:

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit..." (Ephesians 1:13 NIV1984)

Ok, so Cornelius "placed his trust in the blood of Christ", then the Holy Spirit came upon him as a "seal" of his TRUE faith, even though Scripture doesn't say this? Before that, he had faith that was somehow less than saving, even though Scripture calls him "a devout man" who actually had visions of God? At the time when Peter was speaking, was the moment when he "placed his trust in the blood of Christ", and at that moment, not before or after, he was justified? And we know this BECAUSE the Holy Spirit came upon him?

Because God sends His Spirit upon someone isn't necessarily a "sign" of justification, or a "seal". There were plenty of OT prophets who received the "Spirit of God" and were definitely NOT justified, Saul being the most notable.

"When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart; and all these signs came to pass that day. 10 When they came to Gibeah, behold, a band of prophets met him; and the spirit of God came mightily upon him, and he prophesied among them." (1sam. 10:10)

This was BEFORE Saul became king, and we all know what happened later. If the Holy Spirit is somehow a sign of a one-time justification, then Saul was saved and "sealed" here.

Just because God sent His HS upon Cornelius' household does not mean their faith went from "non-saving" to "saving". There is no evidence from the text there was anything different at all. The Holy Spirit is not a sign of a one-time justification.

 

[zeke]

The Holy Spirit is how we know he was saved and belonged to God. I showed you where the Spirit is taught as being the sign and seal of salvation.

If Cornelius was saved as the Spirit fell upon him then he was saved before Peter could speak unto Cornelius "words whereby he would be saved" and we know that "faith comes by hearing the word of God". If Cornelius was saved as the Spirit fell upon him then he was saved before he could repent and Jesus says if one does not repent he cannot be saved. A decade before the conversion of Cornelius Peter taught water baptism for ALL believers “for the remission of sins†and this is what he commanded Cornelius and his house to do because Peter clearly stated, "God put no difference between us and them".

Your interpretation has Cornelius saved before he believed, before he repented and before he was baptized “into Christ" to have his sins remitted. Cornelius received the gift of speaking in tongues before he was saved and that gift was never promised to ALL believers. Cornelius received the indwelling “gift of the Holy Spirit†upon his immersion in water and that gift was promised to ALL who believe, repent and are baptized in water.

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

And we simply do not know what Jesus meant by 'water' in John 3. We really don't.

But we really do know that ‘water’ means water. The new birth has always included baptism in water.

John 3:5

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

Scripture shows us baptism was synonomous with repentance. They were not two separate things as we make them out to be. Water baptism was how you repented.

You are mistaken – belief, repentance and baptism are three separate acts of obedience required by God before one “shall be savedâ€. Baptism is not belief and belief is not baptism and neither belief nor baptism is repentance. The one who believes must then repent and be baptized in order to have he sins forgiven and that is exactly what Cornelius did..."Repent...be baptized...for the remission of sins...receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

 

[ManofChrist101]

Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

No. Jesus said to the unbaptized newly converted thief "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43)

BUT

An attitude of Sprititual regeneration in Christ will lead to a person WANTING TO BE BAPTIZED. Read Romans 6 for more on this.

We get baptized to show that our sins are burried and that we will rise spiritually as Jesus rose physically.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

The purpose of water baptism in the name of the Lord is remission of sins, Acts 2:38. Since one cannot be saved while in his unremitted sins, then Cornelius was lost till he obeyed Peter's command to be water baptized and had his sins remitted.

No verse says baptism with the Holy Ghost saves/remits sins. The Jews in Acts 2 whom Peter preached to were water baptized, not baptized with the Holy Ghost. So this eliminates baptism with the Holy Ghost as the "like manner" way Jew and Gentiles are saved, Acts 15:11. In Acts 2 the apolstes were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Were the apostles lost, as Cornelius was, before they were baptized with the Holy Ghost in Acts 2?

Acts 11:1 "And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God."

If the Gentiles 'also' received the word, that means someone before them received the word, and that would be the Jews in Acts 2....


Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:...."

Those that did not gladly receive Peter's gospel message rejected baptism. That means receiving Peter's gospel words means being baptized and not being bpatized is the same as rejecting Peter's saving gospel words. From Acts 11:1 the Gentiles also received God's word as the Jews, meaning those Gentiles that gladly received Peter's saving words were baptized as the Jews in Acts 2:41. Had Cornelius not been water baptized that would have beeen the same as rejecting Peter's saving gospel words, rejecting God's command to be baptized, therefore not being water baptized would have left Cornelius lost. Will anyone be willing to argue that Cornelius would be saved while at the same time rejecting Peter's saving words (Acts 11:14) by not being water baptized?



Question: must one be baptized with the Holy Ghost if he is to be saved?

 

[zeke]

No. Jesus said to the unbaptized newly converted thief "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43)

We do not know if the thief was baptized or not - John 'baptized many' prior to the Cross but it remains a moot point - the thief lived and died before Jesus instituted and commanded baptism as an ordinance of His church. Believers today are to be baptized to "wash away" their sins.

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

We get baptized to show that our sins are burried and that we will rise spiritually as Jesus rose physically.

We are baptized in order to have our sins remitted (Acts 2:38).

 

[ManofChrist101]

We do not know if the thief was baptized or not - John 'baptized many' prior to the Cross but it remains a moot point - the thief lived and died before Jesus instituted and commanded baptism as an ordinance of His church. Believers today are to be baptized to "wash away" their sins.

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

We are baptized in order to have our sins remitted (Acts 2:38).

He was a thief and stole so much that he got the death penalty, you have no reason to believe that he was baptized prior.

 

[zeke]

He was a thief and stole so much that he got the death penalty, you have no reason to believe that he was baptized prior.

Are you saying that those who are baptized are no longer capable of sin?

...all people have sinned, they have fallen short of God's glory... ​

For the record I posted we do know if he was baptized - John baptized many. He may not have been but the point is moot regarding the necessity of baptism as it applies to believers today.

 

[dadof10]

Paul tells us when he was justified by his faith, and what the object of his faith was that justified. I'd be adding to scripture to say anything else.

One Sunday morning I got out of bed and went to a local church because I wanted to be saved. I was acting entirely by faith in the conviction of the Holy Spirit. But I was not justified by my faith until months later when my will broke inside of me and I accepted God's forgiveness offered to me in the blood of Christ. THAT is when I was justified by my faith, when my faith put me face to face with the Promise of the Son of God and I broke.

Then, if you had died between the time you were "acting entirely by faith in the conviction of the Holy Spirit" and the time you "were justified", would you be in Hell?

I know you feel that you weren't saved even though you had faith that acted "entirely by faith in the conviction of the Holy Spirit", but I can't see where this is taught in Scripture. I don't see a two tier faith, one salvific, one not.

This seems to me to be a private revelation.

It is a passage about persevering in faith to the very end. We know from the rest of scripture that for us the very specific object of faith that saves is faith in Jesus Christ. Hebrews 11 is a chapater full of examples of persevering in faith. I don't know where and at what specific time any one of them were actually justified by their faith except for Abraham because the Bible tells us.

Then this whole chapter is about persevering in faith that doesn't save? Isn't this your contention, that the faith mentioned in Heb. 11 is not a faith that justifies? I agree that the chapter is also about persevering, but it wouldn't make sense for Scripture to teach us to persevere in faith that doesn't justify, would it?

 

[dadof10]

No. Jesus said to the unbaptized newly converted thief "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43)

BUT

An attitude of Sprititual regeneration in Christ will lead to a person WANTING TO BE BAPTIZED. Read Romans 6 for more on this.

We get baptized to show that our sins are burried and that we will rise spiritually as Jesus rose physically.

The Thief was saved by faith alone, it was a "deathbed conversion". This is not the normative means of salvation, baptism is. If you are moments from death and the only thing you can do is believe, then God accepts that and saves you. If you convert and ostensibly have years before death, more is required for salvation. Scripture doesn't teach salvation by faith alone except in rare circumstances.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then, if you had died between the time you were "acting entirely by faith in the conviction of the Holy Spirit" and the time you "were justified", would you be in Hell?

Correct.

I had not put my trust in the forgiveness of God yet. Believing that Jesus is a real person, and is even the Son of God, and all these things about Him and the Christian religion are true is not the 'faith' that saves. If that were true, the demons would be saved because they know the truth about the facts of Christianity better than any human. But they do not believe and trust in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Their 'faith' can not save them. And that kind of faith will not save you or I either, even if it does get us up out of bed every Sunday to go to church. But a lot of people think that is true.

I know you feel that you weren't saved even though you had faith that acted "entirely by faith in the conviction of the Holy Spirit", but I can't see where this is taught in Scripture. I don't see a two tier faith, one salvific, one not.

This seems to me to be a private revelation.

No. As I pointed out above, James talks about the 'faith' of demons who obviously are not saved by what they know and believe with certainty to be true about Jesus being the Christ.

The belief, the faith that saves is the faith that Christ's blood has been applied to your sins and you will pass through the judgment safetly. That kind of faith, the faith that saves, faith and trust in the blood of Christ, is evidenced by what it does--namely "love your neighbor as yourself", for when we show the love of God to others we are justified as having already received the love of God in the forgiveness of sins ourselves.

This is not being justified as to being made righteous. It is being justified in regard to being shown to have been made righteous by faith in Jesus' blood apart from the merit of works to solicit it. That is why James is teaching it. So that people who think a profession of faith in God that can't be seen in godly love for others is a faith that can save can seek to truly believe in the blood of Christ and not just trust in believing in facts about Christ (facts the demons know and believe are true better than us). The faith that saves changes us into people who love like God loves. That's why love is the signature of saving faith in Christ--the faith that saves all by itself apart from the merit of works. James wants us all to make sure we really have the faith that saves.


We are made righteous by what we believe about the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. We are shown to have that righteousness by what we do, namely when we love others the way God loves.

We are made righteous through the blood of Christ when we believe and trust in that blood. We are shown to have been made righteous (through the blood of Christ, all by itself) by the life of an ever-increasing display of the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, etc.), not by the doctrines we hold dear, or our faithfulness to external worship procedures and timetables. Anybody can do that. But it is only the person who has received the forgiveness of God in Christ who grows up into the stature of Christ as seen in the fruit of the Spirit, specifically love, that shows he has the free gift of righteousness through the blood of Christ. That is what James 2 is all about. It is not a proof text to prove that you have to be water baptized to be saved (or take communion, or be confirmed, or be circumcised, etc.).

"...I will show you my faith by what I do." (James 2:18 NIV1984)

Then this whole chapter is about persevering in faith that doesn't save? Isn't this your contention, that the faith mentioned in Heb. 11 is not a faith that justifies? I agree that the chapter is also about persevering, but it wouldn't make sense for Scripture to teach us to persevere in faith that doesn't justify, would it?

Like I said, I do not know at which point any one person in Hebrews 11 was justified by the faith they had in God's promise of a son made to Abraham. I would be going beyond what is written to say that I do know.

What I do know is they are examples of faith for us to be strenghtened by about staying the course and persevering in our faith in the blood of Christ, the reward of which we will not see in this life, just as the people of faith in Hebrews 11 did not see the (full) reward in this life of their faith for what they were believing in.

 

[zeke]

The belief, the faith that saves is the faith that Christ's blood has been applied to your sins and you will pass through the judgment safetly

But doesn't the 'faith that saves" include submission to God's will, including repentance and baptism in water "for the remission of sins"?

I have asked you before but I never saw your answer - at what point (biblically) did you come to be "in Christ" - before your were baptized in water or at the point of baptism in water "calling upon His name"?

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(Gal 3:27 NKJV)​

 

[dadof10]

Correct.

I had not put my trust in the forgiveness of God yet. Believing that Jesus is a real person, and is even the Son of God, and all these things about Him and the Christian religion are true is not the 'faith' that saves.

I misunderstood what you meant by "acting entirely by faith in the conviction of the Holy Spirit". Don't you mean you had faith and were "convicted" by the Spirit?

If that were true, the demons would be saved because they know the truth about the facts of Christianity better than any human. But they do not believe and trust in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Their 'faith' can not save them. And that kind of faith will not save you or I either, even if it does get us up out of bed every Sunday to go to church. But a lot of people think that is true.

OK, you said you were acting entirely in faith. Demons don't do that. Certainly NO ONE would make the case that belief in facts saves. Is this the kind of "faith" you had at the time? I don't think it could properly be called faith at all.

Like I said, I do not know at which point any one person in Hebrews 11 was justified by the faith they had in God's promise of a son made to Abraham. I would be going beyond what is written to say that I do know.

What I do know is they are examples of faith for us to be strenghtened by about staying the course and persevering in our faith in the blood of Christ, the reward of which we will not see in this life, just as the people of faith in Hebrews 11 did not see the (full) reward in this life of their faith for what they were believing in.

How are these examples of "persevering in our faith in the blood of Christ" when you don't think the faith shown by these OT giants is a "saving" faith? You can't have it both ways.

You're dodging the question. You said the "faith" talked about in Heb. 11 is a non-saving or non-justifying faith. If that's true, the author of Hebrews is telling us to persevere in a faith that doesn't save or justify. This can't be his meaning.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But doesn't the 'faith that saves" include submission to God's will, including repentance and baptism in water "for the remission of sins"?

The point of your question being, is water baptism an expected and obligatory manifestation of saving faith that must accompany that faith for it to truly be saving faith? I say, 'no'. Like any disobedience, you have to know why someone is not water baptized to know if that is a sign that they really don't have saving faith in the blood of Jesus.

That's what I'm resisting here--the notion that water baptism is a manifestation of faith that categorically must, absolutely no excuses allowed, accompany faith for that faith to be the kind of faith that can save a person.

Paul says only faith, faith that manifests inself in love for others, is what counts toward justification. Not faith that manifests itself in baptism, or communion, or worship styles and timetables, or proper doctrines about free will, predestination, etc.... That doesn't mean those things are not important in some way in the faith, but they simply are not the manifestation of saving faith that counts as the obligatory expression of saving faith, or else that faith is suspect as to whether it can save a person.

I have asked you before but I never saw your answer - at what point (biblically) did you come to be "in Christ" - before your were baptized in water or at the point of baptism in water "calling upon His name"?

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(Gal 3:27 NKJV)​

I thought Syncronicity had asked me this and I went back through his posts looking for it to answer it and couldn't find it, lol.

But anyway, I came to Christ at this point, Biblically:

"13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession" (Ephesians 1:13-14 NIV1984)

I was saved at the same time as Cornelius and his family. When the Word of salvation was being spoken they believed and were saved. How do we know? Because they received the Holy Spirit, the sign and seal and guarantee of salvation.

The foundation of the 'baptism saves' argument is that God will only give his Holy Spirit--the sign and seal of salvation without which no one is saved--at water baptism, no exceptions allowed (except when God wants to be God in a special or extraordinary circumstance). This is not only not true...it is scripturally not true.

 

[dadof10]

Paul says only faith, faith that manifests inself in love for others, is what counts toward justification.

No he doesn't. He says faith not works OF THE LAW saves. To prove your contention, you need to prove that by the word "works" Paul means baptism, charity, keeping the commandments, etc. Even if you could prove that, you would then need to prove that an active faith is NOT a work. If works means everything that a person does that saves, then faith is a work too.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[zeke]

The point of your question being, is water baptism an expected and obligatory manifestation of saving faith that must accompany that faith for it to truly be saving faith? I say, 'no'.

Well, you say 'no' but the Bible has baptism there in black and white and it sure looks like it is essential to God's plan to save our souls. The NT does not know of an unbaptized Christian. Let's see how far are you willing to go (or not go)?

Would you concede that the baptism, the "one baptism" instituted and commanded by Christ has always been part of the normal steps one takes as he obeys from the heart the gospel of Christ? Why did Jesus say the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved (Mark 16:16)? Did Jesus mean what He said or was He just suggesting belief and baptism before salvation?

Paul says only faith, faith that manifests inself in love for others, is what counts toward justification. Not faith that manifests itself in baptism, or communion, or worship styles and timetables, or proper doctrines about free will, predestination, etc.... That doesn't mean those things are not important in some way in the faith, but they simply are not the manifestation of saving faith that counts as the obligatory expression of saving faith, or else that faith is suspect as to whether it can save a person.

In his own conversion, were Paul's sins “washed away” by the blood of Christ before he submitted to baptism?

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

I came to Christ at this point, Biblically:

"13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession" (Ephesians 1:13-14 NIV1984)

But I do not see repentance in the passage you reference and Jesus and Peter were clear – one cannot be saved unless he first repents. How were you saved before you repented?

I was saved at the same time as Cornelius and his family. When the Word of salvation was being spoken they believed and were saved.

Where does Holy Writ say Cornelius or anyone is saved at the point of belief alone without the fruits of faith (repentance and baptism)?

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​

The foundation of the 'baptism saves' argument is that God will only give his Holy Spirit--the sign and seal of salvation without which no one is saved--at water baptism, no exceptions allowed (except when God wants to be God in a special or extraordinary circumstance). This is not only not true...it is scripturally not true.

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

Jesus appears to be rather dogmatic when He says the only way to enter God's kingdom is to be born of water and the Spirit and that new birth has always included baptism in water and the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit. I do not see any exception to that statement – where do you see this exception?

Peter was equally dogmatic on the Day of Pentecost – the birthday of the Lord's church. He dogmatically says the one who believes must then repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and then one receives the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit.

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

I do not see anything in Acts 2:38 that renders repentance and baptism as optional – do you? Peter was speaking via inspiration. Why did God include all three acts of obedience - faith, repentance and baptism? Were you “baptized into Christ” when you submitted to the ordinance of baptism or did you come to be “in Christ” some less dogmatic way?

 

[Webb]

Stan53 and I are on the one-on-one, catch us there.

 

[gr8fulbeliever]

Yes.

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.
21 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.

Peter tells us that baptism saves us "as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Nowhere does it say that we MUST be baptized to be saved, though. Rather, we must appeal to God for salvation through Christ, and one way that is accomplished is through baptism.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I misunderstood what you meant by "acting entirely by faith in the conviction of the Holy Spirit". Don't you mean you had faith and were "convicted" by the Spirit?

No.
I mean I believed what the Holy Spirit was convicting me of. God was calling me, convicting me of my sin and my separation from him, and I believed what he was saying to me.

He was calling me to salvation. And since I believed what he was speaking to my heart I left my home and went to church. But that is not the belief that justifies a person making them righteous before God. Faith in the blood of Christ to make a person righteous before God is what saves. Not belief that he is real. Not works. But faith in the blood of Christ to take away sin guilt.

OK, you said you were acting entirely in faith. Demons don't do that. Certainly NO ONE would make the case that belief in facts saves. Is this the kind of "faith" you had at the time? I don't think it could properly be called faith at all.

Faith is not what you do. Faith is what you believe. I believed God when he said I was a sinner and separated from him. Because I believed that and wanted to do something about it I went to church. But that is not the faith that saves. Faith in the blood of Christ to remove the unrighteousness of sin guilt is what saves. Knowing and agreeing with God that you are a sinner is not the faith that saves. Whether it gets you up out of bed to go to church or not is not what determines if that faith is saving faith, because that is not the faith that saves anyway.

How are these examples of "persevering in our faith in the blood of Christ" ...

They are NOT examples of persevering in our faith in the blood of Christ. You misunderstand what I wrote. They are examples of people persevering in their faith in God's promises to Abraham. We are to follow that example in regard to our faith in the blood of Christ. They continued to believe to the very end in regard to their promise. So should we in regard to our promise. That is the faith that pleases God--persevering faith.

...when you don't think the faith shown by these OT giants is a "saving" faith? You can't have it both ways.

I don't know at what point anybody in Hebrews 11 was justified by what they believed except Abraham. I just know they were showing their faith by what they did and persevered in that faith. That was pleasing to God. We are to follow in that example in our faith in Christ.

You're dodging the question. You said the "faith" talked about in Heb. 11 is a non-saving or non-justifying faith.

I did not say that. I said I do not know when their faith was credited to them as righteousness, except Abraham because the Bible plainly tells us that.

If that's true, the author of Hebrews is telling us to persevere in a faith that doesn't save or justify. This can't be his meaning.

Well, since that's not true, that's not the meaning.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No he doesn't. He says faith not works OF THE LAW saves. To prove your contention, you need to prove that by the word "works" Paul means baptism, charity, keeping the commandments, etc. Even if you could prove that, you would then need to prove that an active faith is NOT a work. If works means everything that a person does that saves, then faith is a work too.

Faith is not what you do. Faith is what you believe. When the people asked Jesus, “What must we do to do the works God requires?†(John 6:28 NIV1984), he answered, 29 “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.†(John 6:29 NIV1984) he was telling them not to work for food that spoils, meaning the bread he had fed them (for they had come to him seeking that food), but that they should 'work' for the food that endures forever and gives eternal life, meaning himself. And you do that by having faith in him and the forgiveness God gives through his blood, not by doing things.

Right standing with God (righteousness) is gained by having your sins forgiven, not by doing things to make yourself righteous before God. That is impossible to do.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well, you say 'no' but the Bible has baptism there in black and white and it sure looks like it is essential to God's plan to save our souls.

It's essential to salvation in the same way other obediences 'save' us. They represent the faith that saves. No where else is as plainly understood than in the way women are 'saved' through childbirth. Obviously, no one is made righteous before God by having a baby. It's a figure of speech. The underlying life of faith seen in a woman's holy submission to her husband, signified in child bearing is what saves. I'm not an English major so I can't put my finger on the name of the literary tool that is.

I'll be back...